More misconceptions - do they ever actually listen to us?

[GodSaves]

Besides which, how would he know if Adam and Eve existed? If you claim that Jesus had some kind of knowledge that the people of his time didn't, then you compromise the incarnation; if Jesus knew everything, then he couldn't possibly be fully human. And if he wasn't fully human, from the tip of his toes to the neuro-transmitors in his brain, he couldn't save us. That makes him merely a divine being that looks human, and that cannot save us. In fact, it's heresy. What is not assumed is not redeemed.

Vance, read this quote again and tell me did he just say how would Jesus know if Adam and Eve existed??? The statement by artybloke has been made that if Jesus Christ was more then human then He could not save man from sin. That is scary that one would believe if Jesus was and is God Himself and came here to earth as God Himself in human form, then He could not save man from sin.

Again, theistic evolutionists wonder why creationists worry about them and their doctrine. Here is a clear example as to why. One has renounced Jesus Christ's divinity when He was here on earth.

 

[Vance]

Um, yes, you did read it wrong.

Read it again carefully. He made no statement that Jesus did not know something. Only that He chose to use the allegorical language of Genesis to make a point in a current sermon.

No, I am sorry, godsaves, you were referring to the first sentence of the *second paragraph*, I was wrong. It does look like he was saying that.

I disagree with him in this, however, and believe that Jesus was both fully human AND fully God, thus having all knowledge God had (including about whether there was a literal Adam and Eve).

Which means I agree with his first paragraph, but not his second, which is, however, one view held within Christianity from its VERY earliest days.

 

[Vance]

Vance, read this quote again and tell me did he just say how would Jesus know if Adam and Eve existed??? The statement by artybloke has been made that if Jesus Christ was more then human then He could not save man from sin. That is scary that one would believe if Jesus was and is God Himself and came here to earth as God Himself in human form, then He could not save man from sin.

Again, theistic evolutionists wonder why creationists worry about them and their doctrine. Here is a clear example as to why. One has renounced Jesus Christ's divinity when He was here on earth.

See my post above. I will let him respond himself, but I don't think he was denying the divinity of Christ, just his omniscience while here on Earth. As I said, this is a view that has a very long history within Christianity, going back to its very earliest days.

But this has nothing to do with a believe in evolution and is not the result of a belief in evolution. This theological position has been around from the start. Much longer, in fact, than the type of fundamentalist literalism we see today.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

GodSaves, since I take the same view as Artybloke perhaps I can help you.

There is a problem in Christology. And that is that there are some features of God that are contradictory to some features of humanity.

Humans are limited in their presence, knowledge and power. God is unlimited in these.

If Jesus is both God and Man, then which set of features does He have? He cannot have both, because they are contradictory.

One solution, which I adhere to, and as Vance says goes back a very long time, is that whilst Jesus was in very nature God, He temporarily gave up the Divine attributes in order to live as a man. This is possible if we define God primarily by who He is, rather than by His attributes. The former seems entirely Scriptural to me; indeed the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are never specifically spelt out in Scripture, whilst descriptions of who God is - Lord of Hosts, the God of Abraham, The Lord Your God, etc. are commonplace.

This means Jesus became a man of His time, with the limitations that had. It's as if an absolute monarch voluntarily spent some time as a peasant; he does not stop being the absolute monarch by the unchangeable fact of his birth, but he temporarily loses the powers and privileges that go with it. Consequently, He would have accepted by default the cosmology of the people amongst whom He found Himself.

The reason I adopt this solution - kenosis - is that I find it the most agreeable with the Scriptures. Hebrews 2 9-11 talks about Jesus being made lower than the angels and perfected through suffering - but isn't perfection already a divine attribute? Paul's letter to the Philippians talks about Jesus not grasping His inherent equality with God, but rather being found in human form. I find these terrifyingly kenotic passages - terrifying because I can see exactly why detractors of Christ's divinity might try to use them. I think it is an error to go that far (you'll be glad to hear), as I think I've explained.

 

[artybloke]

I disagree with him in this, however, and believe that Jesus was both fully human AND fully God

Er, so do I Vance, but see Karl's post above. I pretty much agree with that "kenotic" view of the incarnation, as set out in Hebrews 2:9-11 and Phil 2.

 

[Vance]

Ah, yes, I see. You know, my current particular area of study (distinct from my continual "through the Bible" reading), is the history of the early Church and the various beliefs held at the time. All very interesting.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My, isn't this thread useful? Perhaps I should rename it "CreatoWatch"

So, what new crops have we now?

"Is Evolution Science?"

No. It is an unbelief of the truth system adorned in scientific garb.

Have you any evidence whatsoever to support this accusation, or is it simply false witness?

"What would falsify it?"

Scientifically? Nothing. Any scientific evidence that is presented against it can be, by unbelief of the truth, disbelieved.

Absolute bull droppings (why is the filter here so prissy about perfectly good descriptions of Creationist nonsense?)

Find a triceratops in a Cambrian deposit. Find mouse bones in a fossilised Camptosaurys turd. Find wild oats in a fossilised Apatosaurus log. Lots of things would screw evolution well and good. And yet they're never found. Why? Because mainstream science is a very good model or reality, unlike creationism, which would expect to find things such as these.

Every bit of evidence that I've seen in support of evolution requires interpretation of scientific data

Yes, there is a reason why four year olds can't be top scientists.

which is subjective to ones own premises.

Indeed. But the scientific process weeds out erroneous interpretations, because the models derived from them do not match observed reality. This is exactly what happened to flood geology in the eighteenth century.

There is not one piece of evidence-data that empirically states evolution.

I can think of two off the top of my head - human chromosome 2 and retro-viral insertions.

It is only arrived at by an accumulation of limited data under the premise of evolution.

No, rather the accumulation of vast amounts of very detailed data in a considerable variety of fields of biological study, all of which point exactly the same way. The best word for it is "compelling", and the best word to describe alternative explanations of such a vast body of evidence is "perverse".

Any data that is contrary to the accepted established paradigm is treated as anomalous and or due to some error-(something vigorously and regularly denied)

Examples? But it's not contrariness to the established "paradigm" (isn't that philosophy rather than science) that causes an observation to be considered anomalous; it's contrariness to the rest of the body of evidence. If you had forty compasses all pointing one way, and one pointing another, wouldn't you consider the forty-first to be anomalous?

-but who will accept that they're in the dark when they're convinced that they're in the light?.

I have noticed this problem with creationists. You can explain, in detail, why a claim is wrong until you are blue in the face. They don't rebutt your assertions, but just go an make them again a week later. No shame.

What is surprising to me about the TEs is that they identify or define their Christanity in being an evolutionist and all of the interpretational gymnastics (unbelief)

You do enjoy standing in judgement over your brother, don't you?

they must perform with the Scriptures to do so. But the faith of Christ has nothing to do with belief in evolution, accepting evolution as fact has to do with unbelief.

Nonsense. If I had to accept YEC as part of Christianity, that would lead to unbelief faster than anything I can imagine. You don't begin to understand the damage your laughable pseudo-science can do.

Peace in Christ Jesus

When you start to respect your brothers' faith there is a chance of peace.

evolution is built on faith in the uniformity of natural laws. it assumes that the way we observe things today is the way things have occurred throughout history.

Or rather, that the physical laws of the universe are much the same now as they were then.

not only is this false

You have evidence that it is?

but many scientists have shown why this is empircally wrong.

Examples?

this is why there is no punctuated equilibrium.

I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that I suspect you couldn't give a coherent and correct description of Punk Eek, let alone explain why your unevidenced denial of uniformitarianism spells its doom.

 

[GodSaves]

Nonsense. If I had to accept YEC as part of Christianity, that would lead to unbelief faster than anything I can imagine. You don't begin to understand the damage your laughable pseudo-science can do.

That is a bit scary Karl. I guess I am blind. I would have thought a Christians belief lies with Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross, not evolution being true or not.

The importance of Christianity lies in Christ, not evolution or creationism. If one or the other is false, that should not be what deters one away from Christ. Christ should be the sole reason why one would become a Christian. This is why the Gospel is preached for salvation. The whole Bible, every book, speaks of Jesus Christ. As the whole book, the Bible, is important, what Christ did on the cross is the most important. It gives us hope that there is life in Christ. And if your whole faith is based on evolution vs creationism, then you have completely missed the point.

 

[Vance]

That is a bit scary Karl. I guess I am blind. I would have thought a Christians belief lies with Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross, not evolution being true or not.

The importance of Christianity lies in Christ, not evolution or creationism. If one or the other is false, that should not be what deters one away from Christ. Christ should be the sole reason why one would become a Christian. This is why the Gospel is preached for salvation. The whole Bible, every book, speaks of Jesus Christ. As the whole book, the Bible, is important, what Christ did on the cross is the most important. It gives us hope that there is life in Christ. And if your whole faith is based on evolution vs creationism, then you have completely missed the point.

Agreed, and of course, that goes the other way as well. Whether God created via evolution over billions of years does not effect the salvation message in the least, or detract at all from Christianity.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The importance of Christianity lies in Christ, not evolution or creationism. If one or the other is false, that should not be what deters one away from Christ. Christ should be the sole reason why one would become a Christian.

The problem becomes the extensive filters (see Hardin's _Filters against Folly) that a scientific education teaches. Call them BS or pseudoscience filters, whatever you want. Science is a very complex way of looking at the world, it is not common sense, it is not appearances.

Now, come to someone who spends much of their time thinking about these things, always on guard for the off beat, and weird (look at the reception prions, ulcers as infections got from the scientific community for decades). You offer him two pieces of new information:
YEC and Jesus as Lord and Savior. He doesn't know what to do with the Jesus part, no unbeliever does, but he does know about the YECism. So he packages the two and throws them both out. Are they necessarily connected? probably not. But if you can't trust the salesman at your door with telling you the truth about something you know, you are not going to trust him with new stuff. period.

and that is what is happening.
couple that with the enormous anti-intellectualism of much of modern evangelism and you have a recipe for two worlds who do not know how to talk to each other, our current condition.

 

[GodSaves]

The problem becomes the extensive filters (see Hardin's _Filters against Folly) that a scientific education teaches. Call them BS or pseudoscience filters, whatever you want. Science is a very complex way of looking at the world, it is not common sense, it is not appearances.

Now, come to someone who spends much of their time thinking about these things, always on guard for the off beat, and weird (look at the reception prions, ulcers as infections got from the scientific community for decades). You offer him two pieces of new information:
YEC and Jesus as Lord and Savior. He doesn't know what to do with the Jesus part, no unbeliever does, but he does know about the YECism. So he packages the two and throws them both out. Are they necessarily connected? probably not. But if you can't trust the salesman at your door with telling you the truth about something you know, you are not going to trust him with new stuff. period.

and that is what is happening.
couple that with the enormous anti-intellectualism of much of modern evangelism and you have a recipe for two worlds who do not know how to talk to each other, our current condition.

Why would one ever go to a nonbeliever and preach to them Jesus and evolution vs creationism? I have said this numerous times, that Christianity is about Jesus Christ, not evolution or creation. The later are about understanding the Bible for Christians. It is not a topic for non-believers. I have said repeatedly that I don't believe your salvation is based on evolution or creationism, but on Jesus Christ alone.

Anyone who teaches that Christianity is about creationism, or evolution and not solely about Jesus Christ has completely missed the whole point just like the Pharisee's did. People are saved with knowing only the teachings within the 4 Gospels.

It is the teaching that if God created by evolution, then God is a liar because I believe in creationism, that is wrong. It is the teaching that if God created by creationism, then God is a liar because I believe in evolution, that is wrong.
God is not a liar because we misunderstand. God is not a liar if evil men have surpressed evidence to advance their own theories, whether evolution or creationism. God is not a liar if all evidence has not been found to prove either theory. God is not a liar if we are wrong.

Some hold this point of view, and it is completely disasterous to the faith of the person who holds it. They are blaming God if they are wrong. Just like Adam blamed Eve for Adam eating the fruit off the tree of knowledge. Just like the Pharisee's blamed Jesus Christ because they could not understand.

You do not preach to non-believers with evolution or creationism. You preach to them with the Gospels of Jesus Christ. If they question creationism or evolution explain the salvation rests in Jesus Christ alone.

I realize many would like to keep bringing up those who are creationists that say you must believe in creationism to be a Christian. But what is the point? The point is that Jesus Christ died on that cross for you and me, rose three days later and now sits at the right hand of the Father. That is the point, not creationism or evolution when it comes to salvation.

Don't focus on trying to disprove creationism or evolution with non-believers focus on showing them what Jesus Christ did. That is the point, that is what we are too preach to non-believers, our commission.

Theistic evolutionists worry about the stumbling block for non-believers. Creationists worry about the stumbling block for believers. If both would realize that salvation does not rest on the understanding of the beginning but on what Jesus Christ did, then there would be more harmony.

I am afraid that may never happen.

 

[Vance]

The problem is that we do not preach to unbelievers WITH creationism or evolution, we preach to those who believe in evolution and have already concluded that the scientific evidence has completely falsified young earth creationism. Sometimes they have come to associate Christianity with YEC'ism because there are groups out there that tell them that if you DON'T believe in YEC'ism then you don't believe the Bible. Thus, for them, there go the Gospels out the window! Thus, we have to "undo" this YEC teaching before they will even listen to the Gospel message.

" Theistic evolutionists worry about the stumbling block for non-believers. Creationists worry about the stumbling block for believers. If both would realize that salvation does not rest on the understanding of the beginning but on what Jesus Christ did, then there would be more harmony."

But, see, this is what I have been saying all along. We should NOT be teaching that origins is an issue tied to whether the Bible is true or not. Because then we ARE saying that origins is a salvation issue. ALL Theistic Evolutionists want is for the YEC's to abandon this campaign to associate evolution with atheism, with a DIS-belief in Scripture, and as contrary to Christian belief. Theistic Evolutionists are not out to convert YEC's to their way of thinking, only to have them remove this stumbling block.

Now the whole "YEC would mean that God created deceptively" is not a stumbling block created by TE's, it is a reality we have to deal with when talking to unbelievers who know ANYTHING about evolution and the evidence for an old earth. They already accept (and will almost assuredly not come to reject) the evidence for an old earth and for evolution. That is where they are, that is what we start with. If you then tell them that, despite all the evidence, God actually only created the universe and everything in it 10,000 years ago, then their automatic response WILL be "well, if that is true, why did He create it to look billions of years old? Why would he be trying to fool us?"

And, again, you are misunderstanding what TE's say about the "deceving" issue. We do not say that God is a liar if He created all species specially 10,000 years ago. We are saying that if He did so, He created in a way that is definitely deceptive, which is not the same thing at all. God could have created in a way that is deceptive without being a deceiver, since He would have had a non-deceiving motive for creating this way which, in His infinite wisdom, overrides the deceptive nature of the Creation. Now, for me, this is an easy issue because I find it much more likely that the literal reading is incorrect than that there was another reason for God to create in a way which would look, act and test EXACTLY like evolution over billions of years. While it is possible for God to have implanted in the ground evidence for a history that did not exist, I just find it dramatically more likely that that history did exist and that a non-literal reading of Scripture (which I happen to believe anyway) is correct.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why would one ever go to a nonbeliever and preach to them Jesus and evolution vs creationism? I have said this numerous times, that Christianity is about Jesus Christ, not evolution or creation. The later are about understanding the Bible for Christians. It is not a topic for non-believers. I have said repeatedly that I don't believe your salvation is based on evolution or creationism, but on Jesus Christ alone.

with AiG's "refuting compromise" campaign, and things like the Westminster Presbytery's (PCA) stand that no not-YEC will be taken under care or ordained, the vocal radical polarizers have made it a salvation issue.

 

[adam149]

But you will notice the closing statement that I made. I said: "so, to claim YEC as THE historical position of the church is dangerously misleading."
Notice the capital THE. You have suggested that the position was uniform and held by nearly everyone in the early church.

I never claimed it was uniform, but it was adhered to by the majority for the longest period of history.

I am merely pointing out that there were other views. The views on a non-literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts were around long before Darwin.

I agree completely, which should have been clear from my last post. But the non-literal views were unpopular with the church until about 200 years before Darwin with the rise of uniformatarianism. The church compromised (perhaps synthesized is a better term) with uniformatarianism and long ages. Only then did the non-literal views become prominant. aka, the popularity of the non-literal views is not resultant from the Genesis text but from an acceptance of autonomous man's philosophical assumptions about the earth. This has been extensively documented in The Great Turning Point, by Dr. Terry Mortenson.

It has been suggested repeatedly that evolution has been the downfall of Biblical exegesis in Genesis, but these early church fathers (some whom I believe to be in this category were quoted by your source as being unclear)

Of course, I can't believe you until you prove that...

demonstrate that one can hold to a non-literal interpretation can also hold to the creeds which you said were dependent on a literal viewpoint--it is not.

The mentioned creeds do not address the creation issue, aside from acknowledging God as the creator of the universe. I think you will be challenged to find anything I said supporting the contention that the Creeds were "dependent on a literal viewpoint." At least that I can recall. Rather, I was saying that behind the Creeds are the doctrine of infallibility, which Karl was denying. The simple fact is that if the Bible has errors, we cannot know which are the errors and which are not and therefore cannot know if what the Creeds are saying is true or not and therefore subscribing to them is inherently meaningless.

 

[adam149]

with AiG's "refuting compromise" campaign, and things like the Westminster Presbytery's (PCA) stand that no not-YEC will be taken under care or ordained, the vocal radical polarizers have made it a salvation issue.

As far as I know, the Presbytery has voted down all such proposals. The PCA still allows all views, though I could be wrong.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

As far as I know, the Presbytery has voted down all such proposals. The PCA still allows all views, though I could be wrong.

http://capo.org/wp/declartn.htm

Therefore, Westminster Presbytery does declare and make known to the world and to all churches, especially our own denomination, our churches, our presbyteries, our General Assembly and the seminaries from which our candidates arise, that we will not tolerate these views in any teaching elder seeking admittance to this Presbytery, or any other man seeking to be licensed or to become a candidate for the ministry under care of this Presbytery. Furthermore, Westminster Presbytery considers that any view which departs from the confessional doctrine of creation in six 24 hour days strikes at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine set forth in the Holy Scriptures.

from: http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html

Others recommend that the Assembly acknowledge that the four views of the interpretation of the days expounded in this report are consistent with the teaching of the Standards on the doctrine of creation, and that those who hold one of these views and who assent to the affirmations listed below should be received by the courts of the church without notations of exceptions to the Standards concerning the doctrine of creation.

The advice of others on the committee is that the PCA has existed for over 25 years with a variety of viewpoints regarding creation being accepted, and a diversity of presbytery and sessional practices. These members of the Committee recognize that it would be disturbing to the Church if the Assembly sought to change the present practice of the Church which has provided for various ways of receiving candidates for office, who make the following affirmations.

All the Committee members join in these affirmations: The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.

 

[artybloke]

Why would one ever go to a nonbeliever and preach to them Jesus and evolution vs creationism?

I recently went to an evangelical event where the preacher tried to prove the truth of Christianity by putting a YEC point of view. If there were any scientists there, they would have jumped down his throat in no time. As it is, it's even worse, because the people who did come were not very clever. They would have swallowed it hook line and sinker, and, yes, they may have become Christians, but on false premises. When an evangelist is using YEC arguments to put the case for Christianity, then it is a false witness, especially if they are preaching to the gullible (most people don't know enough about science and scientific method to decide; they would probably assume that the preacher knows what he's talking about.) If any of those people converted on the basis of YEC arguments were later to discover that those YEC arguments were falacious, misleading and untrustworthy, wouldn't they also wonder if the whole message was fallacious? It would, at the very least, shake their faith to the core to find out they'd been lied to.

 

[Micaiah]

I agree that it is unwise for those who have no background in science to seek to prove Creation with examples that rely on expert knowledge to have any hope of grasping the argument put forward, let alone make a sensible judgement on the article.

That said, I wouldn't accept without question the judgement passed by a TE on this matter given some of the so called 'arguments' posted on these forums.

 

[artybloke]

no background in science

Considering that all YEC arguments have about as much scientific credibility as a belief in leprechauns, that would be pretty much all YECs then.

 

[GodSaves]

Considering that all YEC arguments have about as much scientific credibility as a belief in leprechauns, that would be pretty much all YECs then.

I guess you have met with all the scientists who are YEC in order for you to hand out this judgement.