Video Dialogue on Creation and Evolution

[juvenissun]

And you clearly need to get out more if you think that actively condemning people will bring them into the fold.



No, it doesn't.

Something isn't atheistic by definition because it doesn't explicitly refer to God. False dichotomy fail.

And the whole point of TE is that it DOESN'T insist that special creation is detectable in any meaningful way, so your claims about the "hallmarks" of a position you have repeatedly mischaracterised from the beginning of this debate are somewhat irrelevant.

"Some" special creations may not be detectable. But if ALL special creations are not detectable, then it is not special any more. It is simply atheistic evolution.

 

[crawfish]

God can do everything.
But I don't believe He will control the evolution process for billions of years.

You're simultaneously declaring God omnipotent and limiting him. The truth is, God does what God feels is what needed to get done. Why establish evolution over billions of years? Because it leaves historical markers that we can use for scientific advancement in subduing the earth - testable, repeatable evidence that leads us to finding useful application.

 

[Assyrian]

You stalled on this argument. I don't read anything that worths a further argument.

If you cannot support the accusation TE is a hidden sin, I suggest you don't make it again.

 

[crawfish]

Agree. But special creation is not the same as performing magic. How many such special creation happened in the history of evolution? Is it infinite?

You're thinking about this all wrong.

First, let's establish something: in all the universe, only man was made to be able to exert free will against God. Thus, no matter how "random" or complicated any process seems to be, it still cannot operate in any way contrary to the will of God that initiated it.

Second, an allegory: consider a domino master. One who lines up dominoes on end, by the thousand, into intricate patterns and behaviors (ringing bells, walking up and down stairs, etc). Imagine the best such master building an incredibly intricate system of dominoes. Now, how many times does he have to intercede into his creation to get it to perform as he has set it up? None, of course. He set the rules, he established the plan, and the dominoes have no choice but to carry out his wishes and fall as he has directed.

You see where I'm getting at? God didn't need millions of "special creations" to guide evolution. Evolution is a purely natural process, subject to the myriad of rules that God has placed in the universe, unable to veer from the plan of God one iota. For God to need to "guide" such a process would mean that God did not launch it correctly in the first place. God launched the universe fully knowing that one day, billions of years later, man would appear, and there was no possibility that it would go any other way. Evolution is no more complicated to an omnipotent and omniscient God than dominoes falling.

I fully believe that the establishment of natural law itself is a supernatural gift from God, and considering it is what rules most of our lives, is probably the most potent supernatural miracle that God ever performed.

 

[Mallon]

I do not know what is the definition or the content of "natural selection".

Natural selection = differential fitness + heredity

I deny that God will act in the on-going natural process continuously for millions of years. Of course, I may reconsider if you don't think that the earth is so old.

Why? (P.S., yours is a classic argument from incredulity -- a logical fallacy. You should really think harder about your position on these matters, juvie.)

 

[juvenissun]

Natural selection = differential fitness + heredity


Why? (P.S., yours is a classic argument from incredulity -- a logical fallacy. You should really think harder about your position on these matters, juvie.)

You like to set up categories and try to classify everything. This is what a paleontologist likes to do. But, classification does not solve many problems. Sometimes it will even mislead. Many shapes can be outlined from a circle: square, rectangular, triangle etc. etc. But a circle is none of them. It is a circle.

You have classified my thoughts into many categories. But I am none of them. I am a unique Christian.

 

[juvenissun]

You're thinking about this all wrong.

First, let's establish something: in all the universe, only man was made to be able to exert free will against God. Thus, no matter how "random" or complicated any process seems to be, it still cannot operate in any way contrary to the will of God that initiated it.

Second, an allegory: consider a domino master. One who lines up dominoes on end, by the thousand, into intricate patterns and behaviors (ringing bells, walking up and down stairs, etc). Imagine the best such master building an incredibly intricate system of dominoes. Now, how many times does he have to intercede into his creation to get it to perform as he has set it up? None, of course. He set the rules, he established the plan, and the dominoes have no choice but to carry out his wishes and fall as he has directed.

You see where I'm getting at? God didn't need millions of "special creations" to guide evolution. Evolution is a purely natural process, subject to the myriad of rules that God has placed in the universe, unable to veer from the plan of God one iota. For God to need to "guide" such a process would mean that God did not launch it correctly in the first place. God launched the universe fully knowing that one day, billions of years later, man would appear, and there was no possibility that it would go any other way. Evolution is no more complicated to an omnipotent and omniscient God than dominoes falling.

I fully believe that the establishment of natural law itself is a supernatural gift from God, and considering it is what rules most of our lives, is probably the most potent supernatural miracle that God ever performed.

Your recognition of TE is closer to mine than that from others. But I think you are a minority in the concept of TE, at least in this forum. Most of them believe God intervenes during the process, even nobody knows how.

Your concept of TE does solve the problem of sin in my recognition. In this view, evolution is the same as gravity, which is set up by God at the beginning. God presets every details of the evolution process. Then He washes His hand and simply sits and sees (waits for) the appearance of human beings. This idea does not offend God in any sense. But it has many other problems. That is why many modifications are given to this idea from other TE people.

To integrate T into E is a nearly impossible job. That is what all the videos in the OP show. They repeated: T is T and E is E. They don't have to contradict to each other. But nobody said how could they be put together either. This may be politically correct. But it is hypocritical to me, and to anyone who is sincerely searching for a true faith.

 

[crawfish]

Your recognition of TE is closer to mine than that from others. But I think you are a minority in the concept of TE, at least in this forum. Most of them believe God intervenes during the process, even nobody knows how.

Your concept of TE does solve the problem of sin in my recognition. In this view, evolution is the same as gravity, which is set up by God at the beginning. God presets every details of the evolution process. Then He washes His hand and simply sits and sees (waits for) the appearance of human beings. This idea does not offend God in any sense. But it has many other problems. That is why many modifications are given to this idea from other TE people.

Note that I don't think it's impossible that God intervened in the process, only that I don't think He had to get His desired results. I also think more TE's hold to my view than you might expect. In reality, it's probably my software development experience that makes me comfortable with this view; in my world, to make a "very good" product most of the work is done before the first line of code is written, in design. I think many people are simply uncomfortable with the thought of God not directly intervening in the process, because it makes him seem less involved. That is far from the case, though.

The only "problems" I see with my view are these: 1) it conflicts with a modern literal reading of Genesis, and 2) it provides a creation that is uncomfortably similar to the atheistic view. For 1, I believe that's not the correct way to read Genesis anyway, and for 2, just because we are uncomfortable doesn't mean that it's not true. In the end, our belief is based on faith, and faith is enough for me.

To integrate T into E is a nearly impossible job. That is what all the videos in the OP show. They repeated: T is T and E is E. They don't have to contradict to each other. But nobody said how could they be put together either. This may be politically correct. But it is hypocritical to me, and to anyone who is sincerely searching for a true faith.

I still don't get your problem here. Do you expect T to go with quantum physics? Electricity? Medicine? Are you expecting TE's to somehow use the bible to prove God used evolution? The T is the exploration of God's word to learn God's spiritual message; the E is the exploration of the natural world of God's creation. We believe the bible is silent on such matters, and the truth of God's creation is where we'll find God speaking.

 

[Mallon]

I am a unique Christian.

I'll give you that!

 

[juvenissun]

Note that I don't think it's impossible that God intervened in the process, only that I don't think He had to get His desired results. I also think more TE's hold to my view than you might expect. In reality, it's probably my software development experience that makes me comfortable with this view; in my world, to make a "very good" product most of the work is done before the first line of code is written, in design. I think many people are simply uncomfortable with the thought of God not directly intervening in the process, because it makes him seem less involved. That is far from the case, though.

The only "problems" I see with my view are these: 1) it conflicts with a modern literal reading of Genesis, and 2) it provides a creation that is uncomfortably similar to the atheistic view. For 1, I believe that's not the correct way to read Genesis anyway, and for 2, just because we are uncomfortable doesn't mean that it's not true. In the end, our belief is based on faith, and faith is enough for me.

I still don't get your problem here. Do you expect T to go with quantum physics? Electricity? Medicine? Are you expecting TE's to somehow use the bible to prove God used evolution? The T is the exploration of God's word to learn God's spiritual message; the E is the exploration of the natural world of God's creation. We believe the bible is silent on such matters, and the truth of God's creation is where we'll find God speaking.

My point is very easy to see.

Take your TE idea as an example, it would say that everything happened in evolution is designed. Hee hee, tell that to an evolution biologist, theistic or atheistic.

In fact, your idea of evolution is within the content of creation.

 

[super animator]

Homosexuality is not an obvious sin anymore than heterosexuality is a sin.

Isn't that your interpretation?

 

[Mallon]

My point is very easy to see.

Take your TE idea as an example, it would say that everything happened in evolution is designed. Hee hee, tell that to an evolution biologist, theistic or atheistic.

I am a theistic evolution biologist, and I have no problem seeing life as both designed and evolved. In fact, most Christian evolutionary biologists believe this. Your understanding of evolutionary creationism (and creationists) is flawed, juvie.

 

[Jase]

Isn't that your interpretation?

Perhaps, but one that makes more sense based on our scientific knowledge.

 

[juvenissun]

I am a theistic evolution biologist, and I have no problem seeing life as both designed and evolved. In fact, most Christian evolutionary biologists believe this. Your understanding of evolutionary creationism (and creationists) is flawed, juvie.

Do you teach people that the process of evolution is "random" and has no "trend"?

 

[crawfish]

Do you teach people that the process of evolution is "random" and has no "trend"?

What do you think "random" means?

 

[Mallon]

Do you teach people that the process of evolution is "random" and has no "trend"?

No, because evolution is not random. There are random elements to it (completely in line with Christianity), but that doesn`t make the entire process random. The randomness of evolution is filtered through natural selection, which is a distinctly non-random process.

 

[juvenissun]

No, because evolution is not random. There are random elements to it (completely in line with Christianity), but that doesn`t make the entire process random. The randomness of evolution is filtered through natural selection, which is a distinctly non-random process.

Very good.

If it (whatever it is) is non-random, could you describe a little bit on the nature of the non-randomness? I am not asking definition or statement. A few descriptions/explanations/examples would be greatly appreciated.

I am glad that I did not pretend to understand what the "natural selection" is.

 

[Mallon]

Very good.

If it (whatever it is) is non-random, could you describe a little bit on the nature of the non-randomness? I am not asking definition or statement. A few descriptions/explanations/examples would be greatly appreciated.

I am glad that I did not pretend to understand what the "natural selection" is.

From Wikipedia:

"Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations." That is a non-random process.

 

[juvenissun]

From Wikipedia:

"Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations." That is a non-random process.

This is a reaction or a response to external conditions. If the external conditions varied randomly, the result would still be random.

On the other hand, if the external condition changed in pattern, for example cyclic, then we should see the effect as patterned evolution.

If we consider that the external condition is, in fact, a combination of 10+ parameters, then it is highly likely that the change would be random in any case.

 

[Mallon]

This is a reaction or a response to external conditions. If the external conditions varied randomly, the result would still be random.

On the other hand, if the external condition changed in pattern, for example cyclic, then we should see the effect as patterned evolution.

If we consider that the external condition is, in fact, a combination of 10+ parameters, then it is highly likely that the change would be random in any case.

For argument's sake, let's say that evolution IS random, juvie (you obviously want it to be, even though it's not)... so what? Do you believe God is incapable of acting through seemingly random processes?