Darwin & The York Groundsel

Yesterday at 10:01 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #20
Who are they, let me see their work.

How about the doctrinal statements from Christian denominations?  http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._3_13_2001.asp

One of them:
"II. Affirmations

1) We testify to our belief that the historic Christian doctrine of the Creator God does not depend upon any particular account of the origins of life for its truth and validity. The effort of the creationists to change the book of Genesis into a scientific treatise dangerously obscures what we believe to be the theological purpose of Genesis, viz., to witness to the creation, meaning, and significance of the universe and of human existence under the governance of God. The assumption that the Bible contains scientific data about origins misreads a literature which emerged in a pre-scientific age.

2) We acknowledge modern evolutionary theory as the best present-day scientific explanation of the existence of life on earth; such a conviction is in no way at odds with our belief in a Creator God, or in the revelation and presence of that God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

III. Recommendations

1) That through study and discussion we, as church people, become informed about issues of creation raised by both science and religion, including the "creation-science" controversy.

2) That we urge pastors and teachers to preach and teach about issues of creation, particularly the ways of understanding the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and other relevant Scripture passages. We further urge pastors and teachers to teach about the problems of biblical literalism in blocking creative dialogue between the faith community and contemporary educational, scientific, and political communities.

4) That we make all efforts to resist any viewpoint which would maintain that belief in both a Creator God and in evolutionary theory are in any way incompatible. Confident in our conviction that God is the ultimate source of all wisdom and truth, we encourage the free development of science and all other forms of intellectual inquiry.

9) That the church renew efforts to understand and relate to science and technology, not only to comprehend and respond to issues of controversy, but also to discover new ways of appreciating and expressing God's creative and redeeming activity.

UNITED CHURCH BOARD FOR HOMELAND MINISTRIES:
Creationism, the Church, and the Public School, 1992"

Do you mean me personal, or the entire Ernest Angley organization?

Your website didn't give any indication that Angley shares your weird exegesis of Genesis. Care to quote him from one of his books?  The summaries of his books don't mention creation at all.

Yesterday at 11:25 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #22

Let me see if I got this right. If you have a biologist and a theologian, and they both have the same level of education. The biologist is to be trusted but not the theologian. Is that what you people are saying?

Depends on the subject.  The biologist knows more about theology. He may or may not be knowledgable about theology.  A theologian would be expected to know (but in your case doesn't) about theology, but not necessarily about biology. 

Today at 04:54 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #33 

But he does not in any way validate or invalidate evolutionary theory.

I do not disagree with his approach. It may be a very good appoach for the people he is talking to. So, just what was the point you were trying to make again?

Actually, he did validate evolutionary theory by acknowledging the common ancestry of humans and apes.

The point, John, which you are trying so hard to duck, is that you made a claim that Darwin came up with evolution to deny a Creator. You then claimed that theologians didn't accept Darwin's theory.

What we have been doing, John, is show that:

1) Darwin didn't deny a Creator, either in public or private.  In Origin Darwin makes it clear that he thinks the Creator worked thru evolution.  That is, that evolution was how God created.

2) Nearly all Christians since Darwin have accepted evolution.  Including Christian theologians.

Basically, John, both your claims are false.

And no, we don't trust you as a theologian because:
1. Your exegesis of the Darwin quotes I gave you never showed that Darwin rejected a Creator. They simply ended up denying a good portion of Christian theology.

2. That denial of Christian theology, your "unique" exegesis of Genesis, andthe disagreement with you of the vast majority of Christian theologians shows that you are not a competent theologian and therefore there is no reason to trust you as one.

I did not see any referance to "common ancestry". Also, there is no mention of apes anywere in that artical.

He said we should be open to investigate if God created man the same way God created all of creation.

I believe Stone age man was a part of creation. All of the first chapter talks about creation. But Adam & Eve and cultivated plants and domesticated animals were not a part of creation. They were formed special by God. He formed them with His own hands.

Do they share something in common with the man that was a part of creation? It sure looks that way. But God put something Special into Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, that He did not put into Stone Age man. You never hear about God talking with stone age man the way God walked in the Garden and Talked with Adam.

Stone age man was really refered to as a male and a female. Adam and Eve were the first Husband and Wife. There is a big difference between prehistoric man and "modern" man. Dr Prescott never really makes that transition in this artical.

What he says is that there are things about God than can not be discovered though the scientific methoid. This does not make the approach bad, it could still be good, just limited. In the same way, there are things about man that reflect God, that are not going to be observable using the existing scientific approach.

I am  sure that he has put years of thought into what he is saying, but he still has a ways to go. He is slowly getting there. I do not doubt in time he will figure it out. When you have a discussion like this, where years of thought has gone into it, then there is a lot to work with to develop it. Compared to a discussion thrown together in a week or two, built on a week or two's worth of thought on that subject.

Really, all he is saying is that Christianity needs to break with tradition and investigate new ways of looking at things. I agree with that and have never said otherwise. Even Jesus taught us to break away from the traditions of man. You would think that he is implying that science needs to do the same thing.

He is trying to span the gap and build  bride between theology an biology. It remains to be seen if that gap can be bridged. Because we know that is only something Jesus can do.

The theory of evolution denys God. It would be like looking at a 20 year old car ready for the junk heap and trying to tell me all about how the car came into being.

Darwin never claimed to know God, he never claimed to know anything about Adam and Eve before they fell away from God. If you understand the plan of redemption, then you would know what Adam was like before he fell into sin. Because God is going to restore man and women.

Sense Darwin does not seem to know anything about God's plan of redemption, then Darwin knows nothing about Adam and Eve, and the way God created them and the way they were, before they fell from the grace of God.

If you want to know about how a car is made. Do you look at a brand new one, or a 20 year old peice of junk ready to be scrapped out? I say do a study on brand new cars. Science wants to do a study on the 20 year old junk car.  

Your right it is like that...

We can look at that old junk car and get a VIN and trace it's owners and what factory it was made at, where those factories bought the metal that they made the car out of, where the refineries that made the metal bought the ore from, where that ore was dug up from...

By looking at the wear and tear of the car we can even piece together some of the things that happened to that car over the last 20 years.

Darwin never claimed to know God, he never claimed to know anything about Adam and Eve before they fell away from God. If you understand the plan of redemption, then you would know what Adam was like before he fell into sin. Because God is going to restore man and women.

Sense Darwin does not seem to know anything about God's plan of redemption, then Darwin knows nothing about Adam and Eve, and the way God created them and the way they were, before they fell from the grace of God.

I take it that you have never actually read any of Darwin’s papers then...

If you want to know about how a car is made. Do you look at a brand new one, or a 20 year old peice of junk ready to be scrapped out? I say do a study on brand new cars. Science wants to do a study on the 20 year old junk car.  

If I want to find out how my Toyota was specifically made then yes I would not look at older or different cars...

But if I wanted to see how car design has changed over the years then yes that 20 year old piece of junk might just help me, and cars much older than it.

I could trace back fuel injection to the person who first put it in cars and further back to the person who invented it and further back to the person who invented some of the things that lead to the fuel injection system.

That twenty year old junk pile may have had a few revolutionary designs in it that directly influenced the design of my car.

Ah, the Satanic cat thinks people are deceived.

Yes, what I have is second hand information from other people who have read all that junk and done a study on it.

What about all the Christians that believe God created life on Earth via the process of evolution? Are they denying God?

What all five of them? If they say that Adam and Eve or modern civilized man, evolved from prehistoric men, then yes, they are denying God. In the very least they are confusing what the Bible calls creation with what is refered to as the generations.

Of course to me, it is just as bad if not worse to say that angels had sex with man, than to say that modern man evolved from cave man.