Jeepers, AMD, I didn't realize that Einstein was a "Deist." I rather thought he was a Platonist. HUGE difference there!
On the facts of his biography, Einstein was a non-observant Jew who passionately identified himself with "The Tribe" all his life, and made constant references to "The Old Man" as the creative and organizational principle of the universe.
You wrote: God is not “playing” dice if God knows beforehand every result.
Well of course, dear AMD, that is the entire point: "God does not play dice" because He doesn't have to: He already knows all things, all at once (so to speak), from "outside" the order of His Creation.
But we humans, captured within the net of space and time (so to speak), do not know as God knows, or what He knows from His Eternal Now.
You wrote: The Bible says that the every result of a random drawing of lots is “from the Lord” — but you prefer to take Einstein's comment about his dissatisfaction with Quantum Mechanics over the Bible.
Jeepers, AMD, that's a wild conclusion to leap to! I gather what troubled Einstein about QM was the "problem" of non-local causation. He was an exponent of Newton's elegant model of mechanics, which holds that all causation is local, the result of near-neighbor relations of bodies possessing mass. I do not at all see what this issue has to do with the Holy Scriptures: The Bible is not a scientific text, and it isn't primarily interested in "massive bodies"; it is interested in souls.
You also wrote this, which to me is a total canard:
Amazing that at its core the basic creationist argument is that science = atheism and that nobody who disagrees with their ideas could possibly be a Christian.This is news to me, a lower-case-"c" creationist, and a Christian: I do not equate science with atheism. There are simply too many theist scientists in history to disprove that holding — including Newton. (Also, e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Gallileo, Mendel, LeMaitre, etc., etc.)
You asked: "Now are you ready to admit reality that in the e.coli experiment the useful variations derived were NOT present in the original population?"
The fact that useful variations were not present in the original population, but arose "later," doesn't tell me much about any actual causal linkage between the former and the latter, which can only be subjectively inferred. (This is where the doctrine of natural selection comes from.)
But are our inferences necessarily "true?" Or are they more like "more-or-less-likely stories" that cover up our ignorance, thus to make us "feel better" in a world that we increasingly experience as hostile?
Because increasingly, the world is Godless?
Thank you so much for sharing your views, dear allmendream! God bless!
It was obviously NOT in the original population. They DNA sequenced the e.coli that gave rise to the twelve populations that they then let develop independently. The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations.
So where did it come from?
Are you ready to admit reality? Are you ready to admit that it was NOT in the original population?
The supposition that all useful variations were created from the beginning CAN be tested. It was tested - it FAILED that test. But I guess asking a creationist to accept evidence that contradicts their presuppositions is, evidently, asking WAY too much!
And accepting that e.coli can develop useful variations that did not previously exist in their direct ancestry is in no way “Godless” - but it is illustrative of why you have a major roadblock to accepting evidence that runs contrary to what you think about God, and thus why you have failed to actually learn anything about a subject you have discussed for years.