Deceiving the Nations.

[Assyrian]

So now evolution is necessary for the farmer to be a better tiller of the land and the keeping of his garden. I'd be willing to bet that if I polled a thousand farmers and asked them whether evolution has played a role in their success as a farmer everyone of them would say no. C'mon be honest with yourself and me, evolution plays no role here, you're just grasping for straws. There are plenty of legitimate sciences that are already doing a fine job of addressing the needs of the farmer.

So you do recognise that studying science is part of our mandate to fill the earth and subdue it. You just don't like some of the sciences.

How can you subdue something you have not studied nor understood? Do you still not see why studying and understanding nature is part of the Creation mandate?

It is going to be pretty difficult to subdue viruses without understanding evolution. That doesn't just apply to HIV and Avian flues. A brief internet search threw this up.

1.5 PAKISTAN: FOCUS ON FARMERS' BATTLE WITH COTTON LEAF CURL VIRUS

A silent battle being waged on agricultural lands in southern Punjab, famous for their high-quality cotton output, has just been forced into a higher gear after the re-emergence of a deadly virus that wrought havoc with cotton crops in the early nineties. Eastern Punjab produces about 80 percent of the crop for Pakistan and the virus could devastate the local economy.

The Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCV) first appeared in cotton fields in the eastern part of Punjab province in the 1992-93 season after the previous season had seen yields reach record highs with 12.8 million bales. Researchers and scientists managed to defeat the virus by the mid-90s.

However, the reprieve was short-lived. In the summer of 2003-04, farmers reported the re-emergence of the leaf curl virus. Soon afterwards, laboratory tests revealed that it was a newer, more deadly strain of the virus.

After failing in previous attempts to create a breed of cotton resistant to the leaf curl virus, scientists were now toying with the possibility of cross-breeding the conventionally grown crop with a breed that has grown wild for centuries, Mahmood said.

"We are trying to test wild varieties of cotton to see if they are resistant. There is no need to sow it. It just grows by itself. We're taking DNA from the wild variety and trying to cross it with conventionally grown cotton. But it's a difficult process - both have different chromosome numbers so when we try and cross them, the results differ each time", he explained.

Agricultural scientists across the country were collaborating as they tested out new, sometimes genetically modified varieties of cotton against the virus, he explained. "The problem is that this virus mutates every time we try out a new kind of cotton breed. That means we have to keep on trying Aagain and again until we manage to find a variety that can withstand the virus' infiltration," Shabab-ud-Din maintained.

How many plant diseases that hit agriculture are caused by pathogens that mutate and are selected for pesticide resistance?

 

[Assyrian]

Isn’t everything in Scripture and nature ultimately in some way shape or form concerned about my relationship with Him? I asked the question with that understanding because I assumed that was the reason for both. Do you have another one? Now if there is something concerning nature that I need to know that will assist me or play a role in my relationship with God, that in your opinion I don’t already know, please tell me.

In a way everything in nature is ultimately concerned with your relationship with God, or at least with our appreciation of his amazing workmanship. So the study and understanding of this nature he created is also concerned with our relationship with God. It is the pot the potter made and gave to us. It is an absolutely beautiful and fascinating pot. Of course we should study everything we can about the pot he gave us, along with the letter he gave us. I don't see how you can admit everything in nature is concerned with your relationship with God and then claim that there isn't anything in nature you need to know.

So believing what God said is a "stubborn insistence on believing falsities", interesting, this is getting more and more fascinating.

Believing in an interpretation that has been shown to be false is a stubborn insistence on believing falsities. But don't confuse your false interpretation with what God said.

I just quoted that so that it could be seen again. It really says a lot.

Wow, that one deserves another viewing too.

I would say that when we at last view evolution for the lie that the truth of Scripture is supreme then we can finally put the lie to bed. However I suspect that won’t happen until Jesus’ return. I’m hopeful that it will be sooner.

Not really getting to grips with her points there are you Vossler?

Whew, where in the world did you pull that one out of? Have you forgotten that the atheist doesn’t believe in God so he can’t put something on the sideline that doesn’t exist? Now the TE certainly puts God on the sidelines and that fits in real well with the atheist. If you don’t believe me just head on over to the C&E forum and see who’s sleeping with whom.

That made no sense whatsoever. You say
(1) Atheists don't put God on the sidelines because they don't believe he exists.
(2) TEs put God on the sidelines and that does fit in well with atheists.
So does 'putting God on the sidelines' fit with atheism or not?

But the real question is whether natural processes exclude God from the game, not whether he is simply on the sidelines or doesnt exist. TEs deny God is excluded from the game by any natural processes whether gravity, electricity or evolution, because he ordained created and sustains all of nature. YECs and atheist may disagree over whether God exists, but they are in complete agreement that natural processes like evolution exclude God. Atheists would go on to say natural processes like evolution, gravitation, electricity and electromagnetism also exclude God. YECs seem to be inconsistent here and limit the exclusion to sciences they don't like. They have still swallowed the atheist lie that any science can exclude God.

Of course, every interpretation of Scripture is a personal opinion and thereby irrelevant. Look, I scoff at them because they have no biblically accurate hermeneutic to support them, even you, if you were honest, would have to admit that.
Well if you go into reading Scripture looking to find something to support your personal view, guess what you’ll eventually find it. Homosexuals do it so why can’t evolutionists.
That knowledge you call evolution which helps the farmer I see as adaptation. Yes adaptation does what you state, evolution doesn’t.
No it is based on a long history of biblical truth and doctrine, on hermeneutics that use the Bible as the foundation and not as an equal to anything else.
The Bible itself supports it.
Tell me what your hermeneutic is based on, that would interesting.

For most of church history the dominant interpretation of the Genesis days has been that they were meant figuratively. On the other hand your hermeneutic has been unable to distinguish between why the Genesis days have to be interpreted literally, but the mustard seed is not really the smallest seed, wile the earth does rotate and travel around the sun.

...I would have even more respect for the pool player who could pot everything on the table with a single, well-aimed and well-timed strike.

Isn’t that what ‘poofing’ everything into existence is?

Thought crossed my mind too. But no, poofing everything into the pockets just requires access to a teleporter

Potting everything with one strike requires incredible precision and accuracy, hitting the right ball at exactly the right angle with exactly the right speed and spin, knowing what balls are going to hit off which others and which cushions, in exactly the right sequence that every ball end up with the right speed, direction and a clear path to go into a pocket.

 

[shernren]

I would submit if that happened they were never in the faith to begin with and the blame, if there is one, should rest on the person or persons who led this person to believe something that wasn’t true. They would be a false convert.

Who would be the person who led this person to "believe something that wasn't true" - the evolutionist, or the creationist? Looking back on my own experience for example, if I had been even more dedicated to the creationist movement, I would have been even more disillusioned by evolution, and I would have stood a greater chance of turning altogether from the faith. But my dedication to the creationist movement wouldn't have come from lack of faith, would it? In fact, the more faithful a Christian is, the more you would expect him or her to invest in creationism were he or she attracted by it - and the harder the fall would be. Doesn't this mean creationism is to blame?

So to you studying nature and evolution are necessary for knowing God and this knowledge has improved your relationship with Him. Quite fascinating, maybe we should all become scientists so that we may do likewise.

Have I said that it is necessary? It has assisted me in my walk; have you never wondered, even for a split second, how that works, even if that is not the way you intend to travel yourself? Haven't you wondered how people like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller and all the members of the ASA have kept both faith and evolution together? Or are you simply going to dismiss us all as deceived fools?

 

[shernren]

Vossler, I don't know if I've asked you to look at this thread before.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3338186-and-now-its-really-happening.html

 

[vossler]

So you do recognise that studying science is part of our mandate to fill the earth and subdue it. You just don't like some of the sciences.

Science can be used to fill the earth and subdue it, yes I agree with that. Science itself however isn't a mandate.

It is going to be pretty difficult to subdue viruses without understanding evolution. That doesn't just apply to HIV and Avian flues. A brief internet search threw this up.

You don't need to understand evolution to subdue a virus, just adaptation.

In a way everything in nature is ultimately concerned with your relationship with God, or at least with our appreciation of his amazing workmanship. So the study and understanding of this nature he created is also concerned with our relationship with God. It is the pot the potter made and gave to us. It is an absolutely beautiful and fascinating pot. Of course we should study everything we can about the pot he gave us, along with the letter he gave us. I don't see how you can admit everything in nature is concerned with your relationship with God and then claim that there isn't anything in nature you need to know.

Does that include developing theories that contradict God's written Word? See the gist of this problem stems from how we see Scripture, either it is the inerrant Word of God or its just a bunch of words from well-meaning men. As a Christian how you see this problem determines how you see everything.

Believing in an interpretation that has been shown to be false is a stubborn insistence on believing falsities. But don't confuse your false interpretation with what God said.

Remember, I'm not the one confusing anything God said.

That made no sense whatsoever. You say
(1) Atheists don't put God on the sidelines because they don't believe he exists.
(2) TEs put God on the sidelines and that does fit in well with atheists.
So does 'putting God on the sidelines' fit with atheism or not?

Yes because if a TE says that God is on the sidelines and not involved it doesn't conflict with the atheists view that there is no God. Either way nature takes its course with no outside influences.

YECs and atheist may disagree over whether God exists, but they are in complete agreement that natural processes like evolution exclude God.

That's partially true only because they're coming at the problem from two entirely different directions.

Atheists would go on to say natural processes like evolution, gravitation, electricity and electromagnetism also exclude God. YECs seem to be inconsistent here and limit the exclusion to sciences they don't like. They have still swallowed the atheist lie that any science can exclude God.

No YECs like all real sciences, they exclude only those that rely on speculation and conjecture.

For most of church history the dominant interpretation of the Genesis days has been that they were meant figuratively. On the other hand your hermeneutic has been unable to distinguish between why the Genesis days have to be interpreted literally, but the mustard seed is not really the smallest seed, wile the earth does rotate and travel around the sun.

I would disagree with that assessment, I've seen little to no proof to substantiate that claim.

Genesis days are interpreted literally because they are presented literally. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Thought crossed my mind too. But no, poofing everything into the pockets just requires access to a teleporter

Potting everything with one strike requires incredible precision and accuracy, hitting the right ball at exactly the right angle with exactly the right speed and spin, knowing what balls are going to hit off which others and which cushions, in exactly the right sequence that every ball end up with the right speed, direction and a clear path to go into a pocket.

You think that way because as humans we like to be entertained. Parlor tricks like trick shots, magicians doing their craft, or even the elaborate puzzles and mazes are things we all enjoy to see and attempt to discover how they did it. God doesn't work that way.

 

[vossler]

Who would be the person who led this person to "believe something that wasn't true" - the evolutionist, or the creationist?

It could have been either, it depends on who it was that led them in their understanding of who God is. Both creationists and TEs can do a poor job of this although the Creationist has a leg up because they are more likely to believe the Word of God.

Looking back on my own experience for example, if I had been even more dedicated to the creationist movement, I would have been even more disillusioned by evolution, and I would have stood a greater chance of turning altogether from the faith. But my dedication to the creationist movement wouldn't have come from lack of faith, would it? In fact, the more faithful a Christian is, the more you would expect him or her to invest in creationism were he or she attracted by it - and the harder the fall would be. Doesn't this mean creationism is to blame?

The more faithful a Christian is to the Word of God the more you expect him/her to live out its instructions. I was never 'attracted' so to speak to creationism, it just was what God said, I didn't look at it and ask myself is this what I like, I just accepted it at face value. I try to do that with most of Scripture. I know you don't agree with this but I firmly believe had you not left the creationist way of thinking that your walk with the Lord would be even stronger today.

As far as your investment in creationism, I can't speak on that other than to say it would appear that it was very weak and that is probably a result of youth and being impressed by 'science' and all of its answers.

Have I said that it is necessary? It has assisted me in my walk; have you never wondered, even for a split second, how that works, even if that is not the way you intend to travel yourself? Haven't you wondered how people like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller and all the members of the ASA have kept both faith and evolution together? Or are you simply going to dismiss us all as deceived fools?

We all wonder how things work, I have no problem with wonder. I do have a problem when we wonder contrary to the Word of God.

I don't know Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller so I can't comment on their faith or lack of it.

I will say this though, Satan has deceived many a Christian and we should all take that very seriously.

 

[vossler]

Vossler, I don't know if I've asked you to look at this thread before.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3338186-and-now-its-really-happening.html

I don't know where you're going with this but 2B, 3B, 4B sound as though they are my exact words, if not they sure sound like something I would say. I'm sure you probably know it was me and are now going to use what was said there to prove a point. Right?

I didn't look at the links, was I supposed to do that too?

 

[shernren]

I don't know where you're going with this but 2B, 3B, 4B sound as though they are my exact words, if not they sure sound like something I would say. I'm sure you probably know it was me and are now going to use what was said there to prove a point. Right?

I didn't look at the links, was I supposed to do that too?

1-4B are your exact words; I put links there only so that each viewer can verify that I did not quote anything out of context. However, look at these:

"The Bible doesn't just say that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information."

"Most believers insist that it's wrong to look to the claims of the Bible which are subject to scientific testing with the protest that it's not a science book. But it is claimed to be a book of truth and science is a tool for finding truth. Why would the Bible contain obvious mistruths?"

"If one is to defend the Bible, they must do so based upon what the book says and not upon an "interpretation" requiring word-substitutions. If you have to change what the Bible says in order to defend it, what you're defending isn't the Bible; it's your edited revision of the Bible."

Don't they, too, sound exactly like something you would say? I am trying to make a point with this comparison, and I think it's fairly obvious in the context of our current discussion.

 

[vossler]

1-4B are your exact words; I put links there only so that each viewer can verify that I did not quote anything out of context. However, look at these:

"The Bible doesn't just say that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information."

"Most believers insist that it's wrong to look to the claims of the Bible which are subject to scientific testing with the protest that it's not a science book. But it is claimed to be a book of truth and science is a tool for finding truth. Why would the Bible contain obvious mistruths?"

"If one is to defend the Bible, they must do so based upon what the book says and not upon an "interpretation" requiring word-substitutions. If you have to change what the Bible says in order to defend it, what you're defending isn't the Bible; it's your edited revision of the Bible."

Don't they, too, sound exactly like something you would say? I am trying to make a point with this comparison, and I think it's fairly obvious in the context of our current discussion.

That first quote is not something I would say. Neither is the second or the third.

Your point may be obvious to you but it isn't to me.

Maybe it's time you make it.

 

[theFijian]

That first quote is not something I would say. Neither is the second or the third.

Your point may be obvious to you but it isn't to me.

Maybe it's time you make it.

His point as I understand it was to expose your inconsistent hermeneutic of scripture and understanding of science. He did a fairly comprehensive job too.

 

[theFijian]

I know you don't agree with this but I firmly believe had you not left the creationist way of thinking that your walk with the Lord would be even stronger today.

You do a good line in condescension. I firmly believe that if it wasn't for
us having to waste time pointing out the inconsistencies and falsehoods in Creationism which turn people away from Christianity, we could all get on with the Great Commission and winning more souls for Christ.

 

[gluadys]

Isn’t everything in Scripture and nature ultimately in some way shape or form concerned about my relationship with Him? I asked the question with that understanding because I assumed that was the reason for both. Do you have another one?

Sorry, I am not psychic. I don't know about assumptions that are not stated.

Now if there is something concerning nature that I need to know that will assist me or play a role in my relationship with God, that in your opinion I don’t already know, please tell me.

You need to know that God speaks truth in nature as well as in scripture. It may not be essential to know precisely what that truth is in detail, but it is important not to believe falsehoods about creation.

So believing what God said is a “stubborn insistence on believing falsities”, interesting, this is getting more and more fascinating.

Since God speaks truth in creation, to believe falsities about creation is not believing what God said.

I just quoted that so that it could be seen again. It really says a lot.
Wow, that one deserves another viewing too.

I agree. I would like you to really ponder these statements.

Whew, where in the world did you pull that one out of? Have you forgotten that the atheist doesn’t believe in God so he can’t put something on the sideline that doesn’t exist?

He can try to. Some atheists are quite assiduous in attempting to show God does not exist and scripture is a tissue of lies. Not all atheists are content with simple disbelief for themselves. Some also want to persuade others to disbelief. And defining nature as excluding God is an important weapon in their arsenal. It is one that Christians should deny them. But a Christian who sees attributing anything to nature as "sidelining God" aids and abets them.

How about Exodus 21:16:

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
​

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly, that is an injunction against theft, and ownership of stolen property. As such it actually validates slave ownership.

No I’m interpreting those verses as countless respected theologians have always interpreted them. Are you saying that Psalm 77 and 143 are not the laments of the psalmist’s troubles and temptations and that his meditations are not a work of remembrance?

Of course not. But his meditations are still on the works of God, which definitely includes his created world.

First of all, Scripture and what it states is reality.

If we want to test the realities of Scripture we do those through our faith in Him.

And that is subjective.

One way is to present our concerns to Him and ask Him to clarify the situation or enlighten our understanding. Most of the time, if we’re in good standing with Him, He does exactly that.

And that, too, is subjective.

We have no objective way to determine whose understanding of scripture is based on a faith and/or illumination that genuinely expresses the reality of scripture. We have no way to resolve the issue when different people understand scripture differently. We simply end up with different schools of thought.

That’s exactly what has happened and why evolution has been rejected by the majority of people in the U.S.

The majority of people in the US have never looked at the evidence for themselves, much less subjected it to actual measurements and tests which they have done themselves. The vast majority of those who have diligently examined the evidence do not reject evolution. This includes both those who have done hands on work in the field and those who have taken the time to inform themselves of what is happening in the field. Science does not operate on the basis of uninformed popular opinion.

The scientists advantage is that they can make a lot of claims by using big words that fool people because no one can see evolution, it is only a speculative theory.

Evolution can be and has been observed. I suppose by "big" words you mean accurate, well-defined terms.

You are right about one thing though, scientists don’t need a special set of glasses because their imaginations will help them see whatever it is they are looking for.

If it were a matter of imagination, we would have the same sort of divisions among scientists as among theologians. Imagination is subjective and one person's imagination will differ from another's. The only way to get agreement is to determine whose imagination turns out to be consonant with a testable reality. That is what we have in science in regard to evolution.

Scripture is reality and reality isn’t speculative but objective and true. You seem to live by the mantra of if it isn’t scientific it isn’t real.

On the contrary, that would be to buy into scientism. I have never held that science is the be-all and end-all of knowledge. If I did I wouldn't be a Christian in the first place. I do put my faith in realities beyond the purview of science. But I also respect science within its own domain. I refuse to call false what science has demonstrated to be true.

Of course, every interpretation of Scripture is a personal opinion and thereby irrelevant. Look, I scoff at them because they have no biblically accurate hermeneutic to support them, even you, if you were honest, would have to admit that.

And if you were being honest you would agree that by "biblically accurate hermeneutic" you mean an interpretive principle that agrees with your conclusions.

That knowledge you call evolution which helps the farmer I see as adaptation. Yes adaptation does what you state, evolution doesn’t.

Describe scientifically the process that results in species adaptation. I think you will find you cannot do so without describing the process of evolution. That is because adaptation is the end result of adaptive evolution.

No it is based on a long history of biblical truth and doctrine, on hermeneutics that use the Bible as the foundation and not as an equal to anything else.

Are you suggesting that some truth is less true than other truth? Are you suggesting that God would be less truthful in creation than in scripture?

Tell me what your hermeneutic is based on, that would interesting.

My hermeneutic is based on the principle that all truth is true, that all truth is God's truth, and that all God's words and actions are expressions of truth. Also that every truth is consistent with every other truth.

Not public or commercial television, they most definitely side with evolution.
I’ve not once heard 6000 years mentioned on public or commercial television but millions of years are constantly mentioned.
It is only religious television that fits your description.

Indeed, most religous discussions of evolution occur on programs paid for by ministries that oppose it. Unfortunately, religious organisations that do not oppose evolution tend not to discuss the topic even when they purchase time for their ministries. Evidently they consider preaching the gospel to be more important than defending science. Can't say that I blame them, but it does make the religious conversation about evolution one-sided.

Outside of the religious debate there is no debate on evolution, so naturally public and commercial TV don't reflect one.

Like I said before, if it is so well supported by observation then there wouldn’t be any controversy, would there?

And among those who take the observations seriously there is no controversy. Controversy only occurs among those who are unaware of the observations and/or are prepared to close their eyes to them and have "faith" in spite of the evidence.

Not being in denial, but denial.

When denial is unwarranted and unjustified, that is being in denial.

Then are you saying that where Scripture and nature conflict, Scripture is supreme?

Nope. They cannot conflict since both are expressions of God's truth.

No truth is supreme over another. Every truth is consistent with every other truth.

Only human interpretations of nature and of scripture can be in conflict with each other. In that case, neither is supreme and both must be investigated to see where human reason has failed.

It must only have been observed by the more advanced and evolved eyes of the evolutionist.

Or rather by eyes trained to make careful and accurate observations.

Does evolution claim that everything has a common ancestor?

No, it concludes from the evidence that this is so.

A common ancestor is not a sine qua non of evolution. The theory of evolution per se does not predict a universal common ancestor.

Logically, it is perfectly possible to have a process of evolution within what creationists call Genesis "kinds". And, in fact, most creationists do agree that evolution within such bounds does occur. (Of course the modern fashion is to call this process "adaptation" instead of "evolution". But that doesn't change the process at all. It is still what scientists understand as evolution.)
Creationists also agree that within these bounds, evolution requires a common ancestor, which they deem to be the originally created kinds.

But now we get to the difference between the process of evolution and the history of evolution. Even starting from the creationist principle of Genesis kinds it becomes a matter of scientific interest to determine how many kinds there are and what we can know about the relationships within each kind. So scientists began studying various species to determine what, if any, relationships exist among them. This included the study of extinct species to assess what, if any, relationships they may have with today's species, and with each other.

The conclusion of this sort of study is that there are no places where we can isolate a species or group of species and say they are not related to other species and groups of species. The evidence points to a single history of life on earth deriving from a universal common ancestor.

This, however, is a conclusion about history, not about the process or theory of evolution.

Naturally, history beyond a certain point, relies on inference. But the process of evolution is observable and has been observed. We know evolution happens, because it has been seen to happen. We also know, from observing the process of evolution, that the theory of evolution is basically correct.

(The theory of evolution does not deal with its history either, but with the mechanisms or natural processes that undergird evolution i.e things like mutation and natural selection.)

So, it is important, for accuracy, to keep in mind that the term "evolution" can refer to the fact of evolution, the process of evolution, the theory of evolution, or the history of evolution.

The first two are observable and observed. The other two are well-supported by the evidence.

If your objection to evolution centres on common ancestry, rather than on the process of evolution, it would probably be clearer if you used that term rather than evolution, which has a much broader meaning. I would agree that universal common ancestry has not been, and cannot be, directly observed. It can only be inferred from the evidence. That evidence, however, is considerable and much of it has no other plausible explanation.

 

[vossler]

His point as I understand it was to expose your inconsistent hermeneutic of scripture and understanding of science. He did a fairly comprehensive job too.

Well then I guess I've been exposed. Congratulations!

 

[vossler]

Sorry, I am not psychic. I don't know about assumptions that are not stated.

I’m sorry I didn’t make myself more clear.

You need to know that God speaks truth in nature as well as in scripture. It may not be essential to know precisely what that truth is in detail, but it is important not to believe falsehoods about creation.

And that falsehood is that God didn’t really say He created everything in six days. This kind of reminds me of that famous line of Scripture that started all of this. “Did God really say?”

Since God speaks truth in creation, to believe falsities about creation is not believing what God said.

Quite the twist we have here. God speaks truth in creation (hint, hint science), to believe falsities about creation (hint, hint God’s Word) is not believing what God (hint, hint science) said.

I agree. I would like you to really ponder these statements.

Yes and everyone else too. So here they are again in case someone missed them:

That is exactly the problem. By not resisting the atheist lie that identifies "natural" with the absence of God, we give them a vehicle to promote their own views, to promote that lie. As long as YECs accept that lie and accept the definition of "natural" as "sidelining God" or "taking God out of the picture" they assist in the promotion of the atheist agenda

It is not evolution per se that promotes that lie. It is the attachment of it to atheist philosophy and the willingness of YECs to roll over and agree with the principle used by atheists that creates the problem.

Those really are worth pondering.

He can try to. Some atheists are quite assiduous in attempting to show God does not exist and scripture is a tissue of lies. Not all atheists are content with simple disbelief for themselves. Some also want to persuade others to disbelief. And defining nature as excluding God is an important weapon in their arsenal. It is one that Christians should deny them. But a Christian who sees attributing anything to nature as "sidelining God" aids and abets them.

You say “…excluding God is an important weapon in their arsenal.” Of course it’s easy to exclude something that you believe never existed in the first place. So when an atheist excludes something that they don’t acknowledge it isn’t much to agree with a Christian who essentially says the same thing. TEs have God on the sidelines not playing in the game; atheists do the same thing because it serves their purposes quite well to agree with a Christian whose god is a bystander.

Clearly, that is an injunction against theft, and ownership of stolen property. As such it actually validates slave ownership.

Wow, you never cease to amaze me.

We have no objective way to determine whose understanding of scripture is based on a faith and/or illumination that genuinely expresses the reality of scripture. We have no way to resolve the issue when different people understand scripture differently. We simply end up with different schools of thought.

Hence the need for science to alleviate the problem.
Well I believe the complete opposite, but then that isn’t really a surprise.

The majority of people in the

US have never looked at the evidence for themselves, much less subjected it to actual measurements and tests which they have done themselves. The vast majority of those who have diligently examined the evidence do not reject evolution. This includes both those who have done hands on work in the field and those who have taken the time to inform themselves of what is happening in the field. Science does not operate on the basis of uninformed popular opinion.

Of course they haven’t looked at the evidence; it’s very difficult to look at something that doesn’t exist.

I suppose by "big" words you mean accurate, well-defined terms.

I mean words that the common man can’t understand.

If it were a matter of imagination, we would have the same sort of divisions among scientists as among theologians. Imagination is subjective and one person's imagination will differ from another's. The only way to get agreement is to determine whose imagination turns out to be consonant with a testable reality. That is what we have in science in regard to evolution.

All it takes is one man’s rather active imagination, a sharp mind capable of describing events in such a way that it appeals to the flesh of many other men and viola you’ve got lemmings who’ll follow you anywhere. Satan is quite crafty.

On the contrary, that would be to buy into scientism. I have never held that science is the be-all and end-all of knowledge.

You may not come out and say it, but it sure looks like you do.

And if you were being honest you would agree that by "biblically accurate hermeneutic" you mean an interpretive principle that agrees with your conclusions.

No I mean, back up your claim by showing the hermeneutic you use that arrives at your conclusions.

Are you suggesting that some truth is less true than other truth? Are you suggesting that God would be less truthful in creation than in scripture?

If you wish to believe it strong enough and long enough, you will.

My hermeneutic is based on the principle that all truth is true, that all truth is God's truth, and that all God's words and actions are expressions of truth. Also that every truth is consistent with every other truth.

That’s another one worth viewing again.

And among those who take the observations seriously there is no controversy. Controversy only occurs among those who are unaware of the observations and/or are prepared to close their eyes to them and have "faith" in spite of the evidence.

I don’t ever see another ‘science’ being continually pummeled by the unaware or ill informed.

Nope. They cannot conflict since both are expressions of God's truth.

No truth is supreme over another. Every truth is consistent with every other truth.

Which is consistent with Tom’s truth which is consistent with Jane’s truth which ultimately is consistent with God’s truth. And the circle is complete. Ahhh…I feel much better now.

No, it concludes from the evidence that this is so.

Please excuse me, I should have said conclude.

So, it is important, for accuracy, to keep in mind that the term "evolution" can refer to the fact of evolution, the process of evolution, the theory of evolution, or the history of evolution.

The first two are observable and observed. The other two are well-supported by the evidence.

If your objection to evolution centres on common ancestry, rather than on the process of evolution, it would probably be clearer if you used that term rather than evolution, which has a much broader meaning. I would agree that universal common ancestry has not been, and cannot be, directly observed. It can only be inferred from the evidence. That evidence, however, is considerable and much of it has no other plausible explanation.

Interesting stuff. You’re the first person I seen separate evolution into so many different parts. If they’re all so different then I don’t see why one term is used. I personally like adaptation because that separates it from evolution, but you chastised me earlier for doing that. It would be nice if evolutionists could ever get their own theory dissected to the point where the common layman can understand it. Oh well!

 

[shernren]

Nah, theFijian, I'm not brilliant enough to do exposes. But look at what happened here: I have an atheist saying:

"The Bible doesn't just say that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information."

"Most believers insist that it's wrong to look to the claims of the Bible which are subject to scientific testing with the protest that it's not a science book. But it is claimed to be a book of truth and science is a tool for finding truth. Why would the Bible contain obvious mistruths?"

"If one is to defend the Bible, they must do so based upon what the book says and not upon an "interpretation" requiring word-substitutions. If you have to change what the Bible says in order to defend it, what you're defending isn't the Bible; it's your edited revision of the Bible."
​

Vossler has just claimed that he would never make such statements. If that is the case, then vossler must disagree with these statements (or else he would have no problem making them), and to make that conclusion explicit, this means that vossler is holding the beliefs that:

The Bible does not go into a fair bit of detail as to the order and spatial information concerning how God created the world. (while beastt said that it did)

The Bible can be a book of truth and still contain scientific mistruths. (while beastt said that it can't)

Christians are at perfect liberty to re-interpret the Bible as much as they need in order to defend it in the light of scientific knowledge. (while beastt said that they can't)
​

Vossler, surely you would disagree with those statements - and so would beastt.

 

[Melethiel]

vossler, you've made the claim several times in the course of this thread that TEs "put God on the sidelines." I would submit that the opposite is true. TEs assert that God is responsible for all the natural forces, and upholds them. Creationists assert that God is excluded from natural forces, and that if it can be shown that a natural force is responsible for something, then God didn't do it.

So who is putting God on the sidelines here?

 

[gluadys]

You say “…excluding God is an important weapon in their arsenal.” Of course it’s easy to exclude something that you believe never existed in the first place. So when an atheist excludes something that they don’t acknowledge it isn’t much to agree with a Christian who essentially says the same thing. TEs have God on the sidelines not playing in the game; atheists do the same thing because it serves their purposes quite well to agree with a Christian whose god is a bystander.

But for TEs, God is not a bystander to natural events and processes. That is a YEC claim.

Wow, you never cease to amaze me.

Ah, gee!

Hence the need for science to alleviate the problem.
Well I believe the complete opposite, but then that isn’t really a surprise.

In most cases one cannot call in science on this one. There is no physical reality against which to measure a lot of different interpretations of scripture. Science cannot tell us whether or not the Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, or whether the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ or whether it is or is not acceptable to baptize the children of believers.

We do, however, have a physical reality that indicates the days of Genesis 1 could not have been chronological days. So that particular interpretation is out of sync with God's creation.

I mean words that the common man can’t understand.

I think you underestimate the common man. I don't understand most of the technical terms my mechanic uses, but that is because I have not studied mechanics. I don't expect I would have trouble understanding the lingo if I took time to learn it. Most people are not so stupid they can't learn and understand scientific terminology. It is just not something they have the time and/or interest in studying.

Similarly, most people outside of Christianity don't understand a lot of the terminology that Christians take for granted. That doesn't mean they can't understand it. It means they have to be taught it.

All it takes is one man’s rather active imagination, a sharp mind capable of describing events in such a way that it appeals to the flesh of many other men and viola you’ve got lemmings who’ll follow you anywhere. Satan is quite crafty.

But what if you have 2 or 60 or 300 people with rather active imaginations each promoting their own description of events? Who do the lemmings decide to follow then? And what criteria can they use to be sure they have chosen rightly?

Science solves the problem by reference to physical evidence, carefully observed under strict methodological criteria.

Religion has not solved the problem, hence the many different faiths and unresolved interpretive issues.

You may not come out and say it, but it sure looks like you do.

It is the nature of this particular topic. As I said, I respect science within its domain, and that is often what is under attack here.

Are you suggesting that some truth is less true than other truth? Are you suggesting that God would be less truthful in creation than in scripture?

If you wish to believe it strong enough and long enough, you will.

I don't know about you, but I am not interested in developing a belief strong enough to doubt the truth of truth.

How about answering these questions directly.

My hermeneutic is based on the principle that all truth is true, that all truth is God's truth, and that all God's words and actions are expressions of truth. Also that every truth is consistent with every other truth.

That’s another one worth viewing again.

Does that indicate agreement or disagreement. If disagreement, I would be interested in what you disagree with.

I don’t ever see another ‘science’ being continually pummeled by the unaware or ill informed.

I am sure you would if religious leaders chose another target.

Which is consistent with Tom’s truth which is consistent with Jane’s truth which ultimately is consistent with God’s truth. And the circle is complete. Ahhh…I feel much better now.

Tom's version of truth is not necessarily free of error, nor is Jane's. God's on the other hand....

How is it that even in the case of others, you have problems separating interpretations from the reality they interpret? Tom's "truth" and Jane's "truth" can only be approximations of God's truth. That is why they need to be checked against reality.

Interesting stuff. You’re the first person I seen separate evolution into so many different parts.

It may be the background in teaching. I am accustomed to breaking down complex issues in order to facilitate better understanding. Most scientists are not trained teachers. They often assume a level of knowledge that is not present.

If they’re all so different then I don’t see why one term is used.

They are all related. And usually the context will tell which is meant. But in a short sentence like "Evolution has never been observed." there is not enough context to determine what the speaker means. Most scientists automatically think in terms of observed phenomena like mutations, natural selection and speciation, and react "Of course evolution has been observed." But most people who make the negative statement are not really referring to the process of evolution at all, but to universal common ancestry.

I personally like adaptation because that separates it from evolution, but you chastised me earlier for doing that.

Of course, that's the reason behind the recent promotion of this term rather than using the older term "micro-evolution". But, actually it doesn't succeed, except in the imagination, because evolution is the process that generates species adaptation. So the separation is illusory.

Want to prove me wrong? Provide a scientific description of the process of adaptation without describing the process of evolution.

It would be nice if evolutionists could ever get their own theory dissected to the point where the common layman can understand it. Oh well!

Oh, they have. How do you think I learned it? I am not a scientist. It just takes some willingness to devote a little time to researching the popular literature. I have learned what I have just as a hobby, so it is not particularly difficult.

 

[Assyrian]

Science can be used to fill the earth and subdue it, yes I agree with that. Science itself however isn't a mandate.

So science can be used to fulfil our mandate.

I was watching a program about the Panama canal a few days ago. That particular bit of earth took some subduing, and they would not have been able to do it without a scientific understanding of Yellow Fever and the mossies that spread it. Not only can science be used to fulfil the mandate, in many cases we will not fulfil our mandate without it.

You don't need to understand evolution to subdue a virus, just adaptation.

Except that the viruses adapt through genetic mutation and selection of the resistant mutations. Evolution.

Does that include developing theories that contradict God's written Word? See the gist of this problem stems from how we see Scripture, either it is the inerrant Word of God or its just a bunch of words from well-meaning men. As a Christian how you see this problem determines how you see everything.

It is only a problem if you think your understanding of scripture is inerrant. That means you couldn't possible have made a mistake about what the bible says about the world. I still don't see why you refuse to follow your idea to its logical conclusion and reject the theories of Copernicus and Galileo too.

But if a theory like heliocentrism was right to challenge the universally held bible interpretation of the day, why is it wrong for geology and biology to show the deficiencies in six day creationism?

Remember, I'm not the one confusing anything God said.

Clearly you must be because you believe our 4.5 billion year old planet was made in six days 6000 years ago.
But clever people can easily misunderstand when God is speaking figuratively. Just ask Nicodemus. A lot of the bible's figurative language is just plain weird if we take it literally. Seven headed monsters? Talking trees? Crawl back into our mother's womb? Six day creation?

Yes because if a TE says that God is on the sidelines and not involved it doesn't conflict with the atheists view that there is no God. Either way nature takes its course with no outside influences.

We don't say God is on the sideline. You however agree with atheist that if natural processes are involved it excludes God. That is very bad theology and an utter surrender to atheist propaganda.

That's partially true only because they're coming at the problem from two entirely different directions.

Apparently you both agree with the atheist definition of a 'problem'. YECs have bought into the Atheist 'problem with religion' and their claim that natural processes exclude God. It reminds me of the hassle the Britons ran into when king Vortigern tried to solve his dispute with other Celtic leaders by inviting the Saxons over to help. Unfortunately the Saxons decided to stay. You think this it a good argument to use against TEs, but you end up handing natural world with all its natural processes over to the atheists.

No YECs like all real sciences, they exclude only those that rely on speculation and conjecture.

Of course 'real' sciences as the ones you agree with, that don't contradict your bible interpretation. Is there a science that isn't based on speculation and conjecture, the rigorous testing of these conjectures and continuously looking looking for a better hypothesis to explain all the evidence? Copernicus and Galileo relied heavily on speculation and conjecture as have every science since.

I would disagree with that assessment, I've seen little to no proof to substantiate that claim.

Augustine was the most influential bible scholar for over a thousand years and he took the days figuratively because he saw a literal interpretation as self contradictory. After Augustine the theologian with the greatest influence was Aquinas, who went with Augustine on this.

Genesis days are interpreted literally because they are presented literally. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Moses didn't take God's days literally. That is not hard to grasp either.

You think that way because as humans we like to be entertained. Parlor tricks like trick shots, magicians doing their craft, or even the elaborate puzzles and mazes are things we all enjoy to see and attempt to discover how they did it. God doesn't work that way.

You know how God works?

 

[vossler]

But look at what happened here: I have an atheist saying:

"The Bible doesn't just say that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the order and specific spatial information."​

"Most believers insist that it's wrong to look to the claims of the Bible which are subject to scientific testing with the protest that it's not a science book. But it is claimed to be a book of truth and science is a tool for finding truth. Why would the Bible contain obvious mistruths?"​

"If one is to defend the Bible, they must do so based upon what the book says and not upon an "interpretation" requiring word-substitutions. If you have to change what the Bible says in order to defend it, what you're defending isn't the Bible; it's your edited revision of the Bible."​

Vossler has just claimed that he would never make such statements.

Those quotes sound exactly like they come from an atheist or non-believer because their faith or trust is in science and they therefore will pit science against the Bible. Nothing new here, it is all very logical to me.

If that is the case, then vossler must disagree with these statements (or else he would have no problem making them), and to make that conclusion explicit, this means that vossler is holding the beliefs that:

The Bible does not go into a fair bit of detail as to the order and spatial information concerning how God created the world. (while beastt said that it did)​

The Bible can be a book of truth and still contain scientific mistruths. (while beastt said that it can't)​

Christians are at perfect liberty to re-interpret the Bible as much as they need in order to defend it in the light of scientific knowledge. (while beastt said that they can't)​

Vossler, surely you would disagree with those statements - and so would beastt.

I'm not here to play word games about what others said and what I didn't say. Why not base my beliefs on what I actually said, it's not like there isn't enough information from previous discussions of ours to pick from. I'm not a fence sitter, I'm usually pretty up front with what I believe so this should be easy. Instead you'd rather play word games based on what others say or what I didn't say.

 

[vossler]

vossler, you've made the claim several times in the course of this thread that TEs "put God on the sidelines." I would submit that the opposite is true. TEs assert that God is responsible for all the natural forces, and upholds them. Creationists assert that God is excluded from natural forces, and that if it can be shown that a natural force is responsible for something, then God didn't do it.

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Let's see what reality actually tells us. If God were not on the sidelines, as you claim, then atheists and TEs couldn't be in bed together. There would be constant disagreements between the two, instead there is harmony, enough so that they together attack the creationists.

It all comes down to who's sleeping with who.