This is what I think of TEs.

[busterdog]

OT can chill for a bit.

Do you ever wonder if you are being heard?

Here's what I think:

1. A large portion if not most of the TE crowd is committed to the essential doctrine of the resurrection in a literal sense. The Lordship, resurrection and divinity of Jesus are the essentials, and I think we agree on this.

2. Some TEs would allegorize everything, resurrection and existence of God included. I don't need to convict anyone, but at this point, I don't see a basis for discussion in this forum when that is in evidence. And I am not particularly concerned about offending anyone with the idea that allegorizing the resurrection and deity of Christ are precisely anti-Christian and represent the biggest error that there is.

3. The most frustrating thing is that I can't remember the last time a TE conceded a point that would contradict TE in the slightest. That is a test for a valid theory isn't it? That it can be challenged? It has probably happened, I just can't remember it.

4. Scripturally, there have to be a few things where the Bible would cause a TE to say, Gee, I don't know how to make that fit my view. Why is that such a big deal? Even where it supports YEC?

5. There are times I think when it is valid to demand some agreement on a limited basis or at least for the sake of argument. Oddly enough, we have to fight for this. In most circles you can get this kind of dialogue even when you disagree.

6. There is an undercurrent of charging the YEC discredits God, that we make God deceptive, that we are driving people out of the Church and away from Jesus. It is particularly bad right now. This will pass. It is used on a more limited basis by those around for a while. While I am sure this happens becuase of some YEC personalities (not necessarily here), I don't see the point of pressing that YEC doctrine should necessarily present that concern in and of itself. I would hope the more seasoned TEs would temper that position.

7. Don't forget that excellent post by Deamiter, which really seemed to get where we were coming from. I did the thread here on it.

8. However, there is the view that all things AIG and ICR are irrational, baseless and deceptive. Do we also appear completely dismissive and contemptuous when talking against radiocarbon dating and index fossils? Granted, Mark has lodged a pretty hard broadside on being lied to about genetics. I can see that argument, but I don't know enough about it to make the case that extreme.

9. The genetics arguments are largely people talking past each other with terms I don't care to look up. I think the burden is on the poster to make the terms simple. That is a skill that is part of my job, so I tend to expect it of others. Why does this talking-past happen? I think I see lots of TEs changing the subject to talk past a point such as Marks, rather than really looking at his argument and evidence first. Maybe we are doing that as well?

10. As a system, conventional science has built and impressive edifice. They have checked and cross-checked one another. They appear to agree on levels of O2, radiation, temperature in cylcles going back millions of years. That is not trivial. I call it "elegant". Obviously that is not enough for us. The guys who are punching holes in the fundamental assumptions are not well received.

 

[busterdog]

11. There are some impressive credentials in the TE camp. A number of the folks there have studied extensively in paleontology, physics, genetics. Lots of the folks there have a good handle on lots of scripture. There is a lot of history that gets brought out. Lots of these discussions are not just regurgitation of people who spoke at Church about something they heard from someone else. That is all worthy of some respect.

12. There are occasions where we are not on the edge of some vital issue of what the psalmist thinks of "sunrise" when obviously TE has a sense of humor and does make an effort to keep it friendly. That capacity does exist and is appreciated. I appreciate that past YEC unpleasantness does get forgotten by the TEs.

 

[mark kennedy]

OT can chill for a bit.

Do you ever wonder if you are being heard?

Here's what I think:

1. A large portion if not most of the TE crowd is committed to the essential doctrine of the resurrection in a literal sense. The Lordship, resurrection and divinity of Jesus are the essentials, and I think we agree on this.

2. Some TEs would allegorize everything, resurrection and existence of God included. I don't need to convict anyone, but at this point, I don't see a basis for discussion in this forum when that is in evidence. And I am not particularly concerned about offending anyone with the idea that allegorizing the resurrection and deity of Christ are precisely anti-Christian and represent the biggest error that there is.

They do seem to recognize the the historicity of the resurrection, in fact, they have no choice or they don't belong in these forums. I get the distinct impression that they are shying away from the supernatural and it causes some red flags to go up. I don't know where they are at with the Lord and it would be fair to say the same thing about some YECs. I do know this, we have embraced a supernatural religion and do well to emphasize that point.

3. The most frustrating thing is that I can't remember the last time a TE conceded a point that would contradict TE in the slightest. That is a test for a valid theory isn't it? That it can be challenged? It has probably happened, I just can't remember it.

At that point the primary debater usually bows out and someone else comes in and derails the thread. Pressing them on theology is fruitless and finding a cohesive core set of convictions that defines TE is like making a sandcastle, it looks nice but sooner or later the tide comes in and washes it away.

4. Scripturally, there have to be a few things where the Bible would cause a TE to say, Gee, I don't know how to make that fit my view. Why is that such a big deal? Even where it supports YEC?

YEC is a doctrinal position and represents a worldview, it generally has little to do with the physical and life sciences. Poking holes in their patented false assumptions affords little intellectual satisfaction for me personally. I like to look deeper into their vaunted scientific literature and make them look at what the evidence really is. You can see the uncertainty grow exponentially and their confidence wane as they have to honestly admit there is much they can't explain.

5. There are times I think when it is valid to demand some agreement on a limited basis or at least for the sake of argument. Oddly enough, we have to fight for this. In most circles you can get this kind of dialogue even when you disagree.

Some of this may in fact be some kind of Liberal or Humanistic philosophy trying to pass itself off as Christian. Pressing them on doctrinal issues like original sin and God's work in human history is essential to making progress in this sphere of Christian apologetics. We need not be embarrassed that the Scriptures are clear that God acts in tangible ways both historically and in our lives. The faith we have embraced has never been real popular, it does however reach people on a macro scale.

Sometimes I don't like it but you have to keep going back to the fundamentals of the faith. The question of who is Jesus should come up regularly, at least more then it has.

6. There is an undercurrent of charging the YEC discredits God, that we make God deceptive, that we are driving people out of the Church and away from Jesus. It is particularly bad right now. This will pass. It is used on a more limited basis by those around for a while. While I am sure this happens becuase of some YEC personalities (not necessarily here), I don't see the point of pressing that YEC doctrine should necessarily present that concern in and of itself. I would hope the more seasoned TEs would temper that position.

I have no patience for that approach, they really don't have any veracity in TE for doctrinal preaching. TE affirms no essential doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith while YEC does. When I find something like that in the common forum it has been my experience that they won't go to the mat over it.

7. Don't forget that excellent post by Deamiter, which really seemed to get where we were coming from. I did the thread here on it.

Deamiter is a genuinely nice guy with a strong Christian demeanor. I feel he is needlessly confrontational on certain issues but he will focus on the evidence.

8. However, there is the view that all things AIG and ICR are irrational, baseless and deceptive. Do we also appear completely dismissive and contemptuous when talking against radiocarbon dating and index fossils? Granted, Mark has lodged a pretty hard broadside on being lied to about genetics. I can see that argument, but I don't know enough about it to make the case that extreme.

You know I brought that up with a number of scientists who are simply not happy with how the media presents scientific works. They seem embarrassed by the fact that main stream public proclamations are still saying we are 99% chimpanzee in our DNA. The fact is that this has been proven to be false.

I think I know what is going to happen. Eventually the other ape genomes are going to start coming into view. What they will find is that apes are a lot more like one another then any of them are to humans. I guarantee you that.

9. The genetics arguments are largely people talking past each other with terms I don't care to look up. I think the burden is on the poster to make the terms simple. That is a skill that is part of my job, so I tend to expect it of others. Why does this talking-past happen? I think I see lots of TEs changing the subject to talk past a point such as Marks, rather than really looking at his argument and evidence first. Maybe we are doing that as well?

It's difficult to chase down every tangent particularly when into something as detailed as molecular biology and genetics. Often times I will disregard some of the pedantic points because its a diversionary tactic. In the thread on the ASPM gene they were unanimous in saying that transcript errors have nothing to do with mutations. After five pages of fielding these arguments they conceded absolutely nothing despite the fact this was soundly refuted.

I don't see how boiling these detailed expositions of peer reviewed literature to simple principles is going to clarify the problems with TOE and Darwinism. They assume entirely too much and work very hard, in concert to make Creationists feel they are limited in their ability to understand modern science.

That is not only untrue, it is absurd.

10. As a system, conventional science has built and impressive edifice. They have checked and cross-checked one another. They appear to agree on levels of O2, radiation, temperature in cylcles going back millions of years. That is not trivial. I call it "elegant". Obviously that is not enough for us. The guys who are punching holes in the fundamental assumptions are not well received.

Neither was Galileo, Tesla or Mendel but in time they prevailed and their work was recognized. Skeptics do not future the cause of science and bias has no place in a science class. Biology in particular is neutral with regards to our origins and Creationists could benefit greatly by leaning more about it.

Does how a cell works and reproduces on an amino acid sequence level seem dull and tedious? At times it can be but when you really get to the genuine article of science it can come down to some really startling limits beyond which living descendants cannot change.

I am well aware of your persistence and very grateful to you on a personal level for the astrophysics resources you are so fascinated with. You never know where a wildly uncertain debate environment might take peoples thinking. There could be a profound change in the way people think about natural systems of order if as creationists were are willing to delve into the intricacies of natural science.

God willing this we will do.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[vossler]

Do you ever wonder if you are being heard?

I haven't in a while because I know I'm not.

1. A large portion if not most of the TE crowd is committed to the essential doctrine of the resurrection in a literal sense. The Lordship, resurrection and divinity of Jesus are the essentials, and I think we agree on this.

Agreed.

2. Some TEs would allegorize everything, resurrection and existence of God included. I don't need to convict anyone, but at this point, I don't see a basis for discussion in this forum when that is in evidence. And I am not particularly concerned about offending anyone with the idea that allegorizing the resurrection and deity of Christ are precisely anti-Christian and represent the biggest error that there is.

Sad but true.

3. The most frustrating thing is that I can't remember the last time a TE conceded a point that would contradict TE in the slightest. That is a test for a valid theory isn't it? That it can be challenged? It has probably happened, I just can't remember it.

When your position is as scripturally weak as theirs is, is it any wonder this is true?

4. Scripturally, there have to be a few things where the Bible would cause a TE to say, Gee, I don't know how to make that fit my view. Why is that such a big deal? Even where it supports YEC?

I don't think they'd ever admit it because once they do so the whole evolutionary theory begins to fall like a house of cards and I believe, at least subconscientiously they know it.

5. There are times I think when it is valid to demand some agreement on a limited basis or at least for the sake of argument. Oddly enough, we have to fight for this. In most circles you can get this kind of dialogue even when you disagree.

I don't think it is there to be found because the stakes are too high and they can't afford to concede a single point.

6. There is an undercurrent of charging the YEC discredits God, that we make God deceptive, that we are driving people out of the Church and away from Jesus. It is particularly bad right now. This will pass. It is used on a more limited basis by those around for a while. While I am sure this happens becuase of some YEC personalities (not necessarily here), I don't see the point of pressing that YEC doctrine should necessarily present that concern in and of itself. I would hope the more seasoned TEs would temper that position.

I find those charges rather comical and when I see them it actually saddens me that they must resort to such desparate behavior in order to not be convicted of their own malfeasance of interpreting God's Word.

7. Don't forget that excellent post by Deamiter, which really seemed to get where we were coming from. I did the thread here on it.

I agree, I have found him to be one of the very few who actually have any sort of clue concerning anything we say.

8. However, there is the view that all things AIG and ICR are irrational, baseless and deceptive. Do we also appear completely dismissive and contemptuous when talking against radiocarbon dating and index fossils? Granted, Mark has lodged a pretty hard broadside on being lied to about genetics. I can see that argument, but I don't know enough about it to make the case that extreme.

I think this is an area that Creationists have a problem. There seems to be a need to have a scientific explanation for everything as opposed to just saying we just don't know. We've taken on some of the characteristics of the evolutionist and it isn't a pretty sight.

9. The genetics arguments are largely people talking past each other with terms I don't care to look up. I think the burden is on the poster to make the terms simple.

Exactly, but by presenting it as they do it does nothing but alienate them further. What I always find fascinating is if evolution is such a slam dunk then it shouldn't take much effort to educate and convince people of it. Yet few people really have any idea of what evolution really is and they certainly couldn't begin to provide a sound and understandable foundation for their beliefs.

 

[mark kennedy]

Let me just share with you the testimony of a Theistic Evolutionist. You will find that there is an occasional dig at Creationism but the overwhelming expression of faith in this post was one of the highlights of my time on here. I still have reservations about many of the views of Theistic Evolutionists, but I have no problem believing this is Gospel.

Jesus Christ is the Risen Lord. He is all that is God, and all that is humanity, excepting sin. Indeed, in lacking sin, Christ is more human than we are in our natural state, because sin takes away from us the very core of our humanity- the fullness of the image of God.

What Christ did on the cross was to stand in solidarity with sinful humanity, by speaking to us broken images in the language of mutilated flesh exiled from the halls of the holy city. In doing so God legally credited him with our sinfulness, so that he could drag all that was sinful in humanity- the mutilated image of God, torn by the lash- down into the pit of hell. And rising the third day, he won the victory of sin, death, and the devil.

But also in rising, God perminantly glorified and transfigured the physical matter of humanity in the singular person of Jesus Christ. The glory of God shines through Christ's humanity, as it once did on the Mount of Transfiguration. And so too by sharing in that transformed, transfigured, renewed, and glorified Body and Blood in Holy Communion, we press today the eschatological goal in which we participate in the divine liturgy.

And how does evolutionary biology conflict with this? It doesn't.

Whether humanity was specially created by God six thousand years ago or it evolved through a process taking millions of years and directed from the foundation of the world, the fact remains that physical matter was subsumed into the Godhead.

And what of our triple imputation?: The imputation of Adam's sin to us, and of our sin to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us. How does evolutionary biology conflict with this three-fold imputation of the historic Protestant tradition? It doesn't.

Why does the imputation of Adam's sin to us require common descent from him and Eve any more than the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us? We do not need to be physical, biological descendents of Christ for his righteousness to be credited to us. So why need we be descendents of Adam to inherit his sin? We don't.

We inherit the righteousness of Christ because we are part of the people of God- a people under his federal representation and priestly mediation. So too with Adam. Adam stands as the federal representative of all natural humanity before the King and the preiestly mediator who represents humanity before the Judge. Without his representation and mediation, we have nothing- that is, nothing without Christ. But Adam's vocation as representative and mediator of our natural-born souls is not dependent on our descent from him, again, any more than our representation and mediation by Christ requires common descent.

I understand there are theistic evolutionists on this forum who reject the existence of a historic Adam. But even without Adam, humans are still conceived in sin. Indeed, if there was no Adam and no state of innocence at all, then we are truly, absolutely, conceived in corruption. Our bodies are naturally corruptible. They die. Perhaps certain people might say this ignores the universal sin of humanity from the very moment of conception. So be it. I agree. But even so, our blessed hope is not only redemption from our sins, whether imputed or self-inflicted, but the hope of resurrection. Our greatest hope is not salvation from eternal torment, but eternal death. And in a world without Adam, Christ's resurrection promises this as well.

I believe in a historic Adam. I believe in his federal representation and priestly mediation of all the human race. I believe in a historic fall. I believe in original sin, total depravity, and the imputation of his sin to all humanity.

But more than that, I believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I believe in his federal representation and priestly mediation of all the people of God. I believe in his history work of salvation through the incarnation, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and ultimate return. I believe in grace, faith, the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of his righteousness, and the resurrection of the dead.

I do not deny the gospel.

These are not the words of an enemy of the faith, this is an expression of faith I will never forget. I have no qualms about extending the right hand of fellowship to someone who speaks so elegantly and with such conviction on the Gospel of peace.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

Let me just share with you the testimony of a Theistic Evolutionist. You will find that there is an occasional dig at Creationism but the overwhelming expression of faith in this post was one of the highlights of my time on here. I still have reservations about many of the views of Theistic Evolutionists, but I have no problem believing this is Gospel.



These are not the words of an enemy of the faith, this is an expression of faith I will never forget. I have no qualms about extending the right hand of fellowship to someone who speaks so elegantly and with such conviction on the Gospel of peace.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I appreciate the post Mark on this testimony.

And all your hard work on scientific issues.

You talked about being lied to as one reason for your conviction about fighting as hard as you do. I have never quite understood that.

As much as we appreciate the common confession, we give thanks for it, but we just never get satisfaction out of the science here.

I would love to see a TE get in here and really acknowledge some of the better YEC points. I would appreciate the chance to exchange information as people more or less on the same level -- even where we are clearly outclassed by some of the professionals that are TEs. However, this is not an exhange of ideas. Its like this is a war for intellectual turf.

I am not going to change my YECs views, as far as I can tell, based on what the Word says. If I were to change my view fo the YEC science, it would be because someone else were bold enough to admit where YEC makes sense and try to even improve on ideas like those of setterfield, which are considered heretical. THis is not iron sharpening iron. This is more like fire tempering things ot make them harder.

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isa 52:12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel [will be] your rereward.
I am not rushing back into this for the time being. I have some really cool worship music opportunities. Maybe I will something about creation by doing that.

 

[mark kennedy]

I appreciate the post Mark on this testimony.

And all your hard work on scientific issues.

I have pressed TEs on the Gospel and it is rare that the primary message is acknowledge in no uncertain terms.

You talked about being lied to as one reason for your conviction about fighting as hard as you do. I have never quite understood that.

I'm into apologetics, which means giving reasons for faith. When challenged to present scientific evidence in defense of the clear teaching of Scripture I gravitated toward the peer reviewed scientific literature. People from the prestigious Human Genome Project were the principle researchers on the Chimpanzee Genome Project. When all the evidence was in they presented it the same why they have for the ape/human common ancestry over the last 150 years.

Genes undergo changes (mutations) at measurable rates. These rates cannot be applied to Chimpanzee and Human differences on an amino acid sequence level. They know this so they don't want to talk about the evidence.

They have said it's 99% the same but it's 3 to 4 times that. It's simple enough, the truth does not support their theory so I keep telling them the facts. The bottom line here is the mainstream scientists disparately don't want you to know what the evidence really is. I have found this to be true in paleontology, genetics and especially Biology.

That is why I stick to this, the evidence does not support their assumptions.

As much as we appreciate the common confession, we give thanks for it, but we just never get satisfaction out of the science here.

I do, my central point about the genes involved in the development of the human brain has never been challenged. I harped on how the mutation rate would have had to be astronomically higher then normal for humans to evolve from apes. Not one substantive challenge has been made, intellectually this has great satisfaction for me.

Science is not taking sides, I'm convinced the measurable differences between chimps and apes logically and empirically disproves a common ancestor. What is more I think they know it.

I would love to see a TE get in here and really acknowledge some of the better YEC points. I would appreciate the chance to exchange information as people more or less on the same level -- even where we are clearly outclassed by some of the professionals that are TEs. However, this is not an exhange of ideas. Its like this is a war for intellectual turf.

In the ASPM thread I was asking about molecular mechanisms involved in adaptations. I even quoted, cited and linked a peer reviewed scientific paper that defended Darwinism in highly credible ways. This was all submerged in a barrage of twisted false statements. This has happened so many times I have lost count. It fascinates me, not evolution itself as much as the blatant disregard for the evidence itself.

I am not going to change my YECs views, as far as I can tell, based on what the Word says. If I were to change my view fo the YEC science, it would be because someone else were bold enough to admit where YEC makes sense and try to even improve on ideas like those of setterfield, which are considered heretical. THis is not iron sharpening iron. This is more like fire tempering things ot make them harder.

I revisit his lectures from time to time, interesting but hard to follow. It's a lot like geology in that regard, I had to pick my fight so I ended up focusing on the life sciences.

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isa 52:12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel [will be] your rereward.
I am not rushing back into this for the time being. I have some really cool worship music opportunities. Maybe I will something about creation by doing that.

Go in peace and I look forwarded to seeing you again when you find the time and energy. Ministry is what bearing fruit as a disciple is all about, music would seem to be one of the most popular ones. It reaches people at a personal level almost immediately and stays with them forever. It's also a lot of fun, take your time and don't worry this crevo debate, it will be here largely unchanged when you come back tomorrow, the next day and the next...etc. That one of the reasons I am so skeptical of evolution, people don't change that much.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

I have pressed TEs on the Gospel and it is rare that the primary message is acknowledge in no uncertain terms.



I'm into apologetics, which means giving reasons for faith. When challenged to present scientific evidence in defense of the clear teaching of Scripture I gravitated toward the peer reviewed scientific literature. People from the prestigious Human Genome Project were the principle researchers on the Chimpanzee Genome Project. When all the evidence was in they presented it the same why they have for the ape/human common ancestry over the last 150 years.

Genes undergo changes (mutations) at measurable rates. These rates cannot be applied to Chimpanzee and Human differences on an amino acid sequence level. They know this so they don't want to talk about the evidence.

They have said it's 99% the same but it's 3 to 4 times that. It's simple enough, the truth does not support their theory so I keep telling them the facts. The bottom line here is the mainstream scientists disparately don't want you to know what the evidence really is. I have found this to be true in paleontology, genetics and especially Biology.

That is why I stick to this, the evidence does not support their assumptions.



I do, my central point about the genes involved in the development of the human brain has never been challenged. I harped on how the mutation rate would have had to be astronomically higher then normal for humans to evolve from apes. Not one substantive challenge has been made, intellectually this has great satisfaction for me.

Science is not taking sides, I'm convinced the measurable differences between chimps and apes logically and empirically disproves a common ancestor. What is more I think they know it.



In the ASPM thread I was asking about molecular mechanisms involved in adaptations. I even quoted, cited and linked a peer reviewed scientific paper that defended Darwinism in highly credible ways. This was all submerged in a barrage of twisted false statements. This has happened so many times I have lost count. It fascinates me, not evolution itself as much as the blatant disregard for the evidence itself.



I revisit his lectures from time to time, interesting but hard to follow. It's a lot like geology in that regard, I had to pick my fight so I ended up focusing on the life sciences.



Go in peace and I look forwarded to seeing you again when you find the time and energy. Ministry is what bearing fruit as a disciple is all about, music would seem to be one of the most popular ones. It reaches people at a personal level almost immediately and stays with them forever. It's also a lot of fun, take your time and don't worry this crevo debate, it will be here largely unchanged when you come back tomorrow, the next day and the next...etc. That one of the reasons I am so skeptical of evolution, people don't change that much.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks Mark.

Still hanging around.

Posting less, obviously.

There has to be a better way.

I just don't know what it is.

Blessings,

David.