Formal debate proposal: accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

Status
Not open for further replies.

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm sick of creationists considering me a second-class Christian, assuming that I accept evolution because I know my Bible less or bring to it some foreign agenda instead of studying it honestly; and I'm sick of the kind of unlistening arrogance that can brand me "unbiblical" two posts after I've quoted six or seven verses in context demonstrating a particular point just because it rankles with creationists. The fruit many creationists display here seems to me to be incommensurate with the grace of Christ, and while I dare not comment on the efficacy of Christ's grace I think I am qualified to point out the rottenness of their fruit.

So hey mark, how about a nice good formal debate? Give me a week or two and I'll be free enough to get down in the Scriptures with you. I'm sick of you not listening and then claiming to know everything about what we believe. I doubt you'll listen even during this debate - but at least this will make it clear to everyone.

Motion: that accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans does not constitute a rejection of orthodox Christian belief.

My points are:
- that accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans ("accepting human evolution") is compatible with the infallibility and divine authority of Scripture.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the universal sinfulness of humanity and the necessity of justification by faith.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the biblical and classical doctrines of God, and thus that it is not logically tantamount to atheism.

Feel free to ask for clarification and rewording of any of the wordings or phrases used in the motion. I'll need to take two or three weeks to work through my current academic assignments but after that I should be free enough.

Something that mark should note before starting this debate is that I tend to use the style of talking to the galleries, especially in the context of a debate. When I debated orally this was the methodology taught me: that one debates not to convince one's opponents being asked to reject one's position for another, but rather to convince an impartial audience being asked to choose between two positions. As such, mark should probably make sure he can be comfortable with this style of dialogue.
 

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I'm sick of you not listening and then claiming to know everything about what we believe. I doubt you'll listen even during this debate - but at least this will make it clear to everyone.
I think it probably is already clear to everyone. Evolutionary creationists profess Christ here all the time. I don't think mark's saying they don't is going to fool even the casual browser. I've received lots of private messages from people I don't even know congratulating me for standing up to anti-Christian ideas and theology.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Make no mistake shernren, I only want to know when and where you want to have this debate. I have no problem arguing to convince a neutral audience and, in case you didn't know it, there is a moderated formal debate forum in General Theology.

Just make your proposal and we can discuss the terms and conditions there. I'm available via PM and would relish the opportunity to discuss this in a formal and moderated debate. I am especially intrigued that you are interested in focusing on the theological aspect, that just has me tickled pink.

But seriously, if you want to take this topic up I'll wait for your proposal in the Formal Debate Invitation thread or wherever you choose to make the formal invitation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,266
940
34
Ohio
✟77,093.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I think it probably is already clear to everyone. Evolutionary creationists profess Christ here all the time. I don't think mark's saying they don't is going to fool even the casual browser. I've received lots of private messages from people I don't even know congratulating me for standing up to anti-Christian ideas and theology.
Hear hear. It's rather amusing to read comments from mark implying that we don't care about Christianity or orthodoxy at all, when I've received rep comments from creationists on this very forum giving me kudos for sticking up for orthodox christian belief.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hear hear. It's rather amusing to read comments from mark implying that we don't care about Christianity or orthodoxy at all, when I've received rep comments from creationists on this very forum giving me kudos for sticking up for orthodox christian belief.

I'll be delighted to hear your comments in the peanut gallery if the formal debate actually happens. And by the way, kudos for sticking up for Christian belief, just wish I seen more of that here. Perhaps we will, God willing and the creek don't rise.
 
Upvote 0

RobertByers

Regular Member
Feb 26, 2008
714
9
59
✟15,909.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yec
Man was created by God as the bible says from the dust and not from the already existing apes. The women was created from the man's body. Neither were born.
There is no reason to see people as connected to apes because of the same shapeness of our bodies.
god simply looked at what was the best type of body for a being in his image and selected its blueprint. We are a part of creation and so must be just like creation.
otherwise we would have to have very strange different bodies.
what else would anyone pick for our bodies but the ape/ A cow, bird, giraffe?

We are a special case of creation. Directly created in the image of God and then given the best body type in the creation. it could only be this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: juvenissun
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
475
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟63,625.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I'll be delighted to hear your comments in the peanut gallery if the formal debate actually happens. And by the way, kudos for sticking up for Christian belief, just wish I seen more of that here. Perhaps we will, God willing and the creek don't rise.
Mark,

As someone who used to enjoy reading your posts in this section of the forums, these days I find your posts condescending and quite lacking in grace and love (the idea that you don't see much of TEs sticking up for christian belief is just ludicrous at best, false witness at worse). I left these parts because I found this kind of sniping was unhealthy and unedifying and have only recently returned. What a shame to see that nothing much has changed.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yec
Man was created by God as the bible says from the dust and not from the already existing apes. The women was created from the man's body. Neither were born.

Amen, just as the Scriptures teach.

There is no reason to see people as connected to apes because of the same shapeness of our bodies.
god simply looked at what was the best type of body for a being in his image and selected its blueprint. We are a part of creation and so must be just like creation.
otherwise we would have to have very strange different bodies.
what else would anyone pick for our bodies but the ape/ A cow, bird, giraffe?

I think evolution has some merit with regards to some transitions, I just refuse to make an assumption that we are all related by lineage. Human evolution has long been my sole concern and as far as that goes the human brain is close to three times the size of apes. The genetic mechanism for this change remains a mystery to science but the assumption that it in fact happened is ubiquitous to modern science. I think there is plenty of room for skepticism here.

We are a special case of creation. Directly created in the image of God and then given the best body type in the creation. it could only be this way.

Of course I agree on both theological grounds as well as scientific research that is directly relevant.

Appreciate you input.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Mark,

As someone who used to enjoy reading your posts in this section of the forums, these days I find your posts condescending and quite lacking in grace and love (the idea that you don't see much of TEs sticking up for christian belief is just ludicrous at best, false witness at worse). I left these parts because I found this kind of sniping was unhealthy and unedifying and have only recently returned. What a shame to see that nothing much has changed.

Nothing will change until the Theological issues are finally brought out. I'm perfectly content to take TEs to task on evolution on the scientific merits of both sides of the argument. I think the scientific and theological arguments can be logically separated from one another.

I have been in this forum from the beginning and would deeply treasure the ability to be a peacemaker on a subject I see as interesting but not necessarily at odds with Christian theism. I just cannot compromise on doctrine and it's not creationists who turned what common ground we have into a no man's land. I think TEs are being lured into a secular philosophy that is divisive and contentious.

A year ago I wouldn't have had the slightest interest in discussion the theological implications of TOE with TEs. I have finally come to the realization that it's not the scientific evidence that is at state, it's core Christian conviction.

I'm sorry you are so disappointed with the forum but I won't apologize for confronting what I consider to be a grievous error, namely attacking the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith covertly by making Adam a figure of speech. If the debate happens I would be interested in what your thoughts are on the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have been in this forum from the beginning and would deeply treasure the ability to be a peacemaker on a subject I see as interesting but not necessarily at odds with Christian theism. I just cannot compromise on doctrine and it's not creationists who turned what common ground we have into a no man's land. I think TEs are being lured into a secular philosophy that is divisive and contentious.

A year ago I wouldn't have had the slightest interest in discussion the theological implications of TOE with TEs. I have finally come to the realization that it's not the scientific evidence that is at state, it's core Christian conviction.

I'm sorry you are so disappointed with the forum but I won't apologize for confronting what I consider to be a grievous error, namely attacking the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith covertly by making Adam a figure of speech. If the debate happens I would be interested in what your thoughts are on the discussion.

How easily he forgets!

Grab your Bible, put your theology brain cap on and let's compare TE to YEC as Christian doctrine. I have some good news for my fellow Creationists, the Bible is evidence, theology is science and if you have to choose between empirical knowledge and faith you are capable of grasping neither.

You don't understand the theology or just how many Christians embrace the literal, historical Adam as specially created by divine fiat. I did not pull this out of my hat, this is the doctrine (teaching) of Christians on the topic of Adam and sins entrance into humanity.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, the only alternative interpretations I can find are based on Liberal Theology which is Atheistic/Agnostic philosophy put in theological language. So if you are wondering why I am being so harsh about this it's because it sounds like what I'm hearing is not a Christian theology but a worldly philosophy put in Christian language.

(all emphases added)

All that happened around March 2007. Then again, harsh words like thrown daggers make far deeper impressions in the hearts of those who hear them than the heart of he who says them, so your forgetfulness is hardly a surprise.

Newsflash mark, I don't think anybody here really thinks you have the slightest intention or hope of making peace. And I don't think anybody really cares that much any more. But the pretense of kind intention, now that wears thin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
How easily he forgets!

Preaching to the theater again I see.

All that happened around March 2007. Then again, harsh words like thrown daggers make far deeper impressions in the hearts of those who hear them than the heart of he who says them, so your forgetfulness is hardly a surprise.

Newsflash mark, I don't think anybody here really thinks you have the slightest intention or hope of making peace. And I don't think anybody really cares that much any more. But the pretense of kind intention, now that wears thin.

When have you or your cohorts ever shown kindness to Creationists. You run them out of here and the few who remain are treated as fools or something worse. When I do try to offer some small token of friendly kindness you lash out and me in highly emotive and inflammatory rhetoric. This is how origins is discussed in this forum, I don't call the tune, I just dance to it.

If you want to take a more balanced or benign approach to your discussions then by all means, lets improve the level of civility. However when it comes to doctrine I do not compromise nor make concessions for the modern mythology of atheistic naturalism, even when it's being argued by professing Christians.

By the way, I responded to your formal debate invitation. If you are still interested we can discuss the terms conditions and source material or we can begin any time you choose. Just let me know something when you find the time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: busterdog
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟19,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think it probably is already clear to everyone. Evolutionary creationists profess Christ here all the time. I don't think mark's saying they don't is going to fool even the casual browser. I've received lots of private messages from people I don't even know congratulating me for standing up to anti-Christian ideas and theology.


Well, I think Mark is saying his view of Genesis is very important to sound soteriology. Not essential mind, you, and on that point we have divergent views in the extreme. I think many would very much prefer Mark to say it is essential to saving faith. He is saying that bad OT tends to make for bad theology where salvation is concerned. Tends to. There is evidence for this (even if he is exaggerating) and one would think such opinion is within bounds for civil discussion.

And the fact is that you did have TEs that werent very T and left the fold after Mark levelled his rather insistent broadsides on the issue. Fact: he was right that some were not believers. (And they have that right, but there is nothing wrong is saying their faith isnt Christian if it isnt, which it wasnt. And there is nothing wrong with challenging someone on the fence to be clear about this, and a number clearly are or have been on the fence.)

Not every TE shows an interest in even having Mark as a brother in Christ. If they have that interest at all, it is well concealed.

The brother's got strong opinions and doesnt compromise them. Why is that such a big deal? I suspect, tell me if I am wrong, that what the TEs are doing here is saying that they conclude that Mark has judged the majority of TEs as being unsaved because he questions their salvation. If I am right, it means many a TE here doesnt understand the difference between questioning and judging. I think many are so thin skinned on the issue that they cant abide the slightest question, since it opens up the possibility of someone become Sister Mary Elephant and coming in here to slap everyone's hands for being Godless pagans. That is what I am hearing in the attack on Mark's tone -- that it is so strong that it tends to make people think he is judging them and that he has no right to raise the question in anyone's mind. Even if he never condemns anyone's position as being saved.

If you think he really believes any particular TE isnt saved or Christian, ask him. I doubt he would challenge your confession of saving faith in Jesus Christ. But he might caution you not to be won over by atheistic evolutionists.

Fact: Tinker Grey, God love him, changed his affiliation to unbeliever within the last few months. Civil, yes. Educated, yes. Pleasant, yes. Helpful, yes. Believer? I am not spitting nails here. At least if you admit a fact, you can pray over it. Its ok to question belief. Conviction is a good thing.

Fact: Enemy Party participated as a believer on this thread before the rules changed. Her profile says YEC. Then she publicly defends inappropriate contentography here. There isnt a confession of faith in her profile. Again, God bless her. But, my point is that questioning is not wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Thank you busterdog, I know I get a little harsh in some of my posts. I'd be willing to tone it down a bit but I have looked at this in the scientific literature and I am well aware of the theological trappings and pitfalls as well. I was seriously leaning towards TE for a long time but found the lineage of Adam in the New Testament to be unambiguous. Paul directly ties it to justification by faith which makes it as a doctrinal issue a dividing line.

I do not know anyone on here personally and certainly don't pretend to be able to search their hearts and souls to see if they are 'in Christ'. I just think that there is a philosophy out there in the world that is poisoning the minds of Christians against the Bible.

I don't know that every creationist I encounter on here is a believer and I would test their doctrinal stand should they choose to defend it Biblically. I remember reading Henry Morris' book on Biblical Creationism and I was floored when he said that Moses had some kind of clay tablets with the genealogies on them. I just think that is ridiculous, I honestly have no idea where he got them but the women on my Dad's side of the family all have genealogies for our family going back to colonial times.

At any rate, I would be willing to tone it down a bit or go back to just looking at the scientific evidence exclusively but mind you. Just the fact that I'm willing to discuss the doctrinal issues with them should indicate that I consider them Christians simply caught in error because I would never discuss theology with atheistic materialists.

I think that Darwinism is dangerous when it touches on Christian doctrine, I think we do well to warn TEs that they are being led astray.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟19,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hear hear. It's rather amusing to read comments from mark implying that we don't care about Christianity or orthodoxy at all, when I've received rep comments from creationists on this very forum giving me kudos for sticking up for orthodox christian belief.

When did he say "Melethiel" doesnt care about Christianity or orthodoxy?
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟19,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you busterdog, I know I get a little harsh in some of my posts. I'd be willing to tone it down a bit but I have looked at this in the scientific literature and I am well aware of the theological trappings and pitfalls as well.

That is your affair. When the content of what you say is recognized for what it is, maybe that is the time to start worrying about tone. The precise content of your words is not as others describe. If God leads you to change your tone, change your tone. But, the fact that others lack an understanding (or willingness to understand) where you are coming from is not a clarion call to contortions when the content of what you say is within bounds.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CraigBaugher

Member
Feb 18, 2008
301
38
Visit site
✟8,167.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Time is relative, is it not? Therefore what happens in 24-hours let's say to us, can be a nano second, or a billion years. In fact, everyone can be 100% correct, especially when we are talking the creation of the universe, the sun, moon, earth, and the planets in our solar system. It all relative to speed. If sometime is moving at 10-times the speed of light, would be something like 1,716 years to 1-day. So how fast is God?
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟19,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Time is relative, is it not? Therefore what happens in 24-hours let's say to us, can be a nano second, or a billion years. In fact, everyone can be 100% correct, especially when we are talking the creation of the universe, the sun, moon, earth, and the planets in our solar system. It all relative to speed. If sometime is moving at 10-times the speed of light, would be something like 1,716 years to 1-day. So how fast is God?

That is true. To God a day is like a thousand years and vice versa.

However, he does not say to us that the sabbath can be celebrated in 5 minutes if you really want to consider 5 min. the same as a day. So, the relative value of time doesnt tell you what Gen. 1 means, Gen. 1 should tell you.

Further, the big bang proposition assumes physical laws and a consistency in time in remote periods of the evolution of the universe. Those assumptions are all very pretty, but far from deserving of elevation to dogma. If time is not as sancrosanct as you say, and I think I agree, then other models are worthy of consideration. Why not white hole cosmology (though I dont agree with it for whatever that is worth). The same is true of biological evolution, the math/timeframe doesnt work well, so its not worthy of being pushed as hard as it is.
 
Upvote 0

CraigBaugher

Member
Feb 18, 2008
301
38
Visit site
✟8,167.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
That is true. To God a day is like a thousand years and vice versa.

However, he does not say to us that the sabbath can be celebrated in 5 minutes if you really want to consider 5 min. the same as a day. So, the relative value of time doesnt tell you what Gen. 1 means, Gen. 1 should tell you.

Further, the big bang proposition assumes physical laws and a consistency in time in remote periods of the evolution of the universe. Those assumptions are all very pretty, but far from deserving of elevation to dogma. If time is not as sancrosanct as you say, and I think I agree, then other models are worthy of consideration. Why not white hole cosmology (though I dont agree with it for whatever that is worth). The same is true of biological evolution, the math/timeframe doesnt work well, so its not worthy of being pushed as hard as it is.

Ok, Heaven and earth in six-24-hours days right? Just need a little help if you may, when did the dinosaurs walk the earth? And if you could, was Adam a Modern Man, a Neanderthal, or Austrelapithikus?
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟19,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok, Heaven and earth in six-24-hours days right? Just need a little help if you may, when did the dinosaurs walk the earth? And if you could, was Adam a Modern Man, a Neanderthal, or Austrelapithikus?

Well, not sure what you are asking for. I will just sum up my view:

Adam was a homo sapiens.

Dinosaurs existed for the first couple thousand years of creation. Dinosaurs were documented in the book of Job, who was prior to Moses. I dont know when they died out.

I think the problem with 24 hour days is whether can imagine that it happened that way. Somehow folks thing a big bang is more likely because it involved one ex nihilo (or singularity or whatever) event rather than, say 10 to the 60th such events. That is no basis however for one theory to be preferred over the other -- or more precisely for the proponents of one to be contemptuous of the other and completely exclude consideration of the other.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CraigBaugher

Member
Feb 18, 2008
301
38
Visit site
✟8,167.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, not sure what you are asking for. I will just sum up my view:

Adam was a homo sapiens.

Dinosaurs existed for the first couple thousand years of creation. Dinosaurs were documented in the book of Job, who was prior to Moses. I dont know when they died out.

I think the problem with 24 hour days is whether can imagine that it happened that way. Somehow folks thing a big bang is more likely because it involved one ex nihilo (or singularity or whatever) event rather than, say 10 to the 60th such events. That is no basis however for one theory to be preferred over the other -- or more precisely for the proponents of one to be contemptuous of the other and completely exclude consideration of the other.

really... where in Job?

and how come, no homo sapiens bones dated back to dinosaurs?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.