Coming out of the theistic evolution closet

[gluadys]

Here I have been, showing you that there is an answer as to why the earth is very old, yet this present creation is relatively new.

There is no scientific evidence that there has been more than one creation. That is why I find OEC no better than YEC.

 

[gluadys]

[/size][/font]

Have any of you theistic evolutionists seen the evidence and have accurately tested it?

Me personally, no. I am not a scientist. But I know of theist evolutionists (including some who post to this board) that have done such testing.

Do any of you theistic evolutionists know the minds, of the scientists who brought forth the evidence and of those who interpreted the evidence, to be unbias and not looking to prove that God does not exists?

Since by definition theistic evolutionists are theists---believers in God---why would they be looking to prove that God does not exist?

That is an impossible propostion to prove scientically anyway. Why would any scientist waste effort on an impossible project?

. You are trusting the scientists to be correct. And the scientists are men, and men are fallible. And most of these men are atheists.

Actually a good many of them are women, and I hope to see the number of female scientists grow. Most are not atheists, though a great percentage are agnostic. However, private beliefs does not mean the science is wrong.

Yes men (and women too) are fallible. But you cannot apply a general statement to particulars without reason. To say that people (you see we CAN talk about humans without being chauvinistically patriarchal) are fallible is not the same thing as saying that everything they have produced is filled with errors. People do make accurate statements as well as mistaken statements.

Scientists are disciplined far more than most people to back up their claims with evidence. Unless we have a reason to question a specific conclusion, why should we assume it is an error? Do we not have to show cause why this conclusion is in error?

I cannot see it any other way unless you are prepared to say that every statement in every scientific work is erroneous.

 

[GenemZ]

You've just contradicted yourself. If a biologist lacks the ability to explain why species are different, then it's even more complex than I made it out to be.

Not, "why they are different." But, why they became different.

All had to come from a common ancestor. If you believe that creatures with eyes, lungs, hearts, livers, bones, joints, stomachs, muscle, ligaments, teeth, ears, mouths, intestines, bowels, sexual organs, spines, feet, tongues, etc, all started as separate entities in the beginning, then you have a much greater imagination that I can imagine.

As I said to Andy, if you can't discuss creationism without talking about God or the Bible, then you can't claim that creationism is science.

Not saying that. If Science contradicts God's Word, then the theory can not be correct. That is now, if you really know God is real. And, know who God is. You claim to be a Christian, but you use the very same arguments I received from Atheist and Agnostics over the years in another forum. That does not mean you are not a Christian...., But, it reveals the company you keep. Like it, or not. It does.

Try to explain all of the creationist tenets to people without citing one lick of scripture. Try doing it without bringing up God. You can't. And that's because creationism is a religious belief.

I would not bring up God. I would just show the logical reasoning that inert matter can not spontaneously transform into animated life. I will leave it up to them to bring up God. For the very nature of creation demands the recognition of God.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:18-20 niv

However, slim odds are still possible. You may view evolution as increasing the odds that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.

Who's side are you on?

It doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. So you can't take the jump and claim that God is being called a liar.

You sound like an Agnostic. Why?

If God created via evolution, then that's the way He created. If He created via creationism, then that's the way He created. But if He created via creationism, then why did He leave no evidence of it?

Why do some see what you can't? Is it a blindness gene?

Alright, then. Let's say you want to show someone how Windows XP is different than Windows 98. How do we use God's Word to show the difference? Which passage of scripture teaches us that XP loads up quicker, and stores files differently?

If God said he created Windows in the Bible, maybe you argument would make sense. It does not. Yet, God does lay claim to creation of all life. It does not take a computer to figure that one out.

But the point is that, with theistic evolution, there is no need to "retreat", because there is no claim made that Genesis is a textbook.

God says he created "Bara" (Hebrew, for "out from nothing) Man and women in his image. Ex Nihilio, is the theological term. The Hebrew would be lying if man evolved from an ape, monkey, or a tree.

Where did I say that matter "formed itself"? Anyhow, you have to understand that evolution does not deal with how life came to be. It only deals with what happened, once life began.

I know it doesn't. Evolutionists refuse to face that question. They simply walked into a room filled with toys and began playing with them, and eventually took possession of them as their own. If they started to question if they belonged to someone else, it would ruin their fun they are having.

Actually, is was C.I. Scofield who popularized the theory in 1909. There is legitimate evidence that this theory was embraced largely because of anxiety over Darwin, and because the modern YEC movement had yet to be formed.

Scoffield only made known what had been on record for thousands of years. There was no need to bring out this teaching until Darwin made his move. It remained mainly in the halls of Biblical scholarship, and did not make its way into the common man of the believers sitting in the pews. Darwins theory forced this teaching to be introduced to the common man. Before then, it was tossed back and forth by Biblical scholars who had a keen interest in the Original Languages. I learned of this understanding when I attended Bible College. I heard a message given by one of our teachers, Professor Stan Ashby, who used to teach Ancient Languages at Harvard. He had an interest in this teaching. Why? Because it does not stand up to scholarly scrutiny?

This is an unfounded assumption. Basically, the author's assumption is that any theory that had been around a long time and espoused by Christians must be legit. Well, for ages Christians believed in alchemy, bloodletting, and the racial inferiority of blacks.

It was only around because it is to be found in the Origianl Languages. They did not even know why it was there! Darwin was the needed catalyst to get the ball rolling in finding out what the scriptures had been proclaiming for centuries. You think Bible Scholar, Origen, connected what he saw with prehistoric fossils? He hadn't a clue. He was perplexed. Yet, he saw that the planet we are living on had been destroyed and recreated. Thank God for Darwin! His misguided theory had opened a door for much greater understanding of God's Word. Now, what the Bible scholars of the past saw, made sense!

Erroneous creation theories are even more excusable, since it took so many centuries for our knowledge to get to the point where we could even begin to understand biology.

God created the cow. He created the horse. Does that mean that the DNA has to be radically different between one and the other before we can know they were created separately, and not evolved? Who set that rule up?

Take two paintings by Picasso. If an art expert can see that the strokes are the same unique technique, and the composition of the paint used, the same. Does that mean that Picasso painted one very long painting, and cut it up into different paintings? One evolving out from another? Or, each contain the same elements, but arranged differently. Each being a separate creation in its own right? God is the creative artist here. You fail to see that.

And, why are you so fast to reject the GAP theory? It appears you are equiped to reject it, and not even consider it. Anyone can find excuses for rejecting anything good for them if they are determined to do so. Why are you rejecting it? On the bases of some objections raised by some? If objections are your reason, then you should reject evolution, too. But, your rejection is not based upon objections. Not really. Not if you are to be consistent.

Anyway..... Grace in peace, GeneZ

 

[Andy D]

Well I'm right and you're wrong, it's that simple. The conspiracy theory is the refuge of the ignorant and the uneducated. You must believe that hundreds of thousands of your fellow Chrisitans are liars in one way or another or (and lets face it much more likely) you are wrong.

Actually I dont believe they are liars....I believe that if the creation theory is correct then they are just being misled

 

[artybloke]

Actually I dont believe they are liars

Actually, I do. Creationism makes an awful lot of money out of gullible people.

 

[Andy D]

Being a fool for Christ, and being really foolish, are not the same things.

Muslims do the same for Allah. Is Allah the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The flesh can be quite devout. Means nothing unless God's Spirit is enabling. Suicide Muslims who die for Allah do not have the Holy Spirit. I am not impressed by your claim. It only shows you are living by your emotions. No one wants to die for Christ, unless he requires it of us. If he does, then he supplies the needed grace to fulfill. If he does not, we should want to live for Christ. Peter got like you. So there's hope. But, not impressed in the least. Your mind set is right now blinded by your emotions.

Matthew 26:34 -35 niv

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same."

Right, Peter! Right! Peter disowned Jesus three times. Peter's well intentioned emotions were not well pleasing to God. We are what we think, to God. Not what we feel. Feelings are only the icing on the cake when our thinking is correct.

Explain this to the thousands of Christians who die for their faith each day. They are living by emotions? No, I believe they are living by faith. Knowing that our home is in heaven and if I am faced with die or renounce my faith, I will die. This cannot even be compared to suicide bombers and it is shameful to Christians who die each day that you even consider this. I happen to read a lot of these articles about Christians dying for Christ and I feel for them but I am not stupid, I will die for Christ IF I am called to. You just didnt want to hear the context this was written in so u made one up.

Hello? New belief? I gave you a page that showed you that many Bible Scholars saw this factor in Genesis, long before Darwin was ever born. I give up. You refuse to read it? Really read it?

Who did you verify with? Fellow YEC's? That reminds me of my mother. I used to witness to her about Jesus from the Old Testament. She would then tell me that she would check it out with her rabbi. Lot's of good that did her. She refused to think for herself.

I start my verification with the Bible and no, not YEC's (they may be YEC's) but rather Christians who have studied the Word and also my own studying as well.

Fine. God is working in each one of us, in different ways. This is an area he needs to expose to you about yourself. You are wrong.

This is where you say, I am mislead and wrong. I am not looking to God for answers or truth but rather to my own agenda. This is where I know you are wrong in stating this because I, and only God and I, know that I am being honest in stating that I am being led by God and I accept I am wrong on some things but I have not felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God didnt create the world in 6 literal days.

If that were the case, we would have no sea life as we know it. If there was a universal flood in Noah's day, that would mean that fresh water and salt water would have combined, killing off much of the sea life as we know it. In Noah's day, God was not out to destroy all animal life. He was only out to destroy man. Man at that time was living in an area most likley no larger than a large county. Man was in his infancy at that time. If God had to put all the species of land animals from all over the world on a ship, he would have needed to have Noah build a huge fleet of ships. You have any idea how many different species of land animals there are in the world? They would not all fit on a the Ark. But, that is another thread, I suppose.

Notice when you read that page I offered you, that ancient Jewish scholars (who were born again believers before the Church age) saw in the Hebrew Scriptures that God's Word revealed to them multiple creations in the past. If they only had the fossil records they would have better understood what they had discovered in God's Word. They did not know about prehistoric life like we do today. They were simply reporting what they were finding in the text. It might have even confused them a bit. It shows you that their interpretation was not motivated by bias or an agenda they wished to defend. Darwin was thousands of years from yet being born. Yet, they saw that the scriptures reveal other creations had been in the past. Are you getting this?

Grace in peace, GeneZ

Do you have to question everything that God has inspired in His word? I cant argue on a scientific level on these issues and state, maybe the water was fresh water...who knows...it is another theory...we have enough theories already...I just believe the truth..what I know to be true..or believe to be true. I believe in gravity because I can feel the effects of it and you can call it something other than gravity and say it works in a totally different way to how it has already been explained...yet it still has the same effects on me today.

I also dont think Noah had to take fully grown adults of all animals on the ark...baby ones would do. Many species since have been bred, such as dogs, etc...so dont count those..and dinosaurs could have easily been mostly killed off by then for food...who knows....do you? God knows. I just accept that the Bible states that it happened.

 

[notto]

This is where you say, I am mislead and wrong. I am not looking to God for answers or truth but rather to my own agenda. This is where I know you are wrong in stating this because I, and only God and I, know that I am being honest in stating that I am being led by God and I accept I am wrong on some things but I have not felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God didnt create the world in 6 literal days.

Keep this in mind when you suggest that theistic evolutionists and other scientists are lying and trying to prove that God does not exist. You cannot know and I for one know that your are wrong when it comes to my beliefs. I personally have never felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God DID create the world in 6 literal days and as someone who pursues scientific investigation as the study of Gods creation, it is Gods handiwork that directly leads me to believe otherwise.

Accusations of who is a Christian and who is misled or lying can be applied by either side so they don't really provide anthing of value.

That is why we must look at the evidence and how it is analyzed. This evidence is analyzed by scientists who are Christians, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc and they overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. The world is old and the flood never happened. Unless it can be shown that they are all deceived (by providing a valid alternative scientific theory backed by evidence), mainstream science will chug along as it always has and continue to verify the evidence or discard it. This practice is valid and although it may have a few flaws, it has proven to be the best we can do and has worked well in the past.

 

[Andy D]

Are you saying that, without creationism, hell makes no sense?

I don't know about you, but I've never needed to debate dinosaurs or the age of the earth in order for people to understand what damnation is.

No I never said without creationism hell makes no sense. If you read what I wrote correctly then you might realise I am saying that if they can live their life believing there is no God then hell makes no sense. If they stumble across a reason so strong to prove there is a God in their mind and dont completely try to block out the possibility then they are in trouble when they in fact find out that this world proves an intelligent designer and that life could never have existed without God in fact existing...or else they have to put it down to aliens...as many people seem to believe these days lol.

But for its own credibility, creationism needs objective supporters. Religion, by definition, is not objective. Think of it this way: the folks who claim to have been abducted by aliens don't need more folks to come forward with similiar stories. They need objective bystanders who weren't actually abducted to photograph the spaceship or capture the alien. Creationism cannot be taken seriously if the requirement for believing in it is a religious conversion. If it cannot be addressed on purely scientific level, then it is useless to use it as science.

I understand your point and I dont believe we can ever look at the creation account purely scientifically because we are not God and therefore will never understand all the ways of God...His ways are not our ways. He thinks on a much higher level to us...as He is all knowledgeable and powerful. He is God. So yeah...the Bible is pretty useless as a scientific textbook as it just tells the creation account..it doesnt explain how, other than that God created in 6 days.

But what good is understanding the spiritual world when you're trying to learn how birds can fly? You're right that science deals with this world and not the spiritual one; that's why desiring to introduce God into scientific research makes no sense.

So if you really believe that science and spirituality are seperate realms of study, then why can't you talk about creationism - which, according to you, is scientific fact - without talking about God and the Bible?

Actually it is more that I believe creationism is what the Bible says and it goes down to a study of how the Bible is to be interpreted as a Christian. That would be more important as a Christian I believe. I cant talk about creationism without talking about God and the Bible because the whole creationism concept comes from the Bible.

The first man had to have a soul. And since he was a man, he was in the image of God. That's not that complicated.

Still I am trying to work out who that first man was? The Bible says it was Adam...pretty clear to me. What I am trying to say is that at what stage did the ape evolving into a man, actually be called a man..what about the apes that were 99.99999% man and rest ape? If evolution takes billions of years, it isnt fair on the apes previous to the first man to not have a soul...ok, God is God so who can question Him, but He is also just. If we say that ape that was nearly a man but not quite, but obviously slightly intelligent, cannot have a soul and live forever because they were not in the image of God, then that is a bit harsh considering we didnt sin until the first man apparently...or when did the first sin happen? If that ape did have a soul, did the evolutionary species before that have souls? Will there be lots of single cell organisms living in heaven that were not quite the image of God, but evolved to be it over the years so they can come too. You can see my point, unless you can find a theory that fits, then another gap in TE theory. The Bible is so clear on it...Adam and Eve, they sinned...if this is just allogorical...what confusion...Yes, I understand we dont understand the Trinity very well, or predestination or the end times...but they are concepts we just accept in the Bible. They can cause some confusion, yes. These are not explained as clearly as the account of creation and man and sin in Genesis 1-3 though. This seems very clear as though God desired us to know our origin and our beginnings, that He created us and breathed life into us and each one of us since creation. He gave us our souls and allowed us to be in existence and for that we praise God.

In creationism, I can see how we were made in the image of God and were physical and spiritual beings but we sinned and died spiritually and would also see death physically too now as a result. We cannot escape physical death unless we are raptured by God, but we can escape an eternity of spiritual death and separation from God.

With evolution, I could never clearly explain the Bible, Genesis, where we came from, why we are here, that God made us in His image and loves us and that we are special, not just animals who evolved from lower life forms that weren't made in the image of God. Thousands of missionaries around the world for centuries havent had a problem with this and many come to know Christ...but for some reason I am to accept evidence of a theory from scientists over theologians and scholars of the Bible and men and women of faith?

I am open to God, if He desires to show all us YEC's that this is a lie, please I ask for Him to show me clearly the way Genesis is supposed to be read...but it wouldn't be man showing me that, but rather it would be God, the Holy Spirit. Rather than state that the first man had to have a soul (I already knew this), state your explanation of this....or hasnt God shown the 'millions of Christians' around the world this when He showed you clearly that He created using evolution?

But gravity has never been proven to exist. No one has ever seen gravity. We see the results of what we think is gravity, but there is no way to prove that our assumptions about it are true. What we have are a history of experiments which have led to commonly agreed-upon theory. But if you're going to contend that the theory of evolution was created by man, then you would have to say that the theory of gravity is also man made. And, in order to be consistent, you would have to refuse to believe in gravity.

Except I can feel the existence of gravity and I dont have to believe some theory that it evolved or that it is in fact not gravity but something else...it doesnt change that i am held to the ground and that objects fall because of objects having gravitational pull. When you study astronomy you would notice how amazingly balanced the universe is, down to the last planet..the gravitational pull, etc that makes everything work so well. God knows where every spec of space dust is even. He is truly a God who understands mathematics on a MUCH higher level then we could ever explain.

Every claim of evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted has either been refuted, or shown to be an outright hoax.

And you can be 100% certain of this? Cause I never saw every bit of evidence refuted. (Not that it is a case of importance anyhow but it is the same as creationists refuting evidence that evolutionists come up with). It goes both ways...so best to start with the Bible and then we can look at science if we like.

In science, evidence is a requirement for any theory to be accepted. You can't say that the moon is made of cheese and just expect people to believe you. You can't complain when people ask for evidence. When you propose a claim that is outside of current scientific understanding, you're obligated to provide evidence. If you have none, then there is no reason to believe you.

But the evidence for evolution gets refuted firstly on a Biblical level by many and then a lot of the evidence is refuted on a science level and medical level and yet the voice of the scientists, (who believe in evolution) believers or non-believers all over the world is always a little louder.

Yet somehow, you want us to believe that scientists have willingly toiled in anonymity and secrecy, with not a single one of them in over a century willing to step forward and shine a light on this sinister cartel of scheming atheists.

I wasnt asking for you to believe that scientists have willing toiled with the evidence...Satan is not stupid, he is more deceptive and more cunning than any other. I dont believe most people even realise they are tools in the hand of satan.

 

[notto]

I see we have gotten the point of the discussion where it is claimed that scientists are the tool of satan. So much for intellectual honesty from here on out.

 

[Andy D]

But it does show that it is not scientific evidence for creationism that led to their change of mind.

Whilst I state that I cannot argue on this because none of us truly know, I have heard accounts of scientists who have become Christians from studying the facts. I didnt questions if these were true accounts or just bias...(in other words, Christians lying). It just means that until one actually posts in one of these forums, we will never know for sure will we?

That's like saying there is a huge difference between an apple falling from its tree and a planet orbiting the sun. But Newton showed they were both effects of the same cause.

Maybe the huge difference you see is more in your imagination than in reality.

This is not a good comparison to evolution. If you understand evolution better than I do then I would think you can come up with a better argument then this. You are referring to laws of the universe and comparing them with evolution theory. Completely different.

That's easy. When God made it so.

Easy? So where do you know this from? Who told you God made it so? I find the account in the Bible of Adam and Eve and God creating them, etc. I would like to know who told the TE's that God made it so? My point here is, that I am trying to use the Bible as much as possible to back up what I believe as I beleive it is the authority as it was inspired by God.

Do you realize what you are saying? That would involve an ongoing conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people who have no obvious reason to co-operate together (in that many of them are of different nationalities, religions, political persuasions, etc.) I don't know why creationists are so quick to talk about the astronomical odds against beneficial mutations, but seem to avoid the astronomical odds of such a conspiracy. Do you know how famous (and likely very rich) a scientist who discovered that humans and dinosaurs co-existed would be? What could a conspiracy to cover up the evidence offer that would be more attractive?

So how come there are many scientists who believe in God and still say evolution is true? Kenneth Millar is not trying to disprove God. Neither is Bob Bakker (and ask him about dinosaurs---he's a world expert on them).

Yes I realise what I am saying. I dont believe it would be hard to have a conspiracy to quieten truth. Satan is on the side of those trying to quieten truth. He doesnt want us out there preaching the Gospel or spreading any truth that might lead people to God.

 

[Andy D]

Keep this in mind when you suggest that theistic evolutionists and other scientists are lying and trying to prove that God does not exist. You cannot know and I for one know that your are wrong when it comes to my beliefs. I personally have never felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God DID create the world in 6 literal days and as someone who pursues scientific investigation as the study of Gods creation, it is Gods handiwork that directly leads me to believe otherwise.

Accusations of who is a Christian and who is misled or lying can be applied by either side so they don't really provide anthing of value.

That is why we must look at the evidence and how it is analyzed. This evidence is analyzed by scientists who are Christians, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc and they overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. The world is old and the flood never happened. Unless it can be shown that they are all deceived (by providing a valid alternative scientific theory backed by evidence), mainstream science will chug along as it always has and continue to verify the evidence or discard it. This practice is valid and although it may have a few flaws, it has proven to be the best we can do and has worked well in the past.

I do agree and I prefer not to have to come to I am right and you are wrong statements...I simply answer the ones given to me.

 

[Andy D]

I see we have gotten the point of the discussion where it is claimed that scientists are the tool of satan. So much for intellectual honesty from here on out.

And again, I preferred not to have to go into this but it appears the arguments against creationism are geared this way.

God bless you all

 

[gluadys]

Not saying that. If Science contradicts God's Word, then the theory can not be correct.

Creation, as well as scripture, is God's Word. It gives testimony of creation to the glory of God.

So when creation testifies that living organisms are the product of evolution, why should we deny God's Word?

But, it reveals the company you keep. Like it, or not. It does.

Guilt by association? That is stooping low.

Nor does it address the issue.

Why do some see what you can't? Is it a blindness gene?

Maybe because creationists have not explained what is seen. Or what they see. If you want to offer an explanation, I am more than willing to listen.

God created the cow. He created the horse. Does that mean that the DNA has to be radically different between one and the other before we can know they were created separately, and not evolved?

As a matter of fact, it does.

Who set that rule up?

God did, when he made DNA the carrier of genetic information and decreed that like must produce like "after its kind".

Take two paintings by Picasso. If an art expert can see that the strokes are the same unique technique, and the composition of the paint used, the same. Does that mean that Picasso painted one very long painting, and cut it up into different paintings? One evolving out from another?

Paintings are not living organisms. They do not have DNA and they do not reproduce themselves. They also display no phylogenetic relationships. They cannot be arranged in a nested hierarchy.

Or, each contain the same elements, but arranged differently. Each being a separate creation in its own right? God is the creative artist here. You fail to see that.

This argument would make sense if the elements in separate species were re-arranged creatively and artistically with a sense of design. They are not. They are arranged in ways that an intelligent designer would never use, but which we would expect of a non-intelligent designer such as natural selection.

And, why are you so fast to reject the GAP theory?

For the same reasons I reject YEC. It has almost all the same problems. The only thing it doesn't dispute is the age of the universe and the past existence and extinction of ancient species.

There is no geological or biological evidence of a gap or a recent creation.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry. double post.

 

[pthalomarie]

Try and discuss evolution with only the Bible and you cannot because it is a scientific belief.

To a large degree, I agree with you. My point has been that the Bible makes no attempt to espouse the technical aspects of creation, so it makes sense that it would fall short of details on that issue.

But at the same time, scripture does not discuss computers, yet you have no problem accepting the information people give you about them. It's not insulting scripture to point out that there are some kinds of facts that are not in it. There's no doubt that the most important facts are in it, but obviously God does not feel as though the details on creation are terribly important. History bares this out, by the way. The creation stories were among the last parts of Genesis to be written.

Creationism is a belief that God did what He said He did in Genesis. Theistic evolution is the belief that God is the creator but Genesis is incorrect in how the universe was created, thus theistic evolutionists say it must be read allegorically.

You've got it half right. If Genesis is to be read allegorically, then by definition it can be neither right nor wrong on the question of how the universe was created.

Theistic evolutionists claim Genesis must be read allegorically because Genesis accounts of creation do not agree with scientists accounts of creation.

Again, this is only partially true. If the theistic evolution existed solely as a reactionary explanation to reconcle evolution, then yes, it would look a bit less credible. But theistic evolution has on its side the fact that Genesis was originally understood in an allegorical fashion. It is a return to a correct understanding of Genesis, rather than a manmade misinterpretation that had developed over centuries of cultural displacement.

Furthermore theistic evolutionists believe that scientists have accurately interpreted evidence without bias of any sort, and that the evidence itself is absolutely correct and unbias.

Again, you're only partially correct. Certainly every generation carries with it bad science, and every generation includes scientists who use their knowledge for sinful reasons. But the database of scientific knowledge is always self-correcting; we are always tweaking and shifting our knowledge about the world based on new evidence.

Have any of you theistic evolutionists seen the evidence and have accurately tested it?

Sure; any student who takes a science course eventually deals with evidence of evolution in some manner; at the higher levels, students learn to use testing methods themselves.

Have any of you theistic evolutionists interpreted the evidence yourself without bias?

Every student who takes a college level science course has to learn how to write a hypotheses. Here's a good page that explains how this is done:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/LC/TL/filson/writhypo.html

Do any of you theistic evolutionists know the minds, of the scientists who brought forth the evidence and of those who interpreted the evidence, to be unbias and not looking to prove that God does not exists?

It does not matter whether a given scientist is religious; the whole point is that the evidence stands on its own. Now, some scientists may look at the evidence and conclude that God does not exist, but that's their emotional/spiritual reaction; that's not a statement that impacts the evidence itself. That's why I said that the age of the earth is just a number. There is no doubt that it is millions of years old; how one decides to reconcile that with their religious beliefs is a personal issue.

Faith means trust. You are trusting the scientists to be correct. And the scientists are men, and men are fallible. And most of these men are atheists.

You trust those atheistic scientists as well. When they do reasearch that finds that something may cause cancer, you stay away from it. When they say that something may help prevent cancer, you probably will eat more of it. When you learned how to drive, a lot of the warnings about how dangerous speeding can be are based on physics studies done by atheistic scientists. But you have faith that those warnings are based on fact.

Do theistic evolutionists believe the ten commandments are literal commandments, or should they be taken allegorically? Can you explain why they should be taken literally or allegorically?

There is no doubt that the ten commandments were a very real part of history. Some theistic evolutionists may believe that the story has elements of allegory to it, but Exodus was not written in the same way as Genesis was. I think the most balanced answer is that there is no doubt among theistic evolutionists that the ten commandments as a divine message from God really happened. Some, like myself, believe the tablets existed. Others may not.

The important thing to understand though is that allegory does not equal falsehood. That's an error of western thinking. There are many different kinds of writing, and some ancient styles were concerned only with the truth of the message. The point of the creation story is not in what order God created the universe, and over what time span. The point is that God loves us, but man is sinful and fallen, and we need Christ to be forgiven.

Why is that most all of the theistic evolutionists use this argument? Where in the Bible does it talk about computers, electronics, electric? Nowhere.

The point is simply that, once you realize that scripture does not attempt to answer every topic in the world, you stop trying to make it answer questions that it doesn't attempt to address.

But when the same sentence structure is used in Matthew about Jesus walking on the water or raising from the dead theistic evolutionists swap to a literal reading. This is very inconsistant theology.

Well, for one, the sentence structure is not the same. The Gospels are written as factual; Genesis is poetic in intent. For two, just because Matthew was written in Hebrew, that does not resolve the issue, since our earliest copies of Matthew are in Greek. So, whatever structural intent there was will be altered in the translation.

Then you tell others, you believe what you want and I will believe what I want. Sounds a bit like tolerance to me, wonder what Jesus thinks of tolerance.

This is a strawman. At no point has anyone here said, "you believe what you want and I will believe what I want." Instead of looking for opportunities to go on off-topic rants, why not stick to what folks here have actually stated?

 

[gluadys]

Still I am trying to work out who that first man was? The Bible says it was Adam...pretty clear to me. What I am trying to say is that at what stage did the ape evolving into a man, actually be called a man..what about the apes that were 99.99999% man and rest ape? If evolution takes billions of years, it isnt fair on the apes previous to the first man to not have a soul...ok, God is God so who can question Him, but He is also just. If we say that ape that was nearly a man but not quite, but obviously slightly intelligent, cannot have a soul and live forever because they were not in the image of God, then that is a bit harsh considering we didnt sin until the first man apparently...or when did the first sin happen? If that ape did have a soul, did the evolutionary species before that have souls? Will there be lots of single cell organisms living in heaven that were not quite the image of God, but evolved to be it over the years so they can come too. You can see my point, unless you can find a theory that fits, then another gap in TE theory. The Bible is so clear on it...Adam and Eve, they sinned...if this is just allogorical...what confusion...Yes, I understand we dont understand the Trinity very well, or predestination or the end times...but they are concepts we just accept in the Bible. They can cause some confusion, yes. These are not explained as clearly as the account of creation and man and sin in Genesis 1-3 though. This seems very clear as though God desired us to know our origin and our beginnings, that He created us and breathed life into us and each one of us since creation. He gave us our souls and allowed us to be in existence and for that we praise God.

Andy, let me ask you a question about the part of the paragraph above which I have bolded, and especially the part I underlined.

You say God has breathed life into....each one of us. Have I got that right?

Now when do you think God breathed life into you? And why do you think God breathed life into you at that point and not some other point?

With evolution, I could never clearly explain the Bible, Genesis, where we came from, why we are here, that God made us in His image and loves us and that we are special, not just animals who evolved from lower life forms that weren't made in the image of God.

Well, I have been convinced of evolution since I was a teenager and engaged in Christian education at all age levels from kindergarten to adult for over 25 years and I have never found this to be a problem.

 

[gluadys]

Whilst I state that I cannot argue on this because none of us truly know, I have heard accounts of scientists who have become Christians from studying the facts. I didnt questions if these were true accounts or just bias...(in other words, Christians lying). It just means that until one actually posts in one of these forums, we will never know for sure will we?

Well, that's the problem. All these accounts seem to be hearsay. No one has actually tracked down a scientist who was convinced creationism was true on the basis of the evidence in creation. Only scientists who have been swayed by their religious convictions. And even they have not been able to show evidence that creationism is true.

So that suggests very strongly to me that creationism is not true.

(I do believe creation is true. That is a different matter than creationism.)

This is not a good comparison to evolution. If you understand evolution better than I do then I would think you can come up with a better argument then this. You are referring to laws of the universe and comparing them with evolution theory. Completely different.

It is a good comparison, and yes, I do think I understand evolution better than you do. Evolution, just like gravity, shows a relation among facts that we would not expect to be connected. No one expected that the movement of heavenly bodies could be connected to falling apples (and other things) until Newton pointed it out. No one expected that strange bones in the earth could be connected with the varieties of living organisms until Darwin pointed it out. Evolution is just as much a biological law as gravity is a law of physics, so the comparison is valid.

Easy? So where do you know this from? Who told you God made it so?

The bible tells us that God breathed into the man he had formed and made him a living soul. It tells us that humans were made in the image of God (which I understand to be the same thing as being a soul.)

Now who is to say that the process by which God formed the man from the dust was not evolution?

Yes I realise what I am saying. I dont believe it would be hard to have a conspiracy to quieten truth. Satan is on the side of those trying to quieten truth. He doesnt want us out there preaching the Gospel or spreading any truth that might lead people to God.

That might make sense if evolution stopped us from preaching the gospel. It doesn't. Have you ever considered it may be creationism which Satan is using to keep/drive people away from Christ by associating Christianity with falsehood about creation? There are certainly many people who have turned their back on the church, or never given Christianity a chance, because they associate it with a belief about creation that they find utterly ridiculous.

 

[GenemZ]

Explain this to the thousands of Christians who die for their faith each day.

You explain why they should not have lived. Many were taking the bread and cup wrongly. Many were sick and dying amongst them. God does not tolerate ignorance in his believers. Sometimes mercy overrides when there is anough faithful believers in their midsts. But, I think you are not ready for what I am telling you. All you are doing is giving me "Oh Yeah!" reactions.

They are living by emotions? No, I believe they are living by faith.

Faith comes by knowing God's Word. Religion is not faith. Superstition is not faith. Good intentions is not faith. Even when misquoting the Bible, or totally misunderstanding it. Faith comes from hearing the Word taught correctly and accurately... and hearing it.

Yet, there are those who are living in areas where Christianity is hated and the penalty is death. These usually get martyrd soon after they first get saved. God chose them to be born there. That's a different element, and an honorable one if they were walking in the Spirit when put to death.

Knowing that our home is in heaven and if I am faced with die or renounce my faith, I will die.

You think you're unique? I was disowned by my family when I announced my faith. Have you been? Its not hard to do if you are walking in the Spirit. Why do you brag like its you being this noble? If its from the Spirit, its grace, and has no need to be announced to anyone as if you are better than them. But, you seem to think your emotional expression makes you better than other believers? Any believer walking in the Spirit is not afraid to die for their faith. Grace makes them that way. The emotions brag. The Spirit accepts and humbly moves on.

This cannot even be compared to suicide bombers and it is shameful to Christians who die each day that you even consider this.

I was not comparing them. I was comparing to your bragging, as if it were an indicator of being right with God, and everyone else who disagrees with you must be wrong, because you feel that way.

I happen to read a lot of these articles about Christians dying for Christ and I feel for them but I am not stupid, I will die for Christ IF I am called to. You just didnt want to hear the context this was written in so u made one up.

You do not know what you will do until you are tested. Its like a young man bragging about how brave he will be in battle. You just don't know what you are made of until its required of you. God may have to test you a bit on this issue. When you realize its God giving you the courage, you stop bragging like you are special to feel this way. Just accept it, and humbly move on.

I start my verification with the Bible and no, not YEC's (they may be YEC's) but rather Christians who have studied the Word and also my own studying as well.

I give up. Every false teaching has come from Bible study. The ones that are false concentrate on details and fail to see the context of the reality of the big picture. Then, they claim they are being the misused phrase, "fools for Christ."

Someone who could have gone to medical school to study to become a doctor, who instead gives it all up to study at Seminary to teach his flock in a small hick town, is called a fool for Christ by the world. But, he is not a fool. He made a right choice, but the world sees him as foolish for Christ. Then again, take your typical fundy preacher who mishandles the Scriptures , and has everyone equally ignorant, shouting out "Amen!" He is preaching to the choir, and not a fool for Christ. He is being foolish in the name of Christ.

This is where you say, I am mislead and wrong. I am not looking to God for answers or truth but rather to my own agenda.

Mormons feel this way. Jehovah Witnesses will tell you the same. Catholics, too. Baptists, Pentecostals...and even Orthodox Jews. Is God so confused?

This is where I know you are wrong in stating this because I, and only God and I, know that I am being honest in stating that I am being led by God and I accept I am wrong on some things but I have not felt the Spirit in any way lead me to believe that God didnt create the world in 6 literal days.

God did create this present creation is six literal days. I think you are blanking out in understanding what it is I have been showing you. The reality is, God had created other creations prior to this one. This one was created in six literal days! Others had been destroyed. That is where the fossil records come from. And, in the future, this creation will be replaced with a New Heavens and Earth. God did it before, and he will do it again. That's the point you blank out on.

Do you have to question everything that God has inspired in His word? I cant argue on a scientific level on these issues and state, maybe the water was fresh water...who knows...it is another theory...we have enough theories already...I just believe the truth..what I know to be true..or believe to be true.

Cop out. You can not mix fresh water and salt water (universal flood) and have much of the sea life no go extinct. God was not out to destroy the planet in Noah's flood. He was out to destroy man who had become mutant and evil. Man was not living all over the earth at that time. Noah could not preach to men living in the other side of the world to warn them before judgement! They all had to be in an area only large enough so Noah's preaching would be known to all of them! Noah's flood was not universal. The water covering the face of the earth in Genesis 1, was a universal flood.

I also dont think Noah had to take fully grown adults of all animals on the ark...baby ones would do. Many species since have been bred, such as dogs, etc...so dont count those..and dinosaurs could have easily been mostly killed off by then for food...who knows....do you? God knows. I just accept that the Bible states that it happened.

You do not know the facts... Babies would have to be nursed by mothers. Noah put food on the Ark. They had to be bigger than mere little babies. And, there are still too many different species of animals in the world to have fit on the Ark, even if babies.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GodSaves]

Me personally, no. I am not a scientist. But I know of theist evolutionists (including some who post to this board) that have done such testing.

Since by definition theistic evolutionists are theists---believers in God---why would they be looking to prove that God does not exist?

That is an impossible propostion to prove scientically anyway. Why would any scientist waste effort on an impossible project?

Actually a good many of them are women, and I hope to see the number of female scientists grow. Most are not atheists, though a great percentage are agnostic. However, private beliefs does not mean the science is wrong.

Yes men (and women too) are fallible. But you cannot apply a general statement to particulars without reason. To say that people (you see we CAN talk about humans without being chauvinistically patriarchal) are fallible is not the same thing as saying that everything they have produced is filled with errors. People do make accurate statements as well as mistaken statements.

Scientists are disciplined far more than most people to back up their claims with evidence. Unless we have a reason to question a specific conclusion, why should we assume it is an error? Do we not have to show cause why this conclusion is in error?

I cannot see it any other way unless you are prepared to say that every statement in every scientific work is erroneous.

My apologies if you read what I said to be chauvinistic. I will try to make sure I put human instead of man so not to offend anyone.

You seem to be a firm believer that science is mostly correct, maybe I am wrong, and that would be great. So, have you followed Francis Crick and many of his associates, before Dr. Crick died? Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA - nobel prize winning biologist - had been doing research into the brain. He and his associates believe that the soul, consciousness, and free will are a matter for scientific investigation. Crick is confrontational in his approach and challenges religious believers with the idea that there is a scientific view of the soul as being just one more manifestation of brain physiology. His point in his book that he tries to make is that the soul evolved inside the brain and is of no special value. Maybe this too will be worked into evolution in the future, who will follow this scientific evidence as well? As he and his associates are trying to you, the soul did not come from God, it is a manifestation of the brain. So tell me theistic evolutionists will you follow this ideology as part of evolution as well? It is science after all, and most theistic evolutionists seem to hold onto science more then their Bible.

God Bless

 

[GenemZ]

There is no scientific evidence that there has been more than one creation. That is why I find OEC no better than YEC.

How could science determine this? Look for a date stamped on each fossil, showing a serial number for production and origin? There is no scientific evidence to prove they were not different creations. That's why one needs to look elsewhere for the answer.

Grace and peace, GeneZ