Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Bret you need to read Roger Penrose's book Road to Reality where he clearly shows that quantum mechanics (the source of random nature) is not the true picture of reality and that these laws must be modified to account for the curved spacetime caused by matter and energy. He shows us also that the Schrodinger equation is deterministic regarding probability waves and the must sum to one to account for the conservation of energy and momentum. The fact that humans can only see the real part of energy and momentum does not limit God from seeing the imaginary part as well and having total knowledge of His universe throughout time. This inability of humans to see the wave aspect of fields is the source of uncertainty and the random nature promoted by some factions of physicists not including Roger or myself. This disinformation relating to the correct deterministic operation of the physical laws has led many astray from our deterministic Father. None of us should promote this incorrect thinking here. If you read Roger's book I will help you through these concepts to understand why even quantum laws are based on deterministic principles.

At your service

Brother Lee

I tried to warn you guys!
Whenever you try to open this can of maggots (Evolution)...
you better be wearing a pair of hip-boots to get through
the rotting carcasses of failed and disproved ideas!
But ... before I reveal my Aces in the hole ... let me just
state some facts about "Random Mutations"!
The "Natural Laws" cause them!
They are REAL !!! (They DO happen!)
These deviations from Divine replication came into
existence after "The Fall" !!!
(There I go again ... mixing Science & God's Word)
So ... I guess my point would be ...
How can we honestly ignore "Random Mutations"
in this discussion ... when they DO exist in God's Creation?
I'm guessing that Lee believes in "Divine" Mutations ???
If so ... please explain? (Dave?)
Stu! ... how was the Movie?

Bret*

Here is a thought that keeps hitting me and I have to post it before I forget to do it again...

When I am arguing for a creationist point of view, I am typically arguing against a system that fails to acknowledge (frankly ignores) the influences of an overarching intelligence found in everything we see that is alive. On the other side is the argument that random chance and enough time can bring about anything. I obviously disagree strongly.

However, our arguments over whether some sort of evolutionary (or let's say long term iterative design process) is likely or not in the context of God and His influence in creation NEVER has ANYTHING to do with random chance. If God guided it, it is NOT random chance. Just like the lives of a Christian cannot be characterized this way (and we would never consider it) we cannot consider any argument where God created His creation through an iterative process guided by random chance.

Therefore, when making your efforts to deny the efficacy of the iterative design argument (theistic evolution), let's not say anything about random chance not making sense. It isn't applicable; it has nothing to do with God's flavor of evolution. Everything God does has a point, even if we don't understand it.

Please comment and let me know if you agree, and if so, let's avoid this dead end street.

Welcome back Dave!  I am greatly appreciative of your effort for clarification on the flavors of evolution.  As for me, I am a Theistic evolutionist of the punctuated and gradual type since both types of evolution seem to be occurring. Although Bret seems to think I am defending Darwinism, Dave's key points of Darwinism revealed one of the major  premises of that theory that I disagree with: random mutation. Since I believe everything to be deterministic in nature,  I am, therefore, forced to conclude that the universe unfolds in a preordained manner except when God intercedes directly by controlling the laws of nature. I stated before that I see these God interactions as boundary or initial conditions since God is eternal (outside of our time constraints) and can act at will whenever He chooses. Since God is perfect His interactions are perfect and the universe remains deterministic throughout all time. My main point here is that what looks like Darwinism to the world and contingent to Ken Miller and Francis Collins is really predetermined by God. We cannot see the difference unless we examine the remote probability of occurance of the various mutations hidden in history of the genetic code.  Michael Behe has just started to do this fortunately but has received little support from anyone other than the ID community. 

This was a rather quick overview of my position so if you want more explanation of any point please let me know.  It think these points to be central in resolving issues with the flavors of evolution between all factions.  We all need to nail down our views on contingency and predetermination to achieve closure on this subject. 

Brother Lee     

I believe that Dave makes a pretty good point!
Darwinism was the term that Lee chose to defend.
Just check back a page ... where we started to focus
on the Topic of Evolution!
Generally ... when a Theist believes in Evolution ...
he might be referred to as a Theistic Evolutionist.
But ... this can become a somewhat malleable Title!
Actually ... anything with the word "Evolution" in it ...
can mean 10 different things to 9 different people!
When a proponent wants to validate this word ...
they claim it only means "change over time"... !!?
Since this would apply to EVERYTHING (except God)
we must then agree ... or seem irrational ... !!!
Then ... once we've agreed that "Evolution" happens ...
they play "bait & switch" and start to use "Evolution"
as meaning "Goo to You" !!!
Godless "Evolution" basically comes in two flavors:
Phyletic Gradualism & Punctuated Equilibrium!
The Christian equivalents would be:
Theistic Gradualism & Progressive Creation!
Lee appears to be a Gradualist ... while
Hugh Ross is a Progressive Creationist!
I'm not sure if Dave is going to lay claim to either
of these ... or if he's going to stick with the
Fundamentalist take on the Creation of Life?
We ALL need to profess a position on this Topic!
I'm pretty sure that everybody knows where I stand?
Where do YOU stand?

Bret*

Here I go again, trying to play moderator...But if you will indulge me...

Is there a reason why we are using the term "Darwinism". While I think there is a brand of "Darwin Worship" with capital letters, I think it is generally reserved for those folks who:

1) Believe that the appearance of life, new species, man are ALL explained by Darwin's theory of Natural Selection
2) That life began and evolved through random chance, not guided by anything else (other than scientific laws of matter and energy
3) Generally expresses a distaste for any supernatural intervention, let alone the God of the Bible (in fact, especially the God of the Bible!)

I don't think that is what we are talking about here. Affirming a position that allows for God to have created everything through a process that spanned a long period of time and was physically iterative in nature (again, not random but guided 100% through His providence) does not sound anything like the above.

Again, an argument can be made that this is possible based on scripture and observation. God remains sovereign; he could have created this way, even if it doesn's seem like how he would have done it (His ways are higher than our ways, remember?)

So, before we get started, let's use a name that is less incendiary than "Darwinism". I think we should call it "Theistic Evolution". That is what it really is; not Darwinism. None of us worship nor follow Darwin.

Agreed?

We're NOT allowed to declare Victory! Well ...
except for Redemption through Christ Jesus !!!
(The ONLY victory that really means anything!)
We're trying to understand each others unique
perspective on these debatable Theological issues!
Lee likes to be able to explain everything using
the natural laws that God created ... and that
Science has a pretty good understanding of.
It's not that he doesn't believe in Miracles ... but
he believes that they can ALL be explained using
the natural laws that already exist.
I prefer to believe (as it would seem that you concur)
that God may or may not use these natural laws!
I personally believe that God often performed
Miracles to show us that He is outside the confines
of the natural laws ... as a way of letting us know
that these things were indeed His handiwork ...
and not that of anyone or anything else !!!
I could be wrong ... but I don't believe this to be
a violation of God's Word ... or aberrant logically?
I do find extreme difficulty trying to create harmony
with God's Word and Darwinism?
Let's try to explain to Lee why we believe that these
two fish can't swim in the same bowl ... !!!

Bret*

How things are going here...Glad to see you haven't resorted to knife fighting! That was my Jr High graduation picture from 1979...Dig the cool Angel Flights!

I really wanted to come, but I have had a full plate with an ill father, a mom who is very stressed, and alot of work, which I am very, very grateful for.

I can't believe I am jumping in like this, but I have to say, much of what you are arguing about with respect to the water to wine, walking on water, etc. doesn't need to be explained using the normal physical laws. Why?

Because God is not subject to them!

If all things hold together because of him (Colossians 1:17) then he knows how they fit together (He knows EVERYTHING) and can change the properties of matter at will...

But! Bret, before you declare victory, this does NOT imply that God changed the physical constants to make things look old! I think they look old because they are old! However, I believe at day 4, days likely became 24 hour days (again that word likely, not certainly), and somehow he he got the rest done pretty quickly.

So, now that I have offended everyone, I will take my leave.

Have a nice day!

Dude ...

Thought maybe you had thrown in the towel?
We missed you at the last Coffee Summit!
As you may have noticed? ... it's pretty much
down to Lee & I these days!
Stu suggested that we switch gears to Darwinism
as our main (but NOT only) focus ... in hopes of
bringing more people into the debate!
It sounded like a good idea ... but save for Me &
Lee (is it "Me & Lee" or "Lee & I")... the Blog is
stuck in a Bog!
If you have some unanswered questions from
a previous post ... just repost it ... and we'll see
what we can do?
Glad to have you back!
By the way ... is that a 70's high-school photo
of Danny Bonaduce?
(The Partridge Family rules!)

Bret*

It appears the mainstream media jumped the gun again...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_sc/us_sci_controversial_fossil

I guess we ARE distant relatives, if you want to say we are all related to each other in the context that we were created by God. I think that is the best it gets.

I have been gone for awhile; have you made any additional headway on my exegesis of Genesis 1? Or is that so 30 days ago?

Lee ...

We're losing focus here!
I'm afraid that you're reading more into my
statements than I've actually said?
Yes! ... we fully understand how to measure
and predict reactions to the force of Gravity!
But! ... we are virtually clueless to WHAT? is
causing this force! Quantum Theory believes
this force is caused by a (yet to be found) particle
called a Graviton! ... (I know you know this!)
This does NOT line up with General Relativity!
Only one of these Theories can be right ...
(as it pertains to Gravitation)... or they might
BOTH be wrong? (We just don't know!)
I'm not trashing Einstein's Theory! But even
he knew that his Theory was not the complete
explanation of what is causing Gravity!
**********
Determinism ...
can be accepted on several different levels!
You were originally implying that you believed
in "Strict" & unbending determinism!
Meaning ... God created a perfectly fine tuned
cherry-bomb ... then only needed to light the
fuse ... then walk away and rest ... forever!
This kind of strict determinism has a name:
*** Deism ***
But ... then you said that Jesus could manipulate
the Laws of nature to perform Miracles (at will) !!!
This would knock you down (at least) a notch or
two ... to the realm of full "TULIP" Calvinism!
For this entry into "Theism"... I decided to award
you 1st-base!
I am not advocating Chaos Theory!
I hope that this clears things up enough for you
so we can get going on the Darwinism Hoax?

Bret*

There are two statements 1) & 2) that you made that I disagree with in the last post. 
1)  The "Theory" of Gravity is NOT a settled issue!
Einstein's Curvature vs. The Graviton ??

2) Because you've backed away from the Plate of (strict) Determinism ...

Response For 1):  just because quantum and general relativity haven't been unified as theories, it doesn't mean that general relativity isn't applicable to the universe at large distances. You seem to be casting dispersions about the integrity of the law of gravity and promoting the view that if our knowledge and mathematical model for a process is not perfect, the whole concept is suspect. This seems overly critical when you can't describe or put forth an equation of any alternative physical law that would compete with general relativity.  

The equations of general relativity have been demonstrated to be accurate to at least 13 decimal places in astronomical processes such as a binary pulsar. This seems to me to be a pretty good model of the physical law if not perfect.  The remaining unification issues are only applicable to the extremely small and extremely high energy conditions only present at the beginning of the universe. In this case some mathematical physicists are struggling to formulate a quantum theory that works in curved spacetime that applies to this energy range and could possibly unify the two theories. In any case, it is not a flawed concept that you have made it out to be. Besides that, and regardless of the model of the physical laws' formulation, the observed DATA shows that space is accelerating away as time passes. This is permitted by general relativity as the small constant that has been measurd. It surprises me that you are objecting to it or trying to undermine belief in general relativity. It is the only physical law discovered that supports the Judeo-Christian view of a beginning to the universe. Why aren't you on this bandwagon and singing its praises?

As for my response on 2): Because you've backed away from the Plate of (strict) Determinism ...

I have no idea why you made the above statement. Would you please explain your view as to what determinism means to you?  One of my major threads in my posts has been to claim and show others how the laws are deterministic. Otherwise how could there be any prophecies that are fulfilled. So please explain how my statements have been translated into something which seems to me totally opposite. Are you implying that when God intercedes the course of the universe is no longer deterministic? Please lay this out for myself and others clearly. 

Brother Lee

 

A Med-School drop-out takes a boat ride
after finishing school to become a clergyman.
He becomes intrigued by a book written by
an out-of-work Lawyer with failing eye-sight.
With little to do but day-dream & read each day,
this lost soul took up bird watching.
He began to notice some minor differences in the
Finches as he traveled to different environments.
Their beaks varied a couple of mm's in length &
thickness ... and Chuck just wondered ... "WHY?".
Bored with his knowledge about the Bible ... he
just couldn't get this crazy new idea of millions
of years of Earth's geology out of his head.
So ... he thought ... If a Blind Lawyer can write
a book about Geology ... why can't a Clergyman
write a book about Biology?
And the rest is History!
Chuck never knew that this would make him a
god among men (who didn't like the real God) !!!
The story of L. Ron Hubbard is amazingly similar!
But ... most of us already know that L. Ron Hubbard
is a totally discredited whack-job! ....... Right?

Bret*

Just a couple of quick points!
Then I totally agree about moving on to the main Topic!
**********
Magic & illusions are just a masterful use of science to
cause us to think that other laws of science are being
violated ... right before our eyes!
Miracles are ACTUAL manipulations or (I believe) even
suspensions of the natural laws performed by God ...
(and God alone)... to achieve God's desired will ... at
precise moments in (historical) time!
**********
About Gravity?
Most everyone understands the "Law" of Gravity!
The "Theory" of Gravity is NOT a settled issue!
Einstein's Curvature vs. The Graviton ???
**********
Because you've backed away from the Plate of (strict)
Determinism ... I'll award you 1st base ... scored as "HBP".
(That's "Hit By Pitch"... just in case you were wondering Lee?)
Now it's on to the evidence for Darwinism ???
Prepare to get fanned !!!

Bret*

[Bret] Have you ever watched that Show? 

[Lee] Yes, I love to see how the trick is done. It must be the engineer/ scientist in me.  It keeps proving my case that their is nothing magic. Natural laws prevail and everything is explainable through them (cause and effect). 

[Bret] It's only natural (especially for men) to "need" to know how something works! 

[Lee] It is in our human nature to want to be like the Father and want to know it all.  We are his children, right? The original sin started us on this path and God has allowed some of us to stay on the trail. The problem with us is not our curiosity but our lack of knowledge of good and evil and our lack of discipline to choose only the good.  Human societies have had poor records in this area thus far;  it seems the more knowledge we acquire about how the world works; the better the weaponry societies create to destroy or subdue adversaries as opposed to be used for helping each other and glorifying God. This, it seems to me, is the real danger in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.  Their are many non-believers out there that believe that science alone is the light unto the world and Darwinian random mutations produced it all, even the universe. Furthermore, as a consequence, there is no final authority as to what is right or wrong.  A world full of knowlegdge without God in the heart and minds of its beings is a dangerous dangerous place.  I often think about this as I and other scientists do our work.  What if our next big breakthrough in knowledge gets into the hands of some Darwinian atheistic madman and billions of people are destroyed as a result?  Then I have to remind myself that by itself knowledge is not dangerous.  It becomes dangerous in the hands of Godless powerful people. 
 
[Bret] But ... once you know how a trick (or illusion) is actually done ... it sucks!  
It's the ultimate conundrum! ... Wanting to know? ... Then being disappointed with the answer!
[Lee] I usually am very glad to know how the magian made it work. But that is me.  

[Bret] There's truly something inside ALL of us ... that wants to see some "REAL" magic!
I'm sure there's a sermon here somewhere ... about this allure towards magic being a call towards the Ultimate Magician (God) ???
[Lee] You might be onto something here. I have found a very high correlation between Christians and preference to mystical explanations. I attribute this to a need to have a great amount of faith for believing in God. Maybe it makes believers feel closer to God if they entrench themselves deeply in faith based on mysteries and magic. Anyway, I enjoy having just a mustard seed of faith and a lot of knowledge of why I should believe in the Trinity. I certainly feel really close when I use my knowledge for the Glory of God!

[Bret] If Jesus can "manipulate" the physical laws of nature (at will)... 
then that would make him (at the very least) the REAL "Criss Angel"... !!!
But we know that He is MUCH more than that! ... He's GOD !!!

[Lee]- I am at a loss for words on your implication here. Of course Jesus is God. What would give you the idea from any of my writings that Jesus is anything less?  God is able to control nature or 'manipulate' it. 

[Bret] Now ...Anti-Gravity (as far as I can understand) is just Speculation? (Not even a Theory!)  
[Lee] Nope, in the 1990s it was discovered in space time expansion. It accelerates with increasing distance. It has been measured using very accurate space telescopes. 

[Bret] Since we (honestly) do NOT know what causes Gravity ... we can only guess that there might be an antithesis to this force? Who doesn't love Warp-Drive?
[Lee] This force is not a mystery. The curvature of spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.  Astronomical observations imply that the Cosmological Constant cannot exceed 10^−46 km^−2.  If spacetime was empty of all matter and energy it would be flat and equal to zero, instead it has a small positive value reflecting a measurable accelerating expansion. A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of empty space. Wikipedia has a nice description of the law of gravity, the Cosmological Constant, and other related topics. There are lots of books which you can read to get a better understanding. As you can see this law is well understood. What isn't known by our scientists is how to generate positive curvature of spacetime.  Only God knows and possibly He is the only being that will ever have His hand on the throttle.  Wouldn't we all love an antigravity control? At this stage of human interaction this would be really dangerous.      

[Bret] But ... using this as a "natural" explanation for walking on water is
surely not a home-run for your view-point ... even if I let you score the card?   Also ... even if we prove Anti-Gravity tomorrow ... your explanation was a manipulation of this law ... not a predetermined fine tuning? (am I right?) Wouldn't this be a little Magical ??

[Lee] I hope you will at least give me a single or intentional walk for my post.  This 'manipulation' of the force of gravity, as you call it, was not intended to replace initial conditions or fine tuning. These are all tools that God uses to control his Creation. The initial conditions include all of God's interactions with His Creation over the entire history and future of the universe. Remember He knows the past, present and future of it all (unlike us children). He could have prearranged for some slightly increased positive curvature of spacetime just below where Jesus would take each step in spacetime to counter His weight. Or Jesus (God) could have created the positive curvature at each step instantaneously.  Both scenarios are the same from God's timeless perspective. As an eternal perfect Being He can be anywhere or at all places in spacetime as the need arises to place the initial conditions desired. The whole existance of the universe (although long by human standards) are but an instant to an eternal being that lives outside of our spacetime dimensions.  

I have to admit that the last two statements I made do sound magical, but that is what makes God God and me human. I am trying to formulate the logical consequences of God's character as I can barely comprehend them.  I'm just extrapolating what the Bible states about His omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal character. I hope you and He will forgive me of any errors I might have made in my crude assessment.

Should we continue with evolution now, or do you want more on miracles?  My preference would be to engage Darwinian evolution before we all forget why we started this blog! Then return to miracles as the need arises. 

Brother Lee    

Have you ever watched that Show?
It's only natural (especially for men) to "need" to know how something works!
But ... once you know how a trick (or illusion) is actually done ... it sucks!
It's the ultimate conundrum! ... Wanting to know? ... Then being disappointed with the answer!
There's truly something inside ALL of us ... that wants to see some "REAL" magic!
I'm sure there's a sermon here somewhere ... about this allure towards magic
being a call towards the Ultimate Magician (God) ???
If Jesus can "manipulate" the physical laws of nature (at will)...
then that would make him (at the very least) the REAL "Criss Angel"... !!!
But we know that He is MUCH more than that! ... He's GOD !!!
Now ...
Anti-Gravity (as far as I can understand) is just Speculation? (Not even a Theory!)
Since we (honestly) do NOT know what causes Gravity ... we can only guess that
there might be an antithesis to this force? Who doesn't love Warp-Drive?
But ... using this as a "natural" explanation for walking on water is
surely not a home-run for your view-point ... even if I let you score the card?
Also ... even if we prove Anti-Gravity tomorrow ... your explanation was
a manipulation of this law ... not a predetermined fine tuning? (am I right?)
Wouldn't this be a little Magical ???

Bret*

Hi Brother Bret,

You wrote:
I would honestly enjoy hearing you explain:
1). Water to Wine?
2). Walking on Water?
3). Virgin Birth?
4). Resurrection?
Have fun with the first two ... but be very VERY careful with the last ones!

At your request! I'll try to be careful as well. Let me know it I slip up.

Let's try walking on water first. This seems to be easier than others. If you'll recall my earlier posts on general relativity there is local cosmological 'constant' term in general relativity equations that has become a major active area of scientific pursuit this past decade. Scientists are busy trying to figure out how anti gravity works. This has been a major source of inspiration for warp drive in Star Trek movies as a matter of fact. We know that it is a real force since a very small residual amount of it is pushing spacetime apart. This effect has been measured by our cosmologists and astronomers and shows up as an accelerating red shift in star light at greater and greater distances.  This GR term has also been attributed to the hypothesized initial inflationary period of the universe albeit at an extremely increased value for the 'constant'. We children do not know yet how this term is controlled or generated through the laws of physics. I will assume that you will agree with me though that the Father can exercise great and precise control of this term at small and large distances and has shown us this fact by bringing the universe into existance from a point to a very large object. It has been calculated that if the mass of the universe was off by more than one pound, no galaxies, stars, or planets would have formed;  the universe would have recollapsed to a singularity or expanded to a vapor of particles it the mass and energy would have been significantly different.  This fact is one of the best examples of fine tuning at one part in ten to the fifty-fifth power for the mass to expansion rate. By the way, another related one is one part in ten to the one hundred and twentieth power for the cosmological 'constant'.  I believe that you will agree with me that no new physical laws are necessary for God to float Lord Jesus over the water to a boat on Galilee since this capability is built into the equations General Relativity.   

If you are good with this explanation, I  will send you one for water to wine. If not please let me know what other questions you might have. 

Brother Lee      

Dear Brother Bryan

I'm a little in shock for the accusations you made and distrust of my profession. I am sorry that you feel this way.  I am just honestly trying to describe my views as a scientist and Christian. I believe I have a very good grasp of modern science paradigms and how they match up with the Bible. I also have spent an exorbitant amount of time reflecting on my views related to evolution and have been attempting to share them with you and others. 

I feel very bad that you have such contempt for so many of my coworkers that spend much of their lives figuring out how the universe operates. I was hoping that my detailed explainations could help you see that the world is not mystic but well designed from the inside out. That this would displace some of the fears that YE Christians have toward science.  I really don't think that I have illogical or anti-Biblical positions. But if I have been missing something, I trust that the YEs or other Christians will point them out. Until then I plan to stay true to my views that both good science and the Bible are complimentary and truthful about Creation. 

In regard to our earlier dialogue before throwing up your hands or the towel in, we had started to discuss the details of some of your controversial data on radiometric dating. My comment related to not bringing any facts to the table was a poor way of expressing my desire to get all the important facts on the table. I felt that too many generalizations and vague claims were being made.  I'm sorry about making you upset on this as well as the other items.  Just wanted you to know, I also carefully read all of your postings and Emails.   

I was trying to get a factual understanding of why you felt that the examples you had shown us proved radiometric dating unusable. The first point that we examined was of petrifiied wood being carbon dated. I concluded that carbon dating was not a valid method for use here because silicon dioxide had replaced all the carbon and the samples were not isolated from contamination. You were going to get back with a response on this and I never heard from you. You were also going to get back to me on why a number of radioactive isotopes with half lives under a billion years are no longer found on the earth. I would love to continue the dialogue in this area if you would like to continue. I love discussing the details on this subject. When the facts come out I usually get more confidence in an old earth and the amount of design in it. If you have a good valid argument against radiometric dating I am eager to hear it and learn something new.  Sorry if it seems I'm pushing back hard, I need a solid case.  Unfortunately the radiometric examples provided so far need to be carefully reviewed in detail and all that was provided was a short statement of the technique, a far out estimate, and an extremely brief summary without the necessary details. Sorry Brother, I am not going to let you condemn a trusted industry and get by with it that easy. You need to soundly prove your case to me and other readers.  My approach here is to test everything and hold on to the good.

I was thinking that we were beyond  putting down our Christian Brothers. Obviously you feel it's okay to still do this.  I don't.  I would like to continue this dialogue in a civil way though since this topic is very important. I ask that you stop the accusations and just present your view in detail why common descent is wrong and what specifically is in error with Darwinism with supporting facts.

Still Your Christian Brother

Lee     

Brother Lee stated:

As far as miracles go, I have yet to read of one that cannot be explained
through the existing physical laws and the adjustment of the initial conditions.
There is no reason to imagine new laws or an alternate set that God needs to
use occassionally for miracles like a magician.

My response:

I must say ... that I'm a little troubled by your view of God's Miracles!
I know that we're getting a little off-topic with this ... but it proves how one's
view of Creation "does" influence one's view of Theology!
I would honestly enjoy hearing you explain:
1). Water to Wine?
2). Walking on Water?
3). Virgin Birth?
4). Resurrection?
Have fun with the first two ... but be very VERY careful with the last ones!
Also ...
Let me try to explain (again)... how God does His magic without "changing"
or altering the Fixed Laws of nature!
God created our Universe ... like we set-up a Fish Tank. (Did I just say that?)
The Laws ONLY pertain to the inside of the Tank!
We buy things to put in the Tank ... and God Creates!
When I add more Rocks, Plants, or Fish to the Tank ... none of the Laws
are broken, bent, or violated! (Same thing goes for our Universe & God)
So ... I guess I'm saying ... when it comes to God's Creation ... we need to
THINK OUTSIDE OF THE TANK !!!
Creating things (for God)... is a piece of Cake!
Why wait until tomorrow ... when You can create something today?
Why take Billions of years ... and Billions of failed prototypes ... when you
can do it Right in One try ... and in less than a week?
But ... we should try and steer this debate back to the Evidences for ...
and Against the Darwinian Theory of Evolution!
Hypothesis vs. Observations?

Bret*

Lee,

I read your quote in Stu's letter, and while I haven't had much time to reply lately, I felt compelled to say something.

First, you like to paint those that believe in the word as written as believing in hoaxes or conspiracies and thus try to shame us into changing our minds by painting our beliefs of the Bible as written as fringe. Second, you use plenty of facts to back up your point of view, but have never listened to any of my facts that dispute yours. In fact, I spent 6 months giving you fact after fact after fact that backed up my point of view or showed "missing links" to all have been undisputed hoaxes. Yet I think the tipping point for me was when you told me that I haven't brought any facts to the table. I kind of mentally threw my hands up in the air and said, screw this. I've wanted to reply to our argument about dating but based upon all the facts I have given you in the past, I have absolutely no optimism that you will listen objectively to any of it or give my point of view due consideration. Remember, I was a believer in evolution until my research led me to believe that it is the biggest lie of scandalous proportions. Seriously, when have you ever seen something get better on it's own over time? Ever? If I found a Red Ferrari buried in the ground, an evolutionist would believe a Rock rolled through a Cranberry patch, while knocking over a Rubber Tree and crushing a stash of Iron Ore. Viola! Ferrari! The idea that with enough time, anything can happen is absolutely ludicrous on it's face. A thousand monkeys with typewriters will never pound out Hamlet no matter how many billions of years they try. Information does not invent itself, it needs a designer. I don't need to prove that scientists are conspiring against the public or that they are perpetrating a hoax, they are, but you need to prove to me that nothing can invent everything. That information can create itself. That infinite time can create the impossible or at least, infinitely improbable. I have allowed you to frame the debate in those terms. Evolution is the biggest joke ever and you are an intelligent person who just can't see it. That's why I haven't responded and that's why I just haven't wasted my time in this debate any further. Because as smart as you are, you have never, as far as I've seen, ever taken the time to honestly look at what your beliefs are regarding evolution and honestly appraise them. Should you ever decide to do so, I would happily spend some time with you talking about it.

God Bless.

Bryan

Hi Bret, thanks for providing what you could about the creation of life forms. I believe I understand where you are coming from now. If I attempt to summarize your position from your last post, I would make the following conclusions: the laws of physics are fixed except when God wants to change the normal operation to perform a miracle then God modifies the laws but they are still fixed since they are His laws and He can do anything He wants to with them. We perceive these events as miracles and a violation of the physical laws but they are the same fixed laws of God. Is this correct?

I have trouble with this definition because I have always viewed 'fixed' as unchanging. To me this means that God would not change the law but work through the law.  When I hear of things popping into existance like animals fully formed with knowledge, I would instead say that God used quantum mechanics in this type of event since these types of occurrences at the particle level are common according to the theory. At the macroscopic level unimaginably rare. At the animal level, forget-about-it rare unless God wanted to do it that way (which I really doubt). Since God is in total control of information in this universe, an event like this would only be possible if He wanted it to occur that way. Unfortunately for most physicists and scientists this approach is a hard pill to swallow. It totally defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics and most scholars find miraclulous creation events for each animal incredible (to say the least). I find it preposterous since there are easier ways to create animals through the existing laws of physics and the control of information.   
Why do it the hard way? Why rush, do it the easy way over time. 

At the heart of the issue is the control of information (matter, energy, and spacetime position). We know that God has shown us a phenomenal capacity in this area by the creation of the universe out of nothing with exacting specifications.  He spoke it into existance, or conveyed exacting specifications of how everything was to be and when everything was to occur. Much like a gigantic simulation where He already knew the result. 

By introducing time into the equations, He introduced causality for us  (cause and effect) using the physical laws. Being eternal and omnicient, He knows the state of all the energy, matter, in space throughout the universe for all time including the future.  It would be within His capacity for God to specify the initial conditions and let the physical laws carry out His plans since they are deterministic. He could also interact with us at just the right points in history to adjust or alter the outcome of events through the alteration of this information then let the physical laws continue unperturbed. This interaction would also be part of the original plan and could also be considered as part of the initial conditions since God is outside of time. Some of us are already eternal timeless creatures that are presently in the formative process on the way to eternity with God. We are under the impression that the future has not happened yet but God already knows exactly what will happen. A simple adjustment of the initial conditions will cause the course of history to change. If God wants water to come out of the ground just as Moses strikes a rock there, He sets up the initial conditions to do so and lets the laws of physics carry it out.  He doesn't have to modify the laws each time. It's the advantage of having deterministic physical laws and being eternal (or being timeless). God can act throughout all time in any situation and His or his angels actions  becomes like initial conditions in a simulation that produces a  predictable result.  The rate at which the simulation occurs is meaningless, only the results.  In the case of the universe His interactions throughout its history become initial conditions that produce a known result (defeat of sin) and eternal beings who reside in Heaven with the Trinity.   

As far as miracles go, I have yet to read of one that cannot be explained through the existing physical laws and the adjustment of the initial conditions.        There is no reason to imagine new laws or an alternate set that God needs to use occassionally for miracles like a magician. With the ability to adjust relative time (special and general relativity), gravitational attraction force (the cosmological constant in general relativity), the ability for matter to interact with photons or other bosons (quantum uncertainty), and the ability to use nature by infusing information into the initial conditions, all miracles seem possible to me. For example, let's take the star over Bethlehem. It illuminated the way for the kings to find Jesus in a manger. Take a space object and cleave a fairly flat surface on it by impact with another object and put it in near geosynchronous orbit at a location over the middle east. Adjust its attitude with small meteorite impacts so that it reflected the sun's light in front of the travellers over the months of travel to Jerusalem and Bethlehem while providing a supernatural beacon to our Lord. This scenario is all God driven via initial conditions using natural physical laws that would work perfectly fine to accomplish this miracle.  There are many other miracles similar to this that would be too lengthy to describe in this post.  But I think the idea is clear from the example. If you ask what is the chance that this would occur naturally, the answer is extremely remote. Atheists would claim it to be a preposterous fantasy.  But if you ask how hard would it be for God and His family to do this, the answer is trivial using nature.

That's it for this post on miracles and and how God can use nature, physical laws, and causality to accomplish His will. There is more coming on other miracles in the posts ahead. Let's attack evolution head on next with the Cambrian Explosion. Days Five and Six coming next. 

Your Eternal Brother

Lee                  

(Oct 9 newsletter of the Discovery Institute www.discovery.org)

The Los Angeles Daily News this morning is reporting the California Science Center’s outrageous cancellation of a screening of the new intelligent design documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. The California Science Center is a “department of the State of California,” and its IMAX Theater had been rented by a private group, the American Freedom Alliance, to hold the Los Angeles premiere of the film as part of a series of activities commemorating the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. But after the screening became public knowledge, the pressure from Darwinist censors apparently became too intense.

So this week the Science Center expelled the film, possibly after being intimidated by the Smithsonian Institution, which clearly was upset by publicity promoting the screening that mentioned the true fact that the Science Center is an official “Smithsonian Affiliate.” The Science Center is now claiming that it canceled the event “because of issues related to the contract,” issues its spokesperson conveniently refuses to identify. If you believe that, I have some swamp land you might like to buy in Florida.

Censorship is apparently alive and well in southern California. Given that the Science Center is a state entity, its heavy-handed cancellation of this event raises significant free speech issues. This is viewpoint discrimination plain and simple. A state agency has decided to ban speech it doesn't like in a public facility that is supposed to be open to all citizens. And that's an outrage.

-- posted by John West

[url][/url]

Brother Lee ask ...
Have you vacated your earlier view that the laws of nature are fixed?
No! ... as I've explained before ... since God created these Laws
along with Space, Time, & Matter ... He is obviously outside of
their restrictions, conditions, & limitations! How (exactly) God
performs His miracles is a Divine mystery!
Did animals pop into existance from God's speech?
His speech! ... a wink of His eye! ... His magic wand! ... you name it!
Did they have memory of prior events and knowledge at their creation even though the memories would be fictitious?
No! ... they were created with the knowledge & instincts necessary
to survive (and flourish)... but no false memories are needed!
Did Adam already know the names of thousands of animals at his creation?
The animals had no names ... until Adam (personally) named them!
A monkey is a monkey because Adam made-up the "name" monkey
and assigned it to the fully-formed Created creature that you & I
now know as a monkey! Adam could have easily made-up names
for ALL of the animals in just a few hours!
Lee ... how do you explain the numerous Miracles in the Bible
that would seem to violate the fixed laws of nature?

Bret*

(newletter from the Discovery Institute www.discovery.org)

Seattle – Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,” has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

“Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design,” says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.

“But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t debate its leading proponents,” adds Dr. Meyer. “Dawkins says that there is no evidence for intelligent design in life, and yet he also acknowledges that neither he nor anyone else has an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first living cell. We know now even the simplest forms of life are chock-full of digital code, complex information processing systems and other exquisite forms of nanotechnology.”


In Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?

Signature in the Cell has just entered its third printing according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins, and has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin, Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, formerly Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland, and Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”

“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don’t think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”

According to Discovery Institute, where Dr. Meyer directs the Center for Science & Culture, the debate challenge is a standing invitation for any time and place that is mutually agreeable to both participants.

[url][/url]

Hi Bret. You stated the following:

As far as my take on how ALL living creatures ...
(including Humans)... came into being .......
God "spoke" them into existence fully formed, male & female, ready to reproduce after their own kind, already programed with limited variability to adapt to a changing environment!  Sweet & Simple ... isn't it?

My response- I'm sorry but this explanation was too condensed and unclear for me. It certainly was simple though. I need more detail in your response so that I can understand how 'spoke' translates into the fixed laws of heaven and earth and how it translates into 'let the earth bring forth'. Your response seems inconsistent with the Bible here and earlier statements that the laws are fixed.   It seems to me that new laws of physics are required for speaking animals into existance.  Have you vacated your earlier view that the laws of nature are fixed? Did animals pop into existance from God's speech? Did they have memory of prior events and knowledge at their creation even though the memories would be fictious? Did Adam already know the names of thousands of animals at his creation? Please correct any of my misconceptions about what you are saying and elaborate about how speaking animals into existance happens through your knowledge of the physical laws. Thanks in advance on this for helping me understand your position!

Lee