I am always perplexed on this board why so much is taken as adversarial. I'm sure you are more learned in scripture than I will over be. Probably more learned in science. I just was asking about what appeared to me to be flawed logic.
It's usually because someone is not clear about what they are asking or what their intentions are.
The appearance of "flawed logic" is usually in the mind of someone who is making conclusions without adequate facts or knowledge about the subject or the position of someone else.
I have only a basic understanding of those things. I am not advocating one theorey or the other. I have never made up my mind about it either way.
May I suggest that you try being a bit more forthright in your questions and why you are asking something, rather than appearing to play the "gadfly" and appearing to "question" one view while appearing to support the opposing view.
I'm not playing games. I am poking at why you claim to be an open minded person who has reviewed data and its intrepretations on both sides of the debate and have landed on the side of creation, yet seem to imply that the only way anyone could have done the same things and landed on the side of evolution is if they are corrupt.
Yes, you are playing games. I never said anyone was "corrupt," you did. That's what I mean by you are playing games. Instead of asking WHY someone believes what they believe, you jump to conclusions that are erroneous and are not, it would appear, at all serious about why someone would choose Creationism or Evolutionism. No, you'd rather play "gadfly" and beat around the bush to get to whatever it is you want rather than ask sincere questions, especially if you DON'T know and if
"I have never made up my mind about it either way" is actually true.
So let's give it one more try:
I find these statements curious. How do you reconcile randomness which is generally by nature not directed, nor purposeful, with creation?
This question indicates a lack of understanding on your part of what you were asking, or at the very least a lack of specificity in your question.
You ASSUME, in the way this question is worded, that
"randomness which is generally by nature not directed," and my answer that "yes, there are random mutations in nature" MEANS that those mutations WILL result in a different "KIND" of organisn (on the level of created KINDS), or if you prefer, more complex and completely different types of life than the original organism that had a mutation in its genetic code.
But that is NOT what I said. Random mutations DO occur, but they detrimental to the organism and cause a LOSS of information, not a GAIN of information, as would be needed to "evolve" into something entirely different.
Random mutations are part of the Law of Entropy, if you will, that states things go from a state of organization to a state of less organization, NOT the other way around.
"How do you reconcile randomness which is generally by nature not directed, nor purposeful, with creation?" To answer your question directly, I don't reconcile it with creation. I reconcile it with natural processes that operate according to the rules established by God at creation, or to be more precise, after the FALL when the whole of creation became corrupted by sin. That is one of the reasons for the existence of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
As for "natural selection," it too occurs, but it occurs within the given species. Two quick examples:
First the a moth population can go from predominantly white to predominantly black because predators EAT the more easily seen white specimens, leaving the black population to survive and predomintate. However, both color possibilities are ALREADY PRESENT in the genes and it is still a moth.
Second, Stapholococcus Aureas is normally killed by Methocillin. However, Methocillin resistant Staph has become a problem because the susceptible strain has been killed off, leaving the "super bug" MRSA (Methocillin Resistant Staph Aur.)
That is a big problem in a lot of hospitals today. But the "bug" is STILL Staph, not something else.
Long enough to allow natural selection and random genetic mutation to account for the diversity of life, as defined by the evolution theories. i.e. earth billions of years old vs several thousand.
Okay, since you didn't give a specific and just used a general time of "billions of years," I will assume that you are referring to the general estimates by evolutionary scientists of the age of the universe as the "base line" for the timeframe in which evolution is allowed to occur. Unless you object, that is the baseline I will use for the "time" component of the equations.
I understand predictive models. You are asking me to compare models and I am saying one model is constrained and the other is not, and that has more to do with the "fit" than the "correctness" of the models. Is there anything that a creation model can tell me can not exist?
I differ with your suggestion of "constraints," as evolution has some VERY BIG constraints in it by virtue OF the theory itself, and God is NOT "constrained" in what he can do. Think of it this way, if you will. A monkey is "constrained" by his innate abilities so that if you sit the monkey down at a keyboard and tell it to compose the Gettysburg Address, you will wait a very long time before you finally realize it CANNOT do that. YOU, on the other do not have that constraint, and YOU do have the ability to write the Gettysburg Address. In that sense, you may also see a little of the meaning that "Man is created in the image of God" WITH the ability to think, reason, and create according to his purpose, just as God created according to His purpose. But unlike God, WE are constrained by the limits of our physical world and universe to the Physical Laws established by God.
But constraints or not is irrelevant to the Evolution Theory, even though the proponents of evolution often go to great lengths to try to circumvent the restraints (i.e. their plea to an "Open System" as a way to try to get around the Laws of Thermodynamics). They confuse "availability of energy" with "useful work" of that energy and they do so on purpose because the Laws are FATAL to evolution unless they can find some "exception" that will allow them to continue to believe in evolution.
Okay, for having said that, let's return to your previous question;
I'm not playing games. I am poking at why you claim to be an open minded person who has reviewed data and its intrepretations on both sides of the debate and have landed on the side of creation, yet seem to imply that the only way anyone could have done the same things and landed on the side of evolution is if they are corrupt.
I have "landed" on the side of Creation BECAUSE God clearly revealed to us that HE CREATED all things.
Evolutionists say, "no, no God created anything, it all just came about by accident, with no purpose or intent, it just happened naturally."
The PHYSICAL World exists, and exists as DATA.
That is also where you seem to have gotten "off track" in your concept of a "predictions" by the two "Models" of origins.
No, the color of the sky is not the question, it is why is it that color. Darwin observed the diversity of life, (as did everyone else), and asked what could explain all this diversity.
Precisely. I'm glad to see you are understanding that basic point. But the "why" is also something you have to careful about. In the example of the "blue sky" and that most people "see" the sky as Blue, the question arises WHY the "other guy" sees the same expanse as "Magenta" instead of Blue?
Think about the possible "why's." Remember, despite what others think or say, HE is convinced that the sky really is as he perceives it...magenta, not blue. Therefore all those who believe the sky to be blue are WRONG, isn't that right?
From HIS perspective, it's not possible for the sky to actually BE blue, but that doesn't change the FACT that the sky IS blue, even though he can't see the color blue.
And that is also the condition of Man, as a result of Fall of Man and the corrupting of creation as a result of the Fall.
Were it NOT for the fact that God chose to reveal to us HOW things came into being, we wouldn't really know.
But Sin also causes Man to rebell against God and to refuse to accept even His very existence. But that position does nothing to alter the REALITY of God, nor the reality of the fact that HE created everything ON PURPOSE, by DESIGN, and for HIS purposes.
By FIRST denying God, second by denying God AS Creator, and third by seeing and acknowledging that the universe and the vast variety of life that does exist ON EARTH, they are left with ONLY one alternative to Creation by a Living, Purposeful, God. They are left with natual processes and evolution as the ONLY way that things COULD have gotten here.
In short, they ASSUME evolution is correct and then set about showing how everything MUST fit within the framework of an Evoltionary Model.
I am interested in the DATA, because the data is the same regardless of whether or not someone believes in Creation or Evolution. I am also interested in how the data is explained, especially data that is used to give evolutionists an "excuse" to teach evolution as a FACT and not as a theory.
Maybe not the numbers. Look up "Black Swans"
No, why don't you tell me why you think "Black Swans" are relevant to the discussion or how they apply to either Creation or Evolution.
Are you, in fact, arguing through the "Black Swan" idea that "Hopeful Monsters" suddenly appeared, to buttress the idea that evolution is correct?
It's getting late and I'm admittedly rather tired. So I'll wait until later to get to some of the "numbers" and difficulties with evolution, if that is okay with you.
