Is this valid?

[DogmaHunter]

My own guess is that God intervened more than just once or twice along the way during the natural (His natural design of nature) operation of nature on Earth. I'd guess He intervened at least many times, though it's a guess.

For instance I'd guess He carefully choose the asteriod/comet or (the same eqivalent action really) screened out all the asteriods coming towards the Earth to have just the right sized one or several hit about 66 millions years ago (and others futher back in time and since, of course).

So that the asteriod or comet we estimate was around 6 to 9 miles wide (or larger if a less dense comet) that hit Earth was the right size to accomplish His intended outcome -- to make most dinosaur species into compost (in time), and clear the way for the mammals to become ascendant, dominate.

Much larger and it wipes out too much useful fauna.

Much smaller and it doesn't get the job done to clear the way and goose evolution into high gear by opening niches.

It was just right for us.

(one insteresting aspect about nature-physics-life, etc., is it cannot ever be used to prove God exists easily nor to disprove He exists easily (though of course some hypotheses can get ruled out fortunately instead of none ever), in keeping with the key goal we learn in scripture that He wants us to develop the trust and love called "faith". Faith instead of just mere easy observation and mere proof without faith. Easy proof, or proof before faith, would prevent/preclude faith. Preempt it.)

Nice teleological fallacy.

Off course, you have zero evidence or rational reasons for these claims about "god carefully choosing an asteroid" etc.

So, did he also "carefully choose" which pressure to release in the earth's crust to trigger the 2 big tsunami's in recent years that hit Japan and Sumatra?

 

[Halbhh]

Nice teleological fallacy.

Off course, you have zero evidence or rational reasons for these claims about "god carefully choosing an asteroid" etc.

So, did he also "carefully choose" which pressure to release in the earth's crust to trigger the 2 big tsunami's in recent years that hit Japan and Sumatra?

Again, as I wrote at the end, nature can't really be used to easily prove God, nor to disprove Him, in keeping with scripture that the key thing that God wants us to develop here in life is the trust called 'faith', and not merely a self-interested cynical pragmatic recognition of Him. He doesn't want us to be purely cruel and power-seeking and arrogant and unloving and to also recognize Him, like sycophants. He wants better than that.

-----------------
(btw, on a different topic, a person could read scripture without using the assumption that mortal death of the body here is final, in order to try to get what it is saying more accurately. To understand math, I can't assume multiplication is false as a basic premise as I try to learn what it says.)

 

[NBB]

I do indeed.



You don't have to like it. I promise the various drugs and therapeutics I help develop will still be available to you and yours even though you deny how they were developed.

Also: "they saying that adding random bits to something you can build something meaningful"

I'd ask who "they" is, but every time I ask people to start naming the theys they change the topic.

I can say with certainty with 30 years of experience in the field that no evolutionist has ever said it ever. I'm guessing you saw some rando on youtube that told you this is something we say?...like I said earlier, less youtube would be a good idea for you.

I'm not changing topics, you didn't say anything to refute, only that you have credentials and that you thought of a better solution.

 

[xianghua]

But I might buy a car and put a new engine in it.

a good analogy will be a self replicating molecule that need to evolve into a car. do you think its possible without a designer in the process? if so how?

 

[NBB]

So if I take the hood ornament off, it no longer works? Doesn't sound like any car I have seen.

And in case that's not clear, a car is quite reducible, down to teeny tiny nuts and bolts, all of which, ironically enough, have utility in other things....so the opposite of irreducibly complex.

Is very clear what the core parts are, those that when taken off, stops the purpose and function of the machine, in a car is to be driveable and running. In a computer is to provide computing, etc.

 

[NBB]

Would you prefer a christian with credentials?

Meet Francis Collins. You can read what he thinks about evolution in my signatrue.

But I'm guessing that it's not about credentials, nore is it even about beliefs.
It's really just about only accepting those things that agree with your a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs - and nothing else.

Because I'm sure you'll happily dissmiss people like Francis Collins as well... People WITH credentials, WITH experience and WITH christian beliefs.

Instead, you prefer a random youtube clip. Because it agrees with your personal religious beliefs.

This is how we can know that you people aren't very sincere or intellectually honest.

I just believe that man couldn't be made by evolution, with consciousness and intelligence and all, which is pretty reasonable, more knowing God.

People opinions against evolution are not very popular and get attacked i should know that.

 

[Speedwell]

I just believe that man couldn't be made by evolution, with consciousness and intelligence and all, which is pretty reasonable, more knowing God.

So you think your God is powerless to do it that way? Mine is not.

 

[NBB]

So you think your God is powerless to do it that way? Mine is not.

I don't think evolution can do it alone, if God made things with evolution is still design by God.

 

[Halbhh]

I just believe that man couldn't be made by evolution, with consciousness and intelligence and all, which is pretty reasonable, more knowing God.

People opinions against evolution are not very popular and get attacked i should know that.

I very sincerely am not for or against any particular theory, and expect God invervened a lot (though this is a guess). Notice a key thing -- evolution looks just like the creation described in Genesis chapter 1 as a vision in the same way of the numerous other visions in scripture (see 1 Samuel chapter 3, verse 1 in a good translation like the NIV: "The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli. In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions."), to begin with, and then we are only asking the very speculative things like how much did God intervene in His own process of Nature which operate according to His design? (Ergo, if God exists, then evolution is already His own creation already even before He does any interventions. We know He exists, some of us with very dramatic confirmations. It's clear then whatever happens naturally then is of course His own design, Nature, physics, in action, according to the design He created.) Nature can unfold exactly like a flower from a seed, the seed being the physics which existed from the first instant of this Universe. God as Creator is the cause (designer, creator) of that physics itself, thus of course all that unfolds. This fits Genesis chapter 1 with perfection, if one reads through the Bible so that they understand God communicates often through visions with spoken words, just like as was done (one most people actually have heard) in Acts chapter 10. A vision, with words spoken to the recipient so that he/she has some partial understanding (instead of no understanding at all; without words Peter would understand nothing meant by what he was seeing; without words, Moses would understand nothing he was seeing.) In Genesis chapter 1, the words in quotation marks (the part that was narrated to Moses) are telling us among other things the very central and key thing that all that exists here around us on Earth is a "very good" home for us. Example: the sun and moon and stars are a pleasant and better 'heavens' for us, for our pleasant use than say an Earth isolated in a void without any sun moon and stars; they have use that makes our life better (entirely apart from being part of the wonderful outcome of the Designer's physics). Best of all, they allow mystery, and thereby authentic choice -- we really have freedom to choose whether to trust, rather than being trapped in a cage faced with only one obvious choice. We can choose to trust (have 'faith'). It's a choice this way.

 

[NBB]

I very sincerely am not for or against any particular theory, and expect God invervened a lot (though this is a guess). Notice a key thing -- evolution looks just like the creation described in Genesis chapter 1 as a vision in the same way of the numerous other visions in scripture (see 1 Samuel chapter 3, verse 1 in a good translation like the NIV: "The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli. In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions."), to begin with, and then we are only asking the very speculative things like how much did God intervene in His own process of Nature which operate according to His design? (Ergo, if God exists, then evolution is already His own creation already even before He does any interventions. We know He exists, some of us with very dramatic confirmations. It's clear then whatever happens naturally then is of course His own design, Nature, physics, in action, according to the design He created.) Nature can unfold exactly like a flower from a seed, the seed being the physics which existed from the first instant of this Universe. God as Creator is the cause (designer, creator) of that physics itself, thus of course all that unfolds. This fits Genesis chapter 1 with perfection, if one reads through the Bible so that they understand God communicates often through visions with spoken words, just like as was done (one most people actually have heard) in Acts chapter 10. A vision, with words spoken to the recipient so that he/she has some partial understanding (instead of no understanding at all; without words Peter would understand nothing meant by what he was seeing; without words, Moses would understand nothing he was seeing.) In Genesis chapter 1, the words in quotation marks (the part that was narrated to Moses) are telling us among other things the very central and key thing that all that exists here around us on Earth is a "very good" home for us. Example: the sun and moon and stars are a pleasant and better 'heavens' for us, for our pleasant use than say an Earth isolated in a void without any sun moon and stars; they have use that makes our life better (entirely apart from being part of the wonderful outcome of the Designer's physics). Best of all, they allow mystery, and thereby authentic choice -- we really have freedom to choose whether to trust, rather than being trapped in a cage faced with only one obvious choice. We can choose to trust (have 'faith'). It's a choice this way.

All i say is God had a clear picture of what man would be and he made it possible exactly as he wanted. Not only evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

(btw, on a different topic, a person could read scripture without using the assumption that mortal death of the body here is final, in order to try to get what it is saying more accurately. To understand math, I can't assume multiplication is false as a basic premise as I try to learn what it says.)

Math is demonstrable though, and bound to rules of logic.

Religion is bound by nothing at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

a good analogy will be a self replicating molecule that need to evolve into a car. do you think its possible without a designer in the process? if so how?

It's called a horse.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I just believe that man couldn't be made by evolution, with consciousness and intelligence and all, which is pretty reasonable, more knowing God.

Don't you find it curious that the people who actually study this stuff for a living, not only believe it, but call it as good as a fact? Both atheist and theist alike?

 

[DogmaHunter]

All i say is God had a clear picture of what man would be and he made it possible exactly as he wanted. Not only evolution.

So in other words, the reason you don't believe the science of evolution, is because you already believe something else religiously.

Here's an interesting factoid: throughout history, whenever a scientific model was pitted against a religious belief.... not once did the religious belief turn out to be correct.

 

[Halbhh]

All i say is God had a clear picture of what man would be and he made it possible exactly as he wanted. Not only evolution.

Yes, we know we are in His image, He has let us know. All the rest, the mere how part, that's all speculative stuff for me, just theories. He could do whatever He wished, including cause appearances in order to hide actions, even (though I don't think that's the case). Note that in evolutionary theory there is something called 'convergent evolution', which I vaugely think is the idea (or my reinterpretation) is that organisms evolve to fit a niche, with similar adaptations, in time. In other words, if a clear niche exists, the evolving organism form will converge onto what works, things like fins/flippers, whatever is well suited, and it don't even matter much what their previous ancestor spieces once looked like long before. hah hah now having said my own notion, let me look up more on 'convergent evolution' which I once read about like 20 years ago or more.

 

[Halbhh]

Whoa, get a load of how similar a form dissimilar lines can converge onto in the picture at the top of the wiki!!

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

Just wow.

 

[Halbhh]

That's a lot more convergence than I had vaugely imagined.

 

[Halbhh]

Math is demonstrable though, and bound to rules of logic.

Religion is bound by nothing at all.

? perhaps you need another topic thread for that, but we are definitely bound to some definite constraints alright.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think evolution can do it alone, if God made things with evolution is still design by God.

But that's not the ID we're taking about. If God used ID then He didn't use evolution. ID holds that evolution functions more or less, but it requires periodic tinkering by the "designer" in order to work properly. Is that what you believe?

 

[Speedwell]

That's a lot more convergence than I had vaugely imagined.

But you had the right idea of it. Consider this: God's plan requires a creature with self-aware intelligence. That's all. It doesn't necessarily have to be an erect, bi-pedal mammal (Can you not imagine a species of intelligent crustaceans who decorate their places of worship with pots of boiling water?). As you have observed, developmental lines converge on successful traits. Could it be that the kind of cognitive ability required is such a convergent point? God conceived of the process of evolution and set it going in the omniscient certainty that the kind of creature he required would sooner or later inevitably emerge?