Choosing a side?

[Pats]

Well, thanks a lot for all of your interest and responses thus far. This has been a good chat for me.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's good to know. For me the climate issue has rapidly eclipsed the evolution issue. And I know there are many good conservative Christians who do understand how serious it is and are working on it. As a Canadian I am appalled at the trickery played by the Conservative Party in our unelected Senate a few days ago which manipulated a defeat of the Climate Accountability Act passed in the House of Commons last May. And I am ashamed by our government's staunch defence of the Alberta Tar Sands development and complete inaction on investing in green energy.

Not to stray off topic but I served with some pretty awesome Canadians in Afghanistan. I don't know what I would have done without them. They were very environmentally conscious, they cleaned up a mess at the fuel point no one cared about but them, I was so impressed. I'm not really a big environmentalist but I do think that the trend towards green technology is a great thing, I'd just like to see more of it.

My church work lately has been largely on education on climate change and climate justice and as a long-time Christian educator it has always been a principle of mine that we reach out to people of every political stripe. I don't consider issues like these to be partisan and I work for non-partisan policy and action that every Christian and every voter can support.

Good for you dear, glad to hear you are working to make a difference.

I think you will get that with the pace of discovery coming out of molecular biology and biochemistry. I don't think it will change the scientific consensus on evolution, though.

It seems to remain static, I don't think you really need to make a big deal of philosophical or religious issues with kids. They will think about it eventually and the more they know about how biology works the better able they are to deal with it when they do.

Interesting. I don't think religion should be a private matter; I think faith has a rightful claim to the public square. But I do think it has to be non-partisan with all believers (and non-believers) treated with respect. I worry when I see some of the anti-Islamic furor that gets drummed up. That sort of thing then feeds in to the al-Qaida action against Christians in Iraq. No one wins in a contest of "who can hate more".

I was in a store with my wife and there was a guy wearing a Sikh turban. She said she was offended because they are the enemy. I told her that it was a Sikh turban and that it was not the Islamic variety of headgear. She actually said that they shouldn't be allowed to wear it and I laughed. I said this is America, he can wear any kind of a hat he likes.

There is an expression in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that speaks of a Wall of Separation, no doubt a reference to the 1st Amendment. What people don't realize is that the wall spoken of is a Theological concept. What the Protestants who started using it had in mind was the garden wall of ancient Hebrew households. The fields could be gleaned and taxed, the household garden was 'private'. Jefferson was talking to them in their own language and this expression has become a part of Supreme Court Dicta now for decades. But don't tell the ACLU...shhhhh...they get kind of testy about that sort of thing.

A Muslim friend of mine recently sent me an article about a mid-America church which opened its doors to a Muslim congregation when a construction delay postponed the use of its new mosque. This happened in the midst of the post 9/11 trauma, so it was especially gracious. The question my friend asked is why this didn't get national and international exposure and instead the air-waves were filled with that idiot in Florida who threatened to burn a copy of the Qu'ran.

I remember that, he should really try a more productive attention getting device. Funny how you hear more about a Qu'ran burning then an act of kindness. Decency is it's own reward, God knows when we are doing the right thing for the right reasons, that's all that's important.

Always a pleasure gluadys, even when we are having those silly debates.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[elopez]

Why is it important to you to choose a specific camp?

Creat vs. TE, for instance.


Thanks,
Pats

The issue is trivial in consideration of our salvation or other matters like that. However I would say it's important, for it does affect our worldview in a very profound way. I think these are things we should think honestly about, and wherever the evidence leads we must follow it.

 

[Pats]

The issue is trivial in consideration of our salvation or other matters like that. However I would say it's important, for it does affect our worldview in a very profound way. I think these are things we should think honestly about, and wherever the evidence leads we must follow it.

That's a lot along the lines that I've thought, lately. Thanks.

 

[Pats]

Hi Pats how have you been keeping?

Well, a lot is going on with me and my insomnia and what not, but otherwise, I'm blessed, thanks.

I have to agree with Mark here, goodness it felt strange typing that , hi Mark

Thanks for the giggle there.

Our view of Genesis and evolution are a complete side issue to being a follower of Jesus saved and walking in newness of life through his death and resurrection.

Agreed.

Where it is important, is because the issue can be a stumbling block to people turning to Jesus,

I've whitnessed this myself. Where people who learned evolution butted heads with evangelistic creationists and the whole thing turned ugly. That's mainly what convicted me that my path was more to be a TE, though unfortunately, it would take some studying for me to learn the science involved more in detail.

or young believers who have been taught creationism in Sunday school, discovering the evidence for evolution is much stronger that they were told, especially if they have been taught that if evolution is true the bible is a lie.

THAT is what I was taught, and therefore, was greatly conflicted after some of the regular posters here really helped me see the way.

Still, the concerns Mark Kennedy brings up about original sin and Noah's Ark and the doctrines involved there confuse me. So, I don't think any view point man can conceive of here in this life is perfect.

Thanks a lot to all who responded,

Pats

 

[shernren]

To me it comes down to what I said to WretchedMan:

... the dispute between creationists and evolutionists is not about what God has done, but about what natural processes can do. It should not be seen as a dispute between an inherently theistic approach and an inherently anti-theistic approach.

I have posted here for a long time, and over time I have come to see my job not as convincing creationists to become evolutionists, but convincing creationists to know why they are creationists. I don't think it is actually wrong for a creationist to be a creationist. I don't expect scientifically less-well-informed people to know how to react to modern science, just as I myself do not know enough about economics to know whether Christians should support more taxes or less taxes, or enough about medicine and its ethics to know just where to draw the line on euthanasia.

My problem is rather two-fold. Firstly, creationists tend to use Scripture inaccurately to support their views, and refuse to consider other Scriptures or other readings of Scripture that might contradict them. Secondly, creationists tend to have a deistic mindset, in which miracles somehow have a higher status of being "divine action" than natural processes, to the extent that to say something evolved would be equivalent to denying divine action in their creation. That, to me, is why I take part in this discussion and correct creationists; not to stop them from being creationists but to stop them from being quote-mining deists.

 

[mark kennedy]

Still, the concerns Mark Kennedy brings up about original sin and Noah's Ark and the doctrines involved there confuse me. So, I don't think any view point man can conceive of here in this life is perfect.

Pats

There is really no easy way out of this but sooner or later you have to take a long look at Romans 5. It helped me work out something that really bothered me early in my Christian life, why was I such a sinner that Christ had to die in my place? I think Adam had a shot at righteousness but failed to trust God's word. Ultimately sin is not the presence of dark motives and misdeeds, those are symptomatic of the absence of righteousness.

Noah's Ark on the other hand does underscore God's wrath but apart from that a local flood really doesn't change much and could actually help a lot. Can't get around the New Testament witness on the issue of lineage, it trips me out that TEs don't even try. However, what really entrenched me into the YEC view was not theological. What really drove me to it was the contentious nature of evolutionists and the way they misrepresented the evidence.

I doubt that helps much, just thought I'd throw a few random thoughts into the mix.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

My problem is rather two-fold. Firstly, creationists tend to use Scripture inaccurately to support their views, and refuse to consider other Scriptures or other readings of Scripture that might contradict them.

My problem is that you ignore the Scriptures entirely. When the law came it condemned sin, that sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more (Rom. 5:20)​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam. In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is contrasting the letter with the Spirit, that is, being born again as opposed to conforming to the written code that none of us can fulfill due to our Adamic nature. The Pauline doctrine of original sin is clear, concise and consistent with the totality of Scripture.

Oh wait, you already knew that and simply ignored it because it contradicts you.

Secondly, creationists tend to have a deistic mindset, in which miracles somehow have a higher status of being "divine action" than natural processes, to the extent that to say something evolved would be equivalent to denying divine action in their creation. That, to me, is why I take part in this discussion and correct creationists; not to stop them from being creationists but to stop them from being quote-mining deists.

Deist!!! Seriously? You have got to be putting me on! God acts in time and space to create the universe, life and man by divine fiat is not deistic. Giving credit to naturalistic forces what is rightfully God's is the same old 'make a watch, wind it up and let it go' deistic mindset.

You go around spreading baseless slander and call it correction, your little more the comedy relief in these debates. There are some serious issues involved, theological as well as scientific and you wouldn't know one if it bit you on the nose.

Deist.... ..... that's a good one.

Have a nice day troller
Mark

 

[Pats]

I have posted here for a long time, and over time I have come to see my job not as convincing creationists to become evolutionists, but convincing creationists to know why they are creationists. I don't think it is actually wrong for a creationist to be a creationist. I don't expect scientifically less-well-informed people to know how to react to modern science, just as I myself do not know enough about economics to know whether Christians should support more taxes or less taxes, or enough about medicine and its ethics to know just where to draw the line on euthanasia.

Not to be OT here, but I know a lot about medicine and euthanasia. So, lem'me know if you have questions. Hi Shern btw, thanks for the opinion, always good to see ya.

My problem is rather two-fold. Firstly, creationists tend to use Scripture inaccurately to support their views, and refuse to consider other Scriptures or other readings of Scripture that might contradict them.

I guess that's what makes this a theological discussion.

Secondly, creationists tend to have a deistic mindset, in which miracles somehow have a higher status of being "divine action" than natural processes,

And a natural processes is less miraculous how? I put a lot of weight in "divine action" myself. Thank God.

to the extent that to say something evolved would be equivalent to denying divine action in their creation. That, to me, is why I take part in this discussion and correct creationists; not to stop them from being creationists but to stop them from being quote-mining deists.

Well, I'd say more or less of them are just trying to take God at His Word, but that's my humble opinion.

Thanks a lot Shern. Always good to see you.

Quote mining deists???? bit harsh there, eh?

 

[Pats]

There is really no easy way out of this but sooner or later you have to take a long look at Romans 5. It helped me work out something that really bothered me early in my Christian life, why was I such a sinner that Christ had to die in my place? I think Adam had a shot at righteousness but failed to trust God's word. Ultimately sin is not the presence of dark motives and misdeeds, those are symptomatic of the absence of righteousness.

Noah's Ark on the other hand does underscore God's wrath but apart from that a local flood really doesn't change much and could actually help a lot. Can't get around the New Testament witness on the issue of lineage, it trips me out that TEs don't even try. However, what really entrenched me into the YEC view was not theological. What really drove me to it was the contentious nature of evolutionists and the way they misrepresented the evidence.

I doubt that helps much, just thought I'd throw a few random thoughts into the mix.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks Mark. I have to get ready for work soon. I'll be back later to respond.

 

[shernren]

My problem is that you ignore the Scriptures entirely.

There we go, isn't this exactly what I was talking about?

Firstly, creationists tend to use Scripture inaccurately to support their views, and refuse to consider other Scriptures or other readings of Scripture that might contradict them.

Mark went into a long spiel on Romans 5, without realizing that his reading is in fact perfectly compatible with theistic evolution. John Stott is hardly a raving liberal, but here is what he has to say in his Bible Speaks Today commentary on that passage:

But surely the human fossil and skeleton record indicates that the genus homo existed hundreds of thousands of years before the New Stone Age? Yes. Homo sapiens (modern) is usually traced back to about 100,000 years ago, and homo sapiens (archaic) to about half a million years ago, homo erectus to about 1.8 million years ago, and homo habilis even to two million years ago. Moreover, homo habilis was already making stone tools in East and South Africa; homo erectus was making wooden tools as well and living in caves and camps, while homo sapiens (especially the European Stone Age sub-species Neanderthal man), although still a hunter-gatherer, was beginning to paint, carve and sculpt, and even to care for the sick and bury the dead. But were these species of homo ‘human’ in the biblical sense, created in the image of God, endowed with rational, moral and spiritual faculties which enabled them to know and love their Creator? Ancient skeletons cannot answer this question; the evidence they supply is anatomical rather than behavioural. Even signs of cultural development do not prove that those involved were authentically human, that is, God-like. The likelihood is that they were all pre-Adamic hominids, still homo sapiens and not yet homo divinus, if we may so style Adam.​

Adam, then, was a special creation of God, whether God formed him literally ‘from the dust of the ground’ and then ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’,90 or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God.​

What then about those pre-Adamic hominids which had survived natural calamity and disaster (as large numbers did not), had dispersed to other continents, and were now Adam’s contemporaries? How did Adam’s special creation and subsequent fall relate to them? Derek Kidner suggests that, once it became clear that there was ‘no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s “federal” headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.’​

90 Gn. 2:7.

Stott, J. R. W. (2001], c1994). The message of Romans : God's good news for the world. The Bible speaks today (164). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.


​

In fact there are entirely conservative, evangelical voices out there calling for evolutionary or near-evolutionary readings of the Bible. Ignore them you may, but at your own peril.

Deist!!! Seriously?

You have got to be putting me on! God acts in time and space to create the universe, life and man by divine fiat is not deistic. Giving credit to naturalistic forces what is rightfully God's is the same old 'make a watch, wind it up and let it go' deistic mindset.

And again, this is not something I made up by myself from thin air:

Observe, then, Gentlemen, that Physical Theology teaches three Divine Attributes [power, wisdom, and goodness], I may say, exclusively; and of these, most of Power, and least of Goodness. And in the next place, what, on the contrary, are those special Attributes, which are the immediate correlatives of religious sentiment? Sanctity, omniscience, justice, mercy, faithfulness. What does Physical Theology, what does the Argument from Design, what do fine disquisitions about final causes, teach us, except very indirectly, faintly, enigmatically, of these transcendently important, these essential portions of the idea of Religion? ... Indeed, a Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else, is not very different from the God of the Pantheist. - John Henry Newman, "Ideas of a University"
​

Alister McGrath notes that this response was made before Darwinism had become an established theory, so that Newman could not have been saying this even to defend evolution: even without Darwin's challenge, ID and creationism were being shown to be vacuous ways of understanding creation.

You go around spreading baseless slander and call it correction, your little more the comedy relief in these debates. There are some serious issues involved, theological as well as scientific and you wouldn't know one if it bit you on the nose.

Of course I wouldn't know a serious issue if it bit me on the nose: between the mocking atheists and the hostile creationists I've been bitten more noseless than Voldemort already.

 

[Greg1234]

Why is it important to you to choose a specific camp?

Creat vs. TE, for instance.


Thanks,
Pats

In relation to what God and life is, you're automatically a creationist. Its not a choice per se, but a corollary of understanding. It is to be defended based on the evidence and the fact that Darwinism is swung, not merely brandished, by the materialist.

 

[Verticordious]

My problem is that you ignore the Scriptures entirely. When the law came it condemned sin, that sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more (Rom. 5:20)​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam. In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is contrasting the letter with the Spirit, that is, being born again as opposed to conforming to the written code that none of us can fulfill due to our Adamic nature. The Pauline doctrine of original sin is clear, concise and consistent with the totality of Scripture.

Oh wait, you already knew that and simply ignored it because it contradicts you.

The only person who seems to be ignoring scripture is you. You conveniently leave out earlier verses from that passage, such as verse 12 which states that 'death spread to all because all sinned', not 'death spread to all because Adam sinned'. You also skip over the second half of verse 18, which says that 'through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men'. Paul is making a direct comparison between the results of Adam's actions to the results of Christs actions. Adams sin does not automatically make people sinners any more than Christ's righteousness automatically makes people righteous. If you are interpreting this verse to be saying that Adam's sin makes everyone a sinner, then I assume you also believe in universal salvation as it also says that Christ's righteousness resulted in justification of life to all men.

 

[vossler]

Why is it important to you to choose a specific camp?

Creat vs. TE, for instance.


Thanks,
Pats

Hello Pats , great to hear from you and see that your still around. I've always appreciated your attitude and Christlike demeanor. I no longer actively post but your question did spark me to respond.

For me it's become quite simple. I'm interested in the truth and there is but only one source of truth, God, so when His Word tells us something there cannot be two bi-polar meanings. Truth is of utmost importance, once we compromise it, we've lost our way and so much more. So...having said that; I want to stand for something that is very important to God, truth!

Thanks for the provocatively simple question.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The issue is important to me because I'm deeply concerned with the way much of Christianity presently exists in America (and elsewhere, to be sure). I don't generally see the Creationism issue as isolated, but as part of a larger problem facing the Church. Anti-evolutionism is symptomatic of the anti-intellectualism pervading many sectors of the Church, usually combined with other elements which the Religious Right uses to pervert the Gospel.

Creationism has made more atheists than Darwin could ever have. No insult to atheists, just pointing out that when a Christian is convinced Creationism is the only option as a Christian, and then finds out that a literal reading of Genesis is untenable, the inevitable result is a total departure from Christianity. Pointing out that it's not the only option, that Creationism is not intrinsic to Christianity, means being able to be faithful and intellectually honest at the same time. Because Jesus asks us to take up our crosses, not take out our brains.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Greg1234]

Creationism already teaches adaptation. Upon that knowledge, 21st Century revelations have shown us through testing that random mutations are not viable. The intelligent mechanism behind adaptation has also come to the forefront. Geological evidence of man predating his supposed "ancestors" run amok. The limit of adaptation is also a widely recorded fact. Darwinists still cannot get past "a change in allele frequency over time".

In order to compensate for the void induced in the arena by the likes of the aforementioned knowledge amassed and applied within Creationism, ad hominem is recruited and overworked. Spanning positions it never had the stamina nor range to accommodate. Like seemingly under privileged football players, direct engagements are substituted for banging the bleacher seats, jumping over one another, muscle flexes are complemented with irrelevant stretches, but lo, his position on the field will be left vacated. These, supplemented with verbal slurs, are the incantations able to produce a Darwinist. Not Creationism. In fact, the idea that Darwinism is above Creationism is purely illusionary, a condition created and maintained in an effort to monopolize "reason" and "intelligence" through less than complimentary methods.

 

[gluadys]

Creationism already teaches adaptation. Upon that knowledge, 21st Century revelations have shown us through testing that random mutations are not viable. The intelligent mechanism behind adaptation has also come to the forefront. Geological evidence of man predating his supposed "ancestors" run amok. The limit of adaptation is also a widely recorded fact. Darwinists still cannot get past "a change in allele frequency over time".

Why would they need to?

Also what "intelligent mechanism" are you referring to? And what geological evidence of "man predating his supposed 'ancestors'" are you speaking of?

 

[Greg1234]

Why would they need to?

Its the 21st Century.

Also what "intelligent mechanism" are you referring to?

SpringerLink - Genetica, Volume 86, Numbers 1-3

And what geological evidence of "man predating his supposed 'ancestors'" are you speaking of?

Lets begin with the Calaveras skull. A known "hoax" . Calaveras Skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A refutation of the finding. The Calaveras Skull Revisited

And the case for said discovery. Edlain.com The case For The Calaveras Skull

 

[gluadys]

Its the 21st Century.

So, why would they need to in the 21st century.

SpringerLink - Genetica, Volume 86, Numbers 1-3

I saw no mention of an intelligent mechanism in this abstract. As I don't have access to the full paper, perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the section of the paper that does refer to an intelligent mechanism.

Lets begin with the Calaveras skull. A known "hoax" . Calaveras Skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A refutation of the finding. The Calaveras Skull Revisited

And the case for said discovery. Edlain.com The case For The Calaveras Skull

Raking over a century old controversy by examining old reports pro and con is hardly plausible evidence. Are there one or two skulls? What was it/their original provenance? Deliberate joke or not? Who can tell now?

The skull (only one) in the possession of the museum has been carbon-dated to 1000 years before present and that appears to be the only substantive evidence in this case.

Conclusion: the only skull for which we have evidence is recent. That there was a different skull is unverifiable conjecture.

 

[Greg1234]

So, why would they need to in the 21st century.

This was just given.

I saw no mention of an intelligent mechanism in this abstract. As I don't have access to the full paper, perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the section of the paper that does refer to an intelligent mechanism.

Read it again.

Raking over a century old controversy by examining old reports pro and con is hardly plausible evidence.

I could not find an older one. The tactic and ideology of waiting and stalling then declaring expiration didn't work. And believe me, if I could have found an older case, I would have used it. The reports were valid then, they are valid now. The integrity of the scientists will also be preserved.

Are there one or two skulls? What was it/their original provenance? Deliberate joke or not? Who can tell now?

This was in the links provided.

The skull (only one) in the possession of the museum has been carbon-dated to 1000 years before present and that appears to be the only substantive evidence in this case.

This was in the links provided.

Conclusion: the only skull for which we have evidence is recent. That there was a different skull is unverifiable conjecture.

Conclusion: Claims of a hoax are unverifiable conjectures. And the legitimacy is maintained. Just another fossil find.