Are Theistic Evolutionists Intellectually Schizophrenic?

[Crusadar]

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 God’s word, for I believe and trust in all it says – that is where the authority comes from.

Where is this second book you keep referring to? Is the message of salvation in this book also? Does nature lead us to Christ, for that is the purpose of God’s word you know to lead to an understanding that man was created in perfection but fell from glory due to His rebellion and thus would require redeeming. And God you know saw that man needed redeeming and knew that it would cost Him His own life to do so and He did so.

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

And so it becomes another fruitless endeavor to continue on with someone who rejects God’s truth as they think they know more than God in how He created.

You however have a book which isn’t 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?

And yet true faith only comes from zero doubt. Trust the book in what, that God did not create as He tells us, the flood was a local one – and Christ was born of a virgin – has any virgin given birth lately – it seems you would need to distrust everything else as you are telling me. How do you know I don’t take the verse literally, for I do believe scripture to be the inerrant word of God, and if there seems a contradiction than it is not the Spirit of God that is guiding us but our doubt in Him.

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.

If it is as fallible as you say then we are all in trouble. For the faith that is within all of us stem from what we believe scripture to say (whether it be some as you believe or all as I believe). Although many have compromised much of their faith in hopes to gain more believers, it is not the will of God, for it is not numbers God wants but true faithful followers, as true faith comes not from seeing but from putting total trust in what God has said.

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:

That cannot be any further from the truth. We would be bearing false witness if we were to consider ourselves anything more than the wretched sinners that we are. I have set myself to be no more than the filth I was born as and because I have acknowledged this and accepted the gift of salvation it requires nothing more of me but to proclaim it to all those I come in contact with. It does not require the blind rituals that some of us have been following all our lives without knowing what it is that we follow. When we return to the wholesomeness of God’s word without the fallacy of man’s theories to contaminate it or explain it, it is only then that we will see His truth.

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 focused on telling us what you want God to say that you aren't listening to God.

I am certain for it is in plain text. The trap is when we attempt to twist scripture into what it does not say, it is then that we fall into it ourselves. Genesis 1-3 really tells me that we as human beings are created above all creatures – with the capability to reason and love God, and yet we have reduced ourselves to less than the animals – for we were created in the image of God. For you see we have been given a tongue to worship and praise God and yet we do not, we have been offered life and yet we choose instead death. How is adding evolution to scripture as you are doing listening to God - since God does not speak to us in person how can we say that we have faith in Him when we listen not to His word?

It makes much more sense that you are the one not listening to God, for you insist that man’s interpretation of reality through evolution (with an axiom of atheism) was how God created when obviously Scripture does not say that at all. You wish to give us merely your interpretation of what you see and have agreed on simply because that is what scientists believe, for they are you know only seeking the truth and are very much agnostic .

Realizing however that you have forgotten that they are also very much mortals as well as rebellious sinners like the rest of us. We must all look at ourselves first as sinners that need redeeming, and everything else later. No one is immune to Satan’s treachery or their own pride unless Christ truly lives within them. Your insistence upon man’s theories taking precedence over God’s words shows nothing more than an act of rebellion against God – for how can we truly say we believe God if we do not listen to what His word plainly says?

How can we truly be Christ's followers if we do not believe His word?

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

And yet you have misunderstood again for you are simply being consistent with your disbelief in the word of God. The world obviously as referred to in this verse was the Roman empire, since Rome ruled much of the known world at the time – so it was the Roman world as the verse tells us just as we refer to democratic countries as the free world – when obviously not all countries are democratic or free, are they?

Another erroneous error – those who doubt God will find but contradictions and doubt in all where there is not – this simply confirms that Satan is quite real and is never at rest.

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.

Maybe it is not Christianity that I believe but Jesus Christ, there is a difference you know. For I have often said, Christian is simply a word, and some who claim to be Christian do give shame to the name. I prefer a bond servant of Christ. Christianity has become nothing more than a routine to many and a blind faith to others.

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 does, when men have abandoned their belief in God and started to believe in themselves and their capacity for hatred and destructiveness and therefore required justification for that capacity and not judgement for it was God who passed His judgment once on their wickedness with water, and it is He who will again do so but this with fire. So chose which side to be on – as there is no middle ground.

It is for God’s glory when we fearlessly and adamantly 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.

And you the falseness of evolution – which is nothing but a man made concoction to discredit God. Yes I am listening to God, and He tells me that in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth and it is His handiwork that I see and am awed by His infinite creative capability. Nature however has had the curse of God placed on it, which is death. I would be more worried about worshipping nature as holding the truth of God - as you are doing. What you have done by saying that you know how God created apart from scripture does nothing more than say that God oesn't really needed to be taken too seriously since now that men know more than God does in how He created.

"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?

More doubts in the word of God showing through, well at least you are consistent. However, there is a difference between Scripture and your reference you know – for no one memorizes your quote nor care for it. And they should still be valid or why else would you be here? Or are you simply here to spiritually argue pointlessly on behalf of all brothers who have been led astray – simply because you have been led astray much longer and further? I could careless if brownie points are earned in meager debates such as this. For true faith in God cannot be shown to others in a forum as this.

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.

And why do you think it is? Because it is within the nature of man to rebel against His creator. If God can be discredited as to being creator – can you imagine the implications?

In much of their research evolutionary scientists put forth more wishful thinking and speculations than in any other legitimate field of science! Their might have been’s, probable’s, could have been’s, possible’s, could be’s and etc. are very much unsupported from true observations and tests of what actually occurs to this day in the real world. And mind you that they have had over a century to prove their case – and yet they have nothing more than empty theories and outlandish conclusions drawn primarily from unwarranted speculations – which are discarded as soon as they are theorized (hence so many).

And so some have hung the myth of evolution when they have stopped fantasizing, but alas many continue hanging on to it simply because the alternative is simply too incredulous and unthinkable, just as a well known geneticist and evolutionist himself tells us:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31."

IOW - Because if we were to acknowledge that God exists (as His creation clearly shows that He does) then that would mean that we would be subject to His absolute laws and authority and will be held accountable for everything that we do (since that is what makes Him God) because He is our Creator. But for many that is just unacceptable because they don’t want to be held accountable to anyone - least of all their Creator! Therefore if they ignore that He exists or can prove to themselves His nonexistence then maybe He won't notice them, or will have pity on their ignorance!

Of course ignorance of His existence does not exempt us from His sovereignty nor will it excuse any of us from what we justly deserve. Just as an individual’s ignorance of man made laws will not excuse them from punishment if they were to violate them. What makes one so certain that their Creator will excuse them simply because they were ignorant?

 

[Crusadar]

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.

Thats silly, I said no such thing. Only that naturalistic laws do not encompass evolution, for how can natural selection select what is not there to select from. Naturalistic laws that can be tested, observed and repeated, not the atheistic conclusions that are drawn from what does not occur to this day.

 

[Plan 9]

Once again, Cusader, please define "Intellectually Schizophrenic".

 

[ThePhoenix]

And yet true faith only comes from zero doubt. Trust the book in what, that God did not create as He tells us, the flood was a local one – and Christ was born of a virgin – has any virgin given birth lately – it seems you would need to distrust everything else as you are telling me. How do you know I don’t take the verse literally, for I do believe scripture to be the inerrant word of God, and if there seems a contradiction than it is not the Spirit of God that is guiding us but our doubt in Him.

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.

This ir ridiculous. God did not create a world that is variable, a world in which anything can change at any moment. God created perfectly. You're saying God had to create the entire universe wholescale, planet by planet, sun by sun. I simply think that God is so perfect that he was able to create a universe where the existance of life was not only possible, it was inevitable.

If it is as fallible as you say then we are all in trouble. For the faith that is within all of us stem from what we believe scripture to say (whether it be some as you believe or all as I believe). Although many have compromised much of their faith in hopes to gain more believers, it is not the will of God, for it is not numbers God wants but true faithful followers, as true faith comes not from seeing but from putting total trust in what God has said.

But I do. Where does Jesus refer to creationism? Where does he refer to evolution? He doesn't. Therefore it is for man to discover.

I am certain for it is in plain text. The trap is when we attempt to twist scripture into what it does not say, it is then that we fall into it ourselves. Genesis 1-3 really tells me that we as human beings are created above all creatures – with the capability to reason and love God, and yet we have reduced ourselves to less than the animals – for we were created in the image of God. For you see we have been given a tongue to worship and praise God and yet we do not, we have been offered life and yet we choose instead death. How is adding evolution to scripture as you are doing listening to God - since God does not speak to us in person how can we say that we have faith in Him when we listen not to His word?

God has chosen to speak with us! Look at the world, the trees, the birds, the plants, everything about you? How can that not be God speaking to us?

It makes much more sense that you are the one not listening to God, for you insist that man’s interpretation of reality through evolution (with an axiom of atheism) was how God created when obviously Scripture does not say that at all. You wish to give us merely your interpretation of what you see and have agreed on simply because that is what scientists believe, for they are you know only seeking the truth and are very much agnostic .

SCIENCE is agnostic, because it makes neither statements for nor statements against the existance of god. Scientists can believe whatever they want.

How can we truly be Christ's followers if we do not believe His word?[/QUOTE]

Where does Christ speak on evolution?

And yet you have misunderstood again for you are simply being consistent with your disbelief in the word of God. The world obviously as referred to in this verse was the Roman empire, since Rome ruled much of the known world at the time – so it was the Roman world as the verse tells us just as we refer to democratic countries as the free world – when obviously not all countries are democratic or free, are they?

But why would God's word only refer to one situation? If God created his word to be absolutely true for every time then you can't discard one section with the arguement that it's "taken out of context." God is omnipotent. Don't tell me he couldn't have figured out how the verse would be interpreted, and have rephrased it to avoid misinterpretation.

And you the falseness of evolution – which is nothing but a man made concoction to discredit God. Yes I am listening to God, and He tells me that in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth and it is His handiwork that I see and am awed by His infinite creative capability. Nature however has had the curse of God placed on it, which is death. I would be more worried about worshipping nature as holding the truth of God - as you are doing. What you have done by saying that you know how God created apart from scripture does nothing more than say that God oesn't really needed to be taken too seriously since now that men know more than God does in how He created.

A belief in evolution does not destroy a belief in god.

“Sound science”, not evolutionary nonsense, there is a difference you know. And 1832, talk about ancient!

Oh please, evolution is a VERY sound theory. The theory of gravity is on MUCH weaker footing (look up the massive problems with quantum gravity and you'll have an idea of how shaky the theory of gravity is, especially when compared with the theory of evolution).

And why do you think it is? Because it is within the nature of man to rebel against His creator. If God can be discredited as to being creator – can you imagine the implications?

In much of their research evolutionary scientists put forth more wishful thinking and speculations than in any other legitimate field of science! Their might have been’s, probable’s, could have been’s, possible’s, could be’s and etc. are very much unsupported from true observations and tests of what actually occurs to this day in the real world. And mind you that they have had over a century to prove their case – and yet they have nothing more than empty theories and outlandish conclusions drawn primarily from unwarranted speculations – which are discarded as soon as they are theorized (hence so many).

Linkage. You do not make a statement like that without links, and many of them. How can you possibly look at the evidence and state that this is the case? Or is drdino the beginning and end of your search?

And so some have hung the myth of evolution when they have stopped fantasizing, but alas many continue hanging on to it simply because the alternative is simply too incredulous and unthinkable, just as a well known geneticist and evolutionist himself tells us:

IOW - Because if we were to acknowledge that God exists (as His creation clearly shows that He does) then that would mean that we would be subject to His absolute laws and authority and will be held accountable for everything that we do (since that is what makes Him God) because He is our Creator. But for many that is just unacceptable because they don’t want to be held accountable to anyone - least of all their Creator! Therefore if they ignore that He exists or can prove to themselves His nonexistence then maybe He won't notice them, or will have pity on their ignorance!

Who? WHO?!? Lupasca studies in that field he should know him. As one well-know theologist said "Anyone who believes in god is a delusional moron." Of course I'm joking, no theologist ever said that, much less a "well-known" one.

Of course ignorance of His existence does not exempt us from His sovereignty nor will it excuse any of us from what we justly deserve. Just as an individual’s ignorance of man made laws will not excuse them from punishment if they were to violate them. What makes one so certain that their Creator will excuse them simply because they were ignorant?

A belief in evolution allows me to murder, steal, rape, loot, and generally do whatever I want? That's the strangest arguement I've seen so far.

Plan9 - is it perhaps impossible for him to answer?

 

[bevets]

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking... The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not “theistic evolution,” but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error. ~ Phillip Johnson

All we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely, organized complexity. ~ Richard Dawkins

It was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and its extension to man in particular must meet from the first with the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches. Both were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of creation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, and are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable to the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the metaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a particularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief consequence, the descent of man from ape. ~ Ernst Haeckel

Our science of evolution won its greatest triumph when, at the beginning of the twentieth century, its most powerful opponents, the Churches, became reconciled to it , and endeavored to bring their dogmas into line with it. ~ Ernst Haeckel

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Bevets - could you possible turn your string of quotes into a coherent argument?

 

[Crusadar]

ThePhoenix said: This ir ridiculous. God did not create a world that is variable, a world in which anything can change at any moment. God created perfectly. You're saying God had to create the entire universe wholescale, planet by planet, sun by sun. I simply think that God is so perfect that he was able to create a universe where the existance of life was not only possible, it was inevitable.

How unfortunate, for yet another brother lead astray. Yes, it is ridiculous to say you believe in God and that He used a method which excludes Him. And yes He did create a perfect world - as it is what scripture tells us. I am saying what scripture tells me and am not interested in what you think how God could have created, only in what His word plainly tells me.

But I do. Where does Jesus refer to creationism? Where does he refer to evolution? He doesn't. Therefore it is for man to discover.

You do what? Put your trust in the word of God or in that of man? And so Jesus was not speaking then of the creation when He spoke this: "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.” in Mark 6: 10?

Truth cannot be determined by man for He is a fallen being remember – but you don’t believe in a literal Genesis so maybe that is where the problem lays. Of course only God determines truth since He is our creator, so why would He allow man to determine their own version of truth?

God has chosen to speak with us! Look at the world, the trees, the birds, the plants, everything about you? How can that not be God speaking to us?

Yes He did, and it was written down in scripture. If you disagree then go listen to the trees, birds, plants and whatever else you wish – if you think that will bring you closer to God – perhaps you could even worship them. As for me, give me the word of God any day for it is what I meditate on day and night - not songs that birds sing or the wind blowing through the trees.

SCIENCE is agnostic, because it makes neither statements for nor statements against the existance of god. Scientists can believe whatever they want.

Yes it is. Don’t mention God, therefore He does not exist. What better way than to deny His existence than to doubt it – simple enough. Of course anyone can believe in anything they want, my belief happens to have its foundations on the absolute authority of His word.

How can we truly be Christ's followers if we do not believe His word?

Where does Christ speak on evolution?

Why should He since it was not the method God had used, as scripture contradicts your evolutionary timeline.

But why would God's word only refer to one situation? If God created his word to be absolutely true for every time then you can't discard one section with the arguement that it's "taken out of context." God is omnipotent. Don't tell me he couldn't have figured out how the verse would be interpreted, and have rephrased it to avoid misinterpretation.

So that we would understand in plain language what it says. And yet what does faith in God tell us? It is in plain language the scripture is written in so that we would have no doubt as to what God has said. It is only when we have allowed the wishful thinking of men to pollute the wholesomeness of God’s word that we become blind to the truth of God.

He is definitely omnipotent, but also a God of so much love that you or I could never comprehend. He did create man with the ability to choose to love Him or rebel against Him. And we know the rest of the story. And if He were to make it impossible to doubt God, how would that show that we have genuine faith?

A belief in evolution does not destroy a belief in god.

No it does not destroy belief in a god, but in God as it is not what scripture tells us.

Oh please, evolution is a VERY sound theory. The theory of gravity is on MUCH weaker footing (look up the massive problems with quantum gravity and you'll have an idea of how shaky the theory of gravity is, especially when compared with the theory of evolution).

Very sound indeed if you believe that the process requires an increase in information and complexity where there is no guidance nor direction. But lets say to an extent that evolution is true, it goes against the very laws of nature – mainly the one law that life only comes from life. For have you any undisputed proof that long expanses of time coupled with randomness will result in the codes that biological life consists of?

That is exactly what evolution teaches us that through eons and natural selection complexity can be achieved where there is none to begin with – the information required for this to occur had to have come from somewhere? But where? Don’t tell me it was God. For if you say it was God who first jumpstarted the first life – then you might as well say He created everything else as no life has ever been witnessed to have arisen from slime anywhere – whether it be in a test tube or in nature.

Linkage. You do not make a statement like that without links, and many of them. How can you possibly look at the evidence and state that this is the case? Or is drdino the beginning and end of your search?

Or that it really requires no linkage, they are my own thoughts coupled with sources I’ve read over the years - I've forgotten where from. It is however not the evidence I am in disagreement with, it is the evolutionists interpretations there of.

Who? WHO?!? Lupasca studies in that field he should know him. As one well-know theologist said "Anyone who believes in god is a delusional moron." Of course I'm joking, no theologist ever said that, much less a "well-known" one.

Maybe you should ask lucas what he believes in? I have, and by the way no replies yet. A sense of humor, how nice. However first take your foot out of your mouth – so I can understand you.
A belief in evolution allows me to murder, steal, rape, loot, and generally do whatever I want? That's the strangest arguement I've seen so far.

You forgot it is also the breeder of communism, Marxism, atheism, homosexuality, racism, and abortion. That is exactly what I am talking about, for without God such are your only options. And mind you that no where does God play a role in your sacred theory of evolution, does He? Only in this country can you speak against God and would not be frowned upon, but one must never speak against the sacred cow of evolution or one is ostracized for being intellectually dishonest.

Plan9 - is it perhaps impossible for him to answer?

Have some faith brother, for with faith in God all things are possible, or do you doubt in what scripture tells you? Or perhaps it is that I was not the one who coined the term? If you really want to know what it means perhaps you should ask the person who used it in the first post?

 

[Plan 9]

Plan9 - is it perhaps impossible for him to answer?

Have some faith brother, for with faith in God all things are possible, or do you doubt in what scripture tells you?

Is this part of your post addressed to me?

Or perhaps it is that I was not the one who coined the term?

If you really want to know what it means perhaps you should ask the person who used it in the first post?

I'm well aware that you didn't coin it, but you're the one who quoted it in the OP. Are you saying that you chose to quote a statement which was meaningless to you?

 

[lucaspa]

Ah, a misunderstanding. I do have the authority of God’s word, for I believe and trust in all it says – that is where the authority comes from.

Here I stopped looking at this thread because you hadn't posted in a couple of weeks.

What you trust is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's wishful thinking.

Where is this second book you keep referring to?

Christians have long acknowledged that, if God really did create, then Creation is also a book of God.

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum
"duplex cognito" John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed by John T. McNeil, 1.2.1, 1960.
"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

Is the message of salvation in this book also? Does nature lead us to Christ, for that is the purpose of God’s word you know to lead to an understanding that man was created in perfection but fell from glory due to His rebellion and thus would require redeeming.

Apples and oranges, with your interpretation mistakenly put in as "God's word" again. The Bible is, as one Pope put it, written to teach us how to go to heaven. Creation is to teach us how the heavens go. That whole sentence about man created in perfection is a human, man-made theology and is not God's word. Genesis 1 and 2 neither one say humans were created perfect.

So, you are 1) denying the existence of the second book on false criteria and 2) making up a false theology and trying to pawn that off as "God's word". Needless to say, I'm not impressed.

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

And so it becomes another fruitless endeavor to continue on with someone who rejects God’s truth as they think they know more than God in how He created.

LOL! Who's rejecting God's truth here? Not me. I let God tell me how He created by looking at His Creation. You deny that God created.

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?

And yet true faith only comes from zero doubt.

Didn't answer my question, did you?

Faith leaves room for doubt. Look at Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and what he said on the Cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" That's doubt.

Trust the book in what, that God did not create as He tells us, the flood was a local one – and Christ was born of a virgin – has any virgin given birth lately – it seems you would need to distrust everything else as you are telling me.

Difference between data and theory. That no virgin has given birth lately doesn't falsify that a virgin did give birth. However, there is data in God's Creation to show He didn't create according to the man-made theory of Creation Science. Again, you deny that God actually created since you won't trust His Creation.

How do you know I don’t take the verse literally, for I do believe scripture to be the inerrant word of God, and if there seems a contradiction than it is not the Spirit of God that is guiding us but our doubt in Him.

So you think the whole world was enrolled? Where are the Roman records then of Japanese, Sioux, and Zulus? Look, if you are going to be that far gone from reality then no wonder you set yourself up as god.

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.

If it is as fallible as you say then we are all in trouble. For the faith that is within all of us stem from what we believe scripture to say (whether it be some as you believe or all as I believe).

Your interpretation is very fallible. Scripture isn't that fallible. Up above you said there was the Holy Spirit to guide us. So, faith doesn't only come from Scripture. What is Scripture when you come right down to it? It is accounts of personal experience with God. Are you saying that the only personal experiences of God are in Scripture? All Scripture claims for itself is that it is useful. Not that it is the sole source of faith. The source of faith for Christians is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I just love how Biblical literalists, in order to debate Biblical literalism, will end up denying the basis of Christianity.

as true faith comes not from seeing but from putting total trust in what God has said.

True faith comes with a personal relationship with God. You've lost sight of that. Instead, you have made a god out of the Bible. This statement is a clear indication of it. I don't know if you can pull back from theological suicide or if you've already jumped over the cliff. It, sadly, looks to me like you've jumped over the cliff.

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:

That cannot be any further from the truth. We would be bearing false witness if we were to consider ourselves anything more than the wretched sinners that we are. I have set myself to be no more than the filth I was born as and because I have acknowledged this and accepted the gift of salvation it requires nothing more of me but to proclaim it to all those I come in contact with.

Ignoring my point. You set yourself up as arbiter of "God's word". Above you said "that is the purpose of God’s word you know to lead to an understanding that man was created in perfection but fell from glory due to His rebellion and thus would require redeeming" Nowhere in Genesis does it say humans wre created in perfection! Yet here you are saying this is what the Bible says. This isn't humbleness, it's setting yourself up as God.

When we return to the wholesomeness of God’s word without the fallacy of man’s theories to contaminate it or explain it, it is only then that we will see His truth.

Said after your whole post is one big "man's theory". The irony meter pegs again.

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?

Why do you not believe what He says in His creation? According to you, if you don't believe what He says, you don't have genuine faith. You've just demonstrated, by your own criteria, that you don't have genuine faith. Nice job. Thank you for making my point so well.

I am certain for it is in plain text. The trap is when we attempt to twist scripture into what it does not say, it is then that we fall into it ourselves.

Genesis 1 plainly says the heavens and earth are created in 6 days. Genesis 2:4b plainly says the heavens and earth are created within a single day. The twisting only comes when you try to make the two creation stories by one.

Genesis 1-3 really tells me that we as human beings are created above all creatures – with the capability to reason and love God, and yet we have reduced ourselves to less than the animals – for we were created in the image of God. For you see we have been given a tongue to worship and praise God and yet we do not

1. Nowhere in Genesis 1-3 are we created to love or praise God. God created us for ourselves. Nice twisting.

2. We can have those attributes -- reason and "image of God" -- and still be created by God using evolution as the process to create.

How is adding evolution to scripture as you are doing listening to God - since God does not speak to us in person how can we say that we have faith in Him when we listen not to His word?

God does not speak to us in person? Since when? There are several Christians on these boards and millions worldwide that disagree with you. Are they all delusional? What about the Holy Spirit? Again you deny God and set the Bible up as god. Sola Scriptura was not meant for this.

It makes much more sense that you are the one not listening to God, for you insist that man’s interpretation of reality through evolution (with an axiom of atheism) was how God created when obviously Scripture does not say that at all.

1. Evolution does NOT and never has had an "axiom of atheism".

2. Scripture plainly tells us that Genesis 1-3 is not literal. In addition to the blatant and basic contradictions in the two creation accounts, there are numerous textual clues in the Hebrew that tell you that.

3. What is reality? Isn't it God's Creation.

Basically, we are back to your worship of the false idol of "scripture". Not the real Scripture, but your elevation to it as a god such that you deny God anywhere else.

Realizing however that you have forgotten that they are also very much mortals as well as rebellious sinners like the rest of us. We must all look at ourselves first as sinners that need redeeming, and everything else later. No one is immune to Satan’s treachery or their own pride unless Christ truly lives within them.

Well, we've seen examples of your pride. I'd say perverting the Bible into a god is a great example of Satan's treachery. And evolution says nothing about the need for a redeemer.

for how can we truly say we believe God if we do not listen to what His word plainly says?

How can we truly be Christ's followers if we do not believe His word?

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

And yet you have misunderstood again for you are simply being consistent with your disbelief in the word of God. The world obviously as referred to in this verse was the Roman empire,

It's not obvious from the "plain reading" at all. It's only obvious when you consider the extrabiblical evidence. Funny how you do so now but denied it was the Roman world earlier in your post.

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.

Maybe it is not Christianity that I believe but Jesus Christ, there is a difference you know.

I know. Let me rephrase then: it is faith in Jesus Christ which is being destroyed by your position. However, you don't believe Jesus Christ, for you have repeatedly said in this post that you believe only scripture. Isn't Jesus a living presence for you? If so, then you don't believe only because of scripture. If not, then you don't really believe Jesus Christ, but your intepretation of scripture. Either way, some of your claims are false.

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 does, when men have abandoned their belief in God and started to believe in themselves and their capacity for hatred and destructiveness and therefore required justification for that capacity and not judgement for it was God who passed His judgment once on their wickedness with water, and it is He who will again do so but this with fire. So chose which side to be on – as there is no middle ground.

Ignored the point. Special Creation ends up with God being sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's. It also ends up with a mostly absentee God. Evolution prevents all that. It protects God from Special Creation.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.
"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

 

[lucaspa]

It is for God’s glory when we fearlessly and adamantly 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.

And you the falseness of evolution – which is nothing but a man made concoction to discredit God.

Nope. Darwin viewed evolution as how God worked. The "secondary cause" by which God created the diversity of life on the planet.

"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.

Your version of history is just as flawed as your literalistic intepretation of Genesis 1-3.

Yes I am listening to God, and He tells me that in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth and it is His handiwork that I see and am awed by His infinite creative capability.

Fine. Theistic evolution says this too. But Creation Science goes far beyond this, doesn't it? It says God created in 144 hours less than 20,000 years in the past, that all "kinds" were instantaneously created in their present form, and that a violent Flood caused all geological features. His handiwork says He didn't create that way.

Nature however has had the curse of God placed on it, which is death.

Now we're into your man-made theory. Genesis 1-3 never states this.

than say that God oesn't really needed to be taken too seriously since now that men know more than God does in how He created. [/quote[

Misrepresentation. We don't know more than God. We know what God tells us in His Creation.

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?

More doubts in the word of God showing through, well at least you are consistent.

No doubts about scripture; just falsification of your criteria to decide whether a truth is a truth. Being ancient doesn't mean being wrong. The Bible is a lot older than 1832, but you insist it is true. So, age has nothing to do with truth.

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.

And why do you think it is? Because it is within the nature of man to rebel against His creator. If God can be discredited as to being creator – can you imagine the implications?

But evolution doesn't discredit God as Creator. You and atheists do.

In much of their research evolutionary scientists put forth more wishful thinking and speculations than in any other legitimate field of science! Their might have been’s, probable’s, could have been’s, possible’s, could be’s and etc. are very much unsupported from true observations and tests of what actually occurs to this day in the real world. And mind you that they have had over a century to prove their case – and yet they have nothing more than empty theories and outlandish conclusions drawn primarily from unwarranted speculations – which are discarded as soon as they are theorized (hence so many).

Empty assertions without documentation. And you are supposed to be a science teacher! Shame!

And so some have hung the myth of evolution when they have stopped fantasizing, but alas many continue hanging on to it simply because the alternative is simply too incredulous and unthinkable, just as a well known geneticist and evolutionist himself tells us:

LOL!! Lewontin was parodying Sagan! You never read the full text, did you? This occurs in a review of Demon Haunted World. Lewin doesn't like the book. Sagan tried to present his own atheistic worldview as science. Lewontin spent the entire book review taking Sagan to task. This is just part of it. You can tell it is parody and sarcasm from the last sentence of the paragraph preceding it. "What seems absurd depends on one’s prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity “in deep trouble.” Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. "

Read the whole review at http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p1

But again, you are consistent. You don't read anyone else any better than you read the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking... The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic.
To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not “theistic evolution,” but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error. ~ Phillip Johnson

What Johnson does here is accept the basic statement of faith of atheists: naturalism = without God. Is that true? Is God absent from "naturalistic" processes? Christians don't think so. Darwin understood this a lot better than Johnson. That's why this quote is in the Fontispiece of Origin of the Species:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

All we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely, organized complexity. ~ Richard Dawkins

Dawkins makes this is response to a specific argument used by creationists, not a general attack on religion. You need context.

It was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and its extension to man in particular must meet from the first with the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches. Both were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of creation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, and are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable to the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the metaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a particularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief consequence, the descent of man from ape. ~ Ernst Haeckel

This is Haeckel's wishful thinking. Haeckel was an ardent atheist, and he wanted and needed evolution to be in contradiction to Christianity. If evolution wasn't in contradiction, then he had no way to falsify Christianity.

However, Haeckel also misstated the resistance. By 1885 the Archbishop of Canterbury had accepted evolution, and not caused any great controversy among the Anglican clery in doing so. Less than 25 years after the famous Huxley-Bishop Wilberforce debate, theologians had accepted descent of man from ape.

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

Provine's wishful thinking. Any truth in it is only because of the stupidity of creationists like Phillip Johnson who make evolution be atheism.

 

[Vance]

The degree to which evolution is a vehicle for atheism is dependent upon the degree to which people accept the atheistic premise that evolution contradicts Christian beliefs.

The two greatest proponents of this untruth: atheists and YEC's.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Is this part of your post addressed to me?




I'm well aware that you didn't coin it, but you're the one who quoted it in the OP. Are you saying that you chose to quote a statement which was meaningless to you?

Thanks for the response, because that's when I decided to quit. When I'm told that it takes divine intervention and study of the scriptures to figure out what "Intellectually Schizophrenic" means then I know that we've taken a left turn out of sanity.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

And no it isn’t a concept of evolution for it does not occur – though you would like to have us all believe it does.

You ducked the issue. Again. Whether or not evolution is accurate has nothing to do with "sustainer of all creation" is a concept of evolution. It isn't whether evolution is accurate or not accurate. The concept is Christian.

Of course, the problem is that evolution has occurred and is occuring.

" 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.

In the beginning of the next post you are going to deny that the study of His Creation exists. The quote by Gould shows that no part of science, including evolution, is "tacitly atheistic". Atheists would like to have you believe that, but it isn't so. Why are you so eager to give aid and comfort to atheists?

We have no idea, wearing our scientific hats, whether evolution requires God or not. What we can say is that instantaneous formation of species is not required.

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

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

The problem is why do you? You are saying that natural = without God. Not me. Nice attempt to slip out of the problem, Crusadar, but you accept the basic statement of faith of atheism as valid. Why do you do that?

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,

Sure it is.

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).

It's tough on you when you find that evolution isn't the great atheist conspiracy, isn't it? If Darwin was removing all aspects of the supernatural, he certainly went about it in a weird fashion, didn't he? Proclaims life starting by the breath of a Creator is "remove any all aspects of the supernatural in biological science"?

But that is not what is taught today whatsoever. Is it? And don’t tell me science is agnostic, you should know better. Since evolutionary science is a man made convention known for its exclusion of God.

I've said this before. If you know of any instance where evolution is being taught as atheism, then document it and inform me and the NCSE so we can correct the situation. All I get are these vague accusations.

Crusadar, the only reason you think evolution is atheism is your logical error that God has to create by your interpretation of the Bible or God does not exist. That's your problem. Your logical error and crisis of faith. My job is to see that you don't pull anyone else from faith while you are destroying your own.

"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.

? Crusadar, this is what Darwin believed, which shows that he did not make evolution to deny God. However much you wiggle, you can't get around that.

Now, in the decades since, people have found new secondary processes by which God created life. Chemistry. It's simply an extension of natural theology that has been present among Christians for at least 1600 years (since St. Augustine).

For you do realize that man will never grow out of his rebellious nature without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

And what does evolution deny about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Of course, you already denied this very thing, stating that "only" believing in the scriptures can save you. You threw out this very relationship you now advocate. Talk about schizphrenic!

Crusadar, you simply aren't thinking about the consequences. You are so fixated on evolution that you never think of the consequences of what you are saying. You will say anything to "win" a debating point. Here you say we have a personal relationship with Jesus. Later you say that for salvation we only have to believe scripture.

This isn't about theism, atheism, Creation Science, or evolution anymore. It's about your ego. You will sacrifice God, Jesus, your salvation, my salvation, anything, din order to try to score debating points off me. Are you sure you want to continue down this path? Nothing good can come of it.

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.

This is your man-made theory. And it gets back to the point that TEs are not intellectually schizophrenic. Everything in God's creation says God used secondary processes. All of Christianity except the most extreme Biblical literalists accept this. Don't you accept that God uses the secondary process of gravity to keep the planets in orbit? Or do you think God directly pushes them around? Did God directly zap water in existence or did it arise from the secondary process of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen?

"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 Darwin’s mind yes, - a mind liken that of every rebellious mortal whose goal is to remove God from His creation.

LOL! This from someone that says we can't look at His creation and tell how He created? The one that says we are supposed to ignore His creation! Once again, Crusadar, you have shown that you are so wrapped in your ego that you don't care what contradictions you utter.

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.

Whewell tells you where god is: making the general laws. Can't you read? Actually, Whewell was a young earth creationist! Worse, did you see where he wrote this? The Bridgewater Treatise is a lecture before the Anglican Church at the invitation of that church. Whewell was an Anglican minister!

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?

Please look at my words again. Not the "evolutionary thinking of people" but "the thinking of people about evolution." No wonder you have so much trouble correctly interpreting the Bible. You don't read plain English well.

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?

You tried to shift gears here. We conclude Creation Science is definitely false not by what God "could have" done, but by the data we find in Creation. The fallacy here is that evolution is false. It has not been shown to be, despite the wishful thinking of creationists. In fact, historically it was Creation Science that was shown to be false -- over 25 years before Darwin published Origin.

This does create a major problem for you. Since many of the scientists who disproved Creation Science (and thus a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8) were also ministers (Rev. Sedgwick, Rev. Burnett, Rev. Powell, etc.), you are faced with denying their faith. No one at the time doubted their faith or committment to Jesus. But you either have to humble yourself and admit an error or deny them. Let me guess which it will be.

 

[DayAge]

lucaspa,
I see you made an entry at 12:42 PM Tuesday. Have you called Dr. Rana and Dr. Ross about your evolutionary ideas yet? Every Tuesday from 2 to 4 PM eastern time, they have a live webcast on the latest scientific findings and how they support the Bible. You can visit there website at:
http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml
or go directly to the webcast at:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update
It does not begin until 2 PM.
They also archive every webcast at:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/cu_archives/index.shtml?main

God Bless!

 

[Crusadar]

lucaspa said: Here I stopped looking at this thread because you hadn't posted in a couple of weeks.

Some of us do need to work you know. Just out of curiosity, for an assistant professor at NYMC, how is it that you have so much time to spare? Don’t you have classes to teach, lectures to prepare for, papers to grade, research to do – or maybe something else better to do with your time then waste it on us bible believing literalists?

What you trust is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's wishful thinking.

And there is no wishful thinking more imaginative than that of evolution as it never occurred.

Christians have long acknowledged that, if God really did create, then Creation is also a book of God.

Then what you are saying is that by looking at creation we can come to an understanding that we are sinners and need Christ to redeem us – without ever reading scripture? The fact that God did really create is shown by creation being the result of an instantaneous command. It would seem you are much more inclined to believe man’s interpretation of a fallen creation than that which is inspired by God. For have you not read:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16.

And so can creation correct us? Or instruct us in righteousness? No it can’t.

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

The result of which many a stray paths that man has taken throughout his brief existence – to worship the creation rather than the Creator. The great book of creation, and where can I find salvation in this great book he refers to – for I to want to believe.

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

One book is filled with words that are written into the hearts of men, the other tells him there is no escape from death, pain suffering and all atrocities man has brought upon himself unless he finds the truth in the word of God which leads him Christ – the answer to all his sorrows.

So, you are 1) denying the existence of the second book on false criteria and 2) making up a false theology and trying to pawn that off as "God's word".

And which book tells us the message of salvation given to us by God our creator? Show me the message of salvation in the fossil record as you claim your sacred theory of evolution does. There isn’t one? Just as I figure. It shows rather a record of the assumed Bolivians in Oblivions of years of the earth with nothing but evidence of death, diseases, maiming, struggling, destruction thorns and all manners of suffering. Where is the God of love that the Bible teaches in all of this? No I deny your schizophrenic attempt to reconcile evolutionary hogwash as the process in which God would use.

Needless to say, I'm not impressed.

Very needless to say – for if I were still pleasers of men I would not be bond servant of Christ would I?

However you would impress me very much if you are able to reconcile the evolutionary process with scripture by answering why we are even given the option of praying for relief from pain and suffering if they are the process God uses? Makes no sense at all does it – that a God of so much love as scripture tells us would allow all this to go on – unless He enjoys seeing us suffer?

Tell me lucas, do you like suffering, does anyone like suffering? So why would God deliver us from a process that will make us into much better beings? Unless of course such were the consequences of man’s rebellion as recorded in scripture. And so the promise that God can deliver us from death and suffering is that also allegory? Since it is the very same that He uses to improve us.

LOL! Who's rejecting God's truth here? Not me. I let God tell me how He created by looking at His Creation. You deny that God created.

No, of course not you. You only choose to believe what you want – as long as it doesn’t conflict with your man made evolutionary nonsense. How is that not denying when you have your own version of scripture to work with. And I deny that God created using a sadistic method that allows for nothing but death because it is not what scripture teaches.

Didn't answer my question, did you?

Didn’t need to. A cure for your lack of faith, I have not. For it is only faith in God that you will understand the answer.

Faith leaves room for doubt. Look at Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and what he said on the Cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" That's doubt.

Did Christ really doubt that God had forsaken Him? Did God the father really abandon Christ at the moment when He needed most? No, for an instant God had turned His back on His beloved Son, for Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world at that moment before giving up His spirit for that is what Christ died for, you know, so that we all may live. And God being infinitely holy and without sin – how could he look at sin.

Does God abandon anyone when they need Him most? No. So why do you doubt Him? It is only when we doubt in what His word says are we left to fend for ourselves and become futile in thought as well as schizophrenic in spirit as we no longer have a solid basis for what we believe.

Difference between data and theory. That no virgin has given birth lately doesn't falsify that a virgin did give birth.

Exactly, and evolution is very much a theory or rather a fairy tale for adults. I deny that he used evolution, because it is not what scripture says, simple enough? Data however is left to interpretation – and again it is not the data I disagree with, it is your interpretations of it – because it deviates to extremes from what scripture says. And how do we determine what is and is not the truth of God? By how far it deviates from His word.

However, there is data in God's Creation to show He didn't create according to the man-made theory of Creation Science.

And it is written in scripture (God’s word) that God created. Creationism says God created everything as a direct result of His command – therefore there is no doubt as to who gets the credit and glory, while evolution says we are nothing more than the result of a random process that has been set in motion by a creator of some sort for eons – not knowing who it is that gets the credit for the final results. Honestly, is that the God who you want to worship? A God who needs to hide something from us by not simply telling us that He created in such a way so that we are not here partaking in this spiritually fruitless discussion about how God created? Wouldn’t our time be much better spent witnessing the power of Jesus in changing lives?

Again, you deny that God actually created since you won't trust His Creation.

And again I say – I believe that God created as scripture tells me therefore He did create with all the glory and power that He can do – even deliver us from the body of our death - as scripture does tells us. You however don’t believe that He is able to do this, and since scripture is the word of God, you do not believe God, you may believe in your version of a god, but believe not God.

So you think the whole world was enrolled? Where are the Roman records then of Japanese, Sioux, and Zulus? Look, if you are going to be that far gone from reality then no wonder you set yourself up as god.

And again, NO, the Roman world chap – for Luke it was the world as it was the only one they knew. Where in history does it say that the Romans ever conquered Japan, North America or a country in Africa where these indigenous tribes dwelled? I have no doubt they would be included also if it was under the control of Rome. But lets be reasonable – you can’t road march over vast deserts or conquer a world on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

The Gospel was inspired by God and written by those that saw the world as they lived in – a world under the thumb of the Roman Empire, to them it was their world – for what army at the time was greater than the Roman army?

Your interpretation is very fallible. Scripture isn't that fallible.

Now that would be a contradiction, as my interpretation is based entirely on a plain reading of Scripture! How is my interpretation fallible when it is based on what scriptures plainly says?

What is Scripture when you come right down to it? It is accounts of personal experience with God. Are you saying that the only personal experiences of God are in Scripture? All Scripture claims for itself is that it is useful. Not that it is the sole source of faith. The source of faith for Christians is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am not interested what you think scripture is, only in what it says.

I just love how Biblical literalists, in order to debate Biblical literalism, will end up denying the basis of Christianity.

Yes, you do seem to enjoy that which has no eternal value. And yet what is the basis of Christianity? SCRIPTURE. Who is its founder and where can we find an account this? SCRIPTURE.

Are you sure it is Jesus you believe and not your own concoction of what is not written in scripture? Since you claim to be an authority on what Christianity is and is not, please do tell me (USING ONLY SCRIPTURE NOW) what it is I am denying so I may know where it is I have gone wrong. And please do so with your own reasoning and not quote someone else’s definition you agree with, for God has given you a mind to reason with and therefore should be able to do defend His truth – if it is the truth.

True faith comes with a personal relationship with God. You've lost sight of that. Instead, you have made a god out of the Bible. This statement is a clear indication of it. I don't know if you can pull back from theological suicide or if you've already jumped over the cliff. It, sadly, looks to me like you've jumped over the cliff.

And how can you have a personal relationship with God if you cannot trust what He says? And so explain what does a personal relationship with God entail? And please use scripture to support your reasoning. But since scripture plainly tells us that it is the word of God, it is God that I believe. It cannot become an idol when it is the word of God can it?

And cliff jumping? That’s absurd. Wait! I did jump off a cliff, and it was the evolutionary cliff that I’ve lept off of (a mighty big cliff at that and full of dead things, going no where and having no answers) and still live and have even been born again to tell about it!

Ignoring my point. You set yourself up as arbiter of "God's word". Above you said "that is the purpose of God’s word you know to lead to an understanding that man was created in perfection but fell from glory due to His rebellion and thus would require redeeming" Nowhere in Genesis does it say humans wre created in perfection! Yet here you are saying this is what the Bible says. This isn't humbleness, it's setting yourself up as God.

What point? Your own pontifications? I sit my self as no one but a defender of the faith. You however claim authority in knowing exactly the process in which God used. There is a very good reason to ignore your point – because it is not supported in scripture. And so God did not say that “it was very good” or did He say that it is good but meant something else?

Of course I could be mistaken but isn’t God perfect in all aspects, would not a perfect being in every aspect create only that which is perfect? Are you saying that God is not perfect – since what He created is imperfect? It becomes illogical to say that a perfect God would create anything less than perfection - unless it is not the God of the Bible who you believe that created, but your own god!

Said after your whole post is one big "man's theory". The irony meter pegs again.

And yet it has its foundations in scripture, yours however smells of the stench of rebellion and humanistic pride and is no where to be found in scripture – so which is more of a man’s theory one that is supported in scripture or one that you have simply dreamt up?

Why do you not believe what He says in His creation?

Because of scripture – remember, as it does tell us that it is a fallen creation as the following verse tells us:

“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” Romans 8:22

According to you, if you don't believe what He says, you don't have genuine faith. You've just demonstrated, by your own criteria, that you don't have genuine faith.

Not according to me, according to scripture.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb 11:1

And what is it that I hope for? That which a world marred by sin cannot give answers to. It is eternal life, relief for all suffering, and someone to wipe away my tears – this is what Christ has promised us for it is written in scripture. Where is this promise evident in creation – can worshipping creation as you do give you comfort – or do you turn to God’s word in time of sorrow and of need? Let me guess.

Nice job. Thank you for making my point so well.

Point taken, but as you have made clear to all of us – you really have no point - as scripture does not support what you believe other than your insistent pontifications that it does.

Genesis 1 plainly says the heavens and earth are created in 6 days. Genesis 2:4b plainly says the heavens and earth are created within a single day. The twisting only comes when you try to make the two creation stories by one.

Yes that is what scripture says. And yet what how much twisting does it require to believe in what it plainly says? None whatsoever. For plainly it tells us that in Genesis 1 we are given a day by day account of God’s omnipotence at work in creating the universe. In Genesis 2 a recap of what God has done is given so the contradiction is of your own making.

 

[Crusadar]

1. Nowhere in Genesis 1-3 are we created to love or praise God. God created us for ourselves. Nice twisting.

So we own ourselves, humm, I guess you must of forgotten about the following scripture verse because it does say something quite different:

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Since scripture plainly says we belong to God, your point that we are created for ourselves shows nothing more than rebellion.

2. We can have those attributes -- reason and "image of God" -- and still be created by God using evolution as the process to create.

However what is the image of God? Is it spiritual, physical, moral, or intellectual? For God is infinitely holy, we are not. He is eternal, we are finite. He is all good, we are and can be all evil – how can we evolve to reach the image of God when we are nothing close to what God is?

God does not speak to us in person? Since when? There are several Christians on these boards and millions worldwide that disagree with you. Are they all delusional? What about the Holy Spirit? Again you deny God and set the Bible up as god. Sola Scriptura was not meant for this.

Since Christ has fulfilled the message of scripture - what other message is there to be delivered? And if God were to speak to anyone in person – they would not live to tell about it. Or do you not think that God is such that we will not instantly die if we were to stand before Him? Frankly the only god that has been made and continues to be worshipped is your sacred evolutionary cow.

1. Evolution does NOT and never has had an "axiom of atheism".

Coming from you, I am more convinced now than ever that you may be right. NOT! You have rather confirmed that scripture is true, for it clearly says:

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 1 Peter 5:8

And you are simply and pitifully yelping from the belly of this beast.

2. Scripture plainly tells us that Genesis 1-3 is not literal. In addition to the blatant and basic contradictions in the two creation accounts, there are numerous textual clues in the Hebrew that tell you that.

Let me guess, you speak fluent Hebrew as well.

3. What is reality? Isn't it God's Creation.

The reality is that we are sinners and deserve nothing more than eternal darkness we were meant for we are an abomination unto God unless we are one in Christ.

Basically, we are back to your worship of the false idol of "scripture". Not the real Scripture, but your elevation to it as a god such that you deny God anywhere else.

The falseness of human theories to discredit God you mean. By real scripture you mean your version of scripture as in an allegorical interpretation – right? Of course scripture does not say that God create the way you say at all does it? So how can creation convict those who care not for evolutionary hogwash when it is the word of God that they hear and the account of man’s fall that the Spirit of God convicts them?

If that is what you truly believe then maybe I suggest you pray to the sun, moon and stars and see how it will bring you to a closer relationship with God, as you do believe a fallen creation more than God.

Well, we've seen examples of your pride. I'd say perverting the Bible into a god is a great example of Satan's treachery.

Yes pride in my God, for He truly is worth every bit of all our praise. And it would seem that you are the only one here immune to Satan’s treachery (at least that is what you believe). There is no perversion greater than twisting scripture to fit what man agrees upon where God plays an invisible role, for have you not read:

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:15

And evolution says nothing about the need for a redeemer.

Amazing! That is exactly my point! For the process spoken of by evolution requires no redeeming – since physical death was not the result of sin but a process the god of evolution uses. For how is it we know we are spiritually dead? It is physical death we need deliverance from, not spiritual death, as scripture does tell us the soul cannot die.

It's not obvious from the "plain reading" at all. It's only obvious when you consider the extrabiblical evidence. Funny how you do so now but denied it was the Roman world earlier in your post.

Doubt there, doubt here, doubt everywhere. Is there no longer genuine faith anywhere? It is only obvious when we believe in what God has told us. Extra biblical evidence is not required for it is not the creation that convicts us but the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that is what Jesus meant when we have the faith of a mustard seed we would be able to move mountains. Have you moved any mountains lately? I know I haven’t but I’m getting there.

I know. Let me rephrase then: it is faith in Jesus Christ which is being destroyed by your position. However, you don't believe Jesus Christ, for you have repeatedly said in this post that you believe only scripture. Isn't Jesus a living presence for you? If so, then you don't believe only because of scripture. If not, then you don't really believe Jesus Christ, but your intepretation of scripture. Either way, some of your claims are false.

Can one truly say He believes God, but outright ignore His word? I wonder what Jesus might be referring to when He commanded us to do in this verse:

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4”

I know that I am living by every word of God. Are you? Or are you simply picking and choosing what does not conflict with your word of man?

Ignored the point. Special Creation ends up with God being sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's. It also ends up with a mostly absentee God. Evolution prevents all that. It protects God from Special Creation.

You conveniently omitted the sin factor - again. Maybe that may be the problem because evolution doesn’t include sin, or its no big deal is it? And yet what are the qualities of God – the God of the Bible now – not the one you obviously have invented for yourself (the god of evolution).

Humm, lets see where a recording of this is ……….(getting out bible, turning to the book of Genesis)………..Wow would you look at that ……………

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Genesis 3:11

An act of disobedience. Something which is showing through in bright colors here and everywhere – and again I ask, are you living by every word of God?

By the way I wonder how God feels about you calling him those awful things – because I know that what we know of this world is due to man’s rebellion and not the creative process of God at all – it is what scripture tells me. Your conclusions come from no other than your own imagination and therefore holds no water.

And I really doubt God needs your imaginative protection from anything – as God does not pray to you, you pray to Him.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

Whether this is what you truly believe or not matters not to me. For you have once more sided with man’s interpretation of the evidence – as we do live in the same world you know, and we all do see the same evidence – it is the interpretations that are different – where yours following entirely in accordance with a man made theory and mine - what scripture tells me.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

I am no more amused about the above outdated quote than your ramblings about your schizophrenic justification of what you or others in the same boat think. Really though, I am not interested in what you or any other person thinks about how God may have created – only in what God has revealed to us through His word as to what He did.

Nope. Darwin viewed evolution as how God worked. The "secondary cause" by which God created the diversity of life on the planet.

Yes Darwin, of course He is dead remember, but Christ lives, who are you going to put your trust in - a dead man or someone who can give you life. Except evolution only occurs in your mind. How imaginative.

Your version of history is just as flawed as your literalistic intepretation of Genesis 1-3.

No more flawed than your schizophrenic attempt to hammer God into a process invented by a dead man and yourself.

Fine. Theistic evolution says this too. But Creation Science goes far beyond this, doesn't it? It says God created in 144 hours less than 20,000 years in the past, that all "kinds" were instantaneously created in their present form, and that a violent Flood caused all geological features. His handiwork says He didn't create that way.

What?! Where did you get that nonsense – the Bible tells us that God created according to its kind and commanded them to breed after their own kind. And what do we see today of the different kinds. Yes birds change, reptiles change, and fish change but what are they still - birds, reptiles, and fish – in other words changes that occur with kind. His handiwork says He is God and is very much worthy of our awe. It says nothing about how He created – for if it does than you can be sure it is your own concoction and nothing more.

Now we're into your man-made theory. Genesis 1-3 never states this.

Not at all. It is what scripture says, for if it doesn’t than obviously we are to ignore the below verse:

“ cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;” Gen 3:17b - 18.

When God curses something we can be sure to see the immediate results – even into eternity if it pleases Him. So much for your assertions of it being my man made theory.

Misrepresentation. We don't know more than God. We know what God tells us in His Creation.

That is exactly what theistic naturalists are claiming for they say they know how all life came to be – where as the creationist say only God knows since He created. And how do we know that God is creator? It is what scripture says. As a believer of God’s word I have no problems with giving credit where it is due – and it all belongs to God. The theistics however have placed the credit on an exaggerated process having no proof other than speculations supported by more speculations. What is even worse is that it isn’t even mentioned in Scripture!

No doubts about scripture; just falsification of your criteria to decide whether a truth is a truth. Being ancient doesn't mean being wrong. The Bible is a lot older than 1832, but you insist it is true. So, age has nothing to do with truth.

Of course you don’t doubt scripture. Truth is truth when it is inspired by God, and not the sole invention of man. Scripture is true not because we choose to believe it, it is the truth that is why we believe in it. Your sources however have only your approval that they are true and since you simply are fallible man – you have no authority whatsoever in determining what is or is not true.

But evolution doesn't discredit God as Creator. You and atheists do.

And God was there from the beginning right? So you must have been a really good note taker when you were right there along with God when He created and can ensure all the glory remain God’s alone? And me discredit God? How can believing that God created as He has told us discrediting Him since I do acknowledge that He is directly and solely responsible for all that we see – however marred by sin it has become.

Empty assertions without documentation. And you are supposed to be a science teacher! Shame!

Yes, yes documentation – I’ve simply become lazy in the ways of men. But realize this is not biology 101, and we’re not here to promote evolution or creationism are we?

Shame only goes to those who have been duped by spiritual forces they claim to be immune to. There is however no shame at all standing on the solid rock of God's word.

LOL!! Lewontin was parodying Sagan! You never read the full text, did you? This occurs in a review of Demon Haunted World. Lewin doesn't like the book. Sagan tried to present his own atheistic worldview as science. Lewontin spent the entire book review taking Sagan to task. This is just part of it. You can tell it is parody and sarcasm from the last sentence of the paragraph preceding it. "What seems absurd depends on one’s prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity “in deep trouble.” Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. "

And what rambling is this now, a theistic evolutionists and a well known die hard evolutionistic atheist in agreement. Ha, my suspicions are correct!

God in trouble! I thought it is man that is always in trouble?

 

[Crusadar]

Read the whole review at http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p1

Spare me the links as I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.

But again, you are consistent. You don't read anyone else any better than you read the Bible.

And hard headed - right! But don’t’ confuse your consistency with mine – for they are not the same.

And so it becomes fruitless as usual for the heart of man is foremost rebellious of God’s truth even now – for he thinks He has come to a point in history where he no longer requires God – but soon the show will be over and He will be on his knees.

You ducked the issue. Again. Whether or not evolution is accurate has nothing to do with "sustainer of all creation" is a concept of evolution. It isn't whether evolution is accurate or not accurate. The concept is Christian.

Quack, quack. What you have simply done is made your own unsupported assertions about what you think is and is not Christian. Again, I am not interested in what you think is or is not Christian, only in what scripture tells us that it is.

Of course, the problem is that evolution has occurred and is occuring.

Wishful thinking at its most imaginative. Lucifer doth love a backward believer!

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

The question is do you? Do you understand now that Christianity and evolution “can not” mix?

In the beginning of the next post you are going to deny that the study of His Creation exists. The quote by Gould shows that no part of science, including evolution, is "tacitly atheistic". Atheists would like to have you believe that, but it isn't so.

Yes the intellectual king of atheists himself – how relevant. A man who rejects God is a fool. I do not listen to fools. As what he says shows nothing more than an unsaved rebellious self proclaimed Marxist speaking his futile mind and nothing more. However I think he regrets ever having been born now - where he went.

Why are you so eager to give aid and comfort to atheists?

For God does love them too, brother. They must understand that a God of love does not create using death, but gives them life and gives it abundantly for they are very much doomed unless they find Christ.

We have no idea, wearing our scientific hats, whether evolution requires God or not. What we can say is that instantaneous formation of species is not required.

The truth will set you free lucas. And yet it is what scripture tells us. By “we” do you mean you and the horned person you are working for?

The problem is why do you? You are saying that natural = without God. Not me. Nice attempt to slip out of the problem, Crusadar, but you accept the basic statement of faith of atheism as valid. Why do you do that?

Because scripture does not say. That however is not the problem – the problem is that you have declared creation to be a book of God when in the end it is creation that will be consumed by fire, not the word of God.

Sure it is.

There is still hope yet.

It's tough on you when you find that evolution isn't the great atheist conspiracy, isn't it? If Darwin was removing all aspects of the supernatural, he certainly went about it in a weird fashion, didn't he? Proclaims life starting by the breath of a Creator is "remove any all aspects of the supernatural in biological science"?

It has become rather a dubiously fruitless endeavor hasn’t it? Darwin again! Give the dead man a break! there is an obvious reason why he is dead as he was mortal – and a sinner like the rest of us. And that is exactly what he did, for is God mention in any evolutionary textbook today is He? I would think he is rather successful wasn’t he, since you of all people believe his hogwash.

I've said this before. If you know of any instance where evolution is being taught as atheism, then document it and inform me and the NCSE so we can correct the situation. All I get are these vague accusations.

Point noted, however I doubt you can do very much about it, brother, for you have not recognized that you are that very instrument used in promoting it as you do preach with fervor the falsehood of evolution. What is amazing is that after all your yapping, my faith in God’s word is unshaken in fact it has risen to another level as God has become more real then ever.

Crusadar, the only reason you think evolution is atheism is your logical error that God has to create by your interpretation of the Bible or God does not exist. That's your problem. Your logical error and crisis of faith.

You can read my mind! And once more it is what scripture says – no interpretation needed therefore it is not a matter me having a problem but that you simply cannot believe God.

My job is to see that you don't pull anyone else from faith while you are destroying your own.

I wonder whose payroll you are on. Let me guess, it isn’t Christ, because you never speak of Him other than what others say about Him. And my job is to be a living witness to the world that the love of Jesus changes lives.

Crusadar, this is what Darwin believed, which shows that he did not make evolution to deny God. However much you wiggle, you can't get around that.

Good try, but alas it is very much a futile attempt to have a spiritual discussion with a brother who wishes to remain very much in his zone of comfort and cry out that it is those who disagree with Him who are the ones astray – when in fact his pitiful yelps from the belly of the beast are nothing more than a source of distraction. And yet it is scripture that He uses to support his conclusions only when he deems fit for it is no more than a matter of pick and choose your version of the truth.

Now, in the decades since, people have found new secondary processes by which God created life. Chemistry. It's simply an extension of natural theology that has been present among Christians for at least 1600 years (since St. Augustine).

Yes people, fallen man that is. Chemistry simply is included among the natural laws put in place by God, evolution however is not a natural law – its stench is that of fallible humanistic reasoning.

And what does evolution deny about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Of course, you already denied this very thing, stating that "only" believing in the scriptures can save you. You threw out this very relationship you now advocate. Talk about schizphrenic!

Evolution mentions nothing of God, so where would Christ be found when God is no where to be found? And yet Christ mentions of creation, and so did Paul? That can’t be right if Christ spoke of creation as scripture plainly tells it and so did Paul. Obviously they must be wrong and you obviously are right.

The only thing that was thrown out, fortunately, was your sacred cow of evolution – thank goodness or I’d be just as schizophrenic as you are!

Crusadar, you simply aren't thinking about the consequences. You are so fixated on evolution that you never think of the consequences of what you are saying. You will say anything to "win" a debating point. Here you say we have a personal relationship with Jesus. Later you say that for salvation we only have to believe scripture.

And what might the consequences be lucas? That I would be unable to support my stand since I am a simply a bible believing literalist who takes his faith in God way too seriously? And once more I say I care not for meager debates with doubters of God. So what have I won lucas, what have I gained as the result of this?

This isn't about theism, atheism, Creation Science, or evolution anymore. It's about your ego. You will sacrifice God, Jesus, your salvation, my salvation, anything, din order to try to score debating points off me. Are you sure you want to continue down this path? Nothing good can come of it.

Ah yes it is very much about my ego isn’t it? How Christian of you. Except I’ve learned to let that go along time ago brother. My only purpose here is stand on the word of God, for you see, I depend no longer on any theory of man but from what the word of God tells me through prayer and meditation – and yet you seem to hide behind every possible saying of every man except your own? Why is that? Do you not trust your own God given intellect that you must do so?

This is your man-made theory. And it gets back to the point that TEs are not intellectually schizophrenic. Everything in God's creation says God used secondary processes.

Nothing in God’s word or His creation says God uses secondary processes, only man made theories and your claim that He did. Yes it is unfortunate that much if not all of Christianity has followed this path of evolutionary hogwash but we all do have our own faith to walk don’t we – and will have to justify our disbelief before God. I hope you have a very good excuse lucas.

All of Christianity except the most extreme Biblical literalists accept this.

Again you make no distinction between those who are Christians simply by name and those who are Christians in heart. Simply saying that most accept it therefore it is right is fallacious. And yet it is us extremists who have put total trust in God surrendering ourselves to the fact that we know nothing – and God knows everything as we do not claim to know how God created but rather accept what God has said as to what He did and therefore we believe.

Don't you accept that God uses the secondary process of gravity to keep the planets in orbit? Or do you think God directly pushes them around? Did God directly zap water in existence or did it arise from the secondary process of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen?

How do you know God isn’t doing exactly that? Taking the complexity of life into consideration I am very much surprised how we manage to take our next breath if God did not continue to sustain us. Does God directly do these processes, I don’t know and neither do you. What I do know is that God is capable of doing anything He wishes since He is God and that is what being God means.

LOL! This from someone that says we can't look at His creation and tell how He created? The one that says we are supposed to ignore His creation! Once again, Crusadar, you have shown that you are so wrapped in your ego that you don't care what contradictions you utter.

Very egotistic indeed that you should point this out, as your responses are bordering the absurd. What I have done is simply painted for everyone a picture of someone who cannot justify what He believes other than cut and paste what others who have the same problem have to say about what he believes. This shows nothing more than a schizophrenic faith in its full bloom. And then the gumption of that individual to say it is the other person who is being egotistical?

 

[Plan 9]

So you think the whole world was enrolled? Where are the Roman records then of Japanese, Sioux, and Zulus? Look, if you are going to be that far gone from reality then no wonder you set yourself up as god.

And again, NO, the Roman world chap – for Luke it was the world as it was the only one they knew. Where in history does it say that the Romans ever conquered Japan, North America or a country in Africa where these indigenous tribes dwelled? I have no doubt they would be included also if it was under the control of Rome. But lets be reasonable – you can’t road march over vast deserts or conquer a world on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

Yes, let's employ reason, as you have done in this case, rather than take every little bit of the Bible literally.


Have you prayed in the interpretation of "intellectually schizophrenic" yet?

 

[Crusadar]

Whewell tells you where god is: making the general laws. Can't you read? Actually, Whewell was a young earth creationist! Worse, did you see where he wrote this? The Bridgewater Treatise is a lecture before the Anglican Church at the invitation of that church. Whewell was an Anglican minister!

And again does scripture support what he says or does he bend scripture to fit what he says much the same way you do? As scripture is what I look to for guidance and not what other believers who may have spiritual problems have to say – I could careless what he says.

Please look at my words again. Not the "evolutionary thinking of people" but "the thinking of people about evolution." No wonder you have so much trouble correctly interpreting the Bible. You don't read plain English well.

It is very hard to show Christian virtue isn’t it? I will admit I am only human and do not have the time as you do to put things under a microscope and then cut and paste an appropriate response. I guess since you have nothing to say about faith except what others say about their faith in God you must throw some dirt now as well, keep in mind however that he who throws dirt looses ground.

You tried to shift gears here. We conclude Creation Science is definitely false not by what God "could have" done, but by the data we find in Creation.

We are not again talking about what you think God could have done are we? It is about what God told us He did so what you say has no scriptural support at all other than your insistence that it is. And again it is not the data that support your stand, only your interpretations of it.

The fallacy here is that evolution is false.

No, the fallacy is that the only thing supporting your version of truth is your insistence - nothing more.

It has not been shown to be, despite the wishful thinking of creationists.

Can the truth of God be truly falsified? Only you would think so. We are very consistent in our doubt of God’s omnipotence aren’t we?

In fact, historically it was Creation Science that was shown to be false -- over 25 years before Darwin published Origin.

Because the rebellious nature of man took precedence over the word of God as history continually tells us. And historically evolution is a breeder of atheists and Marxists and the like isn’t it? Why is that? This shows nothing more than another means of justifying man’s nature.

This does create a major problem for you. Since many of the scientists who disproved Creation Science (and thus a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8) were also ministers (Rev. Sedgwick, Rev. Burnett, Rev. Powell, etc.),

It is only a problem because you say it is. The issue however isn’t really about my problem at all is it? It is about someone who blindly follows whatever the majority follows never realizing who or what it is he follows - until it is too late.

And surely ministers who happen to also be scientists can’t be wrong can they? Why not? Are they sinners as we are? Me and you we are small fry compared to a man of God, because Satan knows very well who to go after since he has been around much longer than you or I. They are the spiritual leaders and would be the primary target of Satan in spiritual warfare. Take out the spiritual leader and the flock of followers scatter.

you are faced with denying their faith.

What I am faced with is not a denial of their faith, for every man must walk his or her own faith. What I am faced with is your assertion that they can believe for you – when they cannot. And it is obvious that you hold their views with more reverence than the word of God. But then it is God’s word that these men base their faith on – so now is your faith simply a secondary processes? Maybe that might be the problem as you do depend entirely too much on others for your faith.

No one at the time doubted their faith or committment to Jesus.

I suppose you were there then and could read their mind and see into their hearts? That would be quite astonishing since you are simply fallible human - like me.

But you either have to humble yourself and admit an error or deny them. Let me guess which it will be.

Truth before humility brother, for without absolute truth there is no reason to be humble. What can be more humbling than saying, “God I know nothing of how you created, therefore I believe whole heartedly in what you have said as to what you have done, for you are my Creator and I am simply before you on my knees in total submission.”