For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[Not_By_Chance]

You didn't answer my question..you dodged it. You also dodged it badly. If rock dated as 65 MY's old has been shown to have been misdated and it turns out to be 4 thousand years old....you have a serious problem. A very serious problem...so serious it cast a very dark shadow that everything pertaining to Old Earth and evolutionism is wrong.

I would suggest that there is so much wrong about naturalistic theories for how our universe and ultimately ourselves came into existence that it is rather more than just a dark shadow but total darkness. Just contemplate a few of their theories, ideas and problems, such as:-

• Origin of the universe - all coming from nothing (and don't give us that quantum fluctuation mumbo jumbo).
• The Big Bang - riddled with so many problems that they have to invent imaginary things like the Inflaton, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, after which the theory still only explains about 5% of the known universe. So the theory that is supposed to explain everything really explains nothing and is therefore self-refuting.
  
• Origin of life - another non-theistic miracle invoked to try to come up with a plausible idea of how lifeless chemicals can change into life, which is then able to start reproducing itself.
• The extreme (and I do mean, extreme) fine tuning of the universe. I wonder who the tuner could be? Hmmm.
  
• Biological evolution - I was watching Prof. Richard Dawkins debating Prof. John Lennox recently. The same old non-ideas of natural selection and mutations plus eons of time being the driving force of evolution. Strange that natural selection (a filtering method) can have any benefit if mutations (the material to be filtered) can't come up with the goods to be filtered (fruit flies anyone?). Strange also that when we look around the world, we don't see any of this happening today.

The list goes on and on. Why, in the cosmology field they are even talking about an infinite number of multiverses, with an infinite number of people out there just like you and me, writing and reading exactly the same words, living in the same houses, etc, etc. Some are even saying that our universe may be just an illusion, a computer game on an alien's computer, which could itself be a computer game on another alien's computer, which itself...(you get the idea). No, I think that when you demote God to being just a background controller or try to eliminate Him altogether like Richard Dawkins El Al have done, you eventually end up in this sort of absurdity. Now I must remember to apologise to my distant relatives the grass of the fields when I next trample them underfoot.

 

[lesliedellow]

I would suggest that there is so much wrong about naturalistic theories for how our universe and ultimately ourselves came into existence that it is rather more than just a dark shadow but total darkness. Just contemplate a few of their theories, ideas and problems, such as:-

• Origin of the universe - all coming from nothing (and don't give us that quantum fluctuation mumbo jumbo).
• The Big Bang - riddled with so many problems that they have to invent imaginary things like the Inflaton, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, after which the theory still only explains about 5% of the known universe. So the theory that is supposed to explain everything really explains nothing and is therefore self-refuting.
  
• Origin of life - another non-theistic miracle invoked to try to come up with a plausible idea of how lifeless chemicals can change into life, which is then able to start reproducing itself.
• The extreme (and I do mean, extreme) fine tuning of the universe. I wonder who the tuner could be? Hmmm.
  
• Biological evolution - I was watching Prof. Richard Dawkins debating Prof. John Lennox recently. The same old non-ideas of natural selection and mutations plus eons of time being the driving force of evolution. Strange that natural selection (a filtering method) can have any benefit if mutations (the material to be filtered) can't come up with the goods to be filtered (fruit flies anyone?). Strange also that when we look around the world, we don't see any of this happening today.

The list goes on and on. Why, in the cosmology field they are even talking about an infinite number of multiverses, with an infinite number of people out there just like you and me, writing and reading exactly the same words, living in the same houses, etc, etc. Some are even saying that our universe may be just an illusion, a computer game on an alien's computer, which could itself be a computer game on another alien's computer, which itself...(you get the idea). No, I think that when you demote God to being just a background controller or try to eliminate Him altogether like Richard Dawkins El Al have done, you eventually end up in this sort of absurdity. Now I must remember to apologise to my distant relatives the grass of the fields when I next trample them underfoot.

Read the title of this thread:

"For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing"

So are you trying to persuade him that it should be nothing?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Read the title of this thread:

"For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing"

So are you trying to persuade him that it should be nothing?

It's not my job to persuade anyone to believe anything - that's up to God. I was merely providing more information to -57 in support of his view that there is a "dark shadow" over evolution[ism].

 

[sfs]

It's not my job to persuade anyone to believe anything - that's up to God. I was merely providing more information to -57 in support of his view that there is a "dark shadow" over evolution[ism].

But very little of what you posted had anything to do with evolution, and what was about evolution contained no information.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Maybe I got a bit carried away, but cosmologists do use the term "evolution" as well as biologists, so I just lumped them all together. They are all sort of dealing with a similar broad question anyway, i.e., did God create everything we see and as described in the Holy Bible or did He do it another way entirely (e.g., by evolution of some sort) or (as Atheists would believe), did God do anything at all because he doesn't exist? No-one can be sure and everyone has to weigh up which seems most plausible to them, given that we apparently only know about 5% of what the universe consists of (what we call "reality") according to secular cosmologists. What does seem to me to be most important however, is that we all respect each other's ideas, no matter how diverse, because no one person living on this planet has the complete picture and probably only a tiny fraction of it in fact. As a believer in Jesus as being Lord and Creator of this universe, I believe that only God has all the answers, but others will of course disagree.

 

[-57]

Maybe I got a bit carried away, but cosmologists do use the term "evolution" as well as biologists, so I just lumped them all together. They are all sort of dealing with a similar broad question anyway, i.e., did God create everything we see and as described in the Holy Bible or did He do it another way entirely (e.g., by evolution of some sort) or (as Atheists would believe), did God do anything at all because he doesn't exist? No-one can be sure and everyone has to weigh up which seems most plausible to them, given that we apparently only know about 5% of what the universe consists of (what we call "reality") according to secular cosmologists. What does seem to me to be most important however, is that we all respect each other's ideas, no matter how diverse, because no one person living on this planet has the complete picture and probably only a tiny fraction of it in fact. As a believer in Jesus as being Lord and Creator of this universe, I believe that only God has all the answers, but others will of course disagree.

One of the many reasons I don't accept evolutionism as a means of creating man...is that way to much of the bible has to be "massaged" for it to work.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

One of the many reasons I don't accept evolutionism as a means of creating man...is that way to much of the bible has to be "massaged" for it to work.

I would agree entirely with that. Once you start, where do you stop and how does man, with his fallible ideas, decide what is true and what isn't?

 

[-57]

I would agree entirely with that. Once you start, where do you stop and how does man, with his fallible ideas, decide what is true and what isn't?

Didn't the Jesus Seminars back in the 1980's-1990's figure that out?

 

[sfs]

Once you start, where do you stop and how does man, with his fallible ideas, decide what is true and what isn't?

As far as I can tell, the only alternative to deciding what's true and what isn't is not deciding. Does this mean that you have no view on whether anything in the Bible is true?

 

[stevevw]

Two points about evolution and theism and fitting this in with the bible are that 1) evolution does not necessarily have to be entirely about what some fundamentalists make evolution out to be. Evolution by natural selection may be a part of a bigger process that also involves other mechanisms that are the result of Gods intervention. Life may have been designed to develop and survive in their environments by other forces besides natural selection and selection has been given more creative ability than it has. It does not have to be one or the other and in that sense, evolution can still be part of life's plan but playing a smaller role.

2) How do we know that the bible has been interpreted properly? Many are in disagreement about what certain passages mean and represent. When you say we have to massage the bible too much to fit in with evolution, how do we know that we have not massaged the bible in the first place to fit in with some preconceived ideas or beliefs that were man's interpretation in the first place? Maybe there is some middle ground that needs to be found that can accommodate both.

 

[-57]

Two points about evolution and theism and fitting this in with the bible are that 1) evolution does not necessarily have to be entirely about what some fundamentalists make evolution out to be. Evolution by natural selection may be a part of a bigger process that also involves other mechanisms that are the result of Gods intervention. Life may have been designed to develop and survive in their environments by other forces besides natural selection and selection has been given more creative ability than it has. It does not have to be one or the other and in that sense, evolution can still be part of life's plan but playing a smaller role.

2) How do we know that the bible has been interpreted properly? Many are in disagreement about what certain passages mean and represent. When you say we have to massage the bible too much to fit in with evolution, how do we know that we have not massaged the bible in the first place to fit in with some preconceived ideas or beliefs that were man's interpretation in the first place? Maybe there is some middle ground that needs to be found that can accommodate both.

As an example let me once again post the following:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Romans 5:18 Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men.

1 Cor 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

This is just 3 of many verses that must be massaged to force the bible to conform to evolutionism. Perhaps you would like to explain away the "one man" issue in terms of evolutionism. Explain away the fall...our sin nature using terms of evolutionism.....and support it with scripture.

I do believe as you said..."Life may have been designed to develop and survive in their environments"...but that developement is limited to the established genetic pool. Typically that is called micro-evolution.

 

[rjs330]

One of the many reasons I don't accept evolutionism as a means of creating man...is that way to much of the bible has to be "massaged" for it to work.

Yes absolutely!

 

[stevevw]

Yes absolutely!

Evolution may not have created man but it may be a process that works on refining life. I do not think even the theory of evolution claims that it made man or life. It is good at the survival of the fittest but not at the arrival of the fittest as the saying goes.

 

[stevevw]

As an example let me once again post the following:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Romans 5:18 Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men.

1 Cor 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

This is just 3 of many verses that must be massaged to force the bible to conform to evolutionism. Perhaps you would like to explain away the "one man" issue in terms of evolutionism. Explain away the fall...our sin nature using terms of evolutionism.....and support it with scripture.

The act of sin coming from one man into the world does not necessarily have anything to do with evolution. There may have been a point in time where mankind became conscious of right and wrong and from this point, sin became a reality. This is separate from any physical aspect of man. Becuase of this Christ need I guess is how did life come about in the first place. This is something I do not know. All I know is it did not come about from no life or make itself out of nothing. But most supporters of Darwinian evolution will say this is a separate question to evolution itself. So as far as the processes that drive life I would say evolution plays a small role in refining it and there are other processes that were already there that have brought about the rest such as non-adaptive mechanisms.

 

[-57]

The act of sin coming from one man into the world does not necessarily have anything to do with evolution. There may have been a point in time where mankind became conscious of right and wrong and from this point, sin became a reality. This is separate from any physical aspect of man. Becuase of this Christ need I guess is how did life come about in the first place. This is something I do not know. All I know is it did not come about from no life or make itself out of nothing. But most supporters of Darwinian evolution will say this is a separate question to evolution itself. So as far as the processes that drive life I would say evolution plays a small role in refining it and there are other processes that were already there that have brought about the rest such as non-adaptive mechanisms.

You replied with..."There may have been a point in time where mankind became conscious of right and wrong and from this point, sin became a reality."

Here's your problem....you just removed one man from several parts of the bible and replaced it with mankind. What allows you to do that?
In doing so you disqualified the reason presented in the book of Genesis.....you exchanged it for a non-biblical concept of the origination of sin that is no where to be found in the bible. What allows you to do this?

But please, tell me more about this moment when mankind began to realize right from wrong? Did this occur when a sin mutation happened? Did God say.."That's enough, you're all now guilty" Did mankind set up a court and determine what was right from wrong?.....what happened?

 

[stevevw]

You replied with..."There may have been a point in time where mankind became conscious of right and wrong and from this point, sin became a reality."

Here's your problem....you just removed one man from several parts of the bible and replaced it with mankind. What allows you to do that?
In doing so you disqualified the reason presented in the book of Genesis.....you exchanged it for a non-biblical concept of the origination of sin that is no where to be found in the bible. What allows you to do this?

But please, tell me more about this moment when mankind began to realize right from wrong? Did this occur when a sin mutation happened? Did God say.."That's enough, you're all now guilty" Did mankind set up a court and determine what was right from wrong?.....what happened?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. When I say mankind I am meaning that Adam represents mankind. So sin entered the world through one man Adam but this affected all mankind. Plus I am not professing to know what the bible means or represents. Still, I don't think that the point where sin entered the world is related to when and how Adam was made because Adam was already around when he ate of the forbidden fruit. These are two different issues and it does not matter whether Adam was created by God in one act of creation or he came about by some other process.

I understand you want to maintain the integrity of the bible and I agree. But I simply do not know what the passages represent. I understand the divine message but I am not sure about the rest. I am not sure scholars even agree on this. Are you saying the genesis story is literal or is there some other meaning to it? Do you believe all the bible is literal? This seems to be the big question in the light of what we know today.

 

[-57]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. When I say mankind I am meaning that Adam represents mankind. So sin entered the world through one man Adam but this affected all mankind.

YEs, sin did effect all of mankind....caused byb one man...which rules out the possibility of evolution.

Plus I am not professing to know what the bible means or represents. Still, I don't think that the point where sin entered the world is related to when and how Adam was made because Adam was already around when he ate of the forbidden fruit. These are two different issues and it does not matter whether Adam was created by God in one act of creation or he came about by some other process.

The bible is quite clear it was before Adam and Eve had children.
Secondly, it truly does matter how Adam came about....if you choose to believe some other method then you destroy the Genesis account.

I understand you want to maintain the integrity of the bible and I agree. But I simply do not know what the passages represent. I understand the divine message but I am not sure about the rest. I am not sure scholars even agree on this. Are you saying the genesis story is literal or is there some other meaning to it?

Not only I but the entire rest of the bible informs us it was literal and historical. To make it into a myth destroys much of the basic concepts of christianity...for example original sin and the need for a savior. If Genesis in wrong then why we sin must be concocted from non-biblical material.

Do you believe all the bible is literal?

I believe most of the bible is literal. Some portions are poetic while other portions are descriptive....Jesus is a gate. As to the book of Revelation, wow, you tell me. As to Genesis, the bible presents it as literal and historical and the Theitic-Evolutionist require it to be myth for their inserted religion of evolutionism to exist.

This seems to be the big question in the light of what we know today.

Assuming what we know today is indeed correct.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

As far as I can tell, the only alternative to deciding what's true and what isn't is not deciding. Does this mean that you have no view on whether anything in the Bible is true?

Of course not - I believe that Jesus is the Creator who made the universe and all that is in it in 6 literal days; I believe there was a worldwide flood in Noah's day; I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, turned water into wine, walked on water, calmed a great storm on the Sea of Galilee, healed the sick, made the blind see. That doesn't mean that I take everything written in the Bible literally as some is clearly meant to be poetic, symbolic, etc. Of course, some parts of the Bible are more difficult to understand and that's why expert scholars spend so much time studying them, but most of the really important parts of the Bible can be understood by ordinary folk like myself.

I do believe as you said..."Life may have been designed to develop and survive in their environments"...but that developement is limited to the established genetic pool. Typically that is called micro-evolution.

I think it's clear that God put an enormous amount of potential variability into our genes when He created Adam and Eve and the rest of His living creatures and plants, but the variability in my view does not mean that ape-like creatures can turn into humans or reptiles into birds. All that natural selection does is filter out existing genetic material, so that means that following generations become more specialised and adapted to their local environments but with less potential for further change, i.e., it's generally a one-way process unless some changes occur to modify the established pattern. As an example, prior to modern global travel, most people groups that lived in areas with relatively restricted amounts of sunlight would have almost exclusively had pale or white skin, while those groups living in sunnier climates would have had dark or black skin. Now of course, people travel all over the planet and take on partners from totally different ethnic backgrounds, so mixing of the gene pool is now taking place on a massive scale, reversing the previous process of environmental specialisation. But that's not evolution, it's just variation with the human population.

 

[sfs]

Of course not - I believe that Jesus is the Creator who made the universe and all that is in it in 6 literal days; I believe there was a worldwide flood in Noah's day; I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, turned water into wine, walked on water, calmed a great storm on the Sea of Galilee, healed the sick, made the blind see. That doesn't mean that I take everything written in the Bible literally as some is clearly meant to be poetic, symbolic, etc. Of course, some parts of the Bible are more difficult to understand and that's why expert scholars spend so much time studying them, but most of the really important parts of the Bible can be understood by ordinary folk like myself.

So you, a man with your fallible ideas, did decide what was true in the Bible and what wasn't. You just decided that it was all true.

 

[stevevw]

YEs, sin did effect all of mankind....caused byb one man...which rules out the possibility of evolution.

Not really. It depends on what role you give evolution. As you stated there is obvious micro-evolution. As this thread is saying that theistic evolution may be a possibility. There may be other possibilities in between who knows. But I do disagree with the fundamental Darwinistic idea of evolution where natural selection is given greater power and that everything came from a naturalistic cause.

The bible is quite clear it was before Adam and Eve had children.
Secondly, it truly does matter how Adam came about....if you choose to believe some other method then you destroy the Genesis account.

That some other method being creation of Adam as he was?. How does another method destroy Genesis?

Not only I but the entire rest of the bible informs us it was literal and historical. To make it into a myth destroys much of the basic concepts of Christianity...for example original sin and the need for a saviour. If Genesis in wrong then why we sin must be concocted from non-biblical material.

Not really. As mentioned before if there came a point where mankind became aware of their right from wrong and gained a conscious then this may have been the point where sin entered the world.

Some say there are other bigger problems when you try to assert that Adam and the Genesis story are literal such as the age of the earth.

I believe most of the bible is literal. Some portions are poetic while other portions are descriptive....Jesus is a gate. As to the book of Revelation, wow, you tell me. As to Genesis, the bible presents it as literal and historical and the Theitic-Evolutionist require it to be myth for their inserted religion of evolutionism to exist.

Not necessarily a myth but allegorical. I don't have any particular view on this at this point by the way. What about the flood, many have tried to prove it but it seems the evidence is against a worldwide flood. People back then could not have known that the world was so big to even make a claim about the flood covering the entire world. But it makes sense that they understood their world as what they could see and heard about being flooded. All the stories from non-biblical sources also have the flood story around Mesopotamia.

Assuming what we know today is indeed correct.

I don't think we can say its all assumption.