Evidence for Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

My god its astounding the level of denial you maintain quite frankly…

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That equation fits in very well in the evolution thread - conjecture upon conjecture, small actual data figures that are hugely extrapolated upon, multiplication upon multiplication of error. I mean, it can't be helped that there are no actual, measureable figures for those variables, and that it's just an educated guess at their actual values

Why are you attacking this without even considering it? Its a formula that makes sense as it is. Of course we dont have all the data to fit in there. No one ever said we did. So no need to attack at all costs as if its the answer to the riddle of the universe which threatens you. Its simpy science in action. How can we represent the unknown? If we had all the variables what would the equation look like? And thats all they did. there is no "huge extrapolation" at all there. where is it exactly? its just a formula. there is no "multiplication upon multiplication of error" either. what the heck are you talking about? If you think the formula is dead wrong then come up with another. But just because it threatens you doesnt mean you need to trash it outright. Just tinker with it based on what data you have. Or what scientific constants you think need to be factored in.

The formula is very useful for obtaining RANGES. Not an answer to the puzzle. You are quite wrong when you say "there are no actual measureable figures" and its all made up. We DO know the rate at which stars have been born in the Milky Way. We also are getting a better bead on how many stars have solar systems with planets and we are just now forming a picture of how many of these planets may actually be earth like. Beyond that things get hazy granted. But you never see anyone putting information in that formula and acting like its established fact. If they do then they aren’t scientists. The formula to date is always used as a RANGE at best. Why are you so afraid of approaching questions by using a range Rian?

based on pre-existing biases, and often treated as facts.

what pre-existing biases does that formula show exactly? And really why are you so threatened by the concept that there may be other life elsewhere in the universe?

Evolution has so few facts to go upon ...

evolution has so many countless examples of its incidence in nature that you could barely hope to absorb them all in a life time. It blows my mind that you would continue to say DESPITE this fact that theres little or no sign of evolution in nature and yet say creationism DOES have evidence! Astounding…

and what IS directly observed are not the important things.

not the important things huh… because the ONLY thing that is important is if we can show right in front of your eyes that you can make an amoeba “evolve� into a human? And no fossil, no transitionary stage, no clear genetic evidence you can see right in the genes when we sequence them will matter. Nope. Sorry.

Awful convenient I say…

In fact, IMO, what IS directly observed supports creationism's claims more than evolution's claims.

oh you’ve observed god making stuff? Why havent you published a paper by now? Dust thingee to human thingee. Come on lets see it… nothing else is an “important thing�.

The "missing link" article that IRex provided is a classic example. If one has a preconceived, unproven bias that different species came from other species, then one will look at the discovery of a new dinosaur as a missing link, even though there is NO proof that it was. The way it was described, this new dinosaur seems very completely and competently designed.

so its just mere coincidence that it seems to be a PERFECT transition between a meat eater and a plant eater? Which is all the article was sayin. Hey look, this creature seems to have body parts useful for two different kinds of life styles. It also has a physical structure that would certainly seem to make it transitionary. And in fact its not at ALL “completely and competently designed� at ALL. That’s the point. It ate plants yet had a meat eaters gut which MUST have been a hindrance. The only reason it wasn’t annihilated instantly is apparently because it had strong arms and long talons which were effective defenses. But really, it would be even more ideal (one would think) if it didn’t have the fat meat eaters gut. So where do you get off saying it’s the “perfect design�? Why wouldn’t god just make it a proper plant eater without the meat processing part? Kind of like why is it we have a colon when we don’t use it and all it ends up doing is getting backed up with harmful bacteria or crap from our diet and sometimes killing us. Great design there god!

[Insidious Rex]

dupe

[Spock]

Sometimes the axiom, "to those who believe, no answer is necessary; to those who do not believe, no answer is possible." applies.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We can do experiments in a lab that produce the same things we see thru telescopes, so it's a reasonable deduction that the same thing is going on. That can't be done in the most important areas of evolution, and so IMO it's WAAAAY below astronomy.

so... we can cause super novas and black holes in the lab? form whole galaxies and star clusters consisting of hundreds of millions of stars? reproduce jupiter or mars or the moon in a lab? Seems like thats a bit beyond our reach... yet we CAN sequence genes and use genetic information to alter REAL LIVING ACTUAL wild life here on earth. and thats not nearly good enough for you... thats not a double standard at all?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

Sometimes the axiom, "to those who believe, no answer is necessary; to those who do not believe, no answer is possible." applies.

IMO the first part certainly applies to most evolutionists

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

My god its astounding the level of denial you maintain quite frankly…

Well, since you brought it up, I must say that I'm astounded at the level of your denial ... so I guess we're even.

Why are you attacking this without even considering it? Its a formula that makes sense as it is. Of course we dont have all the data to fit in there. No one ever said we did. So no need to attack at all costs as if its the answer to the riddle of the universe which threatens you.

I did consider it. It reminded me of the radar equation, frankly - how the final number is tweaked by the antenna gain figure. I thought at first that one variable was left out, then realized it was there but just in a different form than I would have put it.

My comment was about the context in which you brought it up (hang on, getting a quote ...)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

dupe

Don't feel too bad - a lot of people have bought into evolution, even tho it's obvious it didn't happen!
*pats IRex consolingly on the shoulder*

[Insidious Rex]

Maybe I was talking to you.

[Rían]

(comment on Drake equation, con't)

OK, here's the context - in the UFO thread, you said this:

Originally Posted by Irex, relevant parts bolded by RÃ*an

But thinking that theres no other "intelligent" life in the universe isnt necessarily arrogant, just illogical. If you run the numbers its a virtual guarantee.

Even if only a micro percentage of a micro percentage of planets in the universe exist under conditions condusive to the development of intelligent life then yer still talking about a number that would be longer then this entire post. Now we may not have all the variables yet but you cant just declare its an impossibility. Thats just plain incorrect.

(and first off, I NEVER said it was impossible )

So it just made me wonder what your numbers were and where you got them and what equations you were using and what assumptions you were making.

Then in this thread, Spock puts up a post that refers to a "typical time from the origin of a planetary system to the development of a technical civilization to be 4.6 billion years". The use of "typical" just made me wonder, how can one use the word "typical" when we only have ONE example to look at (i.e., OURS) and that figure is totally a guess? But I refrained from commenting.

Then in this thread, you put up that equation and say, "It expresses the number (N) of "observable civilizations" that exist in our Milky Way galaxy as a simple multiplication of several, more approachable unknowns." And given the previous posts, it just made me really, really wonder at the amount of conjectural data that you are willing to accept at a high enough level that you can say with such certainty that N is such a huge number.

Let's look at the variables:
R - I'll agree that we can get a ballpark figure for that one. That's one of seven.
fp - given how many stars there are, I don't see how we can get a good figure for this one.
ne - same as for fp, plus how many factors are they considering and how are they performing the analysis? Seems like an entirely conjectural number to me.
fl, fi, fc, L - all just seem wildly conjectural to me.

SO that's one of seven where we can even get a ballpark figure based on observation. It just seems kinda pointless, except as an interesting exercise to play with. And given the billions of chance occurances required for macroevolution, and the miniscule numbers that should be the best guesses for the other figures, I don't see how that number would be huge at ALL.

And since IMO, fl and fi, and then necessarily fc and L, would be zero IF evolution were true, that gives you an N of zero. Now if creationism is true, I think N could be a positive value.

there is no "huge extrapolation" at all there. where is it exactly? its just a formula. there is no "multiplication upon multiplication of error" either. what the heck are you talking about?

the extrapolation comes from your post in the UFO thread - since apparently you think that N is a huge value, you must be extrapolating values for the data. And the "multiplication upon multiplication of error" refers to the FACT that so many of those variables must be entirely guessed at, that it would be highly unlikely that they would be right, and then you are multiplying numbers with errors in them, which leads to more errors.

If you think the formula is dead wrong then come up with another. But just because it threatens you doesnt mean you need to trash it outright. Just tinker with it based on what data you have. Or what scientific constants you think need to be factored in.

The formula looks fine. It certainly doesn't threaten me! It just continues to amaze me how you treat extrapolated and conjectural data.

But you never see anyone putting information in that formula and acting like its established fact.

Yet you made a claim about that number in the UFO thread ...

Why are you so afraid of approaching questions by using a range Rian?

Why do you think I"m afraid? Why WOULD I be afraid? The only thing I am is amazed at the way conjectural and extrapolated data is treated by evolutionists.

what pre-existing biases does that formula show exactly?

That intelligent life came about by evolution.

And really why are you so threatened by the concept that there may be other life elsewhere in the universe?

I'm not threatened; I think it would be FUN!! The only thing I've said is that so far, we haven't seen any evidence of it. SO what's the big deal about that? How does it show fear or me being threatened? It doesn't.

evolution has so many countless examples of its incidence in nature that you could barely hope to absorb them all in a life time.

Yes, things that creationism accepts, too, like micro evolution.

(out of time )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Maybe I was talking to you.

(I'm glad you took it ok - I put in lots of winkie smilies )

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hey Gaffer - how's the little spud doing?

Thanks for replying; he's top! Just yesterday we had our first controlled self-powered movement: some bottom shuffling with huge amounts of arm and leg flailing and bouncing up and down, resulting in a barely measurable edging forwards at glacier speed.

Am hoping to get it on video and speed it up, but every time you point the camera at him he stops what he's doing and smiles at it. So unprofessional.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This is poorly written because I'm in such a hurry, and I'll expand on it later, but do you see what I mean about astronomy?

Wasn't poorly written and I see what you mean. IRex provided the same answer I would have (re actually having a lot more scope for experimentation and testing of hypotheses in evolutionary biology than in astronomy).

But the same is true even in chemistry to a lesser extent: how many people have actually seen atoms?

At all levels in all sciences, we come to a point where we can't directly observe and have to use theories like instruments to test out what we can observe.

If you're interested in what much smarter people than us have said about this, I'm sure there's loads of stuff on the net about Instrumentalism. Here's the entry in Wikipedia which is quite a nice little paragraph.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Evidence isn't biased; interpretations are.

Not quite, though interpretations definitely are! However, some studies are systematically more likely to give a particular result because of bias in the way they are carried out.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Wasn't poorly written and I see what you mean. IRex provided the same answer I would have (re actually having a lot more scope for experimentation and testing of hypotheses in evolutionary biology than in astronomy).

But the same is true even in chemistry to a lesser extent: how many people have actually seen atoms?

no, I didn't explain it well enough if you're saying something like that - rats rats rats! Not enough time!! Hope I can pick this up next week...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

So would creationists.. everyone sees what they want to see, and every evidence, or proof, can only make their belief stronger.

Yes, it's on BOTH sides!

People who don't believe in God - because of many reasons - think it's impossible God, or any other higher, all-knowing being did it.

Yes, and that can't be proven scientifically ...

And therefore - when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

The problem is that God's existence, or lack of existance, CANNOT be proven scientifically, or proven to be impossible, so BOTH SIDES have a preconceived bias.

For reasons... (and I do know how much people talk about the holocaust) (heard of a poll that said many people think jews talk on the holocaust too much. Didn't like it) An example would be that disaster. How can one believe in a God, after he passed such horrors? How can God, who everyone says he's all good, can do that? Or not stop it for the matter.
How can you convince someone who have been in a camp in Germany that there's God?

But Rad, there ARE people that have been through that that believe in God

edit- I see you said that later in your post.

If God is so great... how could he let things such as those happen? And will let them, probably, happen over and over again in the future?

Let me first tell you that your post has been on my mind for several weeks, but I just haven't had time to give it a good response. I only have a few minutes now, but decided I couldn't wait any longer.

First of all, I send you my profoundest sympathy for the pain you and those you know have experienced from the Holocaust. It was a terrible, terrible thing, and should NOT be forgotten. Yet I think we should think and reflect upon EVERY aspect of life, and I'd say first that PEOPLE were responsible, not God. Why blame God for this? The only way you can blame God is to say, as you did, why didn't He stop it? But then you get into the issue of free will. If God stops the Holocaust, then why should He stop there? Why shouldn't he stop when a kid is mean to my kid at school? Why shouldn't He stop our very THOUGHTS, if it comes to that, because actions come out of thoughts? So if you ask that question, I guess you have to answer that if there is a God (which I think there is excellent evidence for), then He chose to give us free will to a large degree, and full and complete justice will not be in this world, but instead in the next. If God is a loving God and wants to love us and have us love Him, then that can't happen unless we have free will. And as long as there is justice at some point, then I think things like the Holocaust are explainable in the light of free will.

Not as good as I wanted to say, but I have to pick up the kids now ... but again, I give you my sincerest sympathy for the pain you've had over this terrible circumstance.

And to bring it to the thread topic - I think, actually, that things like the Holocaust are the natural result of "natural selection", or "survival of the fittest" - and the fact that the Holocaust is repugnant to us should tell us something ...

[Rían]

(darn thread is not showing up!)

[Rían]

And to tie in to our beloved Tolkien, this subject reminds me of something he wrote:

by JRRT - of Beren and Lúthien
Though all to ruin fell the world
and were dissolved and backward hurled
unmade into the old abyss,
yet were its making good, for this-
the dusk, the dawn, the earth, the sea-
that Lúthien for a time should be.

Do you see what I mean? What do you think?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The problem is that God's existence, or lack of existance, CANNOT be proven scientifically, or proven to be impossible, so BOTH SIDES have a preconceived bias.

No, I guess not. But I wasn't really talking about proves.. just what people think when they look back on the past, and when they look on what's going on now in thw world.

Let me first tell you that your post has been on my mind for several weeks, but I just haven't had time to give it a good response. I only have a few minutes now, but decided I couldn't wait any longer.

Thanks.

First of all, I send you my profoundest sympathy for the pain you and those you know have experienced from the Holocaust. It was a terrible, terrible thing, and should NOT be forgotten. Yet I think we should think and reflect upon EVERY aspect of life, and I'd say first that PEOPLE were responsible, not God. Why blame God for this? The only way you can blame God is to say, as you did, why didn't He stop it? But then you get into the issue of free will. If God stops the Holocaust, then why should He stop there? Why shouldn't he stop when a kid is mean to my kid at school? Why shouldn't He stop our very THOUGHTS, if it comes to that, because actions come out of thoughts? So if you ask that question, I guess you have to answer that if there is a God (which I think there is excellent evidence for), then He chose to give us free will to a large degree, and full and complete justice will not be in this world, but instead in the next. If God is a loving God and wants to love us and have us love Him, then that can't happen unless we have free will. And as long as there is justice at some point, then I think things like the Holocaust are explainable in the light of free will.

Not as good as I wanted to say, but I have to pick up the kids now ... but again, I give you my sincerest sympathy for the pain you've had over this terrible circumstance.

I do agree with free will - if one believes in God, he must, as it's a part of the religion (both Christianity and Judaism).
But, my point is: God helped Israel in the past (meaning, 1,000 BC or so) when they were in trouble. It did not affect 'Free wil' at all... he just helped them winning, for example, a seemingly hopeless battle, or survive 40 days in the desert without food or water. And yet, He would not help 6 millions of His believers - not that it matters, really. He wouldn't, you say, beat the Germans (helping the Allies) 3 years before and end the war when most of them were alive? Why not...?

And to bring it to the thread topic - I think, actually, that things like the Holocaust are the natural result of "natural selection", or "survival of the fittest" - and the fact that the Holocaust is repugnant to us should tell us something ...

So if a dolphin sees hundreds of murdered dolphins, he wouldn't be? Or, at least, extremely sad? I think he would; but anyway, we can't know how animals actually feel.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I do agree with free will - if one believes in God, he must, as it's a part of the religion (both Christianity and Judaism).

I think it's the other way around: experientially, I have found the existence of free will to be well-supported, therefore that is one reason that I believe in Christianity and the parts of Judaism that are in common with Christianity.

IOW, I don't believe in free-will because my "religion" says so; rather, my belief in my religion is strengthened because I believe free-will exists, and my religion says it does. Do you see what I mean?

But, my point is: God helped Israel in the past (meaning, 1,000 BC or so) when they were in trouble. It did not affect 'Free wil' at all... he just helped them winning, for example, a seemingly hopeless battle, or survive 40 days in the desert without food or water. And yet, He would not help 6 millions of His believers - not that it matters, really. He wouldn't, you say, beat the Germans (helping the Allies) 3 years before and end the war when most of them were alive? Why not...?

Again, I extend my sympathies to you and to the Jewish people. I'm going to do some logical analysis here and I just want to you realize that I do this while also having compassion for those involved.

It seems to me that we need to look at the "boundary value" situations here - either there is no free will, or there is complete free will. The fact that I see myself and others choosing against what would be the best immediate good for them leads me to conclude that there is not very good evidence for the "no free will" position. The fact that I cannot change my hair to a dark, raven black, cascading down past my knees, and the fact that someone rear-ended our van even tho I didn't want him to, leads me to conclude that there is not very good evidence for unlimited free will. Therefore, I conclude that the evidence best supports some type of limited free will.

Since, on evidence I have discussed elsewhere, I believe Christianity to be true, and I have independently concluded that limited free will exists, I can look at what Christianity says about free will, and how God intervenes in the world and in people's lives, and see if I think that makes sense.

It seems to me, after reading the Old Testament quite a few times, that God has overarching goals, but leaves the details to man's free will, so they have a chance to do well on their own and deserve God's commendation. One of God's goals that I see very clearly is the establishment of a people to Himself - i.e., Israel. The pictures of this start before Abraham, but it is with Abraham that it is clearly established: this idea of a "taking out" of a person of faith from the surrounding pagan cultures, and the sanctifying of this person to God.

Another theme of the Bible, IMO, is the holiness of God. The descendants of Abraham went back to the ways of the surrounding cultures, including infant sacrifice, and God, rightly, abandoned them to their own choices for a time as a consequence, so they would learn that life apart from God's ways leads to death. They end up in slavery in Egypt, which is also a natural consequence of leaving God's ways, and when the time is judged right (i.e., hopefully they've learned something about leaving God's ways!) then God brings along Moses, another great man of faith, and leads them into the promised land - or at least, to the borders, because Moses has some failures. Finally, Joshua comes along, another great man of faith, and the Israelites enter the land and have great victories with God's help. So God's overarching goal is to consecrate a people to Himself, in a land He has chosen. This land they have lost several times due to overwhelming rebellion and sin, but God continues to re-establish Israel after a period of letting them "eat their cake" (experience the natural consequences of their own choices).

I think things like the Holocaust fall into the man's injustice to man category, and are not directly "caused" by God in the way that He, for example, directly caused the Red Sea to part. I think God allows things like the Holocaust to happen to, among other things, let mankind know that on their own, these things will happen, and they (rightly) need God. Yet I imagine God worked miracles in the Holocaust, too - people have shared about some of them.

I'm not expressing myself well, I'm afraid ... simply, I don't see either no free will or unlimited free will, so some position in the middle makes sense. It seems that God choses to perform miracles (i.e., temporarily set aside the natural laws of the universe) to accomplish specific goals, but largely lets us make our own choices, so we can have no complaint about His judgements, when that time comes. The establishment of Israel was a specific goal, and great miracles happened to bring this about, but at this point, I think God is letting us have the consequences that we deserve from our own individual choices, both good and bad.

So if a dolphin sees hundreds of murdered dolphins, he wouldn't be? Or, at least, extremely sad? I think he would; but anyway, we can't know how animals actually feel.

Yes, I think a dolphin has some level of sadness, too, which indicates that "natural selection" is NOT natural ... as one person has said, our miseries are those of a dethroned monarch ...

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think it's the other way around: experientially, I have found the existence of free will to be well-supported, therefore that is one reason that I believe in Christianity and the parts of Judaism that are in common with Christianity.

IOW, I don't believe in free-will because my "religion" says so; rather, my belief in my religion is strengthened because I believe free-will exists, and my religion says it does. Do you see what I mean?

But, still, you cannot believe in the Christian God without believing in free will IMO; and it really doesn't matter to what was my point (in my other post) what comes before, believing in free will or God, as long as you must believe in both to be a Christian.

Again, I extend my sympathies to you and to the Jewish people. I'm going to do some logical analysis here and I just want to you realize that I do this while also having compassion for those involved.

It's really okay - and I brought this example originally anyway.

It seems to me that we need to look at the "boundary value" situations here - either there is no free will, or there is complete free will. The fact that I see myself and others choosing against what would be the best immediate good for them leads me to conclude that there is not very good evidence for the "no free will" position. The fact that I cannot change my hair to a dark, raven black, cascading down past my knees, and the fact that someone rear-ended our van even tho I didn't want him to, leads me to conclude that there is not very good evidence for unlimited free will. Therefore, I conclude that the evidence best supports some type of limited free will.

Since, on evidence I have discussed elsewhere, I believe Christianity to be true, and I have independently concluded that limited free will exists, I can look at what Christianity says about free will, and how God intervenes in the world and in people's lives, and see if I think that makes sense.

It seems to me, after reading the Old Testament quite a few times, that God has overarching goals, but leaves the details to man's free will, so they have a chance to do well on their own and deserve God's commendation. One of God's goals that I see very clearly is the establishment of a people to Himself - i.e., Israel. The pictures of this start before Abraham, but it is with Abraham that it is clearly established: this idea of a "taking out" of a person of faith from the surrounding pagan cultures, and the sanctifying of this person to God.

Another theme of the Bible, IMO, is the holiness of God. The descendants of Abraham went back to the ways of the surrounding cultures, including infant sacrifice, and God, rightly, abandoned them to their own choices for a time as a consequence, so they would learn that life apart from God's ways leads to death. They end up in slavery in Egypt, which is also a natural consequence of leaving God's ways, and when the time is judged right (i.e., hopefully they've learned something about leaving God's ways!) then God brings along Moses, another great man of faith, and leads them into the promised land - or at least, to the borders, because Moses has some failures. Finally, Joshua comes along, another great man of faith, and the Israelites enter the land and have great victories with God's help. So God's overarching goal is to consecrate a people to Himself, in a land He has chosen. This land they have lost several times due to overwhelming rebellion and sin, but God continues to re-establish Israel after a period of letting them "eat their cake" (experience the natural consequences of their own choices).

I think things like the Holocaust fall into the man's injustice to man category, and are not directly "caused" by God in the way that He, for example, directly caused the Red Sea to part. I think God allows things like the Holocaust to happen to, among other things, let mankind know that on their own, these things will happen, and they (rightly) need God. Yet I imagine God worked miracles in the Holocaust, too - people have shared about some of them.

I'm not expressing myself well, I'm afraid ... simply, I don't see either no free will or unlimited free will, so some position in the middle makes sense. It seems that God choses to perform miracles (i.e., temporarily set aside the natural laws of the universe) to accomplish specific goals, but largely lets us make our own choices, so we can have no complaint about His judgements, when that time comes. The establishment of Israel was a specific goal, and great miracles happened to bring this about, but at this point, I think God is letting us have the consequences that we deserve from our own individual choices, both good and bad.

I'm no sure if I understand.

God made Eliahu (pretty sure it has another name in English) live for 40 days in the desert, without water or food of any sort, because he wanted to see if he understands something (he did not), but he couldn't on the hand help soldiers to hit the Germans and win the war sooner? I'm not sure if it has to do with free will any longer.. as no one actually makes a choice of some sort. The Eliahu part was, IMO, since he really didn't want to go to the middle of the desert. He actually wanted to die IIRC.

See? I don't understand that. And other parts. It seems, to me, that there were miracles only in the time of the Bible, and suddenly God cannot be found anywhere... no prophets, no miracles... nothing.

Yes, I think a dolphin has some level of sadness, too, which indicates that "natural selection" is NOT natural ... as one person has said, our miseries are those of a dethroned monarch ...

Either that, or that some animals do have feelings. And yet - they kill when necessary, and only when necessary...

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think it's the other way around: experientially, I have found the existence of free will to be well-supported, therefore that is one reason that I believe in Christianity and the parts of Judaism that are in common with Christianity.

IOW, I don't believe in free-will because my "religion" says so; rather, my belief in my religion is strengthened because I believe free-will exists, and my religion says it does. Do you see what I mean?

But, still, you cannot believe in the Christian God without believing in free will IMO; and it really doesn't matter to what was my point (in my other post) what comes before, believing in free will or God, as long as you must believe in both to be a Christian.

Again, I extend my sympathies to you and to the Jewish people. I'm going to do some logical analysis here and I just want to you realize that I do this while also having compassion for those involved.

It's really okay - and I brought this example originally anyway.

It seems to me that we need to look at the "boundary value" situations here - either there is no free will, or there is complete free will. The fact that I see myself and others choosing against what would be the best immediate good for them leads me to conclude that there is not very good evidence for the "no free will" position. The fact that I cannot change my hair to a dark, raven black, cascading down past my knees, and the fact that someone rear-ended our van even tho I didn't want him to, leads me to conclude that there is not very good evidence for unlimited free will. Therefore, I conclude that the evidence best supports some type of limited free will.

Since, on evidence I have discussed elsewhere, I believe Christianity to be true, and I have independently concluded that limited free will exists, I can look at what Christianity says about free will, and how God intervenes in the world and in people's lives, and see if I think that makes sense.

It seems to me, after reading the Old Testament quite a few times, that God has overarching goals, but leaves the details to man's free will, so they have a chance to do well on their own and deserve God's commendation. One of God's goals that I see very clearly is the establishment of a people to Himself - i.e., Israel. The pictures of this start before Abraham, but it is with Abraham that it is clearly established: this idea of a "taking out" of a person of faith from the surrounding pagan cultures, and the sanctifying of this person to God.

Another theme of the Bible, IMO, is the holiness of God. The descendants of Abraham went back to the ways of the surrounding cultures, including infant sacrifice, and God, rightly, abandoned them to their own choices for a time as a consequence, so they would learn that life apart from God's ways leads to death. They end up in slavery in Egypt, which is also a natural consequence of leaving God's ways, and when the time is judged right (i.e., hopefully they've learned something about leaving God's ways!) then God brings along Moses, another great man of faith, and leads them into the promised land - or at least, to the borders, because Moses has some failures. Finally, Joshua comes along, another great man of faith, and the Israelites enter the land and have great victories with God's help. So God's overarching goal is to consecrate a people to Himself, in a land He has chosen. This land they have lost several times due to overwhelming rebellion and sin, but God continues to re-establish Israel after a period of letting them "eat their cake" (experience the natural consequences of their own choices).

I think things like the Holocaust fall into the man's injustice to man category, and are not directly "caused" by God in the way that He, for example, directly caused the Red Sea to part. I think God allows things like the Holocaust to happen to, among other things, let mankind know that on their own, these things will happen, and they (rightly) need God. Yet I imagine God worked miracles in the Holocaust, too - people have shared about some of them.

I'm not expressing myself well, I'm afraid ... simply, I don't see either no free will or unlimited free will, so some position in the middle makes sense. It seems that God choses to perform miracles (i.e., temporarily set aside the natural laws of the universe) to accomplish specific goals, but largely lets us make our own choices, so we can have no complaint about His judgements, when that time comes. The establishment of Israel was a specific goal, and great miracles happened to bring this about, but at this point, I think God is letting us have the consequences that we deserve from our own individual choices, both good and bad.

I'm no sure if I understand.

God made Eliahu (pretty sure it has another name in English) live for 40 days in the desert, without water or food of any sort, because he wanted to see if he understands something (he did not), but he couldn't on the hand help soldiers to hit the Germans and win the war sooner? I'm not sure if it has to do with free will any longer.. as no one actually makes a choice of some sort. The Eliahu part was, IMO, since he really didn't want to go to the middle of the desert. He actually wanted to die IIRC.
I don't understand how can one be part of a greater plan, and the other can't... and how God can be seen as good when he chooses, by 'miracle', to save one person, and not a few millions.

Yes, I think a dolphin has some level of sadness, too, which indicates that "natural selection" is NOT natural ... as one person has said, our miseries are those of a dethroned monarch ...

Either that, or that some animals do have feelings. And yet - they kill when necessary, and only when necessary...

[Sister Golden Hair]

This thread is off topic and seems that the current discussion is more suited to the "Creationism thread" This is the "Evolution" thread.