Theistic Evolution

[[serious]]

Why?

Doesn't the Bible say It is just as up-to-date today as It was when It was written?

You disagree?

Then what does this passage mean:

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

I've never seen "quick" defined as "up-to-date"

 

[AV1611VET]

Magic.

Nope.

Care to try again?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never seen "quick" defined as "up-to-date"

I'm not surprised.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Creationism isn't scientific, either. That too would be theistic...

Creationism and science get along just fine. There is no conflict between science and the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The best way to have the Bible invalidated is to require a literal interpretation of Genesis. You might as well try to bring back a flat Earth and Geocentrism.

There is no conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis and Science. You have to read Genesis one word at a time and you have to understand the meaning of the Hebrew words. Let us start with the word "Beginning". How does the word beginning conflict with Science? Does Science believe there was a beginning or not? Last I checked Evolution believes there were 25 beginning.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/bespoke/story/20150123-earths-25-biggest-turning-points/

Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. From what I know about Science there is overwhelming evidence for the belief that there are beginnings and everything eventually comes to an end. Science likes to use words like extinctions and explosions or radiations.

 

[bhsmte]

Creationism and science get along just fine. There is no conflict between science and the Bible.

Maybe in your world.

 

[lesliedellow]

There is no conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis and Science. You have to read Genesis one word at a time and you have to understand the meaning of the Hebrew words. Let us start with the word "Beginning". How does the word beginning conflict with Science? Does Science believe there was a beginning or not? Last I checked Evolution believes there were 25 beginning.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/bespoke/story/20150123-earths-25-biggest-turning-points/

Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. From what I know about Science there is overwhelming evidence for the belief that there are beginnings and everything eventually comes to an end. Science likes to use words like extinctions and explosions or radiations.

Exactly how does that BBC website lend support to a seven day creation?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Exactly how does that BBC website lend support to a seven day creation?

Try to focus here, we are ONLY talking about ONE word: "Beginning". When you understand the meaning of the word: "beginning" then we can go on to talk about the meaning of another word.

The BBC link talks about TWENTY FIVE (25) Beginnings. 25 examples of what the word "beginning" means. You can argue against this idea. For example you can say the earth travels around the sun, always has and always well. But science says there was a beginning. There was a time when the solar system was created and there will be a time when the solar system will be destroyed. So there is a beginning and there is an end. Even though the elements were already here to create a solar system. So the beginning does not mean something from nothing. It means something new from what was already here.

 

[lesliedellow]

Try to focus here, we are ONLY talking about ONE word: "Beginning". When you understand the meaning of the word: "beginning" then we can go on to talk about the meaning of another word.

The BBC link talks about TWENTY FIVE (25) Beginnings. 25 examples of what the word "beginning" means. You can argue against this idea. For example you can say the earth travels around the sun, always has and always well. But science says there was a beginning. There was a time when the solar system was created and there will be a time when the solar system will be destroyed. So there is a beginning and there is an end. Even though the elements were already here to create a solar system. So the beginning does not mean something from nothing. It means something new from what was already here.

So science supports YEC because a BBC website uses the word "beginning". Never mind that it also puts the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years, and doesn't even suggest that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with humans.

 

[bhsmte]

So science supports YEC because a BBC website uses the word "beginning". Never mind that it also puts the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years, and doesn't even suggest that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with humans.

Yea well, some need to ignore those painful details.

 

[Doveaman]

So you'd believe a DNA test to demonstrate who your father or mother is but when the human genome and chimpanzee genomes are 98% similar, we're interpreting it wrong? Sounds like you're scared of what the evidence tells you so you have to twist it into something that makes you feel good. That's not being honest with yourself.

Nope.

I believe a DNA test demonstrates who a father or mother is because we can observe human births and make the connection, but we did not observe the origin of the first man who had no parents. Our knowledge of the first man is dependent upon the historical records and not on DNA speculations.

Neither does a dead body in a murder trial but we can still figure out who the killer was.

That same evidence is too often used to condemn the innocent. It is not fool-proof.

Just as I suspected. You're twisting the evidence to mean something else. Some of us aren't comfortable with that level of cognitive dissonance. Some care about what is true, even if that truth isn't what we want it to be.

Except that you do not care about the truth.

"Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth." -- (John 17:17-18).

God's word is the truth, and you do not care about the truth.

You really don't know how science works don't you.

Actually, I do.

The fact that it could be falsified is what makes it so strong.

Nope.

The fact that scientific claims are often falsified proves that scientific claims are made up ideas and not facts.

A fact cannot be falsified.

Evolution theory is a scientific claim and not a fact. It is just a made up idea.

To call evolution theory a fact is to be dishonest.

If something is unfalsifiable, that claim is VERY weak. Let me give you an example.

There is a teapot that is orbiting around the moon. It is too small to be seen by modern telescopes. Is the fact that you can't prove this doesn't exist make my claim true? Do you see how an unfalsifiable claim is absolutely ridiculous?

There is the scientific method and there is the theological method. A theological claim can be falsified theologically, even if not scientifically. So yes, re-creation theory is falsifiable.

Evolution is the foundation for modern BIOLOGY. Not physics.

Physics – “Study of nature.”

Evolution theory is a study of nature.

Evidence please.

History is evidence.

Your bible doesn't count.

The Bible is a record of history and history is evidence, so the Bible does count. You cannot cherry-pick the evidence.

For one, it's the claim. Secondly, the bible doesn't talk about physics. Well, unless you want to twist the text to say what you want, which you love to do.

For one, the very first verse in the Bible is about the physical, material, natural world -- physics.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – (Genesis 1:1).

Secondly, the Bible is not just a claim, it is the life experience of billions of people who ever lived.

The historical method is not my method. It's what historians use to determine if an event likely happened or not.

Historians try to determine if an event “likely” happened, but they cannot determine if an event did not happen. Historians can only speculate.

The Bible wasn’t written by historians, it was written by people who saw the events actually happened, which makes the biblical record far more reliable than the speculative claims of historians.

Your method is nonsensical and unreliable as I will demonstrate to you in a moment.

It is not my method, it is God’s method.

*The entirety of Your word is truth* -- (Psalms 119:160).

God's word is truth. That's the method I use.

Contemporary- "belonging to or occurring in the present."

Contemporary – “the biblical authors were present when the events occurred.”

Using the Gospels as an example: They were written after 70 AD. This is DECADES after the alleged events. So it is neither contemporary nor independent and unbiased. You are demonstrably wrong on this. If you properly used the historic method, you would throw out the bible entirely when trying to demonstrate that these events happened.

Since the biblical authors were present when the events occurred, it would be silly of me to throw out the biblical records.
Instead, we throw out your historic method.

The bible is the claim not the evidence. Once you realize this, your arguments will get better. If you use the bible and call it evidence, it's easily dismissed. Care to try again?

Sure, why not.

The Bible is a record of history and history is evidence, therefore the Bible is a record of historical evidence.

It’s not complicated.

"It's true because it says it's true" is circular reasoning and logically fallacious. You need to improve your arguments. If you want to talk in circles in attempt to demonstrate your idea, i'm just going to roll my eyes and point out the problems with your argument.

It is only circular reasoning to those who have a myopic view of reality and those who are incapable of reasoning on the theological level.

“The natural man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” – (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Your myopic view of reality is your problem. You are unable to see beyond your nose-bridge.

You really have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Do you think all scientific research only studies physics?

All scientific research only studies the natural, physical, material world.

That's my point.

You realize there are several different lines of study in science right?

You realize that the several different lines of study in science are all about the natural, physical, material world, right?

Biochemistry, geology, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, cosmology, anthropology, paleontology, zoology, ecology, oceanography. For whatever reason you think all science is about physics? That is terrifyingly ignorant.

Physics is the study of nature, and all science is the study of nature.

Also, scientific journals are about reality.

Nope, scientific journals are about the physical, material world. Reality is much more than that.

*We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.* -- (2 Corinthians 4:18).

They are rigorously peer reviewed before they are published. Again, you demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. Just jibberish.

Scientific papers are often peer-reviewed by bias reviewers with personal agendas. That's no secret.

So basically the same thing. "Here is what I believe to be true, now let me seek out things that may confirm what I believe"

Nope.

"Here is what I know to be true, now let me seek out things that are consistent with the truth."

“This is how pseudoscience is done.”

Pseudoscience can take a hike.

If something is known to be true, it makes perfect sense to form conclusions that do not contradict the truth.

Evolution theory contradicts God’s truth. Therefore, evolution theory is nonsense.

If you use the strategy you describe, you are likely to be wrong many, many, many times. You are starting with the assumption you are right and using your bias to point out anything you think confirms your assumption. This is a dangerous way of thinking.

No, I am starting with the position that God is right and anything that contradicts that position is wrong.

Really?

Yes.

You should write it in a paper and have it peer reviewed by experts. Are you willing to do this?

I already did. My paper is being “peer-reviewed” by the experts in theology.

If not, then you're just spouting nonsense and won't be taken seriously.

I already understand why you would view it as nonsense. It's no surprise.

“The natural man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” – (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Explain what tests you ran to come to what you say is the same conclusion.

God’s word predicts results that we should expect if we put His word to the test in our personal lives. My personal life experience, and that of many others, always produce those predicted results whenever God's word is put to the test. The consistent success of those predictions confirms God’s word to be true.

Since God’s word has been confirmed to be true, this means that any idea that contradicts God’s word is logically false. God’s word tells us that man was created from the dust of the ground. Evolution theory tells us that man evolved from an ape ancestor. Evolution theory contradicts the truth of God’s word, therefore evolution theory is logically false.

Also what falsifiable test did you run to make sure you weren't wrong? All of this must be demonstrated or your idea is rejected.

Scientific tests are not done to make sure you weren't wrong, they are done to determine if you are “likely” to be right. So, you are asking me to perform a test that you do not even perform.

Besides, an idea can be falsified using the scientific method or the theological method depending on what that idea is.

I am not restricted to the scientific method like you are.

How do you know?

I know what it says because I read what it says.

*God gives it a body as He has determined, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another…So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.* -- (1 Cor 15:38-44).

The text is describing resurrection/re-creation with modification.

We presently have a natural body, but at the resurrection the natural body will be change to a spiritual body, just as the body of Jesus was changed at His resurrection.

There are 40,000 different denominations of Christianity, many with different interpretations of the text. How are you 100% certain you have it right? What tests did you run? I think it's arrogant that you think you own a monopoly on the truth.

I don’t know where you are getting your information, but all Christians believe that the resurrected body will be different from the natural body. And that is exactly what the text is saying.

Be honest with me: Going into this discussion, in your mind, is there any possibility that you could be wrong? If not, then why are we having this discussion? If you could be wrong, what evidence would demonstrate that you are in error?

The historical evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I believe a DNA test demonstrates who a father or mother is because we can observe human births and make the connection

DNA can also determine the common ancestor you and your 5th cousin share. Observing a birth of a child does not determine who the father is. If there is a dispute, you can use DNA.

but we did not observe the origin of the first man

There was no 'first man'. Evolution takes places in POPULATIONS, not in individuals. Another example that demonstrates that you don't know what evolution states.

That same evidence is too often used to condemn the innocent. It is not fool-proof.

DNA evidence is more reliable than eye witness testimony. As has been shown by the many inmates who have later been released after the discovery of DNA and the advancements it's made.

God's word is the truth, and you do not care about the truth.

How do you know? Because the bible says so? That is circular reasoning and makes the claim easy to reject. Would you care to try again.

The fact that scientific claims are often falsified proves that scientific claims are made up ideas and not facts

The ability for science to change it's stance based on new evidence is a strength not a weakness. It cares about what is true and can admit when they are wrong. Religion is the guilty party that denies facts until it's so overwhelming, they have to accept it. Like when Galileo was put on trial for heresy for proposing heliocentric theory but now it is accepted that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. The majority of Christians now accept the theory of evolution because the evidence is so overwhelming. Science wins because it works.

Evolution theory is a scientific claim and not a fact. It is just a made up idea.
To call evolution theory a fact is to be dishonest.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains those facts. Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? It's a fact that germs cause disease. The germ theory of disease explains those facts. Gravity is a fact. The general theory of relativity explains those facts.

Evolution is indeed a fact. We can observe it in the nature and in the lab. Facts don't care what you believe.

So yes, re-creation theory is falsifiable.

It's falsified by the many lines of study that demonstrate the facts of evolution. Molecular genetics & DNA, geographical distribution of species, genetic drift, fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, experiments in nature and in the lab.

History is evidence.
The Bible is a record of history and history is evidence, so the Bible does count.

That brings us back to the Gospels. They are written DECADES after the alleged events with no contemporary, independent, eyewitness writings to back up the claims in the gospels. The only way you should use the bible is if you go back to compare any contemporary, independent accounts. Can you provide just ONE source that is contemporary to the stories in the gospels? Yes or no?

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – (Genesis 1:1).

This is a positive claim. The burden of proof belongs to you. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Secondly, the Bible is not just a claim, it is the life experience of billions of people who ever lived.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Also known as the bandwagon fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Historians try to determine if an event “likely” happened, but they cannot determine if an event did not happen. Historians can only speculate.

Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
The burden belongs to those making the positive claims. The claim being that the bible is true. Since there are no contemporary, independent accounts to agree with the gospel's claims (especially the miracle claims) then the bible is not a reliable source when determining history.

The Bible wasn’t written by historians, it was written by people who saw the events actually happened, which makes the biblical record far more reliable than the speculative claims of historians.

Demonstrably false. The authors of the gospels are not named. They are anonymous. We don't know who wrote them. They don't claim to be eye witnesses. We know they were written DECADES after the alleged events. They were also educated Greek writers. They were not Aramaic speaking peasants. Secondly, Paul admits to not being an eyewitness. He is writing earlier than the gospels, yet he knows nothing about the alleged life of Jesus. This is supposed to be after a somewhat recent event (20 years or so), yet nobody tells him about the life of Jesus.

It is not my method, it is God’s method.

So God decided that Jesus (himself) is not going to write anything down? There also will be no contemporary accounts. Instead it won't be written down until DECADES later? This is not a reliable way to get your word across to those who are skeptical. It makes it all the more obvious that this is a myth.

Since the biblical authors were present when the events occurred, it would be silly of me to throw out the biblical records.

Since it was demonstrated to you that the gospel writers were NOT present, it would be lazy of you to not seek out contemporary accounts that would determine if what you believe is likely true or not.

Instead, we throw out your historic method.

Because you don't care about what is likely true or not. You'd rather believe what you want to be true. If you're so confident that what you believe is indeed true. Use the historical method and get back to me with what you find.

The Bible is a record of history and history is evidence, therefore the Bible is a record of historical evidence.

There may be some historical truths that you can pick out. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The miracle claims in the bible are extraordinary. This means you'll need some independent and contemporary accounts in order to confirm these claims. Otherwise you're just going in circles. "It says it in the bible, therefore it's true" and around and around you go.

*We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.* -- (2 Corinthians 4:18).

A verse telling me to be intellectually dishonest, haha. I don't know how you can be comfortable accepting a verse that basically says "Don't believe things that you can see but believe things you can't see" That's a dangerous way of thinking and a good way to get things wrong.

Scientific papers are often peer-reviewed by bias reviewers with personal agendas. That's no secret.

So it's a conspiracy theory? LOL. Papers get rejected all the time. It is the job of the reviewer to be highly critical and to attempt to prove the research wrong. A study in 2012 showed that 80,000 papers submitted to several biology journals, 25% of them were rejected by the first journal they were submitted to.

"Here is what I know to be true, now let me seek out things that are consistent with the truth."
Pseudoscience can take a hike.

This is the same exact thing. You are assuming your conclusion and then seeking out things that you think confirm your assumptions. THIS IS PSEUDOSCIENCE. It's the exact opposite of how a conclusion should be reached. It is arrogant to think you have a monopoly on the truth. I prefer to be honest with myself and understand I could be wrong. I then follow the evidence to see what conclusions arise.

Evolution theory contradicts God’s truth. Therefore, evolution theory is nonsense.

The majority of Christians have no problem with evolution. Evolution is a fact. It's observed and been repeatedly tested. It's a fact. Would you like me to post some of the evidence?

I already did. My paper is being “peer-reviewed” by the experts in theology.
I already understand why you would view it as nonsense. It's no surprise.

You should open a thread and post your paper. I'm sure many here would enjoy reading it.
Are you going to try to get it into the science classroom like creationism and intelligent design did? Spoiler alert, it will get squashed in court, just like the others.

My personal life experience, and that of many others, always produce those predicted results whenever God's word is put to the test.

You commit two logical fallacies here.

1. Argument from personal experience https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
2. Argumentum ad populum https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

My personal experience, and that of many others of being abducted by aliens proves that aliens exist, they visit Earth and abduct it's inhabitants.

See how ridiculous that type of argument is?

I know what it says because I read what it says.

Are you dizzy from all the circles you've been going in?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I really don't care what you think concerning the bible.

That's actually the same sentiment I have in regard to hyper-literalist fundamentalists.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[joshua 1 9]

So science supports YEC because a BBC website uses the word "beginning". Never mind that it also puts the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years, and doesn't even suggest that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with humans.

YEC where did that come from? We can talk about YEC if you want to talk about Bishop Ussher but it has nothing to do with the conversation we are having. I am a dispensationist. Although I have no problem with Day Age Creationism and like I said I have no problem with the Arch Bishop Usshers book. I don't really have any problem with Theistic Evolution, but it drives evolutionists crazy to think of it as Creationism. The only issue with Day Age is as Gerald Schroeder points out each day needs to be half the length of the day before it.

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't really have any problem with Theistic Evolution, but it drives evolutionists crazy to think of it as Creationism.

Perhaps that is because of the baggage that word carries.

 

[-57]

That's actually the same sentiment I have in regard to hyper-literalist fundamentalists.

-CryptoLutheran

I would much rather be a hyper-literalist than an ultra liberal. You won't catch me changing the words in the bible.

 

[-57]

I have to ask myself....are you really that ignorant?

 

[lesliedellow]

I would much rather be a hyper-literalist than an ultra liberal. You won't catch me changing the words in the bible.

We don't catch you reading them in their cultural context either.

 

[-57]

We don't catch you reading them in their cultural context either.

It's amazing how literal you become when it comes to TULIP....but mess with evolutionism and watch out.

 

[Hoghead1]

I do not agree, AV1611, that the Bible is up to date. It was written for another audience. Reading the Bible is like reading someone else's mail. Paul is very specific to whom he is speaking, and the address is certainly not ours. He is writing to the church at Corinth, etc.