self-conflicted T.E. does not survive attention to details

Hieronymus · Apr 8, 2016

Papias said:
How is that any less sensible than "God punished all mankind - and Christ had to be tortured on the cross - because "some person - happened upon a bad thought one day"?

Genesis 3
"happened upon a bad thought"?

BobRyan · Apr 8, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Sorry, Bob, you reference to the NT has nothing to do with the actual authorship of the Pentateuch. The ancient Hebrews would not accept anything unless it could be project ted back into the time of Moses. In order for Christ to legitimate himself, he has to project himself back to Moses. Christ is following the custom of his people. What else was he to do? Also, in biblical times, they ere much more lax in how to exegete Scripture and attribute authorship than we are today. They could get away with that then, but we can't now.

Is this the part where you quote something I said - or are you just avoiding Mark 7:6-13 like the plague?

Christ himself points out - you are wrong.

============= back to - quoting something...

Hoghead1 said:
There is no statement in the Bible claiming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. .

Until you read the actual Bible - in places like Mark 7:6-13.

BobRyan · Apr 8, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Genesis 3
"happened upon a bad thought"?

Indeed the arguments for blind faith evolutionism often based on the logically fallacy of gross equivocation -

for example contrasting the actual fall of mankind as given to us by God in the bible - with the "fluff" we find in blind faith evolutionism -- we have this.

========================================

The Bible says Adam was made directly by God - and is called the "son of God" in the gospels. He is made in the image of God - upright, intelligent, perfect, sinless. He is vastly superior to our own age in that even after being banned from Eden he lives over 900 years. Made "A little lower than the angels" according to the Bible.

His IQ would dwarf Einstein's. So also Eve. Perfect, sinless, very intelligent. The students of God himself as God walks in the Garden in the cool of the day as their Father - as their Creator - as their instructor.

After some period of time (perhaps years) they sin - by transgressing the one prohibition - a "tiny test". They were told not to eat of one tree -- just one. Nothing difficult about that at all. EXCEPT the the serpent (who turns out to be Satan according to Revelation 12) tempted Eve to believe that she could EVOLVE to a higher state of being - a superior life form - if she ate from the tree... just as the serpent claimed to have gained the power of speech merely by eating from the tree.

In other words - the world was in a fort-Knox-like setup when it came to the risk that would send all mankind to the lake of fire. The odds were stacked against Satan and in favor of mankind. Only by the most egregious of acts of rebellion would the world have been placed in such jeopardy.

That is the Bible model.

But the T.E. model is that the fate of the entire world is in the hands of "mr dunderhead" -- hominid boy whose parents are "animals" and who is at the bottom edge of the bottom ledge --- the first animal that evolves to even "qualify" as "early human" - early "cave dweller" - and to have even the glimmering concept of a 'god'.

Dre Khipov · Apr 8, 2016

Sure, I glad you are interested. Let's just start with a couple and see how well you do. But I'll ask you to stick to the subject instead of running away.

1) Genetics and biology

"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,
they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."

To review, as a "get rich fast" scheme, Jacob cuts the branches and makes white stripes and puts these inside the water. The cattle mates and gets all spotted like the branches.

2) Cosmology

"And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault (firmament) and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault (firmament) “sky.” ...

Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky (below the water above) to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness."

To review - The stars, sun and the moon were set "In the vault of the sky". Most religious world actually believed in that cosmology up until Martin Luther's day, who still thought that the Sun and the Moon were set and attached to a firmament, and are not that far.

3) Physics / geology / paleontology

I'll save me some time typing and paste the link. This has been so played out that it's pointless to re-type it.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm

Let's see how well you do

Dre Khipov · Apr 8, 2016

BobRyan said:
Until you read the actual Bible - in places like Mark 7:6-13.

The verse in Mark didn't say "Moses wrote Pentateuch". It said that Moses said the words.

The books of the Bible are a work of composite authorship, especially Pentateuch.

BobRyan · Apr 8, 2016

Dre Khipov said:
The verse in Mark didn't say "Moses wrote Pentateuch". It said that Moses said the words.

The books of the Bible are a work of composite authorship, especially Pentateuch.

What words?

BobRyan · Apr 8, 2016

Dre Khipov said:
Sure, I glad you are interested. Let's just start with a couple and see how well you do. But I'll ask you to stick to the subject instead of running away.

1) Genetics and biology

"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,
they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."

To review, as a "get rich fast" scheme, Jacob cuts the branches and makes white stripes and puts these inside the water. The cattle mates and gets all spotted like the branches.

Why go to that text as if it is the creation account that you reject? Or are you saying that you not only reject the Creation account in the Bible - but ALL the Bible -- a pretty much "you name it - I reject it" approach?

Agnostic? or Atheist?

Well sadly for the agnostic and atheist the example you pick only further buries the atheist option -- in the next chapter.

"
10 “And it happened, at the time when the flocks conceived, that I lifted my eyes and saw in a dream, and behold, the rams which leaped upon the flocks were streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted. 11 Then the Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, ‘Jacob.’ And I said, ‘Here I am.’ 12 And He said, ‘Lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. 13 I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family.’”"

Instead of crediting the poplar branches -- the Angel says it was the case of which rams were mating - a theory of genetics - unknown to Jacob -- and apparently unknown to one or two atheists in modern times.

in Christ,

Bob

mark kennedy · Apr 10, 2016

Hey Bob,
An interesting thread, can't say I'm following the arguments very well but if I may interject a few points. My frustration with TE has been that first of all they seem to have no interest in work in doctrine. The church traditionally has emphasized certain doctrinal points like the virgin birth, the Trinity and of course, the Apostolic witness that is the core of the New Testament. What I mean to say is that they are not weak on the subject matter but altogether silent.

If they differ from the atheistic materialism of Darwinism I find it obscure in the extreme to qualify how. To add to the confusion their complete contempt for anything creationist is virtually identical to Darwinian thinking. Ok, they might have their reasons to be adverse to Ken Ham but to join in the fray alongside Darwinians makes them theologically suspect in my mind to put it mildly.

My biggest problem is that at least your main stream, life science, Darwinian makes a serious effort to at least address the scientific issues. Human evolution from apes is a big one for me and TEs resort to fallacy and highly ambiguous circular discussions. It always ends up a personal indictment rather then a substantive treatment of facts.

Here's something you might actually try to wrap your mind around. Try asking them to honestly admit to something God actually created, the Incarnation comes to mind as well as the Big Bang. You've asked some questions about the virgin birth, stop and consider if you really think you got a straight answer because I would seriously doubt it.

Why, at the end of the day, are they so reluctant to appeal to the clear testimony of Scripture? This one baffles me because at one time I was a borderline TE in my thinking and could easily hold down sound doctrine and reconcile it to evolutionary thinking. Creation is in the first and last chapter of the Bible making it one of the most transcendent doctrines in Scripture. Why, of all the doctrines in Scripture are they so centrally focused on this one? Not the historicity of the Gospel accounts but something the simply takes God being creator out of the equation.

I think we have neglected doctrinal study so long that this kind of snipping becomes the norm. TEs are not to blame, it has been our own inability to teach basic Christian theism, not even theology, that is the essence of the problem. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator. If this is mutually exclusive with evolutionary biology as it relates to natural history then so be it, I will suffer the loss of scientific acumen. This is the essence of Darwinism:

All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

We are engaged in arguments that never get off the ground for one reason, we don't establish the first principles of Christian theism before we try to persuade others of them. The question is simple enough, In the beginning God created what exactly? I have never gotten a straight answer on this one and it's called naturalistic assumptions, which is little more then atheistic materialism since it includes all natural history going back to and including the Big Bang.

Perhaps we should ask a simple question, what is essential Christian theism because I am more convinced then ever that this is the essence of the debate.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Dre Khipov · Apr 11, 2016

Bob,

Why would you go to quoting people views of which that you reject ? It continually amuses me that you condemn the flow of logic for certain ideas, and then you turn around and say "Here's the truth".

BobRyan said:
Well sadly for the agnostic and atheist the example you pick only further buries the atheist option -- in the next chapter.

How is that text remedies the issue at all?

BobRyan · Apr 11, 2016

Dre Khipov said:
Bob,

Why would you go to quoting people views of which that you reject ?

It is called - objectivity. Anyone can "quote from choir and yes-men that already agree with them".

It continually amuses me that this concept of "objective thinking" escapes many after they have been devotees of evolutionism for a sufficient length of time.

BobRyan · Apr 11, 2016

mark kennedy said:
Hey Bob,
An interesting thread, can't say I'm following the arguments very well but if I may interject a few points. My frustration with TE has been that first of all they seem to have no interest in work in doctrine. The church traditionally has emphasized certain doctrinal points like the virgin birth, the Trinity and of course, the Apostolic witness that is the core of the New Testament. What I mean to say is that they are not weak on the subject matter but altogether silent.

If they differ from the atheistic materialism of Darwinism I find it obscure in the extreme to qualify how.

You have hit the nail on the head my friend. Start a thread on the implications for Christianity, the Christian Gospel, the Christian Bible - and the atheists and the Christians will both tell you that evolutionism is the opposing doctrine for all such.

Darwin himself admitted to this problem.

But the T.E.'s will often just "avoid the discussion entirely" and ask if we can just stick with some "story about evolutionism" without ever thinking about what such wild guesswork would do to the Christian gospel - were such guesswork actually true.

BobRyan · Apr 11, 2016

Dre Khipov said:
He was opposed to certain methodological issues that can be problematic in any science.

Until you read what he actually said and "notice the detail" that NO leading scientist in the REAL science fields of observable biology, chemistry, math, physics goes around with that sort of "lament" about their own field of study.

Details matter.

Dre Khipov said:
The difference between science and religion is in methodology. What I find incredibly interesting is that you are decrying alleged blind faith approach on one end... and then you run as fast as you can .... to a blind faith approach

It does not make sense to an atheist to appeal to faith when it comes to a doctrine on origins. I think that is true on the surface -- but then they themselves opt out for a blind-faith-option of their own on the doctrine that "a pile of dirt will most certainly turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a long enough period of time filled with just-so stories".

Hence the junk-science blind-faith-religion of evolutionism is held by them "at all costs" because atheism does not survive the alternative.

Again.. details matter.

Thus - How can I take anything you say seriously?

Dre Khipov said:
So, why would you be quotemining what he said back in 80s

Good news - I am not quotemining.

Again..,. "details matter" So far ... you have none.

Dre Khipov said:
instead of actually see how his opinion progressed over the years?

You provide no evidence that he ever changed his mind other than vagaries absent all detail.

If you are going to use anyone, why not have them actually speak for themselves?

Hint. --- I did -- that was a quote of him.

Patterson wrote several textbooks since then, and his minor problems with evolution methodology in PALEONTOLOGICAL area of evolution didn't have him abandon the whole theory.

I have always referred to him as a blind faith atheist evolutionist - a diehard evolutionist scientist -- never as anything else ---

"details matter". He laments the religion he is stuck with.

On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
...
You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

In your response we can see that you merely pick and choose what suits your argument when you attempt to appeal to some odd detail that you in fact never identify.

What does atheism have to do with whether a scientific theory is valid?

outside of junk-science? nothing. Take for example atheists in Math, chemistry, physics, observable dendrology etc. The fact that they do not inject their religion into those sciences means we will never see scientists in those fields offering this lament -

=============

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
=======================================

That is not the sort of lament we have in "real science" over the past 150 years.

Neither is this --

Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

========================================

But as you point out - you can gloss over every single detail in that statement and circle back to -

There are plenty of scientific hypothetical when it comes to digging through history. Scientific theory will always be a model to improve on. You demanding absolute accuracy

Interesting "spin" --- but lacks all attention to detail in the statements made and the comparison to "real sciences"

Again, you don't seem to understand the issue. All of the species today couldn't fit on the ark

No one claims there has not been any speciation over the past 4500 years -- why makes stuff up??

Again, you refer to evolution as myth, and then you run as fast as you can to Noah's ark

I am a Christian that chooses to "Believe the Bible" rather than "deny the Bible" placing the junk-science-religion of evolutionism ahead of the Bible.

So then - some details held by Bible believing Christians - that even atheists will admit to --

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

Giving odd labels to something else doesn't invalidate science. How about you pick ONE issue to discuss about evolution, and stick to it, explain why you think it's wrong without making up labels like "untrue and junk science", and actually show that it's untrue.

Please be serious about what you are asking for a second.

Explain why "a pile of dirt is in fact NOT going to turn into a rabbit - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently long period of time - filled with just-so-stories"???

Explain why "prokaryotes never turn into eukaryotes no matter how many millions of generations we observe them?"

Explain why "the Eurey Miller experiment utterly failed to produce viable amino acid building blocks - due to results having randomly distributed chiral orientation of the product amino acids"??

Explain why "junk science confirmed frauds fill the history of junk-science evolutionism over the past 150 years"??

Explain why "Osborn is praised for lying to, and hiding truth from his readers -- to this very day - over at TalkOrigins"??

Explain why "the high-priests of evolutionism - their own well-known scientists, professors, authors LAMENT the distinctively religious and anti-knowledge nature of their own field of study"??

Explain why "Othaniel Marsh' junk-science hoax and confirmed fraud horse series is STILL on display at the Smithsonian over 50 years after being publicaly admitted as a fraud?"?? (We know WHY they do that - it is for emotional "effect" - which is the basis of their speculative arguments all along).

Explain why that sort of junk-religion is not worth adopting -- with its explicit risk of getting you into the Rev 20 lake of fire?? We need to "explain that"??

This list is wayyy too long -- would fill up several threads.

in Christ,

Bob

Dre Khipov said:
Bob,

Why would you go to quoting people views of which that you reject ? ...

It's called "objectivity"

mark kennedy · Apr 11, 2016

BobRyan said:
You have hit the nail on the head my friend. Start a thread on the implications for Christianity, the Christian Gospel, the Christian Bible - and the atheists and the Christians will both tell you that evolutionism is the opposing doctrine for all such.

Darwin himself admitted to this problem.

But the T.E.'s will often just "avoid the discussion entirely" and ask if we can just stick with some "story about evolutionism" without ever thinking about what such wild guesswork would do to the Christian gospel - were such guesswork actually true.

Its about the story, thats for sure. But it's not about someones fantasy but what actually happened. Evolution is about what happened after life started and we have been sold a line of goods that tells us a myth. That is not the fault of evolutionary biology, we knew better but preferred the lie for the truth. It's not as convoluted as we have been led to believe. Either God is involved or he is not.

I have learned more then I can possibly express about the life sciences. Daily I hear in the news about the on going culture war that Christians neither started nor actually participate in. Yet, the deluge of drama leveled against people of faith persists. I wish I could say it's normal, natural or warranted in some way. The truth is that faith is going to be targeted until the devil has finally been neutralized. This isn't the first mythology and it won't be the last. Today it's stone age monkey men and tomorrow well...who knows and who cares. We have only one responsibility, to share what they already know. That God is Creator and let these highly questionable arguments to the contrary fall where they may.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Apr 14, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I question your either-or thinking, Mark. You say either God is involved or he isn't.

Two problems here, one, evolution is something that happens after life has started. Evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time and is in no way contrary to the doctrine of creation. God created the universe (Gen.1:1), life in general (Gen.1:21) and man in particular (Gen. 1:27). The word used is bara ( בָּרָא bä·rä') which is an original creation not an evolved one. I did not make this an either or proposition, Charles Darwin did:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, 1859)

I take that to mean you feel evolution rules out God.

No, Darwinian evolution assumes exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the big bang. I don't rule out evolution, naturalistic assumptions rule out God.

I take issue with that. I believe evolution would be impossible without God. Also, you are making a number of implicit assumptions about the Bible.

I'm assuming nothing, the text and the New Testament witness is explicit with regards to creation. What is more you are equivocating evolution with the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism as if they were the same thing.

You are assuming God intended it to be an accurate geophysical witness and therefore it is an accurate geophysical witness. Well, the purpose of science is for one to test out one's beliefs, not matter how sacred or secular they may be. Many aspects of teh Bible are beyond any form of scientific testing, but some are not, and cosmology is one of them. Since modern science debunks the biblical cosmology, it would appear to be the case that the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. Therefore, you need to change your interpretation of Scripture.

I would need to do more then change my interpretation, I would have to change the actual meaning of extensive and explicit Biblical testimony. While creation may well be beyond the reach of natural science, it is only because natural science investigates natural phenomenon exclusively. Indeed I believe the testimony of Moses, the Old Testament Levitical scribes, prophets and the New Testament witness is true and reliable history. When some myth of stone age ape men contradicts the Scriptures the historical narratives and essential doctrines of my faith take precedence, I do not fold under the skepticism of unbelievers. Modern science has debunked nothing of the Biblical testimony. Creation in Genesis is a straight forward narrative describing the creation of the universe, 'the heavens and the earth' (Gen. 1:1) in no uncertain terms. All we know about the original creation from this is that it was 'in the beginning'. Some time later, perhaps minutes, perhaps billions of years later, Creation week begins. The doctrine of creation is essential Christian theism, far more significant then differences with regards to interpretive challenges. The Nicene Creed speaks of this in no uncertain terms in the first three stanzas. Do note, the Creed opens with a confession of God as Creator, a confession of the Incarnation, followed by a confession that Christ is God and therefore Creator:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth. (Nicene Creed 325)

You need to consider whether or not you believe God is Creator. If you do then you must make a determination what God actually created because the clear testimony of Scripture is that God created the entire universe, life and man by divine fiat not some exclusively naturalistic process.

You need to consider the very real possibility that God did not intend it to be an accurate scientific account. As Calvin once said, God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson. However, you appear reluctant to revise any of your a priori assumptions about the Bible. Instead, you assume your religious beliefs must be accepted without question and are the sole criterion from which to judge the validity of scientific findings.

Who said anything about astronomy? Geology and cosmology are irrelevant with regards to the doctrine of creation except at the point of origin which could be thousands or billions of years ago. Now your accusing me of making arguments I never intended nor have I implied. My expressed argument was with regards to the origin of life. What is more you are pontificating to science while never appealing to anything even vaguely empirical.

If science doe snot agree with your beliefs, it's automatically wrong That's cheating, pure and simple, accomplished by twisting science around a complete 180 from what it truly is .

Which brings us to the inevitable ad hominem attack. I am not opposed to science nor do I reject any of the genuine article of science. The evidence for evolution is genetic, the very definition of evolution is Mendelian, what you are assuming is that natural history and natural science is the same thing which is absurd.

"The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same." (Nature 2001)

What evolution truly is, what science truly is, is grossly distorted and riddled with the fallacious rhetoric of Darwinians like yourself. You bring nothing empirical and certainly nothing conclusive to the controversy. My view of evolution is Mendelian not Darwinian and my view of history is Biblical not atheistic materialism. This is nothing new, it's been an apologetic issue since at least the fourth century:

"For instance, some say that all things are self- originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all." (Athanasius On The Incarnation)

The doctrine of creation is inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and the new birth promised in the Gospel. What your calling evolution is nothing more then naturalistic assumptions and they are nothing new nor are they especially scientific for that matter.

Have a nice day
Mark

Papias · Apr 14, 2016

mark kennedy said:
My frustration with TE has been that first of all they seem to have no interest in work in doctrine. ....What I mean to say is that they are not weak on the subject matter but altogether silent.

What? Like the times you and I have discussed doctrinal points over and over on this very board? Did you just happen to forget all those times?

mark kennedy said:
If they differ from the atheistic materialism of Darwinism I find it obscure in the extreme to qualify how.

Um, by the presence and agency of God, which I've pointed out to you over and over?

mark kennedy said:
Ok, they might have their reasons to be adverse to Ken Ham but to join in the fray alongside Darwinians makes them theologically suspect in my mind to put it mildly.

Oh, yeah - "theologically suspect" because we accept evolution. So, mark, do you consider the Popes "theologically suspect" because they accept evolution? What about the leaders of the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches?

mark kennedy said:
Human evolution from apes is a big one for me and TEs resort to fallacy and highly ambiguous circular discussions. It always ends up a personal indictment rather then a substantive treatment of facts.

The many lines of evidence showing human evolution from apes have been shown to you repeatedly. Which aspect would you like to go over? Fossils? ERVs? "Transcription errors"?

mark kennedy said:
Try asking them to honestly admit to something God actually created, the Incarnation comes to mind as well as the Big Bang.

God created the Big Bang, the Incarnation, narwals, triceratops, archaeopteryx, mark himself, other apes like me, and kitty cats. Want more?

mark kennedy said:
Why, at the end of the day, are they so reluctant to appeal to the clear testimony of Scripture? This one baffles me because at one time I was a borderline TE in my thinking and could easily hold down sound doctrine and reconcile it to evolutionary thinking. Creation is in the first and last chapter of the Bible making it one of the most transcendent doctrines in Scripture. Why, of all the doctrines in Scripture are they so centrally focused on this one? Not the historicity of the Gospel accounts but something the simply takes God being creator out of the equation.

What? That's exact opposite of what I, as a theistic evolution supporter, do. I point out that God is the creator, of everything, all the time, as per Hebrews and John 5:17. You are the one who takes God as the creator out, limiting God's creation to the distant past only.

mark kennedy said:
The question is simple enough, In the beginning God created what exactly? I have never gotten a straight answer on this one and it's called naturalistic assumptions, which is little more then atheistic materialism since it includes all natural history going back to and including the Big Bang.

Here's a straight answer - Pure energy. The rest of that above looks like word salad.

in Christ-

Papias

mark kennedy · Apr 15, 2016

Papias said:
What? Like the times you and I have discussed doctrinal points over and over on this very board? Did you just happen to forget all those times?

Why would I forget? The same arguments have worked on you every single time.

Um, by the presence and agency of God, which I've pointed out to you over and over?

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. (HUMANI GENERIS)

You have begged the question repeatedly but hardly explained anything.

Oh, yeah - "theologically suspect" because we accept evolution. So, mark, do you consider the Popes "theologically suspect" because they accept evolution? What about the leaders of the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches?

The same people who are ordaining gay ministers will accept what you call evolution. The popes must hold to tradition so they don't get to dismiss the doctrine of creation.

The many lines of evidence showing human evolution from apes have been shown to you repeatedly. Which aspect would you like to go over? Fossils? ERVs? "Transcription errors"?

You have shown almost no interest in fossils, ERVs are broken reading frames and genetic mutations are the result of transcription errors, not to be confused with the transcript product:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations, Kimball Biology Pages)

God created the Big Bang, the Incarnation, narwals, triceratops, archaeopteryx, mark himself, other apes like me, and kitty cats. Want more?

Try life in general and man in particular by divine fiat not exclusively naturalistic processes.

What? That's exact opposite of what I, as a theistic evolution supporter, do. I point out that God is the creator, of everything, all the time, as per Hebrews and John 5:17. You are the one who takes God as the creator out, limiting God's creation to the distant past only.

I do no such thing, new birth is the same miracle as original creation since only God by his almighty power can produce a new creature in Christ. Oh and by the way, God recreates the earth at the end of the age, have you forgotten that the new heavens and the new earth is a promise of the Gospel? Does that have to be exclusively naturalistic because you will never get such a tortured interpretation from the Scriptures.

Here's a straight answer - Pure energy. The rest of that above looks like word salad.

in Christ-

Papias

Speaking of word salad it's nice that you learned over time to quit spilling it all over your posts.

The doctrine of creation is not ambiquise, you really think this quote is word salad?

"For instance, some say that all things are self- originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all." (Athanasius On The Incarnation)

You might not like my ideas but certainly all good Catholics like Athanasius and must affirm the tenants of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth. (Nicene Creed 325)

Don't think for a minute that I have not noticed that you have neglected these points. That's conceding substantive points by omission but thanks for playing, it's always fun to watch you try to squirm out of the key issues.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Apr 15, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
TE people are not interested in doctrine. Are you kidding? I don't know what TE people you are reading, but that sure isn't true in my neck of the woods. I would identify myself as a process theological, process theology being a major movement in contemporary Christian thought.

Contrary to Christian orthodoxy, the Christ of mainstream process theology is not the mystical and historically exclusive union of divine and human natures in one hypostasis, the eternal Logos of God uniquely enfleshed in and identifiable as the man Jesus. Rather God is incarnate in the lives of all people when they act according to a call from God. (Process Theology)

That's a clear departure from the Trinity, a twisted view of the incarnation, the resurrection and you are describing yourself as a heretic. You are in clear denial of the immutability of God which is yet another departure from Christian theism.

Apparently you haven't read much here. Process is largely concerned with giving the classical Christian model of God a major facelift and redefining what God is like in his or her own nature. Hence, there are tons of literature on doctrine. For example, I did my dissertation in pneumatology and therefore spent considerable time addressing on the classical theism or the classical model of God, the Trinity, the major church fathers as well as the creeds and confessions, the controversy over the Deity of Christ, and of course the Holy Spirit. My topic was pneumatology because the Holy Spirit is historically the least-elaborated member of the Trinity. Already there were more than one excellent process christology out there, but little in pneumatology.
I argue, for example, that evolution would be impossible without God. Evolution is essentially creativity in actin, and all creativity requires a transcendental source of imagination, i.e., God. We differ from Darwinists, in that we do not stress the goal is survival of the fittest. We understand God as Cosmic Artist continually introducing and luring the world to higher levels of beauty. We see a direction to evolution, moving from the simplest and lest sensitive to more complex, sensitive, and beautiful.
Let me know if you have any questions.

I am simply appalled, I cannot believe a post like this is allowed in a Christians only forum. Process theology is nothing more then yet another atheistic philosophy in theological terminology. You cannot deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, miracles and creation and still be a Christian.

Have a nice day
Mark

BobRyan · Apr 15, 2016

mark kennedy said:
Contrary to Christian orthodoxy, the Christ of mainstream process theology is not the mystical and historically exclusive union of divine and human natures in one hypostasis, the eternal Logos of God uniquely enfleshed in and identifiable as the man Jesus. Rather God is incarnate in the lives of all people when they act according to a call from God. (Process Theology)

That's a clear departure from the Trinity, a twisted view of the incarnation, the resurrection <staff edit>. You are in clear denial of the immutability of God which is yet another departure from Christian theism.

But you have to admit - that sort of statement <staff edit> - was helpful in demonstrating to T.E.'s just where this all leads.

BobRyan · Apr 15, 2016

mark kennedy said:
Hey Bob,
An interesting thread, can't say I'm following the arguments very well but if I may interject a few points. My frustration with TE has been that first of all they seem to have no interest in work in doctrine. The church traditionally has emphasized certain doctrinal points like the virgin birth, the Trinity and of course, the Apostolic witness that is the core of the New Testament. What I mean to say is that they are not weak on the subject matter but altogether silent.

If they differ from the atheistic materialism of Darwinism I find it obscure in the extreme to qualify how.

All true. Often you only get "crickets...crickets..." from them on the subject of Bible doctrine - much as you would expect from atheists -- kind of funny that way.

But there are a few here - <staff edit> - that will be more than happy to show all his fellow T.E.'s JUST WHERE this is all going.

What is "instructive" to watch - is what those other T.E's do -- when <staff edit>does come out with his 'no virgin birth' statements.

mark kennedy · Apr 16, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Mark, your post does nothing but reflect serious misunderstandings and contempt for your fellow Christians, especially us process people, who don't happen to think the way you do. It is totally inappropriate in this or any other forum for any members to berate the Christianity of the fellow Christians.

No, this is a Christians only forum, you need to start posting to Liberal Theology or one of the non-othodox forums. Christian is defined in these forums by the Nicene Creed and Progressive Theology does not qualify. Christianity is largely a matter of conviction and you do not have the convictions of Christian belief. <staff edit>

Have a nice day
Mark

self-conflicted T.E. does not survive attention to details

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Listening to TW4

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Junior Member

Junior Member

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency