pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,893
- 17,793
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?
- Thread starter PT Calvinist
- Start date
Ecclesiastes 3:
"18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
"18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Matt 18:6 "If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose his faith in me, it would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around his neck and be drowned in the deep sea. " I find it very disturbing you are so unconcerned that it was creationist deceit that shook lawtonfogel's faith so badly, that it was his elders' lies that made him doubt everything else his elders said, not some abstract and bogus philosophical argument about if evolution is true not 'needing God'.
We know how babies are made, does that mean God is not needed? Even if God weren't needed, what has that to do with the existence of God? Did God say when he was creating the universe, "I'd better not make one that functions properly or I will suddenly cease to exist"? No, what that tells me is you have bolstered up your faith with bogus 'proofs' that evolution couldn't happen therefore God must exist. Is it any wonder children's faith is shaken when they are taught to build their faith on sand?
So when our natural desires cause us to disobey God, looking too long at that other woman, being furious at the work colleague, stealing that piece of fruit, you think the answer is to evolve more natural desires?
Upvote
0
Ignoring how inanimate matter can somehow start from nothing in the beginning (understanding how this happened is way over their pay grade), and ignoring how inanimate matter can somehow become animate matter (understanding how this happened is way way over their pay grade), and ignoring how animate matter can somehow become the first living cell creature (understanding how this happened is way way way over their pay grade), and ignoring how this first living cell living creature somehow grew/changed into the first fully formed living creature (understanding how this happened is way way way way over their pay grade), evolutionists are now ready to espouse their Theory of Evolution which believes this first living fully formed creature somehow changed in its genetic composition during successive generations, which resulted in the development of new species, finally evolving into man.
Now I believe I’ve finally got it right. Thanks for the ToE lesson.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So now instead of outright rejection you twist and extrapolate it into something that is not. Interesting.
What is a "fully living" creature anyway? Single celled organisms are no less alive than anything else.
Upvote
0
Biologists don't study the origin of the universe, but it is not ignored. It is studied by physicists who gave us the theory of the big bang and expanding universe.
Evolutionary biologists don't study the origin of life, but it is not ignored. It is studied by chemists and biochemists who are working on theories of abiogenesis.
Evolutionary biologists do study the history of life from the first living cells to modern species as well as the process of evolution from biomolecular, population genetic, paleontological and ecological perspectives.
Why do you exclude unicellular life from "fully formed" life? Most living organisms--by number, weight and volume--are unicellular and they are just as "fully formed" as any species of multi-cellular life. And very intricate and complex too.
Does "fully-formed" simply mean "multicellular"?
Upvote
0
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Rejecting evolution is like rejecting 1+1=2. There is no way to do this and still be honest with yourself. But if you can turn the word evolution into something different, quite like changing 1+1 from =2 to =11, then suddenly, it is much easier to reject.
So, to sum up the 'bolded' argument in analogous terms, 1+1!=2 because 1+1!=11.
Yes, that makes no sense... but that is what they do.
Not quite as bad as the guy who said "Evolution is false because gravity is false because of rain."
The only appropriate response to that is "whaoiwehroishodfh?".
Upvote
0
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Just to make sure you understand, they fully believed what they taught me, they were not intentionally lying to me. Of course, that may have just made the whole thing worse.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
You were expecting honesty? Honesty would put creationism out of business!
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Much worse... a con man knows he's a con man, which limits his effect... unless he's also a total sociopath.
True believers have had experience practicing on themselves long before they start working on you.
Upvote
0
I don't think honesty has anything to do with it. Perhaps a denial of certain aspects of reality, but I don't suspect most creationists are going around secretly accepting evolution while publicly preaching against it.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Definitely. If we evolved beyond Homo Sapiens, then the Gospel expired.
Upvote
0
Physicists Stephen Hawking and the late Carl Sagan teamed up to assert that the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be and to assert there was no beginning at the onset of the Big Bang. Why no beginning? Had there been an absolute beginning, then time would have an edge, and beyond this edge we could dimly glimpse a transcendent reality such as creator God. But this is intolerable to scientism. So, by describing the cosmos as temporally self-contained, Sagan could write confidently in the introduction to Hawkings A Brief History of Time about the absence of God on the grounds that there is nothing for a Creator to do. In the warfare between science and theology, scientism demands elimination of the enemy. (Science, Theology, and Ethics by Ted Peters)
The same is true for those who believe the ToE is the true explanation how life evolved to where we are today, and believe this ToE explanation is now scientific fact shown to true to a high degree of accuracy, as all other scientific facts are determined. Evolutionists refuse to get bogged down in the incredibly minute and difficult details of what happened from the beginning to how and where life first began, choosing instead to concentrate on how life somehow evolved from the first life form to where we are today.
As stated before, all scientific facts that are used in everyday life to design things and to help repair humans when we get sick are generally shown to be true to a high degree of accuracy within reasonable timeframes that can be measured in a laboratory experiment before we actually turn engineers loose to build things or turn doctors loose to help sick people. Not so with the ToE! Just by looking at how some animals have better adapted to their environment, with the fitter animals surviving and moving on, and a few mutations added to the mix, wala, evolutionists have the ToE explanation how life evolved to where we are today. It does not matter that the ToE, producing millions of plant and animal species starting from a single living cell, has not been shown be true to a high degree of accuracy within a reasonable timeframe that can be measured in a laboratory experiment, as most other scientific facts are determined.
Since scientism demands elimination of the enemy, the enemy of there only being creator God as both the cause and affect of how the universe came to be and how life therein came to be must be eliminated. Darwins ToE and Godless scientism have been trying to do this for 150 years, but I would have hoped Christians who claim to know their God would truly know in whose image they have been created, and where their potential lies.
The same is true for those who believe the ToE is the true explanation how life evolved to where we are today, and believe this ToE explanation is now scientific fact shown to true to a high degree of accuracy, as all other scientific facts are determined. Evolutionists refuse to get bogged down in the incredibly minute and difficult details of what happened from the beginning to how and where life first began, choosing instead to concentrate on how life somehow evolved from the first life form to where we are today.
As stated before, all scientific facts that are used in everyday life to design things and to help repair humans when we get sick are generally shown to be true to a high degree of accuracy within reasonable timeframes that can be measured in a laboratory experiment before we actually turn engineers loose to build things or turn doctors loose to help sick people. Not so with the ToE! Just by looking at how some animals have better adapted to their environment, with the fitter animals surviving and moving on, and a few mutations added to the mix, wala, evolutionists have the ToE explanation how life evolved to where we are today. It does not matter that the ToE, producing millions of plant and animal species starting from a single living cell, has not been shown be true to a high degree of accuracy within a reasonable timeframe that can be measured in a laboratory experiment, as most other scientific facts are determined.
Since scientism demands elimination of the enemy, the enemy of there only being creator God as both the cause and affect of how the universe came to be and how life therein came to be must be eliminated. Darwins ToE and Godless scientism have been trying to do this for 150 years, but I would have hoped Christians who claim to know their God would truly know in whose image they have been created, and where their potential lies.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Do you think that only homo sapiens are capable of having a relationship with God? That He'd be totally stymied if we became homo sapiens+?
Does your Gospel come with an expiration date? Mine doesn't.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Thank you, John, for showing that Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan are not reliable sources of theology.
Which begs the question... What kind of doofuses would think they were?
(which begs a second question: would the plural of "doofus" be "doofi"?)
Which begs the question... What kind of doofuses would think they were?
(which begs a second question: would the plural of "doofus" be "doofi"?)
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,893
- 17,793
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
So the Bible says "Jesus only died to save the homo sapiens,"?
I don't think so. Any moral agent responsible for choice is affected by salvation.
Upvote
0
Ted Peters is a professor of Systematic Theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary and the Graduate Theological Union (GTU) in Berkeley, California. He is author of GOD-The Worlds Future (Fortress 2000) and Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003). He is editor-in-chief of Dialog, A Journal of Theology. He also serves as co-editor of Theology and Science published by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley.Biography: Ted Peters
As you might guess, Ted Peters is a theistic evolutionist. And he is quite right about the scientism of Hawking, Sagan, et al. But he is also a living testament that one can fully accept the scientific theory of evolution and NOT subscribe to scientism. A atheist's misuse of science (even when the atheist is a scientist) is not an argument against the science. No more than a misuse of Christian belief (even by Christians) to uphold slavery, war, anti-Semitism, etc. is an argument against Christianity.
Perhaps you should read Peter's book.
I expect that by "evolutionists" you mean "biologists" or "scientists". And it is not true that they "refuse to get bogged down in the incredibly minute and difficult details of what happened from the beginning to how and where life first began". As noted earlier, this is a very lively field of scientific research that goes under the name of "abiogenesis".
The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, but that doesn't mean the origin of life is of no interest to "evolutionists". It just means you need a different sort of theory (one that focuses on chemical rather than biological evolution) to deal with it.
Given your earlier statements that what you get hung up on in science is the notion that life emerged naturally from non-living matter, you should stop saying you are against the theory of evolution (which does not deal with the origin of life) and name your true beef: theories of abiogenesis.
Once you grasp that it is abiogenesis, not evolution, that you consider non-science, you can then look at evolution with objectivity.
Not all science can be tested in a laboratory, yet you don't object to most of it. Astronomers, for example, can't test their theories of star formation in an experiment. Physicists have never replicated the expansion of the universe in a laboratory experiment. Geologists, oceanographers and ecologists don't do a lot of work in labs either. But their science is recognized as just as valid as that of chemists and geneticists who do most of their work experimentally. So why not paleontology and population genetics which are two of the principal fields of evolutionary studies?
Narrowing science to laboratory experiments is a distortion of science.
btw, as a former French teacher, I got a kick out of your Americanization of "voilà" to "wala".
The theory of evolution is science not scientism. You have let Hawking and Sagan sucker you in to their point of view. Christians need to oppose scientism. But we also need to rescue science from scientism. No need to toss out the baby (evolution) with the dirty bathwater (scientism).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
