Obviously you have never played with dice. How did you have such a
restrictive childhood? And modern nonlinear dynamics as well as the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that even if one tries to have the
same initial conditions in any non-linear physical system, you can't. And
thus predictability is lost in such a system. The weather is such a
nonlinear system.
>Third, Glenn does not know in the examples quoted, whether God did in
>fact intervene to make the lots fall the way He wanted. So he cannot even
>say that the results were chance in *any* definition of the word!
In that case Stephen, why won't you allow God to rig the chance mutations
to produce the evolution from microbe to man? If you really believe that
this is a possiblity then it would be ridiculous to fight evolution like
you do.
>In the sense of a *truly* random number generator in which events
>happened which were uncaused, yes, because this would logically
>contradict the claim that God was ultimately the cause of all things.
You obviously don't know what a random number generator is. It is not
uncaused, it is unpredictable as to the output.
>Sproul, Geisler and I would deny that these "random number generators"
>are truly random in the sense of the results they generate are uncaused.
I like how you always place yourself in the same sentence with the well
known people you are quoting. Are you all fishing buddies?
>Or using the second of Glenn's definitions, ie. 3), it says "God
>created...chance as a real cause itself". This would contradicts the
Christian
>doctrine of Providence, which says God is in control of everything.
This is more to the point of my post. Nonlinear dynamics has shown us that
random chance plus a set of rules equals a certain level of predictability.
It doesn't contradict providence. I randomly roll a die to create
Sierpinski's gasket. (see computer models on my web page). I don't know
what number will come out when I roll he die. However, I always know that
the result of this rolling and the rules produces a perfectly predictable
outcome--the creation of Sierpinski's gasket.
>GM>The Lamb Retherford effect. Virtual particle pairs (positrons and
>>electrons) are generated throughout space time. As an electron in orbit
>>travels it collides with positrons which were created in a quantum
>>mechanical particle pair. The electron and the virtual positron are
>>destroyed, but the virtual electron now becomes the electron in orbit
>>around the nucleus. It then strikes another virtual positron and is
>>destroyed and replaced by another virtual electron. This effect causes
>>slight energy shifts in the spectra of atoms and the effect has been
observed.
>
>Glenn has not shown that these events happen without a cause or are
>themselves ultimate causes.
Now you equivocate. you didn't say 'ultimate cause.' God is the ultimate
cause.
>
>Glenn confused causality with predictability. The fact that we cannot
>predict the weather does not mean it is uncaused.
You don't understand the theological reason why chance is feared by
theologians. It is precisely because of unpredictability. They are afraid
that chance means that God can't have control. Of course it doesn't mean
that at all.
gotta go.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution