Are Theistic Evolutionists Intellectually Schizophrenic?

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Crusadar said:
Also I am a creationist, so I have no problems with God creating all the naturalistic laws which govern the universe (including gravity) through an act of instantaneous creation

So chemistry and natural selection are not "naturalistic laws" which also govern the universe? Why couldn't these be created by God as well as gravity? They fall under your "all the naturalistic laws".

I suspect that what you said above is not your true belief.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

You don't have "the absolute authority of God's word". You have your authority of what you say God's word is. Since you aren't God, you don't have much authority. Also, since God wrote two books, the Bible does not have priority over the other one. Read the first quote in my signature. Ah, a misunderstanding. I do have the authority of Gods word, for I believe and trust in all it says that is where the authority comes from.

Then you have no authority. Because what you believe and trust is what you says the Bible says.

You however have a book which isnt to be taken literally so obviously you should doubt if any of it is true.

Perhaps I should doubt. But my doubts can be answered so that I trust the book in what it was intended to say. Crusadar, no literalist takes every part of the Bible literally. Remember Luke 2:1. You don't take that literally. So let me ask you: don't you doubt if any of it is true?

I know however what you are attempting to do an attempt to discredit someone erroneously and not addressing the issue which was my standing on the truth of God in its entirety.

I am attempting to show you that we are not dealing with "God's word" but a very fallible, man-made interpretation. An attempt to get through to you what a dangerous spiritual position you are in. You are mistaking your interpretation as not only God's word, but as making yourself arbiter of what "God's word" is, you are setting yourself up as God or above God. I am trying to keep you from jumping off the theological cliff and committing spiritual suicide. That you haven't heard me and are headed for suicide is in your next sentence:

However, I do believe in His word whole heartedly and am simply doing what I am instructed by Christ to do as scripture tells me.

2. Whatever the reason you think you do this for, the effect of your actions is to destroy Christianity. How can that be for God's glory?
The reason is very clear to me, and it is to instill genuine faith in God. If we believe not what He says, can there be genuine faith?

How are you so sure that what you say "He says" is really what He says? Don't you see the trap? The fact that there are two contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1-3 shows right away that neither of them was supposed to be read literally. This focus on what you want Genesis 1-3 to say keeps you from hearing what Genesis 1-3 really says. You are so focussed on telling us what you want God to say that you aren't listening to God.

How can we truly be Christs followers if we do not believe His word?

How can you be Christ's follower if you don't really believe Luke 2:1?

If you think that Christianity is being destroyed because of my actions you are sadly mistaken, for it has increased my faith in leaps and bounds.

Your faith and Christianity are not the same thing. I am so saddened that you think they are.

For if Christianity is true, then it should be the least of our worries that it does not agree with evolutionary science

But it does. Christians long ago realized that evolution not only was compatible with Christianity, but that it saved Christianity from special creation.

It is for Gods glory when we fearlessly and adamnantly stand on the authority of His word

But you are standing on the false authority of your man-made, fallible interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and not listening to what God tells you in His Creation. I cannot worship the false idol of Biblical literalism. I am commanded against it.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437"
Sound science, not evolutionary nonsense, there is a difference you know. And 1832, talk about ancient!

Hmmm. When was Genesis written? Or how about Jesus' preaching? A lot longer ago than 1832, yet you think they are still valid. Crusadar, you are so interested in scoring debating points that you really don't consider the consequences of your arguments for God and Christ. Are you sure you really care about God? Or do you just care whether Crusadar scores debating pointsd against lucaspa?
Biological evolution has been tested more than any other scientific theory. That you don't regard it as sound says nothing about evolution but a lot about your bias.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Ark Guy said:
lucaspa: So who is right? Both. Scripture gives you the who and why of creation as inspired by God to the human authors. Science gives you the how of creation as written by God in His Creation

The bible says man was created from the dust..not a monkey. then the bible says Eve was created from mans side...not evolution.

if God used evolution...then why the biblical deception? Why not just say there were ages instead of days?
Why not say evolution was the process? Why the biblical deception?

That's Genesis 2. Genesis 1:26-27 says both men and women (plural) were created together by God speaking them into existence. So you have two contradictory creation stories. Since they contradict, neither can be literal.

There is no deception. The deception comes from literalists who try to get the texts to say what they were not intended to say. When trying to understand any written document, you need to understand what the author intended to say, not what you want him to say.

1. Genesis 1 was intended to reassure the Hebrews at a time when they were under considerable duress to leave Judaism and convert to the Babylonian pantheon. The 6 days are there to make an (unnecessary) justification for a central tenet of Judaism -- the Sabbath. Creation took 6 days and God "rested" because God had already commanded the Hebrews to rest on the 7th day. Exodus happened before Genesis 1 was written.

Genesis 1 was written to show that Yahweh was the one and only deity. It was written to destroy the Babylonian pantheon.

Genesis 2 explains why each of us is cut off from God: we disobey him at some point in our lives. Adam and Eve simply represent each and every one of us.

Now, why didn't God just out and out say "evolution"? HOW!!??? God is inspiring humans. While God may not be limited, humans are. We communicate with language and our thoughts are limited by our language. Ask Nephilimyr what the Hebrew word for "evolution" is. There isn't any. God cannot explain a concept for which humans had no language any more than you can explain the details of television to your 3 year old child.

The Bible doesn't have a glossary, so God can't invent a lot of new words and have them defined in the glossary. The people of the day couldn't understand evolution and such was not necessary for the message God wanted to impart.

So, the theological messages of Genesis 1 and 2, and all the OT, are set in the best "science" of the day -- Babylonian cosmology. However, the messages are not dependent on the science. They work just as well in modern science as they do in Babylonian.

One of the tragedies of Biblical literalism it that, on trying to make Genesis 1-3 history, it completely overlooks the theological messages. IOW, it doesn't even hear what God intended to say.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Plan 9 said:
I find it interesting that I've posed the same question three times to two Creationists, both of whom have written rather insulting posts, and one of whom posted this about himself:
but neither of them cold be bothered to define an expression for me which they happily bandied about and that they got from an athiest.

You, on the other hand, patiently and kindly answer every question I ask you and encourage me to ask more. In addition, you never trade insut for insult, even though you are frequently insulted for no reason I can fathom. I've never see you ignore a single post written to you and I find your answers quite concise; not long-winded at all, unless the definition of of a long-winded post is "that post which has actual content"; you consistantly take the time and trouble to answer each poster's question as thoroughly as possible, which shows respect.

Thank you.

But they don't want my answers. They want to be right and not have there be any other position.

Also, the insults come out when there isn't a reasonable response. I recognize this and ignore it. Also, isn't there something about turning the other cheek?

hmm...doesn't the Bible say something about knowing a Christian by his fruits?

Yes. But for many "fruits" is defined as saying the words they want to hear.

lucaspa · Sep 16, 2003

Ark Guy said:
To date there is no, and I repeat NO examples of a series pf mutations that has caused a morphological change to an animal species to the point that the animal is now considered belonging to a new genera.

Considering the above...how can evolution be a law?????????

Because you chose the criteria very carefully. Notice that you limited it to "animal species". Don't plants count? Because there is an example of a new genera arising in plants thru mutations and selection:
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979.

Also, you chose "genera" and not species, also knowing that new species of animals have been observed. However, as Weblastyn pointed out, a genera is simply a group of species. Once you have species, you are done. After all, what was the title of Darwin's book: On the Origin of the Species

So, what you did was construct a strawman for which you knew in advance there wasn't evidence. You realize atheists use the same tactic all the time against Christianity, don't you? Read What Is Atheism? A Short Introductory Course by Douglas A. Krueger. He does a great job of showing there is no observations for Christianity -- as he sets up his strawman.

Sauce for the goose. If we accept the validity of your criteria, then we also have to accept Krueger's. And then Christianity disappears.

Vance · Sep 16, 2003

Ark Guy said:

"if God used evolution...then why the biblical deception? Why not just say there were ages instead of days?
Why not say evolution was the process? Why the biblical deception?"

He did say there were ages. The word used in Hebrew is exactly a word that He would use if He wanted to convey an extended period of time. The fact that it also has a meaning of a 24-hour day has created has created some unfortunate misunderstandings, to say the least.

He also uses a phrase "morning and evening" ("arab" and "boqer") which has multiple meanings, one of which is that of "continuous" or "ongoing" and another is the actual time of the sun comes up and the time the sun goes down. This, again, has led to confusion.

Those interpreting the text can translate these phrases using any of the various meanings, one is not more "plain" than another or more obvious than another on their own. But they also try to make the verses consistent as a whole. So, they could choose either the 24-hour period for "yom" and the "when the sun comes up and when the sun goes down" for "arab" and "boqer", which are internally consistent. Or they could have chosen the "extended, and unspecified, period of time" and "continuously" to match together which is also internally consistent and an equally "plain reading" of the original Hebrew.

Early on they chose the former combination and that had been the majority (but not exclusive) interpretation until we learned more about the wolrd around us. A very large number of Christians believe that the latter combination is a more accurate interpretation. Still a plain reading, just a different plain reading.

As for evolution, how would you explain the process of evolution in a way that was understandable to men of all ages? Further, why would it be necessary to explain the details of His creative process. He didn't tell us all by a longshot, there is no way that He could have. And, besides, the creating "from the earth" is not a bad description of evolution at all.

mattes · Sep 16, 2003

Didaskomenos said:
The Bible also talks of human sacrifice to YHWH and of a flat earth.

Excuse me.... have you read the Bible? Isaiah 40:22 - .. upon the circle of the earth .. Yes and I have heard the argument Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.

Vance · Sep 16, 2003

Wait, you mean there are other ways to read the Scripture than the simple, literal "I just believe what the words say" approach?

lucaspa · Sep 18, 2003

mattes said:
Excuse me.... have you read the Bible? Isaiah 40:22 - .. upon the circle of the earth

Isn't a circle flat? A sphere is round.

Try Genesis 1:2-8, Genesis 7:12, Job 22:14, Job 37:18, and finally Daniel 4:11.

Plan 9 · Sep 18, 2003

lucaspa said:
Yes. But for many "fruits" is defined as saying the words they want to hear.

That doesn't seem logical to me, scientifically or theologically speaking. Learning is often an uncomfortable process, because it can require that I recognize that I am wrong and change.

lucaspa · Sep 19, 2003

Plan 9 said:
That doesn't seem logical to me, scientifically or theologically speaking. Learning is often an uncomfortable process, because it can require that I recognize that I am wrong and change.

No, it's not logical or theological. However, if you look at the criticisms of me you find that they are that I do not "witness". I don't use the standardized words that conservative Christians want to hear. OTOH, Hovind, Ham, Morris, Baugh, etc. do use those words. So our conservative Christian friends believe those who mouth the words they want to hear. It never seems to occur to them that making certain phrases your criteria could lead them into a trap: say the key phrases, gain unquestioning trust, and then sneak in any untruth you want after that.

The bottom line is that there is no way for me to gain their trust. Even if I do say all the phrases, they will reject them anyway and say that I am false. It's a no-win situation. So I refuse to play. I think I am following the example of a leader of Christianity who refused to do what another entity wanted him to do to prove his bona fides. The reply to that temptation was "Get behind me Satan".

In this case, learning is impossible because they have tied the ultimate meaning of their lives to a literal interpretation. Look at Ark Guy's posts in the "How" thread. Unless Jonah is literal, then Jesus did not exist and did not resurrect!!! It's a complete non-sequitor, but that is how far they will go. I think we have a false idol constructed from a literal interpretation. The false idol must be preserved at all costs. Even the cost of destroying Christianity.

Oh, yes, one irony here. Many of the creationist organizations have latched onto Jonathan Wells and his criticisms of evolution -- his so-called icons. We have seen several posters use them lately. It never bothers them that Wells is a Moonie. Yes, he believes Rev. Moon is the second coming of Jesus Christ! Somehow, that lapse of belief never diminishes Wells' "authority" in their eyes. Go figure.

krinks · Sep 19, 2003

edited for breach of rule one

[noflame]

Jay
CF Moderator

Vance · Sep 19, 2003

First of all, it is against the rules of this forum to question another's Christianity. You are breaking this rule.

Second, regardless of the rule, it is rude, arrogant and un-Christ-like to do so.

Third, you are wrong in your assumptions.

First, science is not atheistic, and evolution in particular isn't atheistic. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Is science atheistic when it proposes the theory of gravity or describes photosynthesis without reference to God? God created all these processes as well, so why do you accept these scientific conclusions without calling them atheistic?

Men can reach wrong conclusions regarding God's natural world, and they can reach wrong conclusions (and pervert) the Word of God.

One word= Geocentrism. Always remember geocentrism.

wblastyn · Sep 20, 2003

krinks said:
It is all a matter of whom do you trust for salvation, is it our Lord or is it modern knowledge falsely so called that is founded in atheism that manifests itself through belief in evolution? I would go one fuirther and say anyone who supports evolutionm is one who doesn't fully trust Christ as thier savior and is not a true brother in Christ. Sorry but the evolutionist is no more a brother in Christ than the Mormon, JW, or SDA. They all follow perversions of men in leiu of the full and true gospel.

Mark

Oh yeah, it's really founded on atheism when a Christian came up with the theory.

Btw, what is evolution? I always ask this question to creationists but haven't got a real answer yet.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 22, 2003

krinks said:
It is all a matter of whom do you trust for salvation, is it our Lord or is it modern knowledge falsely so called that is founded in atheism that manifests itself through belief in evolution?

Who suggested anyone trusts in a scientific model for salvation? Do you ask proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics why they trust in wave-form collapses for salvation?

I would go one fuirther and say anyone who supports evolutionm is one who doesn't fully trust Christ as thier savior and is not a true brother in Christ.

Forum rule break.

Sorry but the evolutionist is no more a brother in Christ than the Mormon, JW, or SDA. They all follow perversions of men in leiu of the full and true gospel.

More offensive bovine egesta. Your original post is being reported. I'm fed up with this.

Mark[/QUOTE]

Plan 9 · Sep 22, 2003

Lucaspa, your subspace communicator is malfunctioning; this drone cannot contact you.

lucaspa · Sep 22, 2003

krinks said:
It is all a matter of whom do you trust for salvation, is it our Lord or is it modern knowledge falsely so called that is founded in atheism that manifests itself through belief in evolution? I would go one fuirther and say anyone who supports evolutionm is one who doesn't fully trust Christ as thier savior and is not a true brother in Christ.

I see your conclusion, but I don't see your reasoning to get there.

1. How does accepting evolution have anything to do with salvation or say anything about who you trust for salvation?

2. Demonstrate to us that evolution was founded in atheism. Take a look at the following quotes from Origin of the Species and please tell us how they are atheistic.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

lucaspa · Sep 22, 2003

Plan 9 said:
Lucaspa, your subspace communicator is malfunctioning; this drone cannot contact you.

The malfunction has been repaired.

Krinks did an excellent job of demonstrating my point in the post preceding his. Krinks illogically ties creationism to salvation and evolution to forbidding salvation. Thus, Krinks has no chance of accepting evolution because to do so means, for him, giving up salvation.

Crusadar · Sep 27, 2003

Lucaspa said: That's denial. But not explanation or justification of denial. The idea of "sustainer of all creation" is not a concept of biological evolution. It's a Christain concept.

Denial? I think the only one denying anything around here are theistic evolutionists who cling on the idea that God did not create as He has told them, but rather as they have told themselves. And no it isnt a concept of evolution for it does not occur though you would like to have us all believe it does.

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. " NO scientific theory says whether God is required or not required.

Because science CAN'T comment! Do you understand the words "can not"?

Evolutionary science no, as it is a tacitly atheistic endeavor requiring no God. Real science which is nothing more than the study of His creation screams of His existence.

What you have stated again is the basic faith of atheism.

Exactly, so why do you believe in what they do?

It's nice of you to support my arguments so fully, but it's a shame that you don't realize what you are doing. Atheists believe that evolution does not require God. But that's not part of the theory. However, if you want mention of God starting the process, try Darwin:

It is not I who support you lucas, if it seems that I agree with you it is that you and there is still hope yet that you may have found the truth. It is bits and pieces of Gods truth that you are running into.

I see, that Darwin remains the great evangelist you trust more than any other to proclaim the gospel, or was it simply his intention to remove any and all aspects of the supernatural in biological science and doing it in such a manner without being rejected by believers of that time. What else could he do but include God, even if he had to insert God somewhere (like the very beginning and no where else).

But that is not what is taught today whatsoever. Is it? And dont tell me science is agnostic, you should know better. Since evolutionary science is a man made convention known for its exclusion of God - why should it include Him? This shows nothing more than rebellion.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

It is simply too bad that there is not much support for this except from Darwin himself and those who would rather fancy their standing before men than God. Who would listen to anyone that opposed the beliefs of so many and not fear of being ostracized unless he mentions something about his creator even though the man was very wrong about his conclusions. For you do realize that man will never grow out of his rebellious nature without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Darwin even mentions God being involved. The key phrase is "secondary process":

The key word is God, not secondary processes for God was directly responsible for all His creation.

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

In Darwins mind yes, - a mind liken that of every rebellious mortal whose goal is to remove God from His creation.

Now, this harkens back to the Fontispiece of Origin and the first quote:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

And here again where is God in this process? I suspect this person has also problems accepting scripture simply on faith.

All you have done is to show that you don't know the thinking of people about evolution, particularly Darwin, and that you are accepting atheism.

And what might the evolutionary thinking of people be? That since we now understand to an extent how God could have created, therefore we can definitely conclude that God did not create as He has revealed to us? What are their conclusions when bombarded by the falsehood of evolution and have little faith in God to begin with?

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Hebrews 1:3

Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth? Job 38:33

Are you now quoting scripture as literal or as allegory? You must get very frustrated redrawing the line between what is allegory and which is literal dont you?

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalms 19:1

It is the heavens that declare Gods handiwork because it was He who formed and fashioned them. Creation simply reflect the capabilities of its creator it is what the verse tells us and says nothing about worshipping the creation or of how it was created.

I never denied the glory of God as declared through His creation, for He did create as He has told us so in scripture a miraculous event indeed.

The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it. Psalm 89:11

Who does the heaven belong to? And the earth? God, because it was He who made them. What claim if any does one have to something that was not the direct result of ones own creative genius.

Say amen to God.

To God, always. Your reasoning, No.

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail. Isaiah 51:6

And where does salvation lay? How does the heavens vanishing like smoke or the earth wearing out refer to evolutionary nonsense? I would think it attests to the power behind the creation and that without Him we will do the same wither into nothing. For we are you should know nothing without God.

The quote is theology. Notice the title of Butler's work. We are not discussing the details of evolutionary theory, but whether theistic evolution is schizophrenic in relation to Christianity. Your topic, remember?

No it is scripture that you quote the word of God. I see no difference - for if God is God then His truth (or theology if you deem fit) should not conflict with reality, for if it does then it is not scripture that is wrong but our interpretation of reality for there are no other bible that I am aware of which proclaim Christ as the only way to God. For if we believe God to be who He is, then should not His truth be sufficient to convict us? It becomes schizophrenic when we cannot justify scripture with evolution and therefore must now say it is literal in certain parts and not others when one part is dependant on the other?

There is a big difference between theistic and atheistic (what you call natural) evolution. The difference is that theistic evolutionists agree with Butler and atheistic evolutionists disagree. In the material processes, no, there is no disagreement. However, is God a necessary part of the material processes? Theistic evolutionists say "yes" and atheistic evolutionists say "no". You agree with the atheists. Why? Why do you say that anything "natural" is without God?

The big difference you refer to is simply a delusion of your own making for evolution is a blind process requiring no guidance nor purpose at all and God shouts everything that is of purpose. There is really no difference at all between the two that I can see, for no where is God found in neither process whatsoever - other than your insistent pontification that there is.

You obviously seem to be under the impression that you know more about how God created than God Himself by disregarding what He has revealed in plain language. If you absolutely believe thus then maybe you should enlighten the rest of the scientific community on the evidence of God in evolution.

Crusadar, go to Barnes and Nobles and look at all the books there giving commentaries on Genesis. There were 10 when I was there. All of them agreed that there were 2 separate creation accounts: Genesis 1:1 -2:4a and Genesis 2:4b thru the end of Genesis 3.

Perhaps that may be the problem lucas you are so busy defending the false assumptions of others that you have grossly neglected your own spiritual well being. One cannot walk in the faith and expect no opposition for Christ warned us of the many falsehoods that will arise to which evolution is a prime candidate. This is nothing new, if all men agreed with what scripture tells them than it wouldnt be true would it? For men do love darkness rather than light and many are those who are called but few there be that are chosen.

Bible commentaries by the way come go, and the book which they all comment on remains to no surprise. My advice, maybe you should read more of scripture on your own knees and less from simply taking what others say about it.

However, since you say you have felt the presence of God, then why did you say the only evidence of God is revelation in scripture. Doesn't your personal experience count for you?

Not quite brother, the experience only came after I had stopped questioning God as to His method of creation. I instead accepted what was read in a plain understanding in total faith. It was only then that God moved in my life revealing that the process an infinitely powerful loving God would choose to create was not through evolution but through a special creation where an intimate bonding can only occur. Such an intimate bonding in fact that He would chose to send His one and only Son to redeem His fallen creation.

Also, why is revelation in scripture or thru personal experience insufficient evidence? Why do you require science to verify the existence of God for you?

Science is not needed to verify God, for it already testifies to His existence. And again I say that I require not science to verify God, it is those who believe that God created using evolution which obviously tells us that they know how God created when they have nothing to support their stand but an inconsistent allegorical interpretation of scripture.

Crusadar · Sep 27, 2003

Of course there is only one God. But that wasn't the issue, was it? The question was where we learn about creation. The answer is that we learn about creation thru two sources, both from God. We learn about the who and why of creation thru scripture. We learn about the how of creation thru God's Creation. However, you just denied God by saying there is only one source -- "His word". Why are you denying God as Creator by denying His Creation?

No, we learn about God only through His word. Not man's interpretation of His creation.

You said in a previous post: "how do we know that there is a God who only stands outside and guides the evolutionary process? If that were the case, then the only way you would know that such a being truly exists is through what has been revealed in the Scriptures "

Do you see? You don't want a god that can't be detected by science and is known to exist "only" "through what has been revealed in the Scriptures". Why is knowing God exist thru 1) revelation in the scriptures and 2) your personal experience such a bad thing? Why do you have to show He exists thru science?

Tell me what God would you pray to? The gods that the Greeks worshipped? A god who holds no power over death for it is the very thing He uses? And what of the promises of deliverance from death that we are offered is that also allegory? What of the promise that He will wipe away our tears and that death shall be no more?

I want a God who is beyond all imagination, and capable of delivering me from the body of my death. A God who surpasses all human understanding to the infinite degree. And yet I have chosen to believe God as He has revealed Himself to me through scripture not what my own interpretations of scripture does not say. So who really requires nothing of science to testify on His behalf. True Science already declares His existence evolutionary science however does not even come close.

What you believe is everything you think that God says. That's not the same as what God says. Also, you admit that you ignore Creation. So you don't even listen to everything God says. You only listen to your interpretation of God's word. So, it is obvious that you are more interested in listening to yourself than listening to God. That explains a lot.

What I believe is what the Word of God says. I am not sure what you believe, for you have revealed nothing of your faith other than your insistence on what scripture does not plainly say. There really is no thinking involved, only faith for we are fallen beings remember and so how can we trust our fallen minds to reveal to us the truth if we have not the truth of God to compare with? For it is only Gods word that makes us understand His creation, and not the other way around.

God's word doesn't tell us anything about sisters for Cain to marry, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? God's word tells us plainly that the whole world was taxed (Luke 2:1), but you don't have a problem with only part of the world being taxed, do you? God's word tells us plainly that the earth is immovable, but you know it does move, don't you?

What is your point? That since scripture does not say anything about it therefore what man says or adds then takes precedence over what God says? Doubting again lucas the authority of Gods word? It figures. Once you have found a loop hole in scripture why not say there are many more just to be consistent.

Yes it is plain to understand. Have you or anyone been able to move the earth lately? I suppose the answer is a NO. So the earth is immovable as scripture tells us. The power behind its creation has already established the time and the seasons of the earth - who then has more power than God to change what already has been set in motion?

If an atheist believes evolution happens without God, that's his problem. His personal problem. It is not a problem with evolution.

And yet it is evolution that atheists cling on to justify not believing in God. What logic is there in a creator who wishes for His creation to know and come to Him to use a process of creation that can also be used to deny Him?

Now we come down to it!! Finally. Crusadar, evolution does not justify atheism. Many atheists think so, but why are you assuming they are right? What evolution did was remove the Argument from Design as a "proof" that God exists. You can't "prove" the existence of God that way anymore. However, even creationists recognize that evolution does not justify or demand atheism.

Ofcourse not, God does not want us to prove His existence to bring other men to Him. He requires us to live as examples to testify the change that Christ does in our lives.

"The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a creator who works through natural selection." Phillip Johnson Reason in the Balance, pg. 73

Evolution does require a blind God. And yet what is the basic reasoning behind the atheist from a believers perspective? That they are showing nothing more than intellectual dishonesty in denying what they do not know, and conclude that there is no God, for nothing points to God as they have already ruled out that He was their creator as evolution tells them.

Why is that necessary? Why do you have to have science show the need for a Creator? You just said above: "I require not science to show me the existence of God" But now that is exactly what you want science to do. Crusadar, either you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing and don't care if you contradict yourself or you have not truly thought out your position and beliefs.

You have misunderstood my point simply because I have placed the authority of scripture in the forefront. I require not science to show me the existence of God, for scripture already testifies that it was created by God why is it so difficult to believe in what God tells you?

Interesting lucas, you simply are not able to catch on are you? Your attempt to bridge evolution and God are very much unconvincing to say the least. It is nothing about simply arguing nothing, for you obviously still walk in the flesh and deny the work of Satan in this matter. But alas you deny Satans presence for whatever reason I can only suspect. Where here again total surrender to God is warranted if you should ever want to see the lie of evolution exposed. It is only when Christ has total control of ones life that one will see the truth.

1. The methodology of science is no more, and actually less, fallible than the man made methodology of Biblical interpretation.

It is not usable repeatable testable true science I distrust, it is the useless science of evolution that is nothing more than a denial of Gods infinite creative genius that offends my faith in God. Yes science is no more fallible than any interpretation if what the word plainly says needs warping to fit what it does not say. It is less fallible only if science can prove that a virgin can give birth? And when scripture tells us Christ rose from the dead, has science proven that dead men can rise? And yet why do you believe thus and not what scripture tells you? Yes, I know it is the consensus of scientists on the acceptance of the assumed truth of evolution that cannot be abandoned, because it is what the majority believes therefore it must be true - but I guess scientists are exempt from the effects of sin since they are above everyone as they are only interested in finding the truth.

2. Darwin didn't start out with a postulate of atheism. Science doesn't start out with a postulate of atheism. Science is agnostic, not atheistic.

Of course he didnt, God is often left out of many a part of mans life, simply due to his sinful rebellious nature. Since when has science ever mentioned God, the implications are obvious for it is very tacitly atheistic in nature for science now replaces the many things that was once was believed to be caused by God not knowing that God created such. How agnostic is it when it becomes a replacement for God?

3. John Calvin recognized that atheists can indeed arrive at the truth about God.

"Calvin wrote "shall we say that the philosophers [scientists] were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature?" No, he emphatically concluded, because we cannot read these scientific writings "without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude ..." In the greate edifice of human arts and sciences, constructed in part by believers and in part by unbelievers, Calvin thought that we could see "some remaing traces of the image of God, which distinguished the entire human race from the other creatures." Roland Frye, Epilog, in Is God a Creationist? ed by Roland Frye, 1983, pg 203. References to Calvin are: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15 and 2.2.17.

If atheists can arrive at the truth about God, then I am confident that it is not through their belief of evolution that has shown them that but by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. For scripture does tell us that:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44.

And without absolute faith in God how can we be drawn to Him?

There's your atheistic belief. Again. "natural processes therefore God ... nor was He responsible for creating anything" For that to be true you must believe that God is absent from 'natural processes'. Science never says that. Only atheists say that. So why do you keep repeating atheism as tho it is true.

What natural process? It is not true science but evolutionary science that speaks nothing of God, an instantaneous creation speaks everything of the God I worship and yet you fail to see this. Natural process requires not God, so why would He choose a process in which does not show His true character.

Don't you ever read the answers?
1. None of the evolutionary processes work if God does not sustain them.
2. God can introduce mutations that He wants and it is not dectable by science.
3. God can engage in artificial selection that is not detectable by science.

The only answers are found in scripture. It is fallible human conventions that you appeal to, not the truth of God. And sure He can do anything He is God, and that is why He chose to create as He has told us in scripture.

Are Theistic Evolutionists Intellectually Schizophrenic?

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Contributor

Active Member

Contributor

Legend

Absolutely Elsewhere

Legend

New Member

Contributor

Jedi Master

Senior Veteran

Absolutely Elsewhere

Legend

Legend

Criado de Cristo

Criado de Cristo

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency