All Christians are Creationists

[Assyrian]

The reason you don't have theistic gravitation is because no one is teaching an alternative to the science in the name of Christianity.

If you had a movement preaching that we are attracted to the earth because God said we will return to the dust, or that the planets move because they are pushed around by angels or are embedded in the firmament, if this was being preached, and non believers began to think this really was authentic Christianity, then you would begin to see Christians standing up and talking about Theistic Gravity

 

[Poke]

Because Christians in Newton's day did not assume that science denied God, so it was unnecessary to affirm that a theist can accept the fact of gravity.

Isn't it rarher obvious that there has been scientific progress since the time of Darwin? Yet, only "theistic" is attached only to Evolution. Sorry, your argument is blatantly wrong, so why'd you make it?

Because scientists have so far been unable to develop a theory of quantum gravity,

So, you admit to "god of the gaps" At least you spared me that "Evolution says nothing about the origin of gravity" (never mind that an evolutionist brought up gravity).

It is you who err in defining "natural" as "godless".

I don't call computer science "godless" even though it is 100% naturalistic. It's simply that only evolutionists make claims that go beyond (or violate) science, and they justify this leap with a presumption of godlessness (by whatever they call it).

 

[Poke]

The reason you don't have theistic gravitation is because no one is teaching an alternative to the science in the name of Christianity.

That's a better answer than the one I just replied to.

But, for Evolutionists so hopped up on "Evolution says nothing about abiogensis", why aren't there "Theistic Abiogenesists"? I've never even heard the frase. How about "theistic spherical earthers", considering that Evolutionists like to pretend that there are flat-eather Christians?

Liberal scientists are working very hard to prove that homosexuality is genetically caused, even though Christians consider it to be a choice. Yet, there is not a "Theistic homosexual" model of homosexuality.

The correct answer is because evolution is based on the presumption that God doesn't exist (or plays no role), so some Evolutoinists like to pretend that this implication does not exist by calling themselves "theistic evolutionists." With gravity, no claim is made that can't solidly be supported by emperical science, so there's no need to counter a non-existing presumption that God doesn't factor in.

 

[steen]

But, for Evolutionists so hopped up on "Evolution says nothing about abiogensis", why aren't there "Theistic Abiogenesists"?

Because there is no established Scientific Theory in that field yet, and (2) creationists have yet to actually discover Abiogenesis and hence have not started making false accusations about it. Likewise, they have not figured out that Physics is a separate discipline than Biology, and thus have not directly attacked physics for radiometric dating, instead making such attacks on biologists instead. It is because creationists lump all "science we disagree with" under "evolution" in their ignorance.

The correct answer is because evolution is based on the presumption that God doesn't exist

this is outright false.

(or plays no role),

This is also outright false. Rather, science is not able to determine anything about God, and thus can only go by the evidence.

so some Evolutoinists like to pretend that this implication does not exist by calling themselves "theistic evolutionists."

Another falsehood.

With gravity, no claim is made that can't solidly be supported by emperical science, so there's no need to counter a non-existing presumption that God doesn't factor in.

Huh? This certainly is also the case for Evolution. It is established through the application of the Scientific Method, just as the Scientific Theory of Gravity was established. The scientific supportive evidence is equally strong. If you can't see this, you must be incredibly uneducated about what the Scientific Method is.

 

[Assyrian]

The church dealt with the scientific evidence for heliocentrism, once it got over the initial reaction of setting the Inquisition on Galileo, and Luther calling Copernicus a fool. Flat earthers and geocentrists are recognised for the fringe they are.

What you call the correct answer, simply criticises evolution for being a science and operating the way every other science does. At least be consistent and reject all science as godless.

 

[jereth]

Guys, forget it, you're not going to change his mind.

 

[shernren]

Let's cut through the diatribe and get back to the big issue:

How do you know that God cannot work through a scientific process?

If not, how do you know that evolution cannot possibly be a work of God?

 

[theFijian]

So, you admit to "god of the gaps" At least you spared me that "Evolution says nothing about the origin of gravity" (never mind that an evolutionist brought up gravity).

There is a quite fundamental difference between a Creationist 'God-did-it' and a TE 'God-did-it'. A Creationist version is (usually) employed where were have a gap in our knowledge of some particular natural phenomenon and therefore God is used to bridge the gap. When a TE uses it (as was done earlier in this thread) it is stating that God is sovereign over all Creation and is pleased to work through nature to fulfil his divine will. Hope this helps.

 

[Mskedi]

When I joined these boards, I put down that I believe in "theistic evolution" because that was one of the options there and I felt it best described me, though I'd never heard the term.

In reading this thread, I'm realizing just how silly that is. I'm Christian. I hapen to believe the theory of evolution has some serious merit. I think taking Genesis literally is both silly and not necessary to be a Christian.

But I don't think I need the label "Theistic Evolution" in order to say those things since, as it has been said, the theory of evolution doesn't need that extra word in front of it. They have nothing to do with one another.

Interesting.

 

[gluadys]

When I joined these boards, I put down that I believe in "theistic evolution" because that was one of the options there and I felt it best described me, though I'd never heard the term.

In reading this thread, I'm realizing just how silly that is. I'm Christian. I hapen to believe the theory of evolution has some serious merit. I think taking Genesis literally is both silly and not necessary to be a Christian.

But I don't think I need the label "Theistic Evolution" in order to say those things since, as it has been said, the theory of evolution doesn't need that extra word in front of it. They have nothing to do with one another.

Interesting.

 

[steen]

When I joined these boards, I put down that I believe in "theistic evolution" because that was one of the options there and I felt it best described me, though I'd never heard the term.

In reading this thread, I'm realizing just how silly that is. I'm Christian. I hapen to believe the theory of evolution has some serious merit. I think taking Genesis literally is both silly and not necessary to be a Christian.

But I don't think I need the label "Theistic Evolution" in order to say those things since, as it has been said, the theory of evolution doesn't need that extra word in front of it. They have nothing to do with one another.

Interesting.

Exactly. When I signed up, I could not accept any of the labes provided and put in my own: "The Scientific Theory of Evolution."

 

[Alchemist]

Hi Poke,

But, for Evolutionists so hopped up on "Evolution says nothing about abiogensis", why aren't there "Theistic Abiogenesists"? I've never even heard the frase. How about "theistic spherical earthers", considering that Evolutionists like to pretend that there are flat-eather Christians?

The fact is, Poke, there have been flat-earther Christians; there was even a Flat Earth Society in existance until its president's death in 2001. And they believed what they did because they think the Bible says it is true.

Liberal scientists are working very hard to prove that homosexuality is genetically caused, even though Christians consider it to be a choice. Yet, there is not a "Theistic homosexual" model of homosexuality.

Yes, homosexual behaviour is sinful. But being genetically disposed to homosexual behaviour is not. It is only when you base your theology on science, rather than on God, that a genetic cause of homosexuality would threaten your faith.

The correct answer is because evolution is based on the presumption that God doesn't exist (or plays no role), so some Evolutoinists like to pretend that this implication does not exist by calling themselves "theistic evolutionists." With gravity, no claim is made that can't solidly be supported by emperical science, so there's no need to counter a non-existing presumption that God doesn't factor in.

Poke, theistic evolutionists call themselves such is because to call oneself an evolutionist, without qualification, is seen by many a Christian (such as yourself) as denying creation, which we do not. If every creationist understood what we believe, then the label would be unnecessary.

Peace,
Nick

 

[vossler]

If every creationist understood what we believe, then the label would be unnecessary.

Most of us understand, we just do not accept it because it is contrary to God's Word.

 

[theFijian]

Most of us understand, we just do not accept it because it is contrary to God's Word.

Yet you've consistently said you don't understand what TEs believe, so you can't really state that it's contrary to God's Word (which it isn't).