How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[AV1611VET]

The problem you have here is that you have no way of judging how much someone is truly moved by the Spirit.

I don't need to judge anyone.

I'm stating a principle here.

Who can go further into the jungle? a man with a pocket knife, or a man with a machete?

 

[Hoghead1]

True. However, the questions still remains as to how you can tell who is motivated by the Spirit and who not. For example, if someone is later proven wrong or insufficient in science, does that mean they weren't moved by the Spirit? Newton, for example, could not explain gravity. He had no concept of fields and so felt any influence at a distance was too much like witchcraft. So, since he lacked the knowledge of fields, was he less motivated by the Spirit or what?

 

[AV1611VET]

True. However, the questions still remains as to how you can tell who is motivated by the Spirit and who not.

What does it matter?

Even the person doing the work may not realize he has this "talent."

Even lost people can be doing God's work.

For example, if someone is later proven wrong or insufficient in science, does that mean they weren't moved by the Spirit?

No.

Charles Darwin, for as wrong as he was, still gave us the science behind microevolution.

Newton, for example, could not explain gravity.

And the prophets couldn't explain the dispensation of Grace.

Not even the angels could.

1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

He had no concept of fields and so felt any influence at a distance was too much like witchcraft.

But later, God raised up another scientist to take Newton's discoveries a step further.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

So, since he lacked the knowledge of fields, was he less motivated by the Spirit or what?

What.

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, so as long as they are moving to the truth, they are motivated by the Spirit? Right? Sounds good to me, anyway. And then the really cool thing about the Spirit is that it is leading us to a deeper understanding of Scripture than maybe what we thought we had and therefore brought us to see through false human-made theories about the Bible such as the inerrancy of Scripture, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, so as long as they are moving to the truth, they are motivated by the Spirit? Right? Sounds good to me, anyway. And then the really cool thing about the Spirit is that it is leading us to a deeper understanding of Scripture than maybe what we thought we had and therefore brought us to see through false human-made theories about the Bible such as the inerrancy of Scripture, etc.

As long as you get the idea that Spirit-directed people can go further with science than non-directed people can, I'm content.

 

[Hoghead1]

OK. But what I am wondering about is whether you think it is possible at all that Spirit-directed people could obtain scientific insights that could and should override the biblical accounts? After all, the biblical accounts come from a semi-literate, semi-barbaric society. hence, maybe they did have some insight into nature, but certainly not as much as we would have. hence, they did the best they could and then we go them one better and probe nature much deeper than what is allowable in the biblical accounts.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK. But what I am wondering about is whether you think it is possible at all that Spirit-directed people could obtain scientific insights that could and should override the biblical accounts?

No.

Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

The Holy Spirit, for example, isn't going to write Genesis 1, then contradict it with macroevolution

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, you see, but what evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit did write it? That's what's up for grabs. if you want to really study the Bible, you had to go to it with an open mind. Laity keep making the mistake of assuming it has to be true in every respect and that this cannot be questioned. Wrong way. You should go to Scripture with attitude of maybe it is inerrant and all Spirit dictated, maybe not. Let us see.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, you see, but what evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit did write it?

If scientists are openly trying to sterilize or censor It, chances are It was written by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hoghead1]

We're not devaluing with science here; we are dealing with modern biblical scholarship. And, to take a page from our own book, whenever I find some anti-intellectual knocks and demonizes an idea, I can well bet it is a solid, truthful idea.

 

[pat34lee]

But you are wrong. It only seems unfalsifiable because it is very very very probably (science does not deal in absolutes) correct. Creationists complain all of the time about this, even though there are real examples of what would show the theory to be wrong.

Also technically no theory is "provable". When you make a complaint like that you only show that you have no understanding of the scientific method at all. So please don't claim it is not science until you learn what the scientific method is yourself.

Complain about my terminology when the science magazines get it correct
every time.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can you give me a concrete example of your "nope" experience? I mean, if your argument is that people can be so moved by the Spirit that no one can understand them, then what purpose do they serve for us? How can we get anything out of it, if we don't understand it? And, again, who says we can't understand it?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Complain about my terminology when the science magazines get it correct
every time.

Finding out science was wrong about something is probably the most exciting thing about science. Science being self correcting is a strength, not a weakness. It means we learn more. Evolution has stood strong for 150 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Complain about my terminology when the science magazines get it correct
every time.

Naw, most popular science magazines get science wrong fairly often. When you screw up I will be glad to help you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Finding out science was wrong about something is probably the most exciting thing about science.

They got goosebumps when Thalidomites were born, did they?

Did the scientists in L'Aquila have a party at the jail, where they were staying?

 

[dlamberth]

I don't know Kramer or his story, but perhaps when it comes to his acceptance of the Evolutionary process he has also come to understand that God's own Creation, as Created by God, can not lie.

 

[Loudmouth]

Most creationists know, which is why I don't let evolution be called
science without correction. It is a philosophy, unproveable and unfalsifiable.

29+ evidences and potential falsifications of macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The question is why creationists keep telling fibs about the evidence and potential falsifications.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. They were random mutations.

They were retroviral insertions that happen at a random base.

2. They were just as you say, and the similarity to those in
ape DNA has more to do with their genetic similarity than
any imagined ancestral relationship.

Retroviruses inserting into two identical genomes will not insert at the same base in each of those identical genomes. It has nothing to do with genetic similarity. It has to do with common ancestry.

3. They were always part of the genes. not a mistake at all.

That would be like God creating the Earth with fake fossils already in the ground. It would be like God planting fake fingerprints at crime scenes. Do you really want to make God look like a deceiver?

A real biologist could probably list several reasons more
likely than these. All that is needed is to really take off the
evolution blinders and ask how else it could happen.

All of the stuff you posted in this message is made up and not supported by a stitch of evidence. No real biologist would have written what you did because none of it is true.

 

[Bandolier]

I grow so tired of this debate.

Francis Collins is a nice place to start given his credentials.

Forget the specifics of evolution...the universe is DEMONSTRABLY billions of years old. To suggest anything else is to lie or to say God has lied...unthinkable.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts.

Debate over. God is sovereign and his patience and creativity are beyond our full comprehension. The scientific facts simply serves to reveal the infinite personality of God as He told us in His word it would. It also helps us to understand sin in a richer manner, if only we had eyes to see.

*drops mike, exit stage left *

 

[nomadictheist]

Natural selection is not random. Genetic mutations are random. We have directly observed it in the lab and in nature. Do you have a definition for information?

Funny - we haven't observed genetic mutations that create positive, additional information in the genome... Just mutations that warp what's already there.