Is Theistic Evolution Heresy?

[jlmagee]

It most certainly is! The evidence is not only world-wide it is overwhelming. The cataclysmic conditions of the Noahic deluge is really the only answer to the billions of fossils found by geologists and the trillions still yet unearthed.

There are many such fossils beds where thousands of animals of all types (some now extinct) seemingly migrated to the same high elevation in different places all over the earth and were killed together at the same time. Did all those organisms just arbitrarily decide to migrate to the same locations and die at the same time............OR.........were they animals that were seeking higher ground to get away from rising flood waters and were subsequently crushed/fossilized instantly by falling volcanic ash? Genesis 7 gives us good reason to believe the latter since the former makes no sense.

Also, how about this:

A couple of dinosaurs that were instantly fossilized in the act of mortal combat as they were discovered in the middle of the Gobi desert. One thing for certain: it was a great catclysm that caused this for they certainly did not stand there for millions of years waiting to be covered over inch-by-inch as per the slow and gradual 'evolutionary' process.

"Billions of dead things buried by rock layer laid down by water all over the Earth." I remember the song. There are numerous reasons that things were fossilized. The thing is that they tend to be in a predictable layers of the strata.

Even AiG does not believe that the dinos in the above were fighting. They certainly were not "instantly fossilized".

The point was and is: that work week is not a six thousand, six million, nor a six billion year week. Nor was the Sabbath day a seven thousand year, seven million year, nor a seven billion year Sabbath.

The point is there is absolutely no theological reason that holding a belief in Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary CREATIONISM constitutes heresy.

God did it the way He said He did it.

So, the moon is a light? Is the sun a different creation from the stars? Maybe God accepted their understanding in order to convey a greater truth.

The seven day week we were given is as old as written human history. You cannot escape that fact. Here's why:

Quote: "The origin of the seven-day week is the religious significance that was placed on the seventh day by ancient cultures, including the Babylonian and Jewish civilizations. Jews celebrated every seventh day, within a continuous cycle of seven-day weeks, as a holy day of rest from their work, in remembrance of the creation week. Similarly, the Babylonians celebrated the seventh day of each seven-day week as a holy day, but adjusted the number of days of the final week in their month so that their monthly calendar would always commence on the new moon. This may further be reflected in the contemporary and traditional Zoroastrian calendars that relates to the first, seventh and so on days of the month as pertaining to Ahura Mazda (God).[citation needed] Historically, a number of other cultural groups, such as Christians and Muslims, have continued to regularly hold religious events on a specific day within each seven-day week." (from Wikipedia)

So the literal seven day week was observed and utilized by even the most ancient of pagans.

I know they come from a common background. Abraham was called out from Ur where polytheists and forerunners of Zoroastrianism were common. Zoroastrianism is a corruption of what became Judaism.

Watch using this though. Many liberal scholars and skeptics use this to show how the Jews in captivity brought back a corrupted view of Zoroastrianism and composed the OT after they rebuilt the Temple.

I gave you the history of the beliefs of our forefathers and you diss the matter without a reason.

Forget Philo. Where were the theistic evolutionists in the 1st of 2nd century? Search in vain, friend. You will be hard-pressed to find one because the faithful believers all accepted the literal six-day creation account by Moses in Genesis.

Origen said that the Genesis account was to be taken figuratively. Theophilus wrote that all of what God did during creation could not be told with a thousand tongues. Ireneaus and Cyprian used the day is a thousand year explanation. I have not done that. I am just showing that their was discussion at that time.

I do not think that they knew that microscopic life caused disease either. Our understanding has come a long way since the first century.

It is interesting that you accept a view that you wish to hold and use the ECF's as a reason, but in another thread, you reject their clear teaching of transsubtantiation. Jesus taught it. Paul said that the Corinthians should discern the "body of Christ". Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan stating that the Christians ate ordinary food. Justin Martyr is translated as calling it transmutation.

Then why take Jesus literally on anything? Why believe He performed miracles, healed the sick, or even raised the dead? Since you and those like you arbitrarily changed the history of Genesis as a 'storybook tale' (i.e. like Aesops Fables?) then why believe anything that Jesus did and said was literal? The fact is that Jesus told us that the Genesis account was real and literal (Mark 10:6, for example), and so did every single writer of the N.T. who mentioned Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah. Not one of them regarded the account of those people and their deeds as ANYTHING LESS THAN HISTORICAL than what Moses did, or Joshua, or Elisha, or Jonah.

I believe in the inerrant word of God. All of history is riddled with miracles of God every since the Creation. Jesus miracles are well documented. If they were not true, they would have been refuted at the time. Even Jesus enemies wrote of Him as someone who did signs and wonders.

Genesis is a book rich in history, salvific history, prophecy, and theology. I have not dismissed it as a book of fables.

I never disputed the historicity of any of the people you mentioned. I affirm that God created male and female and that He pronounced them married as the fundamental institution to civilize His creation.

W. L. Craig stated in a debate with Hitchens that given the exponential probability of everything coming togther at the beginning, the fact that we are here is miraculous.

But because neo-Darwinian thought has poisoned your mind about the matter for you don't believe ANY of the N.T. writers about the literal/historical nature of Genesis concerning the six-day creation.

Or the framework.

But you lie to them when you ignore(?) dismiss(?) or explain away(?) the accuracy of the ages and/or time frames that are given by Genesis. How tragic.

I found it unprofitable to debate Genesis in evangelism when I was a YEC. Paul and Jesus met people where they were. If they come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, they can follow their convictions.

So I ask you; was Adam's father an ape? What was the cause of death in the world before Adam's fall in sin? Name it.

I stated in an earlier post that I do not think that apes and Homo sapiens are in the same taxonmy classification. Just as now, death has no single cause. Things were eaten, driven off cliffs, drowned, etc. Jesus resurrection did not stop death; it justified us in God's eyes. Human resurrection is guaranteed to happen. The only difference between a follower of Jesus and the lost is the final destination of their resurrected self.

No, there isn't. You just swallowed the lie.

This chart represents the accelerated decay rates of the zircons found in rocks revealing that helium decay at a far faster rate than the uranium contents and gave us the stunning age of approx. 6,000 yrs. The fact that there is still C14 found in coal from all over the world makes that claim that much more substantive. At present known rates of C14 decay there shouldn't be any. The problem is that you and those of your persuasion are listening to the wrong voices...voices that are critical of scripture and the time frame God has clearly given us.

I will look into this again. I was never satisfied on this point either way.

I asked you in another post about your feeling toward other YEC's. I have heard them use any where from 6000 t0 20,000 as much as 50,000 years. Do you think they have to hold to your 6000 year doctrine?

Stop. Your whole position is that the evidence from nature gives us a far different frame of reference as to the age of the earth than do the chronologies of scripture add up to. So don't give me that nonsense.



My understanding? The time frame of scripture is objective....do you know what that means?

Use any calculator to ascertain the time frame as given in the ages found in Genesis and any other chronology and see if one is justified in believing that God's Word allows for much more than a 6,000 yr time frame. Bishop Ussher was closer to the truth than are modern neo-Darwinians. He will get the last laugh.

I do not claim to be inerrant or have total understanding. I have worked through th chronologies.

Both. Spiritual death is the cause of physical death...but it was spiritual death first.

I addressed this above.

No one said it is. But what it says touching on science or history is accurate and we can trust it because it came from God Himself. Darwinism did not.

The moon is not a light. The Earth revolves around the sun. God spoke to their understanding. He did not correct their understanding, for the most part ( the life IS in the blood).

No, we are created in the image of God and we did not evolve from any lower form of life. Since you differ then offer genetic evidence that 48 chromosome apes can genetically be crossed with 46 chromosome human beings. Name the common ancestor and then demonstrate biologically that such a change took place. Actually, humans share the same number of chromosomes with tobacco. We are we not therefore twin brothers with tobacco rather than a common ancestor with apes?

Yes, we are created in imago dei. I do not have a PhD in biology or chemistry. I do know that chromosomes are different and that plants are in a different kingdom in the classification system.

You quoted me saying: "So you believe the anthropologists and paleontologists over God's Word. What should have the highest priority in your mind takes a back seat to neo-Darwinian scholarship. I get you. But then tell us...why did God even bother giving us the ages of the antediluvians and the patriarchs and in fact the whole tribe of Israel...to begin with?"

I follow the Wesleyan quadrilateral. Scripture is top point of the rhombus. The other points are tradition/history, reason, and experience.

Many of the ECF's had Jesus born 5500 years after the creation. Hard to reconcile. We do not have the original autographs.

You are the one deceived...by believing the interpretations of the geologic time frame as taught by skeptics who have no respect for God's Word. I gave you evidence from above that reveals the approx. 6,000 yr time frame of creation. There is much more but you choose not to believe it.

N. T. Wright, Alistair Mcgrath, the ID guys at Discovery Institute, Roman Catholic Church, BioLogos, nor my own denomination are hardly skeptics and have the highest regard for scripture.

The litmus test is what God says about it. I am sorry you have chosen to believe the theistic evolution lie. I once held that position myself but I came to realize with a careful reading of scripture and weighing all the facts that TE was worthless as a science and unbiblical in it's tenents.

I respect that you changed your position.

What you have rejected is what the Word of the Lord says about His creation as far as the time frame that it allows...by any honest calculation.

The numbers are questioned by many.

Ken Ham was right and you were wrong. He had good reasons for what he said and I am with him all the way on this matter. There really isn't any excuse to compromise what is clearly written in scripture with any sort of worldly philosophy.

Yes. Ham has million$$$of reasons each year to fight tooth and nail for his statements. Then whine or bully any group that questions him. (Ad hominem) He may actually believe what he says.

Then toss out anything you concluded as it compromises with evolution or long time frames because that is contrary to both biblical and scientific truth. you will know that when we are come before the judgment seat of Christ.

I will follow my convictions. I am constantly reviewing information.

The fact that you would compare those two men in the same breath tells us that you don't know what it going on in the creationist world. I am a retired H.S. science teacher with 26 yrs experience & I taught general science, including biology, astronomy, & physics.

Ham and Hovind have the credibility of Hal Lindsey and Benny Hinn. Mostly carnival barkers. They are an embarrassment.

Oh, yes it is and God is not pleased with it. Furthermore, He is going to erase Darwinism from the earth during the millenial kingdom. In fact, at best, it will be the laughing stock of the whole world.

I do not believe that evolution will be happening in the Millenial kingdom. I do think we will have much more to occupy us in the presence od th eternal Lord

 

[jlmagee]

I don't want to get too deeply into this because those who disagree will just sling mud and I'm not really into that. Also because there's an unspoken attitude here that all doctrines must be accepted as orthodox.

So, in short, I'll just say that I tend to agree with you that, in addition to contradicting the Biblical account, theistic evolution raises serious logical contradictions concerning the Gospel.

If one was seeking membership in our church, a belief in theistic evolution would disqualify them.

When an unbeliever accepts Christ (deity, trinity, virgin birth, sovereignty) but is unsure of the age of the Earth, does your church baptize him?

 

[mark kennedy]

Arguing that man has only been around for 6000 years is delusional after being granted the vigorous science that says otherwise. The Sumerians alone exceed 6000 years, and there have been findings of an ancient race predating 12000 BC with Flood lore. It just gets to a point where you have to question the very foundation of YECism. Posit an old Earth if you must- the facts are inarguable- you cannot deny that mankind is ancient.

The age of the earth is irrelevant, it has no substantive bearing on Creation week. Life beginning some 6,000 years ago is altogether reasonable, the problems evolutionary biology brings to the table are the same if it was 6,000 years or 6 million. Science is about cause and effect, facts and phenomenon determined through direct observation and demonstration. This approach to science was established at the apex of the Scientific Revolution.

What is interesting about this post is that there isn't the slightest indication of confidence in the theology and doctrine represented in Genesis 1 that transcends the totality of Scripture. In fact, it pours skepticism on the most basic and foundational doctrine of Christian theism, Creation. Y

The dating of Sumerian civilization took form in the Uruk period (4th millennium BC), according to Wikipedia. This brings up one of the most telling points of interest with regards to the endless pontification and condescending scorn heaped by theistic evolutionists on here. Their criticisms are invariable ad hominem and most often too general to be substantive or in error. This baseless claim being a classic example:

there have been findings of an ancient race predating 12000 BC

Which one? What are your sources? Do you mean the Sumerian civilization or their coniform tablets?

The earliest record of the Sumerian creation myth and flood myth is found on a single fragmentary tablet excavated in Nippur, sometimes called the Eridu Genesis. It is written in the Sumerian language and datable by its script to 2150 BC Sumerian creation myth​

Get your facts straight, learn a little something about Christian doctrine, revise or support your statement and we can talk some more.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Believing that god created does not make you a creationist. When we the majority of TE refer to creationist, we typically refer to YEC and OEC. Mark is strictly referring to the YEC.
(Though I know that some people Consider TE to be a form of creationism, but I disagree)

You obviously have no clue what I am referring to because I have said, in virtually every post, the age of the earth is irrelevant. Calling TE Creationism is absurd since it's clearly and antithetical view of Creation, pouring constant criticisms on Creationists. They prefer the secular skepticisms of Darwinism and even the milder versions of it ignore miracles, especially Creation.

In order to be a Christian you must be a Creationist, that's not my opinion, the Nicene Creed begins with it:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

I am a young earth creationist by default but my issues regard doctrine and history. The Darwinian rhetoric you are weakly trying to employ lacks any substantive bearing on real world history.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

That's not the point he's making. He is no way shape or form that he is suggesting that RCC didn't teach creation or he's against creation. The point that he is making that he isn't just referring to the age of the earth when he list the meanings of creationist, but the precess of creation. Specifically TE or evolutionary creationist.



You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Mark, you miss the Creationist part in the "evolutionary CREATIONIST" which is another form of creationist. Your implying that evolutionary creationist are not TrueChristians™.

Let's be clear, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, this fact is not in issue, you have no argument to counter the statement. What is strange about the whole thing is that TEs seem to have no interest in doing anything but attacking Creationists for their beliefs, beliefs you insist they share. So what's the problem.

The real problem here is that Darwinians have sold you a myth, plain and simple. If you believe that Darwinism has meet the burden of proof I have no problem with you. That's not what is going on here since TEs spend all their time on here criticizing Creationists and virtually nothing else.

I intend to remind them that if they are Christians they are Creationists and their criticisms are self deprecating or their profession is bogus.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[James Is Back]

I wanted to bump this thread because despite the heated exchanges between the TE's and the YEC's I thought it was interesting as I wanted to see the coin on both sides.

But it still hasn't resolved my convictions. I'm a Creationist that believes that Genesis is literal but I also believe that there was a gap between the time God created the universe and earth and let animals rule like dinos and the time he created A&E(and no not the channel lol).

I don't believe in evolution as in we are decedents of apes and monkeys I believe in evolution from A&E to today.

That sound strange I know but I can't shake the fact that the carbon dating puts the earth in millions of years(maybe more)and the fact that there have been societies that existed tens of thousands of years debunking the 6000 YEC believers.

It's getting to the point where I just don't care and except that either might be right and concentrate on what's important. The Bible and the Truth that lies within it.

 

[Colter]

I wanted to bump this thread because despite the heated exchanges between the TE's and the YEC's I thought it was interesting as I wanted to see the coin on both sides.

But it still hasn't resolved my convictions. I'm a Creationist that believes that Genesis is literal but I also believe that there was a gap between the time God created the universe and earth and let animals rule like dinos and the time he created A&E(and no not the channel lol).

I don't believe in evolution as in we are decedents of apes and monkeys I believe in evolution from A&E to today.

That sound strange I know but I can't shake the fact that the carbon dating puts the earth in millions of years(maybe more)and the fact that there have been societies that existed tens of thousands of years debunking the 6000 YEC believers.

It's getting to the point where I just don't care and except that either might be right and concentrate on what's important. The Bible and the Truth that lies within it.

My foundation is God, the Living Word and the truth that is within him. We have created a "golden calf" or a fetish out of the Bible books which were intended for religious instruction in an enchanted age. The institution of the church and its need for authority is partly responsible for this retarding phenomenon.

Theirs a lady who composed a picture book of the oldest living things on earth. She went all over the world photographing these remarkable organisms. "The oldest living organism in the world is 80,000 years old, and clones itself. Known as Pando, and nicknamed The Trembling Giant, this organism is a single grove of Quaking Aspen trees in Utah."

Nature Blows My Mind! This 80,000-Year-Old Aspen Grove Clones Itself : TreeHugger


oldest living things in the world - Bing Images

 

[Colter]

Also this is a very good article written by a Christian who is a scientist specializing in radiometric dating. I highly recommend this one!

"Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech’s Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National"​

Reasons To Believe : Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

 

[gluadys]

I wanted to bump this thread because despite the heated exchanges between the TE's and the YEC's I thought it was interesting as I wanted to see the coin on both sides.

But it still hasn't resolved my convictions. I'm a Creationist that believes that Genesis is literal but I also believe that there was a gap between the time God created the universe and earth and let animals rule like dinos and the time he created A&E(and no not the channel lol).

I don't believe in evolution as in we are decedents of apes and monkeys I believe in evolution from A&E to today.

That sound strange I know but I can't shake the fact that the carbon dating puts the earth in millions of years(maybe more)and the fact that there have been societies that existed tens of thousands of years debunking the 6000 YEC believers.

It's getting to the point where I just don't care and except that either might be right and concentrate on what's important. The Bible and the Truth that lies within it.

As I see it, the biggest problem with Gap Theology is that there is no physical evidence to support a gap in the continuance of life on earth since it first originated. The scriptural support is also very shaky.

Just taking the last 2 million years (barely an eye blink in the nearly 4,000 million years of life on earth) we have a pretty much continuous record of hominin existence on earth. So where is an ending point for a gap and a beginning point for Adam & Eve?

Some people who accept evolution also believe in a literal Adam and Eve who evolved from earlier (non-human) hominins. That would fit better with the evidence than any sort of gap.

I do think you are right to focus more on the gospel and less on science. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the most important. If science were all that important, there would be more of it in the bible.

 

[mark kennedy]

I wanted to bump this thread because despite the heated exchanges between the TE's and the YEC's I thought it was interesting as I wanted to see the coin on both sides.

But it still hasn't resolved my convictions. I'm a Creationist that believes that Genesis is literal but I also believe that there was a gap between the time God created the universe and earth and let animals rule like dinos and the time he created A&E(and no not the channel lol).

That sounds like a conservative approach.

I don't believe in evolution as in we are decedents of apes and monkeys I believe in evolution from A&E to today.

Actually it was apes and you caught on to something most people miss. Creationism doesn't deny evolution, it just works from a much shorter timeline and a different point of origin of course.

That sound strange I know but I can't shake the fact that the carbon dating puts the earth in millions of years(maybe more)and the fact that there have been societies that existed tens of thousands of years debunking the 6000 YEC believers.

Carbon dating doesn't go that far back, there are other ways of doing the much longer dating of the earth and the universe. The truth is Creationists make some fairly impressive arguments. Henry Morris for instance, said that they test the decay rate for months or years and project it over billions of years, something that would be tolerated in none of the other sciences.

It's getting to the point where I just don't care and except that either might be right and concentrate on what's important. The Bible and the Truth that lies within it.

Congratulations, that makes you normal. Give the doctrine of Creation some thought and feel free to browse the subject, it can be very interesting but other then that I wouldn't worry about it. I stuck with the subject matter because of genetics, by far, the most fascinating scientific history and technology I've ever read about, bar none.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Radagast]

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology... He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National

That would be Los Alamos National Laboratory, presumably.

 

[Radagast]

That would be Los Alamos National Laboratory, presumably.

Yes, I see it is.

 

[mark kennedy]

The fact is the Genesis is an historical narrative, there is no indication anywhere in the book that it's meant to be taken figuratively. Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are described in the same matter of fact terms and can only be understood as literal people.

There's no indication it's supposed to be literal. That is a bald assertion by you and wherever you heard it from. Just because one gets in education doesn't mean they get to magically change the contexts of ancient writings. One can bet that whatever source you got that claim was from a staunch creationist.

True! Moses was a staunch creationist.

Grace and peace,
Mark