Macroevolution:

[AirPo]

Can you highlight in red what she said wrong?

Nope.

 

[lesliedellow]

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Of course, what is really involved here is Judas' predestination to fulfil the purpose for which he was created, and then to suffer punishment for his sin.

You do so agree, don't you AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, what is really involved here is Judas' predestination to fulfil the purpose for which he was created, and then to suffer punishment for his sin.

You do so agree, don't you AV?

No.

 

[lesliedellow]

No.

Oh shucks, I felt sure you would make a good Calvinist.

 

[HitchSlap]

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Woe to them who can't tell the difference.

 

[USincognito]

Not in the least, the point is that the most complex computer in existence cannot accomplish the simplest of tasks without first being programed. Where did that programming come from for complex life? Is it your belief that with enough billions of years, programming will evolve from nothing to an information system?

Despite all of the analogies being tossed around, genetics isn't computer programming. It's biochemistry which is just a specialized field of chemistry (in terms of study).

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh shucks, I felt sure you would make a good Calvinist.

We are predestined for adoption, not salvation.

 

[USincognito]

Is continuity not required to go from a single cell to complex life forms?

You do realize that first, primordial unicellular life was alive and reproducing by passing on genetic material, right?

Or, does evolution teach that to just jump in and start where it is convenient?

Evolution is not a classroom instructor and thus doesn't "teach". That said, let me try this and hopefully I'm not being too subtle.
- Plate tectonic theory doesn't explain where the earth came from (neither does dynamo theory). Do you consider that to be problem for plate tectonics?
- Germ theory of disease doesn't explain where viruses and bacteria came from. Do you consider that to be a problem for germ theory of disease?

Also, when asked for evidence proving evolution the response oft times is "the millions of fossils."

You might want to stop using proof/prove/proven/etc. in a scientific context. There's not such thing as scientific proof. And as far as the evidence for evolution goes, fossils are just one of many lines of evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

We are predestined for adoption, not salvation.

It amounts to the same thing. Anybody predestined to salvation is an "adopted child" of God.

 

[USincognito]

I hear you, their motto...from goo to you by way of the zoo.

Yeah, that's much crazier than "clod to bod because of God -plus a rib".

(Childish rhyming straw men are funny, don't you agree?)

 

[AV1611VET]

It amounts to the same thing. Anybody predestined to salvation is an "adopted child" of God.

Adoption means SON PLACED, not SON MADE.

An adopted child becomes your son, then he is placed in your family.

 

[lesliedellow]

Adoption means SON PLACED, not SON MADE.

An adopted child becomes your son, then he is placed in your family.

And who gets to decide whether somebody becomes God's adopted son? What is the statutory body God needs to apply yo?

 

[HitchSlap]

And who gets to decide whether somebody becomes God's adopted son? What is the statutory body God needs to apply yo?

Isn't it up to the adult to adopt a child?

 

[lesliedellow]

Isn't it up to the adult to adopt a child?

The language is metaphorical, but it is for God to decide whom he adopts as his children, and therefore whom he saves from eternal death.

 

[AV1611VET]

And who gets to decide whether somebody becomes God's adopted son? What is the statutory body God needs to apply yo?

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

The language is metaphorical, but it is for God to decide whom he adopts as his children, and therefore whom he saves from eternal death.

Which persuasion are you?

Sublapsarianism (“under the lapse”) is very similar to infralapsarianism, putting God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed to create human beings, (2) God decreed to permit the fall, (3) God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and (4) God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation. The only difference between infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism is whether God first decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ and then chose some to be saved, or vice-versa.

Supralapsarianism / antelapsarianism (“before the lapse”) puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the election of some and the eternal condemnation of others, (2) God decreed to create those elected and eternally condemned, (3) God decreed to permit the fall, and (4) God decreed to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Supralapsarianism focuses on God ordaining the fall, creating certain people for the sole purpose of being condemned, and then providing salvation for only those whom He had elected.

 

[lesliedellow]

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

So?

"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Whom God wishes to save will receive from the Father the ability to come to Christ, and those who come to Christ will have faith in Christ.

 

[lesliedellow]

Which persuasion are you?

How many times are you going to ask that question? The answer is the same as it was last time and the time before. If I had to label myself it would probably supralapsarian, but more likely I would say that, which view is correct, is not a question that can answered from the Bible, and therefore it probably shouldn't asked in the first place.

 

[Strathos]

1. Is just a theory.

Technically correct, but written in a very disingenuous manner.

2. Is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Incorrect.

3. Is anathema to the Bible.

Incorrect.

4. Cannot be observed.

Incorrect.

5. Is mistaken as a result of microevolution.

Incorrect.

6. Was forged by a runaway, who later made a deathbed confession.

Incorrect.

7. Is a lie of the Devil.

Incorrect.

8. Is 1 of 7 types of cosmic evolution.

Possibly correct according to some people's models, yet said models are not espoused by mainstream science.

9. Is defended by some who are very aggressive against Christianity.

Correct, but irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

So?

So it's not God's will that any should perish.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Any means any and all means all.