RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[neo-x]

"Finches will always be finches". This is a wholly unjustified guess. Any examination of the past billion years suggests that at no time in the past would such a prediction ever have been true, so why should it be true now? Finches may well carry on being finches for some time, maybe another ten million years or so, but to speculate further than that is unwarranted.

And, Who, pray tell, Is examining the past Billion years ??? And Why would anyone Be speculating ten million years in the future. Flightless lizards becoming Birds ? Why not spend the time researching something Profitable.

My "speculation" based on God's Word is that 'maybe another ten million years or so' -- but probably a whole lot Sooner -- this old earth / or Young earth is going to be destroyed and God will bring the New Jerusalem down to earth for all His Children to live in with their glorified bodies. That 'way out speculation' is found in the last couple of chapters of Revelation.

And, after you've stopped laughing or having a good chuckle -- the discussion will Probably move on to more Interesting discussion. And that's okay.

The graph that's been included -- fascinating -- but how do birds or anything else survive those ice ages. With all that ice -- nothing will grow and the Cold would freeze everything.

All valid questions which I would encourage you to search answers for and don't think you know them via common sense only.

And by the way the same God designed another galaxy, our neighbour Andromeda which is heading straight towards us on a collision course and the glorious Jerusalem and new earth will be obliterated in due time. I hope that design is a part of revelations or how you see it otherwise its a very difficult thing to explain from a purposed-creation and design.

I looked that up about Andromeda -- the galaxy is heading towards our galaxy at about 250,000 mph and astronomers estimate that about 3.75 billion years from now -- the two galaxies will collide. The article continued on to suggest that the event will last for a million years or so and a new galaxy will emerge.

From the Biblical perspective -- this world Is getting worse and worse and nuclear war Could be possible. When nations go to war against nations -- there Is a grand finale of wars and then God Does intervene. We Are promised a new heaven and new earth. The old Will be destroyed. A new world Is promised.
When people are left to their own desires -- we are very capable of destroying the good. God created a perfect world for His people and He promises to renew it for those who follow Him.

Yeah probably a new galaxy may emerge. And whatever new earth we're promised will be destroyed. But would you say its intelligently designed? I wouldn't. And it flies in the face of what our understanding of revelations is.

What do you mean by a perfect world? And that also is my point, what is the purpose of renewing if there would be nothing to renew?

Edit:
To put it in a rough analogy. We were promised a train which will be renewed and continue on the track. The problem is there's another train coming on the track opposite to us. The collision is inevitable. The collision was not promised because no one ever thought that could happen.
People didn't know there were other trains as well.

So...I could explain why that is from my position. The problem is for someone who believes perfection and order in creation. Because this is not that. It's the exact opposite. Random chaos. We know it happens elsewhere in the universe and what is left is well not pretty.

Crochet, please don't think that I am belittling your faith. This is my sincere observation and thus question to people who think like you. I see no answer except a vague mystical answer like you gave up. I didn't get what you understand or hope to make sense of it.

For example on your perfect world remark. I will again say that sin or no sin death would always be on this planet. Take one small example of earthquakes. They are features of a live planet. Because of them this planet has its present life and without them nothing would be the same but that means that someone somewhere would die inevitably. That's an unescapable conclusion.And also that a planet without death atleast of our current life forms will be no planet. Death ensures fertility and other processes important for sustainability of life. Not to mention that a planet without death will not survive given that it will eventually be not enough for things that would never die but still multiply.

[abelcainsbrother]

Okay -- at this point I'll concede that I don't know some of the correct terminology -- for instance your list of the cats -- they are all a form of the 'cat' family. A cougar would have a domestic cat for lunch. Cougars mate with other cougars, correct?

Yup.

Have never heard of margays for instance. Different part of the world? Out in the 'wild' would say a cougar mate with a tiger? and what would their off-spring be?

Not successfully, as in producing offspring. Cougars belong to the genus Puma, and tigers to the genus Panthera, and to my knowledge there has never, ever been a successful mating between animals of different genera. So this alone precludes such an event. And even if they were of the same genus, say Puma, it is extremely unlikely they could successfully mate. Successful mateings between different species of the same genus are extremely rare. Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, Canis latrans, is one such exception.

What happens whether they can or cannot breed though?

If you're talking about species from different genera successfully interbreeding, then taxonomists would be taking a very serious look at reclassifying them into the same genus. If they can't interbreed, which is the expected outcome, then they cant. *shrug*

My point has been that speciation is a myth built on the belief life evolves,but explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to?

A pleasurable encounter for both I suspect.

Only more cats with what they can breed with amongst the population of cats.

?

Just like I said using Great Danes and Chihuahuas that cannot breed as an example yet you still get dogs with what they can breed with amongst their population of dogs.

Just to be clear here, the only reason they can't mate is strictly physical; the St. Bernard being simply too big to fit together with a tiny Chihuahua. Other than that, their sperm and ova are quite compatible.

So now I have both cats and dogs for evidence. There is a limit to how much variation can be had amongst a population that can be had and all of the different shapes,colors,sizes,etc of the different dog breeds are a great example,which is why I use them for an example because eventhough it was not a natural process to produce all of the different breeds of dogs it is a great example of the limits of how much variation can be had amongst that population.

Okay

You avoided answering my question. What does not breeding lead to? Then you claim they cannot breed because of physical differences,yet don't have that problem with Cougars and Tigers and yet the results are exactly the same -you only get more dogs and cats with what they can breed with. You don't get a new species above the species level like they claim. Their own evidence proves me correct too. Google salamanders/evolution and you'll see just like I said you'll only get more dogs,cats and in this case salamanders with what they can breed with amongst each population. It does not lead to a new kind of life above the species level as there are limits to how much variation can be had amongst each population and the evidence proves me correct.

The reason I am right is because as I have explained scientists are only documenting NORMAL variation amongst a population and when they get normal variation amongst a population they claim it evolved,seeing what they want to see and using this for evidence life evolves while assuming everything else is true about life evolving while making up myths just like with speciation,natural selection,mutations,adaptation,micro-evolution,macro-evolution,the whole evolution tree of life,etc.

What they are doing is no different than a new dog breed being produced and them claiming it evolved,when it is just normal variation amongst the population and has nothing to do with life evolving.

[Audacity]

Okay -- at this point I'll concede that I don't know some of the correct terminology -- for instance your list of the cats -- they are all a form of the 'cat' family. A cougar would have a domestic cat for lunch. Cougars mate with other cougars, correct?

Yup.

Have never heard of margays for instance. Different part of the world? Out in the 'wild' would say a cougar mate with a tiger? and what would their off-spring be?

Not successfully, as in producing offspring. Cougars belong to the genus Puma, and tigers to the genus Panthera, and to my knowledge there has never, ever been a successful mating between animals of different genera. So this alone precludes such an event. And even if they were of the same genus, say Puma, it is extremely unlikely they could successfully mate. Successful mateings between different species of the same genus are extremely rare. Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, Canis latrans, is one such exception.

What happens whether they can or cannot breed though?

If you're talking about species from different genera successfully interbreeding, then taxonomists would be taking a very serious look at reclassifying them into the same genus. If they can't interbreed, which is the expected outcome, then they cant. *shrug*

My point has been that speciation is a myth built on the belief life evolves,but explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to?

A pleasurable encounter for both I suspect.

Only more cats with what they can breed with amongst the population of cats.

?

Just like I said using Great Danes and Chihuahuas that cannot breed as an example yet you still get dogs with what they can breed with amongst their population of dogs.

Just to be clear here, the only reason they can't mate is strictly physical; the St. Bernard being simply too big to fit together with a tiny Chihuahua. Other than that, their sperm and ova are quite compatible.

So now I have both cats and dogs for evidence. There is a limit to how much variation can be had amongst a population that can be had and all of the different shapes,colors,sizes,etc of the different dog breeds are a great example,which is why I use them for an example because eventhough it was not a natural process to produce all of the different breeds of dogs it is a great example of the limits of how much variation can be had amongst that population.

Okay

You avoided answering my question. What does not breeding lead to? Then you claim they cannot breed because of physical differences,yet don't have that problem with Cougars and Tigers and yet the results are exactly the same -you only get more dogs and cats with what they can breed with.

I'm sorry, but your syntax is confusing. You ask, "What does not breeding lead to?" which I take to mean, "what happens if two species don't mate?" for which the logical answer is, "Nothing." Nothing, in the sense of reproduction, can happen if mating doesn't take place.

And yes, I do claim that if an animal is physically unable to put his penis in the vagina of another animal breeding won't take place. As for cougars and tigers, you asked, "explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to?" And again, when two different animals can't interbreed nothing happens; although, if they try it may be pleasurable.

You don't get a new species above the species level like they claim. Their own evidence proves me correct too. Google salamanders/evolution and you'll see just like I said you'll only get more dogs,cats and in this case salamanders with what they can breed with amongst each population. It does not lead to a new kind of life above the species level as there are limits to how much variation can be had amongst each population and the evidence proves me correct.

I'm sorry, but this is quite incoherent, and I'm at a loss as how to respond.

[abelcainsbrother]

Yup.


Not successfully, as in producing offspring. Cougars belong to the genus Puma, and tigers to the genus Panthera, and to my knowledge there has never, ever been a successful mating between animals of different genera. So this alone precludes such an event. And even if they were of the same genus, say Puma, it is extremely unlikely they could successfully mate. Successful mateings between different species of the same genus are extremely rare. Wolves, Canis lupus, and coyotes, Canis latrans, is one such exception.

What happens whether they can or cannot breed though?

If you're talking about species from different genera successfully interbreeding, then taxonomists would be taking a very serious look at reclassifying them into the same genus. If they can't interbreed, which is the expected outcome, then they cant. *shrug*

My point has been that speciation is a myth built on the belief life evolves,but explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to?

A pleasurable encounter for both I suspect.

Only more cats with what they can breed with amongst the population of cats.

?

Just like I said using Great Danes and Chihuahuas that cannot breed as an example yet you still get dogs with what they can breed with amongst their population of dogs.

Just to be clear here, the only reason they can't mate is strictly physical; the St. Bernard being simply too big to fit together with a tiny Chihuahua. Other than that, their sperm and ova are quite compatible.

So now I have both cats and dogs for evidence. There is a limit to how much variation can be had amongst a population that can be had and all of the different shapes,colors,sizes,etc of the different dog breeds are a great example,which is why I use them for an example because eventhough it was not a natural process to produce all of the different breeds of dogs it is a great example of the limits of how much variation can be had amongst that population.

Okay

You avoided answering my question. What does not breeding lead to? Then you claim they cannot breed because of physical differences,yet don't have that problem with Cougars and Tigers and yet the results are exactly the same -you only get more dogs and cats with what they can breed with.

I'm sorry, but your syntax is confusing. You ask, "What does not breeding lead to?" which I take to mean, "what happens if two species don't mate?" for which the logical answer is, "Nothing." Nothing, in the sense of reproduction, can happen if mating doesn't take place.

And yes, I do claim that if an animal is physically unable to put his penis in the vagina of another animal breeding won't take place. As for cougars and tigers, you asked, "explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to?" And again, when two different species can't interbreed nothing happens; although, if they try it may be pleasurable.

You don't get a new species above the species level like they claim. Their own evidence proves me correct too. Google salamanders/evolution and you'll see just like I said you'll only get more dogs,cats and in this case salamanders with what they can breed with amongst each population. It does not lead to a new kind of life above the species level as there are limits to how much variation can be had amongst each population and the evidence proves me correct.

I'm sorry, but this is quite incoherent, and I'm at a loss as how to respond.

You're still avoiding the question as they do not teach nothing happens as you say. Speciation is very important and yet you're playing dumb.

[abelcainsbrother]

This is typical with evolutionists. They'll preach it is true,but when questioned about the evidence? They play dumb in order to defend evolution. Suddenly they don't seem to know about evolution,but they sure can preach it is true using technical language making you think they know more than they really do.

[neo-x]

This is typical with evolutionists. They'll preach it is true,but when questioned about the evidence? They play dumb in order to defend evolution. Suddenly they don't seem to know about evolution,but they sure can preach it is true using technical language making you think they know more than they really do.

So you admit your ignorance on the matter? On the topic at least yes we do know more. That is why instead of showing contrary evidence against the evidence that is for evolution, you are attacking people. Very nice!

[Audacity]

I'm sorry, but your syntax is confusing. You ask, "What does not breeding lead to?" which I take to mean, "what happens if two species don't mate?" for which the logical answer is, "Nothing." Nothing, in the sense of reproduction, can happen if mating doesn't take place.

And yes, I do claim that if an animal is physically unable to put his penis in the vagina of another animal breeding won't take place. As for cougars and tigers, you asked, "explain what happens when Cougars and Tigers cannot breed. What does it lead to?" And again, when two different species can't interbreed nothing happens; although, if they try it may be pleasurable.

You don't get a new species above the species level like they claim. Their own evidence proves me correct too. Google salamanders/evolution and you'll see just like I said you'll only get more dogs,cats and in this case salamanders with what they can breed with amongst each population. It does not lead to a new kind of life above the species level as there are limits to how much variation can be had amongst each population and the evidence proves me correct.

I'm sorry, but this is quite incoherent, and I'm at a loss as how to respond.

You're still avoiding the question as they do not teach nothing happens as you say. Speciation is very important and yet you're playing dumb.

Not avoiding it, but trying to figure out what you're asking. Rephrase your concerns and questions and I'll be happy to answer them. As it stands, I don't understand what you're saying OR asking. If you're unable to do so, have a nice day.

[hughfarey]

A question -- regarding that graph -- it talks about times of Mass Extinction -- that sounds like Everything is destroyed. Like No place was spared. Just wondering.

No. Mass extinction does not sound like everything is destroyed, or that no place was spared. At least 5% of all species, across at least half the different families of living organisms, either survived or were unaffected by whatever the event was that caused the extinction.

[hughfarey]

In this instance, I was specifically had in mind Darwin's finches, which remained finches despite beak size adapting according to their environment which changed during drought and then returned to non-drought sizes when drought stopped.

This is only a tiny expression of evolution, and little to do with the development of new species. Evolution largely occurs in response to environmental pressure, and the less pressure to change, the less different any variation is likely to be. From your comment, I think you're a bit confused here. As long as the finches happily occupy their environmental niche within the archipelagic community, they are unlikely to become rabbits, and you shouldn't be surprised that they haven't. If, by some weird circumstance, the mammals of the Galapagos died out and were not replaced for ten million years, then I have no doubt that the birds would then diversify into types more suitable to the niches which thus become available. This could include loss of flight, burrowing, and the adaptation of their mouthparts to suit the chewing of grass. They wouldn't become rabbits as we know them, because all organisms carry a certain amount of their evolutionary history with them, but, just as there is often very little difference between placental or marsupial mammals which occupy similar environments, perhaps there would be little visible to distinguish between my putative Galapagos 'rabbit-bird' and Oryctogalus cuniculus.

[Kurieuo]

It seems you're sailing right past me, not understanding I wasn't making an argument. But, feel free to respond to it as an argument if you felt threatened by something said. What I said, was actually quite neutral if understood correctly.

[hughfarey]

I'm sure you weren't being hostile, but it did seem as if you were using the evidence of Darwin's finches to support the contention that there is some kind of "elastic band" that prevents major differentiation. That's an argument. It's not a threatening argument, as the evidence so clearly does not support the contention, but I don't think I misunderstood it.

[Kurieuo]

I'm sure you weren't being hostile, but it did seem as if you were using the evidence of Darwin's finches to support the contention that there is some kind of "elastic band" that prevents major differentiation. That's an argument. It's not a threatening argument, as the evidence so clearly does not support the contention, but I don't think I misunderstood it.

It depends on the mechanism. I tried to even explain it in my last post, but it just didn't come across. So I'll retire from trying. If I was making an argument, I'd definitely ensure it'd be more forceful. How? Prepare yourself, what follows is a strong attack on the position of Theistic Evolution.

Reflecting upon such, I have a bit of gripe with those who adopt Theistic Evolution, while arguing as though they accept Natural Evolution with all its scientific concepts. I actually find it to be a gutless position that tries to speak out both sides of its mouth to appease two side: science on the one, Christians (or religious fold) on the other.

To bring back to Phil's original post, one of the articles that he references, entitled The Myth of Macroevolution, has at the very end:

• This is actually an argument for theistic evolution, because the more likely outcome of random mutations in regulatory genes is a monstrosity.

In other words, the author's attack on belief in macroevolution (as the writer defines such, I care not to define it myself), while impossible within a purely Natural Evolutionary accounting without God, is in fact possible within a Theistic Evolutionary account. Why? Because TE's get to cheat, no matter how improbable, anything is possible within natural laws because of God's orchestration. It to me amounts to a "God of the gaps". I'll elaborate further with some examples below, of how it is in fact contradictory to Natural Evolution.

It seems to me that TEs wuss out in many ways, wanting to be seen as scientifically accepted and of higher intellect, while smuggling God in through the side door to try keep their faith. (I have the strong such listening to many, that they a top fear would be rejection in modern intellectual circles like other creation positions e.g., BioLogos, simply because they are Christian or belief God exists) Yet, Theistic Evolution really doesn't add or explain anything, and in fact, should logically reject evolutionarly concepts like "natural selection" truly acting on "random" mutations, because in TE there is ultimately nothing truly "naturally" selection or "random" in the full sense that secular natural scientists would believe.

I'd like to challenge Theistic Evolution here, as not really being a logically possible position. True evolution theorists won't fall back to believing God orchestrated some "pluripotent" form of life which was divinely planned to unfold and/or is guided by a hidden divine hand to ensure any truly natural improbabilities or problems are overcome. True evolution theorists won't say out one side of their mouth that certain random mutations are naturally selected (unintelligently), while out the other side saying actually they're not random at all because God actually planned and guided such outcomes from the beginning and really each species is ultimately divinely selected.

Such double-talk and contradictions are within Theistic Evolution, they want to have their cake (talking evolutionary science and being accepted) and yet eat it (divine planning and retaining their faith) too. With Neo-X, while I disagree with his position, and if you saw his last response to me, it absolutely puzzles me how he can divorce God out of the picture so much while believing God exists. Yet, he does stick with natural evolutionary theory to the 'T' (and I don't mean 'T' as is Theism, he's pure Naturalist albeit with a belief in God). Neo-X does fully embrace a Neo-Darwinian form of evolution. He doesn't try to mix, perhaps sees the illogical contradictory nature of such. When Neo explained how he believes in complete randomness and non-guidance, it didn't make any sense to me -- but now seeing the illogic nature of mixing God in which would actually undermine a lot of meaning to evolutionary concepts and terms, well he's being consistent and coherent in falling on the side of evolutionary science.

So then, I just wanted to draw a line in the sand. You can cross it and divorce God's superintendence and guiding from the picture altogether (like Neo-X), meaning you won't be TE. Or, really, you can't talk much in the same scientific evolutionary terms as though they're really meaningful. Theistic Evolution really does fall on its own sword. Either is must ultimately talk in a different language, one which mixes both God and Science (for example, "Divine Selection" using the natural law God setup, and "planned mutations" rather than random mutation), in which case it'll stand out as an eyesore within the whole of evolutionary science... or it must drop pretense that it actually agrees with evolutionary science as currently defined. To try and retain both sides, it doesn't even parse as a viable position since such is illogical, confusing and contradictory.

Bottom Line of my above argument: Either creatures can evolve naturally and randomly without God altogether, or life can't. If the second, then to be logically consistent and coherent, one can't place their theology in a box to discuss science or vice-versa. The two go hand-in-hand together.

[Stu]

So in regards theistic evolution.

Did God create the heavens and the earth (with all the ingredients for life/abiogenesis) and then just leave it for natural processes to take over for a molecules-to-monkey event?

Or did God front load the ingredients, ensuring that abiogenesis would take place?

Did the ingredients for abiogenesis naturally form and coalesce since the beginning of whatever event formed the universe?

[Audacity]

So in regards theistic evolution.

Did God create the heavens and the earth (with all the ingredients for life/abiogenesis) and then just leave it for natural processes to take over for a molecules-to-monkey event?

Or did God front load the ingredients, ensuring that abiogenesis would take place?

Did the ingredients for abiogenesis naturally form and coalesce since the beginning of whatever event formed the universe?

"What is theistic evolution? The simplest definition is the one offered by Alvin Plantinga. He says that theistic evolution is a version of evolution that is not restricted by methodological naturalism. Eugenie Scott explains it better in her book "Evolution vs. Creationism,"

Theistic Evolution (TE) is the theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. TEs accept all the result of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. In particular, it is acceptable to TEs that one species can give rise to another; they accept descent with modification. TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene—some believe God created the laws of nature and is allowing events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans)."
source

So, depending on whom you talk to it seems that TE could embrace abiogenesis or not, and that all subsequent evolution could be left on its own or not.

[hughfarey]

I tried to even explain it in my last post, but it just didn't come across. So I'll retire from trying. If I was making an argument, I'd definitely ensure it'd be more forceful. How? Prepare yourself, what follows is a strong attack on the position of Theistic Evolution.

Yes. Given what follows, you're dead right it didn't come across!

Reflecting upon such, I have a bit of gripe with those who adopt Theistic Evolution, while arguing as though they accept Natural Evolution with all its scientific concepts. I actually find it to be a gutless position that tries to speak out both sides of its mouth to appease two side: science on the one, Christians (or religious fold) on the other.

Do you? Then I disagree, but I'll keep reading in case you justify this rather peremptory judgement....

To bring back to Phil's original post, one of the articles that he references, entitled The Myth of Macroevolution, has at the very end:

• This is actually an argument for theistic evolution, because the more likely outcome of random mutations in regulatory genes is a monstrosity.

In other words, the author's attack on belief in macroevolution (as the writer defines such, I care not to define it myself), while impossible within a purely Natural Evolutionary accounting without God, is in fact possible within a Theistic Evolutionary account. Why? Because TE's get to cheat, no matter how improbable, anything is possible within natural laws because of God's orchestration. It to me amounts to a "God of the gaps".

Keeping up to date with things is always difficult, so I won't blame you for resorting to an article written nearly ten years ago, quoting wonderful evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould, who died in 2002. Alas it is mostly a fairly typical God-of-the-Gaps argument, with the same force as a sandcastle attempting to withstand the incoming tide. The intermediate fossils which were still lacking a decade ago, and those which are still lacking for that matter, are being discovered so fast it is hard to keep up with them, so to my mind it is brave but foolhardy to claim that they will never be discovered. The other argument is the usual probability one, whereby various experts make up an extreme improbability, and then say that such an event is impossible. This is illogical as well as untrue.

I'll elaborate further with some examples below, of how it is in fact contradictory to Natural Evolution. It seems to me that TEs wuss out in many ways, wanting to be seen as scientifically accepted and of higher intellect, while smuggling God in through the side door to try keep their faith.

Does it? How wrong you are. But never mind, I'm sure your evidence will be along soon....

(I have the strong such listening to many, that they a top fear would be rejection in modern intellectual circles like other creation positions e.g., BioLogos, simply because they are Christian or belief God exists)

Ah! From the abelcainsbrother Book of English Grammar, no doubt...

Yet, Theistic Evolution really doesn't add or explain anything, and in fact, should logically reject evolutionarly concepts like "natural selection" truly acting on "random" mutations, because in TE there is ultimately nothing truly "naturally" selection or "random" in the full sense that secular natural scientists would believe.

Yes! I think you're getting there. There is a way to go, but you're pointing in the right direction.

I'd like to challenge Theistic Evolution here, as not really being a logically possible position. True evolution theorists won't fall back to believing God orchestrated some "pluripotent" form of life which was divinely planned to unfold and/or is guided by a hidden divine hand to ensure any truly natural improbabilities or problems are overcome. True evolution theorists won't say out one side of their mouth that certain random mutations are naturally selected (unintelligently), while out the other side saying actually they're not random at all because God actually planned and guided such outcomes from the beginning and really each species is ultimately divinely selected. Such double-talk and contradictions are within Theistic Evolution, they want to have their cake (talking evolutionary science and being accepted) and yet eat it (divine planning and retaining their faith) too.

I think you’ve hit the heart of it here, but I don’t think the dichotomy exists. There is, in practical terms, absolutely no difference in execution between theistic and atheistic evolution. The immutable laws of physics which initiated the big bang allow for all sorts of truly random interactions (of which organic mutations are a minute fraction) which, after several billion years or so, have resulted in organisms able to inquire about their own existence. That’s evolution, but is it theistic or atheistic? There is no poking about with spontaneous creation, not even supernatural ‘fiddling the dice’ so that randomness isn’t really random. No, the difference between atheism and theism lies much deeper - in the very nature of the laws of physics themselves, and how they are maintained. At this level, theists and atheists can dispute whether the universe has a ‘purpose’ and why it should continue to be, and that is the real difference between them. Did it just happen that way, or has it gone on for ever, or is there a multiverse of every possible occurrence? None of this is known or understood, but it is my belief (Faith, if you like), that the more we explore it, the more theistic the conclusion will become inevitable. Apart from tawdry day-to-day politics, I think that atheists and theists can explore these deep levels of existence together.

With Neo-X, while I disagree with his position, and if you saw his last response to me, it absolutely puzzles me how he can divorce God out of the picture so much while believing God exists. Yet, he does stick with natural evolutionary theory to the 'T' (and I don't mean 'T' as is Theism, he's pure Naturalist albeit with a belief in God). Neo-X does fully embrace a Neo-Darwinian form of evolution. He doesn't try to mix, perhaps sees the illogical contradictory nature of such. When Neo explained how he believes in complete randomness and non-guidance, it didn't make any sense to me -- but now seeing the illogic nature of mixing God in which would actually undermine a lot of meaning to evolutionary concepts and terms, well he's being consistent and coherent in falling on the side of evolutionary science.

Neo-X can no doubt speak for himself, but I guess his position reflects something like what I said above.

So then, I just wanted to draw a line in the sand. You can cross it and divorce God's superintendence and guiding from the picture altogether (like Neo-X), meaning you won't be TE. Or, really, you can't talk much in the same scientific evolutionary terms as though they're really meaningful. Theistic Evolution really does fall on its own sword. Either is must ultimately talk in a different language, one which mixes both God and Science (for example, "Divine Selection" using the natural law God setup, and "planned mutations" rather than random mutation), in which case it'll stand out as an eyesore within the whole of evolutionary science... or it must drop pretense that it actually agrees with evolutionary science as currently defined. To try and retain both sides, it doesn't even parse as a viable position since such is illogical, confusing and contradictory.

Not at all. There is no line.

Bottom Line of my above argument: Either creatures can evolve naturally and randomly without God altogether, or life can't. If the second, then to be logically consistent and coherent, one can't place their theology in a box to discuss science or vice-versa. The two go hand-in-hand together.

Not at all. Your dichotomy is one of your own making, and I don’t acknowledge it.