Who yokes with who?

[Dannager]

[/i]

Okay...amazing how it seems contradictory at first...
I agree that small changes within a species occur, but *not* to the point of creating a different species entirely...

alaska, minnesota, florida rabbits....they're all still rabbits... despite their genetic differences, they are still the same *species*

http://www.petwebsite.com/rabbits/rabbit_species.htm. All of these are rabbits, but there are over 50 different species listed besides the domestic rabbit.

 

[Gwenyfur]

http://www.petwebsite.com/rabbits/rabbit_species.htm. All of these are rabbits, but there are over 50 different species listed besides the domestic rabbit.

and there are hundreds of breeds of "dogs" but they are essentially still....

....dogs

 

[Dannager]

and there are hundreds of breeds of "dogs" but they are essentially still....

....dogs

No no no, there are hundreds of dog breeds. All dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are of the same species. I provided you with a link to over fifty rabbit species, not breeds. The domestic rabbit species alone (Oryctolagus cuniculus) has a wide variety of breeds associated with it. Breeds are not the same as species.

 

[Dracil]

Maybe this is a better way of understanding it.

Pretend this color spectrum is the timeline of an organism population's evolution.

Pretend each standard color (red, green, blue, etc.) is it evolving into a different species.

Please tell me the exact points at which this occurs.

If you feel that it's actually a gradient instead, and there isn't an exact boundary, that's an acceptable answer as well, in which case, apply that concept to evolution.

 

[Dannager]

Maybe this is a better way of understanding it.

Pretend this color spectrum is the timeline of an organism population's evolution.

Pretend each standard color (red, green, blue, etc.) is it evolving into a different species.

Please tell me the exact points at which this occurs.

If you feel that it's actually a gradient instead, and there isn't an exact boundary, that's an acceptable answer as well, in which case, apply that concept to evolution.

This is a good example. A population's evolution can be thought of as a gradient. To further elaborate, pretend that creatures of roughly the same color can reproduce with eachother, but creatures that aren't of the same color cannot do so. For example, an orange might be able to mate with a yellow or a red, but a red cannot mate with a yellow and expect to produce offspring. The point at which that distinction occurs varies by individual genetic compatibility level. The gradient analogy fits very well.

 

[Gwenyfur]

No no no, there are hundreds of dog breeds. All dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are of the same species. I provided you with a link to over fifty rabbit species, not breeds. The domestic rabbit species alone (Oryctolagus cuniculus) has a wide variety of breeds associated with it. Breeds are not the same as species.

You can refer to them as hundreds of species of rabbits, but many of those breeds can interbreed and mix up the works, therefore they are still...breeding...still ... rabbits.

 

[Gwenyfur]

This is a good example. A population's evolution can be thought of as a gradient. To further elaborate, pretend that creatures of roughly the same color can reproduce with eachother, but creatures that aren't of the same color cannot do so. For example, an orange might be able to mate with a yellow or a red, but a red cannot mate with a yellow and expect to produce offspring. The point at which that distinction occurs varies by individual genetic compatibility level. The gradient analogy fits very well.

okay so a horse and a mule can breed and produce a "jenny" but the jenny is sterile...

so can the rabbits, and so can the dogs

and yet some offsprings depending on the breeds are sterile...

 

[Pats]

And that is precisely what I'm refering to here. It is a relevant thread that does deal with important spiritual questions.

I saw a Creationist in that thread getting flamed by a non-Christian, no big surprise. When she quoted scripture as a way of saying, "It's no skin off my back," a TE actually joined in with the non-Christian on heckling her for quoting of scripture.

Do you have a link to the specific flame, response, and heckling? Or their post numbers.

Yes, but I'm thinking that it'd derail this thread to post it here. Plus, I'd rather not single out posts from one person like that in another open thread. I'll talk it over via PM if you want.

EDIT: The thread I was originally refering to has been moderated and edited. The episode I was discussing has been removed. Maybe it was for the best.

 

[Willtor]

Wiltor

Thanks for the effort it's appreciated

You are right we do disagree on several points. I believe G-d's word is faithful and true as He promised. I believe the word is true...every printed page. I believe the Genesis account as literal, I believe the flood account as literal. and I believe that the L-rd, had He used evolution, would not have waited until the 17th century to reveal that fact to mankind

I also believe in the Word of God. I believe that he is of one essence with the Father, and that true knowledge of him is, itself, true knowledge of God. I believe that he resides in and is revealed through the canon according to his pleasure. I believe that when He has spoken to men, it has been on their level, and in a context they could understand.

I suspect that nature is seamless. Apart from the miraculous, I suspect that God has not "left holes" in nature where nature is unable to function. I believe that nature moves itself as God moves it, and I disbelieve a dualism that either gives nature autonomy or makes God into a puppeteer. If nature includes natural mutation, natural crossover, and natural selection, then I believe that our acknowledgment of this is glorifying to God.

I understand the theory of evolution to a certain degree...I don't claim to be a scientist, but I do claim to be able to read and understand documents and claims made by scientists.

I rarely agree with them, especially when the word of G-d is a stronger measure than the knowledge and wisdom of man

I don't usually understand them. I understand the technical writings of the scientists in my field (and even then, only in a few areas of it), but I don't usually understand technical documents from other fields. This has been problematic, as I have many Chinese friends who want me to help proof-read their papers for English grammar and spelling. I am always concerned that my corrections may be (inadvertantly) altering content.

As such, I would very much like to argue theology (an area in which I am more well-versed) and support a viewpoint that says that there is nothing that science can conclude that would contradict God's revelation; even if it appears to contradict it, and even if non-Christians use it against God's revelation.

That is where I'm at...that is where I will stay. To say that G-d created death before sin entered the world is against His word, when several times in scripture He states that Death entered the world through Adam. How many generations of animals died before Adam eventually "evolved"? Doesn't add up..

The Bible stated the earth was round long before Christopher Columbus proved it
The Bible stated the "life was in the blood" long before people stopped leeching
The Bible stated not to touch dead people/animals unless you bathed thoroughly afterwards...long before science discovered the bacteria that kills...
The list goes on and on...so why would I believe the "wisdom of men" in this century...when it's been proven so so so wrong in all the previous millenia?

I wouldn't...G-d remains the same, yesterday, today and forever

Then let us explore the wisdom of God and decide how the Scriptures should be interpreted so that our understandings most closely match what was intended.

 

[Pats]

YECs criticize TEs for not evangelizing to nonbelieving posters. One thing they don't understand is that alot of times YECers make Christianity look preposterous to intelligent nonbelievers.

Please explain how ignoring questions about God by TEs is related to some YECs coming accross preposterous looking.

Another important point here, what looks and sounds preposterous is truly in the ear of the listener. To some, Jesus resurecting from the dead, or being the only begotten son of God is preposterous. In that case, I'm not affraid to look preposterous.

I'm equally unafraid to consider the possibility that the Creation was a miraculous event for wich there can be no scientific verification. I don't know for sure, I wasn't there.

A number of times, I have witnessed them saying that either the world is less than 10,000 years old like they think Genesis says it is, or throw the Bible out. A nonbeliever will be like,"Sure, no problem!" Then the problem gets compounded by some the YECs gleefully telling nonbelievers they are going to Hell. It is gruesome.

Any person of any theology pronouncing to others that they are going to Hell is not evangilism, and it's not even close to what I'm susggesting as whitnessing opportunities. The thing is, if/when a YECist said something like, the world is 6,000 yrs old or throw the Bible out, that's where a TE could explain to the nonbeliever that not all Christians feel that way and why. This is my opinion of sharing faith in a forum like that. If you don't share it, then you're better off not doing it. I'm just surprised by the amount of people who apparently seem they'd rather not do it at all.

The effect is that Christianity and Christians look irrational and mean-spririted, entrenching nonbelievers and deconverting struggling Christians.

Agreed. This is no way to talk to people.

I know that alot of nonbelievers were raised Christian or are more familiar with the Bible than alot of Christians. All I can do is try to be rational myself so I don't make Christianity look nutty. I don't have to hammer them. I've discussed Christianity with a number of them this way.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

You just have to remember that they put their pants on one leg at a time just like we do. They aren't any more evil or less than people you would see in churches every Sunday.

Jesus came for the lost, not for the believer but for the nonbeliever. Hopefully, most Christians understand that.

 

[Pats]

I also believe in the Word of God. I believe that he is of one essence with the Father, and that true knowledge of him is, itself, true knowledge of God. I believe that he resides in and is revealed through the canon according to his pleasure. I believe that when He has spoken to men, it has been on their level, and in a context they could understand.

I suspect that nature is seamless. Apart from the miraculous, I suspect that God has not "left holes" in nature where nature is unable to function. I believe that nature moves itself as God moves it, and I disbelieve a dualism that either gives nature autonomy or makes God into a puppeteer. If nature includes natural mutation, natural crossover, and natural selection, then I believe that our acknowledgment of this is glorifying to God.



I don't usually understand them. I understand the technical writings of the scientists in my field (and even then, only in a few areas of it), but I don't usually understand technical documents from other fields. This has been problematic, as I have many Chinese friends who want me to help proof-read their papers for English grammar and spelling. I am always concerned that my corrections may be (inadvertantly) altering content.

As such, I would very much like to argue theology (an area in which I am more well-versed) and support a viewpoint that says that there is nothing that science can conclude that would contradict God's revelation; even if it appears to contradict it, and even if non-Christians use it against God's revelation.



Then let us explore the wisdom of God and decide how the Scriptures should be interpreted so that our understandings most closely match what was intended.

This is extreamly well stated. It's clearly spelling out why you've come to the conclusions that you've come to. I think that's what each Christian should be able to do. Spell out why they believe what they believe.

Our theologies may not match up, but our attitude toward the truth of the scriptures and God certainly do. I suspect more Creationists and TEs agree more than they'd like to admit.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Then let us explore the wisdom of God and decide how the Scriptures should be interpreted so that our understandings most closely match what was intended.

Sounds fun!

 

[Willtor]

Please explain how ignoring questions about God by TEs is related to some YECs coming accross preposterous looking.

Another important point here, what looks and sounds preposterous is truly in the ear of the listener. To some, Jesus resurecting from the dead, or being the only begotten son of God is preposterous. In that case, I'm not affraid to look preposterous.

I'm equally unafraid to consider the possibility that the Creation was a miraculous event for wich there can be no scientific verification. I don't know for sure, I wasn't there.

Any person of any theology pronouncing to others that they are going to Hell is not evangilism, and it's not even close to what I'm susggesting as whitnessing opportunities. The thing is, if/when a YECist said something like, the world is 6,000 yrs old or throw the Bible out, that's where a TE could explain to the nonbeliever that not all Christians feel that way and why. This is my opinion of sharing faith in a forum like that. If you don't share it, then you're better off not doing it. I'm just surprised by the amount of people who apparently seem they'd rather not do it at all.

Agreed. This is no way to talk to people.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Jesus came for the lost, not for the believer but for the nonbeliever. Hopefully, most Christians understand that.

I think the strongest statement I can make about evangelism is to use the examples of those who came before (not least of whom being Christ, himself). The greatest "missionary" work has been from a position of humility and relation. It's not up to them to meet us. It is up to us to go to where they are and meet them in their own context (I Cor. 9:22). That is more than just meeting them in the conventional sense. It is meeting them at their own levels. When the language was Hebrew, the Word was made known in Hebrew using Hebrew patterns of thought so that the Hebrews would understand. When the language was Greek, the Word made himself known in Greek using Greek patterns of thought so that the Greeks would understand.

And now, the language and patterns of thought (for some) are those of science. We TE's think we are right in the area of origins, and some of us (I won't speak for all, even if all agree) are afraid that YEC's are subjecting the Scriptures (and even the Word) to undue ridicule by passing off a particular counter-scientific interpretation as a necessary inference of Dogma. In the scientific part of the forum, we endeavor to speak scientifically about scientific matters. If they are led to question the nature of the faith by this, then that is the work of the Spirit, and we ought to make ourselves available.

But the typical view is that the YEC position is equivalent to the faith in Christ. We try to make opportunities to show that this is not so. If a TE brother ridicules a YEC brother, he has become overly-zealous, and this is bad, too. He ought to refute the YEC position, even if it is a PRATT.

 

[Dannager]

You can refer to them as hundreds of species of rabbits, but many of those breeds can interbreed and mix up the works, therefore they are still...breeding...still ... rabbits.

For reference, please see http://www.lagomania.com/taxonomy.html. I will quote from that site:

Breeds are not Species

Some sites on the web are careless about the usage of these words. Two rabbits are considered different species if they cannot have kits together. There are about 54 species of rabbits.

Each one of those species I listed are genetically distinct and is incompatible with other species. Individual breeds are compatible. Are you beginning to see why your classification system has a problem? It seemed like common sense to you to say that rabbits are rabbits and dogs are dogs, but in reality dogs are dogs and rabbits are 54 or so different species all of which are genetically distinct. The same holds true for many other groups of animals you might be familiar with, I imagine.

Gwenyfur, this is why it is so important to have a clearly illustrated classification system and why the creationist "kind" does not cut it.

 

[Dannager]

okay so a horse and a mule can breed and produce a "jenny" but the jenny is sterile...

so can the rabbits, and so can the dogs

and yet some offsprings depending on the breeds are sterile...

Again, see the post above this one for more information on why your rabbit classification is incorrect.

Gwenyfur, you have your horses, mules and donkeys wrong. Female horses breed with male donkeys to make mules. Mules are generally sterile. Male horses breed with female donkeys to make a hinny. They are also generally sterile. A jenny is a female donkey, you got that much right, but they aren't the product of mules and horses. The sterility occurs because horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Mules and hinnies end up with 63 which doesn't divide evenly - thus, sterility. This is important. While the two can produce offspring, the offspring are sterile and incapable of reproduction due to their incompatibility. This is actually an argument against your point because it clearly illustrates the genetic incompatibility (if in a non-traditional manner) that I am talking about.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Now you sound like my grampa...

I never could keep mules donkeys straight ROFL

 

[Pats]

I think the strongest statement I can make about evangelism is to use the examples of those who came before (not least of whom being Christ, himself). The greatest "missionary" work has been from a position of humility and relation. It's not up to them to meet us. It is up to us to go to where they are and meet them in their own context (I Cor. 9:22). That is more than just meeting them in the conventional sense. It is meeting them at their own levels. When the language was Hebrew, the Word was made known in Hebrew using Hebrew patterns of thought so that the Hebrews would understand. When the language was Greek, the Word made himself known in Greek using Greek patterns of thought so that the Greeks would understand.

Agreed.

And now, the language and patterns of thought (for some) are those of science. We TE's think we are right in the area of origins, and some of us (I won't speak for all, even if all agree) are afraid that YEC's are subjecting the Scriptures (and even the Word) to undue ridicule by passing off a particular counter-scientific interpretation as a necessary inference of Dogma. In the scientific part of the forum, we endeavor to speak scientifically about scientific matters. If they are led to question the nature of the faith by this, then that is the work of the Spirit, and we ought to make ourselves available.

I can see your point of view on this, although I'm not in complete agreement with it.

For some people, this is most certainly the case and TEs are best equiped to share them the gospel with them. Some people are simply hurting and don't understand why they hurt if God is good. There are many different sorts of lost folks, just as there are many different sorts of Christians.

Perhaps, Jesus uses us all in different ways? (May be a bit of a relative view point, but I'm begining to see it this way.)

I'm not best equiped to minister to a person who is very scientificlly minded, as I am not. However, I am a survivor of abuse, and have helped women who have suffered the same way I did. We speak the same language, as you pionted out.

As to YEC's subjecting the scriptures to undue ridicule, I can see how a Christian evolutionist would come to this conclusion. As a creationist, we see that man's wisdom can come under flaw that God's wisdom is not subject to. I would also say that Jesus told us to expect to be rejected by the world.

But the typical view is that the YEC position is equivalent to the faith in Christ. We try to make opportunities to show that this is not so.

That is what I was originally saying I thought TE's should do in the thread in the Creationist forum that started all of this.

I have a friend who is very scientificlly minded but open to the existance of an undefined god. I feel illequiped to whitness much further to him. I think he'd benefit a great deal from talking with a TEist. This was part of the original conversation. I would rather see him become a brother in Christ with a different theology than mine, than remain a nonbeliever.

If a TE brother ridicules a YEC brother, he has become overly-zealous, and this is bad, too. He ought to refute the YEC position, even if it is a PRATT.

Agreed, YECs should treat TEs the same way.

But what is that PRATT short for?

 

[Dannager]

I have a friend who is very scientificlly minded but open to the existance of an undefined god. I feel illequiped to whitness much further to him. I think he'd benefit a great deal from talking with a TEist. This was part of the original conversation. I would rather see him become a brother in Christ with a different theology than mine, than remain a nonbeliever.



Agreed, YECs should treat TEs the same way.

But what is that PRATT short for?

PRATT stands for Point Refuted A Thousand Times. I think now it should be obvious why some are a little reluctant to provide the refutation every time the issue comes up. It gets a little trying after the 50th time or so (and that is not an exaggeration). Not that each and every individual isn't deserving of an explanation, because I believe that they are - as long as they are willing to listen. Our refutations fall on deaf ears a little too often for satisfaction.

And you're right, it would be a fine idea to have a TE talk to him.

 

[Willtor]

. . .

I can see your point of view on this, although I'm not in complete agreement with it.

For some people, this is most certainly the case and TEs are best equiped to share them the gospel with them. Some people are simply hurting and don't understand why they hurt if God is good. There are many different sorts of lost folks, just as there are many different sorts of Christians.

Perhaps, Jesus uses us all in different ways? (May be a bit of a relative view point, but I'm begining to see it this way.)

I'm not best equiped to minister to a person who is very scientificlly minded, as I am not. However, I am a survivor of abuse, and have helped women who have suffered the same way I did. We speak the same language, as you pionted out.

As to YEC's subjecting the scriptures to undue ridicule, I can see how a Christian evolutionist would come to this conclusion. As a creationist, we see that man's wisdom can come under flaw that God's wisdom is not subject to. I would also say that Jesus told us to expect to be rejected by the world.

That is what I was originally saying I thought TE's should do in the thread in the Creationist forum that started all of this.

I have a friend who is very scientificlly minded but open to the existance of an undefined god. I feel illequiped to whitness much further to him. I think he'd benefit a great deal from talking with a TEist. This was part of the original conversation. I would rather see him become a brother in Christ with a different theology than mine, than remain a nonbeliever.

. . .

There is always the question of what is man's wisdom vs. what is God's wisdom. But characterizing something as man's wisdom (off the cuff) is a weak argument because nothing has been addressed of what tools are valid for exploring the Word. To be sure, we are fallen, but that doesn't lend credibility to either position. It just makes us question more. If something is for real, there may be ways to determine this. If one interpretation of the Scriptures is better than another, there may be ways to determine this, too. Hence, theology and science.

Beyond this, and more directly to your post, you are equipped to minister to a particular group of people in a way that I could never, and would never hope to be. I would be a bumbler, and I would almost certainly step on quite a lot of toes. If I were to argue that I knew more about the language and nature of suffering than one who had actually suffered, only the very most honest and able would still be able to listen to the rest of what I had to say. Even if I could use Scripture to "back up" my statements (especially then) I would not be in a better position to minister to these particular people than you are. As such, until we meet in heaven, it is unlikely I will understand some of these things to the same degree as you.

Science is not nearly so sensitive a subject as abuse. But it is a language, process, and culture complete with subtlety and nuance. It must be treated as such by all involved. St. Augustine had a rather harsh critique of believers who brandished their ignorance in such matters, and so subjected the gospel to unnecessary ridicule. Not ridicule, as such. But unnecessary ridicule. The cross of Christ is a topic of stumbling to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. But it is what it is. Beyond that all-important subject, it would be difficult to make a case for the necessity of the unbeliever's estrangement from the Christian religion.

 

[Lilandra]

The thing is we're not called to make things look intelligent to the nonbeliever, all we're called to do is preach the Word. It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict a person and to convert the human soul.

God says my ways are not your ways. If the universe is telling a story that it is billions of years old it is because God created it that way.

St Augustine said that many nonbelievers are versed in the ways of the universe. For a believer to tell them something like the universe is 10,000 year old discredits Christianity.

Why do you think nonbelievers believe Genesis says the world is less than 10,000 years old? Because that's what is says!

That is what Bishop Usher said not what Genesis says. The 10,000 year old figure appears nowhere in the text.

Yes Christians look irrational, the Bible says they will, but certainly not mean-spirited.

I am only referring to Christians who gleefully speculate on whether posters are going to Hell. I have even been told this myself by other Christians. It is meanspirited.

To a large extent that is true, sad but true. Yet, there should be a tremendous difference.

If more Christians would understand that they are sinners just like nonbelievers and stop being judgemental evangelism would be more effective.