God is not an experimenter. An experimenter has to face the fact that he might never get what he wants, and that if he gets what he wants, it might be through trial and error whereby he is learning what needs to be improved if he is ever to get what he wants.
God doesn't experiment. Why should He ever have to do that? He is the God of Economy, not a God of Disorder, not a God of Chaos (1 Cor. 14:33). The very existence of the kind of physical universe we have shows us that it was created in so finely a tuned manner precisely for the support of everlasting life in the physical universe. From the beginning of His creation of it, He must have made it without a roll of the dice, but rather in the most mathematically precise manner, with a laserlike focus on what He wanted to do with it, which was to place in it humans having everlasting life as the capstone of His physical creations. God Jehovah, our Creator, acts according to the way He has figured it out beforehand. "Jehovah of armies" implies that Jehovah has masterful organizational abilities for ordering things both in the spiritual and in the physical realms.
Isaiah 14:23 states: "Jehovah of armies has sworn, saying, "Surely just as I have figured, so it must occur.""
Consider also Jehovah's motivation for becoming the Creator of the physical universe: love! He created because of His love -- for the love He knew His rational creatures would come to see was at the core of His very being, and that they should love God in return, worshiping Him, and even themselves showing love to others. God is love. God's love does not comport with the thought that God was at any time experimenting with any part of the physical universe. He, as a God of Economy, carried out His purpose with a laserlike, rigorous focus on the most mathematically precise, "surefire" way for Him to accomplish what He purposed to accomplish -- all of it accomplished according to the way He had figured it all out beforehand (cf. Isaiah 14:23).
Blue Petals Afloat
Logic informs us the corollas are not afloat
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Genesis "Kind" and "Genus"
A friend (N______) asked me what I thought about an evolutionist's question that was put to N______. That question and some of my comments follow:
>so horses and asses and zebras are really all the same species?<
Taxonomists give a definition for the inclusion of the three groupings you enumerated (horses, asses, and zebras) not as groupings belonging to one species, but as a genus, the only extant genus of the "horse family" Equidae. The genus Equus (horses, asses, donkeys, zebras) seems to me to correspond pretty closely to a Genesis "kind." But it does not follow that every "genus" as currently delineated by taxonomists need correlate to a Genesis kind. How God defines a kind and how self-serving, evolutionistsic taxonomists define a genus will not always overlay, and taxonomists are always revising their classifications depending on how paleontologists re-read the fossil evidence for solution to some phylogenetic issue they have bumped up against from DNA data supplied by molecular biologists.
Genesis states that God created the kinds, but how many different exemplars, which taxonomists would call "different species," were originally created within that kind is not stated, is it? How many exemplars of a man-defined genus (say the Equus, for example) were brought on board the ark? I don't know. Were they all necessarily interfertile? Not necessarily. Were all exemplars of a man-defined genus represented on board the ark? Apparently not, as may be seen from the fossil record. Were any exemplars of one Genesis kind interfertile with any exemplars of another Genesis kind? Certainly not.
I think your opponent, N_______, is trying to position himself for asking you what he hopes will be embarrassing questions for us who accept the Noachian Flood account in the Bible as history. If he has not seen the reasonableness of any of your replies to date, it is extremely unlikely that he will in the future as respects anything you may say. I don't have patience with persons of that sort. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Yb,
Al
>so horses and asses and zebras are really all the same species?<
Taxonomists give a definition for the inclusion of the three groupings you enumerated (horses, asses, and zebras) not as groupings belonging to one species, but as a genus, the only extant genus of the "horse family" Equidae. The genus Equus (horses, asses, donkeys, zebras) seems to me to correspond pretty closely to a Genesis "kind." But it does not follow that every "genus" as currently delineated by taxonomists need correlate to a Genesis kind. How God defines a kind and how self-serving, evolutionistsic taxonomists define a genus will not always overlay, and taxonomists are always revising their classifications depending on how paleontologists re-read the fossil evidence for solution to some phylogenetic issue they have bumped up against from DNA data supplied by molecular biologists.
Genesis states that God created the kinds, but how many different exemplars, which taxonomists would call "different species," were originally created within that kind is not stated, is it? How many exemplars of a man-defined genus (say the Equus, for example) were brought on board the ark? I don't know. Were they all necessarily interfertile? Not necessarily. Were all exemplars of a man-defined genus represented on board the ark? Apparently not, as may be seen from the fossil record. Were any exemplars of one Genesis kind interfertile with any exemplars of another Genesis kind? Certainly not.
I think your opponent, N_______, is trying to position himself for asking you what he hopes will be embarrassing questions for us who accept the Noachian Flood account in the Bible as history. If he has not seen the reasonableness of any of your replies to date, it is extremely unlikely that he will in the future as respects anything you may say. I don't have patience with persons of that sort. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Yb,
Al
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)