Re: The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back To 195,000 Years Ago

>
> > Dave,
>>
>> I've never understood this accusation. Can't God do whatever he
>> wants? Even in his special creation.
>>
>> TG
>>
>Terry,
>The point simply assumes that the deity understands as much about
>efficiency as human engineers. During the '70s, approximately, they hung
>one device after another on automobile engines to control pollution, and
>to correct the mess that the previous addition had made. I had a '72 car
>that never ran right, despite the attentions of an engineer sent out from
>Detroit. Then they got the bright idea of rethinking the whole matter,
>along with the development of computer chips and other devices and
>techniques, and regained efficiency. The miserable gas mileage and slow
>modification was a consequence of human limitations. Indeed,
>if Ford, Olds, etc., had understood what we know today, they would not
>have invented horseless carriages.
>
>If God is creating each species or genus /de novo/, then we assume that
>he would produce a finished form, not one that would die and have to be
>superseded time after time with new fiat creations. We would not have
>found a half-dozen creatures on their way to becoming the efficient
>cetaceans of today's oceans. You can find this principle in Augustine,
>who claimed that the Almighty created everything instantaneously, though
>it had to unfold over time. But the unfolding was perfect, not
>Ambylocetus or Pachycetus on their way to becoming efficient. In
>contrast, if God is using secondary causes to produce developed creatures
>over billions of years, we expect the half-way entities. To be sure, God
>acts as he sees fit, but does he know what he is doing beforehand, or
>does he bumble along like his creatures, us? We are as efficient as our
>understanding and finances allow us to be. Why should we expect God to be
>less efficient than omniscience and omnipotence allow him to be if he is
>acting directly rather than mediately? Indeed, I would further ask why
>God needed six days to fashion the heavens and the earth when he could
>have had everything up and functioning in less than an attosecond.
>Dave
>Dave

Why is efficiency a matter of perfection? Why is instantaneous a
matter of perfection? What is a "finished form"? Perhaps God wanted
to supersede time after time with new fiat creations. (BTW, I don't
actually think this is the case.) You're sounding like the
Aristotelian who thinks that circular orbits are perfect and
elliptical orbits are not.

Why does separate creations of similar forms indicate a bumbling
along? It may be bumbling for us, but since we know that God could
have done it differently, it isn't bumbling for Him. It's fully
compatible with His perfect will and purpose.

I don't think this argument gets you anywhere with Hugh Ross or YEC's.

TG

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801