The Pinnacle of Evolution

[-57]

Um, did I say that I ignored it? I am sure I didn't.

Then explain how through one man sin and death entered. How does evolution allow for Total Depravity...or Radical Corruption?

Your post above only side stepped the issue showing just how weak your position is.

 

[lesliedellow]

Then explain how through one man sin and death entered. How does evolution allow for Total Depravity...or Radical Corruption?

I feel no compulsion to explain it. Like I said, the theologically important thing is the fact - not how it came about, except insofar as the story makes plain that man's pride had a lot to do with it.

 

[-57]

I feel no compulsion to explain it. Like I said, the theologically important thing is the fact - not how it came about, except insofar as the story makes plain that man's pride had a lot to do with it.

Is it you have no compulsion...or you can't?

The bible explains our sin nature one way. You know, how it came about....and now you feel the need to deny what the bible says as you filter it through your religion of evolutionism? You have no compulsion to understand the bedrock of the bible? The reason for a savior?

So, explain how through one man sin and death entered. How does evolution allow for Total Depravity...or Radical Corruption?

 

[Armoured]

I have been waiting for someone to come along and say that. But I think that Francis Collins would have a different perspective. Because He believes that God uses evolution to accomplish His purpose. So there are people that believe that Jesus is the Pinnacle of Evolution and He set the example of what we are to become.

I don't believe that is an accurate description of what Collins believes. But anyhoo... the fact remains, evolution doesn't have pinnacles, rungs, or creatures more or less evolved than others. There's just what works in a given environment and what doesn't.

If you consider humans to be "higher" on the evolutionary "ladder", take a naked human and drop him on the Antarctic coast with a naked penguin.

 

[lesliedellow]

The bible explains our sin nature one way.

Since you are so keen on explaining everything, explain how Adam's fall caused every subsequent generation to inherit his original sin.

The reason for a saviour

The reason for a saviour is the falleness of man, and his inability to redeem himself.

 

[-57]

Since you are so keen on explaining everything, explain how Adam's fall caused every subsequent generation to inherit his original sin.

Well that's kinda the point that's missing from your explanation.
You see, the bible shows us that everyone is Adams progeny. Evolutionism denies that.
This allows for every subsequent generation to inherit his original sin. Evolutionism doesn't.

So, perhaps you would like to show us your doctrine of the fall, original sin and sin nature. How does the process of evolutionism effect Total Depravity?.

 

[-57]

The reason for a saviour is the falleness of man, and his inability to redeem himself.

Exactly....and with evolutionism...there is no fall as described in the bible....so, what really happened?

 

[lesliedellow]

Well that's kinda the point that's missing from your explanation.
You see, the bible shows us that everyone is Adams progeny. Evolutionism denies that.

So original sin is sexually transmitted.

 

[-57]

So original sin is sexually transmitted.

That's one theory. It could also be imputed.

Still, you avoid the question.

 

[lesliedellow]

Exactly....and with evolutionism...there is no fall as described in the bible....so, what really happened?

I don't know what really happened.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know what really happened.

Can't you make something up?

 

[lesliedellow]

Can't you make something up?

If the book of nature and the book of scripture between them allow no obvious explanation, silence is the best policy.

 

[-57]

I don't know what really happened.

So, you deny the biblical account...which tells us what happened...then you post "I don't know what really happened" Seriously?

If your theo-evoism is to be accepted....you ought to be able to provide doctrine to support your belief.

2 Cor 11:3

 

[lesliedellow]

If your theo-evoism is to be accepted....you ought to be able to provide doctrine to support your belief.

Doctrine is the result of biblical exegesis; it does not precede it.

Why don't you interpret Genesis 1.6-8 to mean that the sky is an upturned dome, holding back a heavenly ocean? It couldn't be that you are using knowledge gained elsewhere to inform your interpretation of scripture, could it?

 

[-57]

Doctrine is the result of biblical exegesis; it does not precede it.

Well, for what it's worth...you showed me you didn't have an answer. That's the problem for the Theo-Evo sect. They can't explain Romans 5:12.
I once spent several hours on BioLogos trying to see their answer. They had several theories from different authors but at the end of the day BioLogos understood that they needed to come up with something. Here they are claiming to be bible believing christians and at the same time realizing for evolutionism to be compatable with the bible they need to make several changes to the bible.

I really did wish you had the ability to show me how total Depravity fits into evolutionism. It was a serious question.

 

[lesliedellow]

I really did wish you had the ability to show me how total Depravity fits into evolutionism. It was a serious question.

During your time scouting the Biologos site, did you encounter Tim Keller?

 

[-57]

During your time scouting the Biologos site, did you encounter Tim Keller?

No. I just looked and saw this page of his stuff. I did a lot of reading as there wasn't much video on the "original sin" stumbling block for the theo-evos.

 

[lesliedellow]

No. I just looked and saw this page of his stuff. I did a lot of reading as there wasn't much video on the "original sin" stumbling block for the theo-evos.

https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

You will probably be most interested in the third question he tackles.

 

[-57]

https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

You will probably be most interested in the third question he tackles.

I just looked at some of ted davis work..and it became obvious real quick where he changed the bible to force it to conform to evolutionism.

Although I think this interpretation captures an important representative role of Adam, I would suggest that “Adam” should also be understood as having an historical reference, as also representing what could be called the “stem-father” of the human race. In evolutionary terms, such a “stem-father” would be the first group of evolving hominids that gained moral and spiritual awareness. This idea of Adam representing the “stem-father” fits better with Paul’s use of “Adam” in Romans 5 than merely viewing “Adam” as representing human beings in general. -

 

[lesliedellow]

I just looked at some of ted davis work..and it became obvious real quick where he changed the bible to force it to conform to evolutionism.

Although I think this interpretation captures an important representative role of Adam, I would suggest that “Adam” should also be understood as having an historical reference, as also representing what could be called the “stem-father” of the human race. In evolutionary terms, such a “stem-father” would be the first group of evolving hominids that gained moral and spiritual awareness. This idea of Adam representing the “stem-father” fits better with Paul’s use of “Adam” in Romans 5 than merely viewing “Adam” as representing human beings in general. -

Tim Keller's suggestion is that Adam was the first human to be endowed with God's image, and that his sin affected his contemporaries as well as his descendants.