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

[mark kennedy]

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

I know what your saying but a number of the TEs I am acquainted with are pretty orthodox, they at least don't flagrantly deny the Nicene Creed. Some people think all you have to do is look in a mirror and say, HI I'm a Christian and every other Christian is supposed to accept you as one of them. There is such a thing as essential doctrine<staff edit>.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

It's interesting that the TEs will come out so strong against creationists, who intend to defend essential doctrine but have nothing to say when overtly heretical posters show up. Seen it a lot in the common forum but in a different context. Invariably you get this troller who is wrong virtually every time but none of the apologists for science will correct them. Let a creationist post anything and it's like blood in the water.

Liberal Theology has been secular and anti-miracle since it's inception. I'm honestly insulted that they think Christians are so dumb that they don't know an atheistic philosophy when they see one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's interesting that the TEs will come out so strong against creationists, who intend to defend essential doctrine but have nothing to say when overtly heretical posters show up. Seen it a lot in the common forum but in a different context. Invariably you get this troller who is wrong virtually every time but none of the apologists for science will correct them. Let a creationist post anything and it's like blood in the water.

Liberal Theology has been secular and anti-miracle since it's inception. I'm honestly insulted that they think Christians are so dumb that they don't know an atheistic philosophy when they see one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

<staff edit>Evolution actually happened. Any theology that denies that is bad theology. It doesn't matter if you call it liberal or conservative. Being wrong about evolution is not a liberal or conservative position; its a wrong position. Calling on people to be wrong is not constructive.

 

[Hieronymus]

<staff edit> Evolution actually happened.

No.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No.

The whole dynamic of the opposition to evolution is express succinctly in this post.

Faith based, stubborn, absolutely fixed, immune to all appeal to reason or evidence; and those attributes are seen as virtues, not drawbacks.

The dynamic for the acceptance of evolution, however, is evidence based.

An example of the evidence will be shared here, just to make the point. We mammals all have an interesting left over feature from our fishy past . . . a nerve that goes down from the brain to loop around a heart vessel and then goes back up to the larynx. There's no design reason for this detour of that nerve; it is merely that, in fish, the nerve goes straight but happens to go under that heart vessel, and as land animals evolved from fish there was no way for that nerve to gradually shift into better position through evolution as it always started out hooked under that heart vessel. This is not a big deal in our own species or indeed in most mammals but it is very, very odd when you see this pattern repeated in the giraffe. The nerve goes all the way down that long neck, around the heart vessel, and back up to the larynx.

Special design for the giraffe species is thereby ruled out, and evolution is shown have another piece of evidence in its favor.

But that is all by way of example. There is so much evidence that evolution is . . . . simply established to be true.

People who accept evolution are not doing that in order to downgrade the Bible, to establish Atheism over Theism, to weaken religious faith; instead they are trying to figure out what is true and go along with the truth.

 

[Papias]

<staff edit>Evolution actually happened. Any theology that denies that is bad theology. It doesn't matter if you call it liberal or conservative. Being wrong about evolution is not a liberal or conservative position; its a wrong position. Calling on people to be wrong is not constructive.

Yep, Paul, you are right.

Any theology that denies reality is bad theology - not "liberal", nor "conservative" etc.

It's the same as theologies that deny gravity based on Gen 1:17,

or theologies that deny germ theory based on diseases being caused by demons,

or theologies that deny heliocentrism based on the many verses that, taken literally, support geocentrism,

or theologies that deny a spherical earth based on the many verses that, taken literally, support a flat earth,

or theologies that deny genetics based on the many Gen 30,

and so on.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

<staff edit> Evolution actually happened. Any theology that denies that is bad theology. It doesn't matter if you call it liberal or conservative. Being wrong about evolution is not a liberal or conservative position; its a wrong position. Calling on people to be wrong is not constructive.

Let me explain <staff edit>, evolution is not all or nothing, it's a phenomenon in nature. The is no requisite a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. Any argument equivocating evolutionary biology with atheistic materialism is bad science and worse theology.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

No.

Don't fall for it, this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, no one denies that happens. None of these TEs or evolutionists will honestly admit a scientific definition and I've challenged them for years. They are equivocating evolutionary biology with a worldview known as atheistic materialism as if they were the same thing, it's called a logical fallacy, an argument that never happened. Don't fall for it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Any theology that denies God created anything is bad theology.

Right. Theistic evolution shows God creating everything, all the time, for millions of years, including today, as Jesus says in John 5:17. It's even got God doing more creating than creationists, who often describe God as creating just in 1 week, then not creating (deism).

We agree that theistic evolution is, after all, *theistic*, right mark?


<staff edit>

In Christ-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Right. Theistic evolution shows God creating everything, all the time, for millions of years, including today, as Jesus says in John 5:17. It's even got God doing more creating than creationists, who often describe God as creating just in 1 week, then not creating (deism).

Right! As long as God does it by exclusively naturalistic means, in perfect harmony with Darwinism which is nothing more then atheistic materialism, thus deism. The Creation week is a transcendent principle including the incarnation, resurrection, new birth and the new creation of the heavens and the earth at the end of the age. Something you are strangely silent about.

We agree that theistic evolution is, after all, *theistic*, right mark?

I nurse serious doubts since they are never in conflict with the atheistic materialism of Darwinism and continually criticizing creationists. Who are you trying to distance yourself from, the Darwinian or those who take the doctrine of creation seriously?


<staff edit>

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Right! As long as God does it by exclusively naturalistic means, in perfect harmony with Darwinism which is nothing more then atheistic materialism, thus deism.

How can Deism be atheistic? The statement that "Darwinism . . . is nothing more than atheistic materialism" is false. It is perfectly possible to accept evolution and also believe there is a God. Many people do this, some of us even posting in this forum. Which is PROOF the statement is false.

The Creation week is a transcendent principle including the incarnation, resurrection, new birth and the new creation of the heavens and the earth at the end of the age. Something you are strangely silent about.

The creation week is simply a narrative describing creation in six "days" with a "day" of rest. The poetic structure and the scriptural injunction that, with the Lord, a thousand years are as a day, allow one to accomodate the actual age of the earth to the narrative, a thing that in itself might be considered a miraculous foreshadowing of the discoveries of modern science.

I nurse serious doubts since they are never in conflict with the atheistic materialism of Darwinism. . . .

There is no atheistic materialism of Darwinism. Granted, some who accept modern science are atheists, as they have a right to be, due to their God-given free will.

and continually criticizing creationists. Who are you trying to distance yourself from, the Darwinian or those who take the doctrine of creation seriously?

Again the false catagorizing. We who accept evolution and also accept God as creator take the doctrine of creation seriously.

<staff edit>

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Please do not Flame each other.

Process Theology can only be discussed in Christianity and World Religions forum.

If your post was removed it was for these reasons.

 

[mark kennedy]

How can Deism be atheistic? The statement that "Darwinism . . . is nothing more than atheistic materialism" is false. It is perfectly possible to accept evolution and also believe there is a God. Many people do this, some of us even posting in this forum. Which is PROOF the statement is false.

That's easy, deism considers God to be a watchmaker who created the universe and let it run on it's own ever since. Darwinism denies God was involved with even the origin of life, the universe or man is exclusively naturalistic:

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, On the Origin of Species)​

Thus, deism is only one step removed from Atheistic materialism. As a matter of fact I accept evolution and since your obviously have an excellent education you should have no problem defining the term, 'evolution', in terms of adaptive evolutionary biology. What you are calling evolution is actually two things, it's an a priori assumption of universal common descent going all the way back to and including the Big Bang and the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. I believe in evolution after creation, evolution is a living theory, it happens after life starts. What we are really debating is whether the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism are comparable with anything remotely theistic. Obviously I think not.

The creation week is simply a narrative describing creation in six "days" with a "day" of rest. The poetic structure and the scriptural injunction that, with the Lord, a thousand years are as a day, allow one to accommodate the actual age of the earth to the narrative, a thing that in itself might be considered a miraculous foreshadowing of the discoveries of modern science.

It's poetic prose as a matter of fact, it is nevertheless, an historical narrative with no hint of figurative language anywhere in the text. You believe in God, I assume the God of the Bible, further I assume you believe in the God of redemptive history who raised Christ from the dead. So, did God speak to Moses and the children of Israel from the foot of Sinai to the shores of the Jordan river? Now if you think the Old Testament is just mythology or fanciful poetry you have a very serious problem, the God of the Bible is a God of miracles and not subject to the naturalistic assumptions of secular scientist or empirical testing.

There is no atheistic materialism of Darwinism. Granted, some who accept modern science are atheists, as they have a right to be, due to their God-given free will.

Yes Darwinism is atheistic materialism, there is no real question about that. God gets no credit for anything in creation, he doesn't even get honorable mention as Designer. The Scriptures don't tell us that modern scientists have a right to reject God in their understanding, the Apostle Paul tells us that they are without excuse:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:18-20)​

You are confusing political and social rhetoric with the Gospel message. You are right about one thing though, it is definitely an act of free will but it's not a natural right to reject the divine attributes and eternal nature of God, it's sin.

Again the false categorizing. We who accept evolution and also accept God as creator take the doctrine of creation seriously.

Your equivocating adaptive evolution with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. That's the false dilemma theistic evolutionists love to pose. Let me share a little something with you, maybe it will give you a little perspective on where I'm coming from. The Ark touches down on Ararat 4000 years ago and from that barge we get all the diversity of life for birds, reptiles, mammals and man, on a global scale at an accelerated rate. There is nothing like that in creation except adaptive evolution so why don't you give some thought to defining your terms starting with 'evolution' and 'creation'. Then we can talk some more.

I'll give you a hint, the scientific definition for evolution is in the thread and even in this post. The doctrinal basis for creation is in Genesis 1, John 1, Hebrews 1 and Romans 1. There is a reason that it's the first chapter of the Bible and so foundational to the Gospel message. The same reason it's in the first three stanzas of the Nicene Creed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hoghead1]

That's easy, deism considers God to be a watchmaker who created the universe and let it run on it's own ever since. Darwinism denies God was involved with even the origin of life, the universe or man is exclusively naturalistic:

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, On the Origin of Species)​

Thus, deism is only one step removed from Atheistic materialism. As a matter of fact I accept evolution and since your obviously have an excellent education you should have no problem defining the term, 'evolution', in terms of adaptive evolutionary biology. What you are calling evolution is actually two things, it's an a priori assumption of universal common descent going all the way back to and including the Big Bang and the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. I believe in evolution after creation, evolution is a living theory, it happens after life starts. What we are really debating is whether the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism are comparable with anything remotely theistic. Obviously I think not.



It's poetic prose as a matter of fact, it is nevertheless, an historical narrative with no hint of figurative language anywhere in the text. You believe in God, I assume the God of the Bible, further I assume you believe in the God of redemptive history who raised Christ from the dead. So, did God speak to Moses and the children of Israel from the foot of Sinai to the shores of the Jordan river? Now if you think the Old Testament is just mythology or fanciful poetry you have a very serious problem, the God of the Bible is a God of miracles and not subject to the naturalistic assumptions of secular scientist or empirical testing.



Yes Darwinism is atheistic materialism, there is no real question about that. God gets no credit for anything in creation, he doesn't even get honorable mention as Designer. The Scriptures don't tell us that modern scientists have a right to reject God in their understanding, the Apostle Paul tells us that they are without excuse:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:18-20)​

You are confusing political and social rhetoric with the Gospel message. You are right about one thing though, it is definitely an act of free will but it's not a natural right to reject the divine attributes and eternal nature of God, it's sin.



Your equivocating adaptive evolution with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. That's the false dilemma theistic evolutionists love to pose. Let me share a little something with you, maybe it will give you a little perspective on where I'm coming from. The Ark touches down on Ararat 4000 years ago and from that barge we get all the diversity of life for birds, reptiles and man on a global scale at an accelerated rate. There is nothing like that in creation except adaptive evolution so why don't you give some thought to defining your terms starting with 'evolution' and 'creation'. Then we can talk some more.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Darwin was not an atheist and would have become a country parson, had he not gone on the Beagle, nor did he deny God was involved in creation. There are at least nine references to God in his "Origins." Also, he spent much time trying to reconcile the brutality of creation with God.

 

[mark kennedy]

Darwin was not an atheist and would have become a country parson, had he not gone on the Beagle, nor did he deny God was involved in creation. There are at least nine references to God in his "Origins." Also, he spent much time trying to reconcile the brutality of creation with God.

First Darwin was an agnostic at best and On the Origin of Species was one long argument against special creation and if you don't believe me just read the preface to the sixth edition. He was clearly limiting God as cause of anything in creation, organic or inorganic. Darwin was someone who knew so much about how favorable traits that he married his cousin, just as his grandfather did, and lost his daughters to fever, probably due to compromised immune systems which is one of the first problems with inbreeding.

That said, don't get me wrong, I happen to be fond of 'ole fly catcher', as the crew of the HMS Beagle used to call him. This isn't about personalities this is about modern Darwinism as defined by Darwin, developed in the Modern Synthesis and defended among Darwinians of our day. People like Richard Darwkins, and avowed atheist.

Now what do you say we nail down a good working definition of 'evolution', and a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of Creation as it pertains to essential Christian theism.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Hoghead1]

First Darwin was an agnostic at best and On the Origin of Species was one long argument against special creation and if you don't believe me just read the preface to the sixth edition. He was clearly limiting God as cause of anything in creation, organic or inorganic. Darwin was someone who knew so much about how favorable traits that he married his cousin, just as his grandfather did, and lost his daughters to fever, probably due to compromised immune systems which is one of the first problems with inbreeding.

That said, don't get me wrong, I happen to be fond of 'ole fly catcher', as the crew of the HMS Beagle used to call him. This isn't about personalities this is about modern Darwinism as defined by Darwin, developed in the Modern Synthesis and defended among Darwinians of our day. People like Richard Darwkins, and avowed atheist.

Now what do you say we nail down a good working definition of 'evolution', and a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of Creation as it pertains to essential Christian theism.

Have a nice day
Mark

Darwin was not exactly agnostic. He did refer to God around nine times in his "Origins>" If you read it, you should know that. He thought God was necessary to kick the whole think off. As I said, he had issues squaring the brutality of creation with God. So, too, do many Christians today. It is a very difficult issue. That fact he wrestled with it dos not make him an agnostic.
What does the cousin reference really have to do with anything here? FDR married his cousin, too, you know.
My definition of evolution is that it is creativity in the making, creativity at work. As such, it requires God. All novelty, all creative potentials require a transcendental storehouse or imagination, i.e., God.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's easy, deism considers God to be a watchmaker who created the universe and let it run on it's own ever since. Darwinism denies God was involved with even the origin of life, the universe or man is exclusively naturalistic:

Deism is therefore not atheistic, and you should not say it is atheistic.

I believe in evolution after creation, evolution is a living theory, it happens after life starts. What we are really debating is whether the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism are comparable with anything remotely theistic. Obviously I think not.

Well many of us think that it is compatible with believing in God and therefore such thinking is possible and you should stop saying accepting evolution is equal to atheism.​

So, did God speak to Moses and the children of Israel from the foot of Sinai to the shores of the Jordan river? Now if you think the Old Testament is just mythology or fanciful poetry you have a very serious problem, the God of the Bible is a God of miracles and not subject to the naturalistic assumptions of secular scientist or empirical testing.

And God is the creator of the world and all the processes going on in the world, which means God is the creator of evolution since evolution has been scientifically shown to be going on in the world.

Yes Darwinism is atheistic materialism, there is no real question about that.

You're still wrong about that.

God gets no credit for anything in creation, he doesn't even get honorable mention as Designer. The Scriptures don't tell us that modern scientists have a right to reject God in their understanding . . . .

That's just it, many of us including many scientists DO give God credit for His creation even though we accept He used evolution as part of the creative process. You just seem to actively deny we even exist, and we do exist, as proof you are wrong to say we cannot exist.

The Ark touches down on Ararat 4000 years ago and from that barge we get all the diversity of life for birds, reptiles, mammals and man, on a global scale at an accelerated rate. There is nothing like that in creation except adaptive evolution so why don't you give some thought to defining your terms starting with 'evolution' and 'creation'. Then we can talk some more.

There was no global flood 4000 years ago, such a flood would have left clear signs and those signs are absent.

The world of the flood was the world as known to Noah.

 

[mark kennedy]

Darwin was not exactly agnostic. He did refer to God around nine times in his "Origins>" If you read it, you should know that. He thought God was necessary to kick the whole think off. As I said, he had issues squaring the brutality of creation with God. So, too, do many Christians today. It is a very difficult issue. That fact he wrestled with it dos not make him an agnostic.
What does the cousin reference really have to do with anything here? FDR married his cousin, too, you know.
My definition of evolution is that it is creativity in the making, creativity at work. As such, it requires God. All novelty, all creative potentials require a transcendental storehouse or imagination, i.e., God.

All very interesting but what I was asking for was a definition for 'evolution' and a discussion of 'creation' as essential doctrine. Darwin also discussed a null hypothesis for natural selection, we really should get to that when we stop this conversation from going in circles. There is also a chance we might get to a real contributor to modern evolutionary biology, Gregor Mendel but we will wait and see if you decide to answer a real question.

 

[Hoghead1]

All very interesting but what I was asking for was a definition for 'evolution' and a discussion of 'creation' as essential doctrine. Darwin also discussed a null hypothesis for natural selection, we really should get to that when we stop this conversation from going in circles. There is also a chance we might get to a real contributor to modern evolutionary biology, Gregor Mendel but we will wait and see if you decide to answer a real question.

You asked me for my definition. I gave it. If you don't like it, that's your problem. Go propose your own, then.

 

[mark kennedy]

Deism is therefore not atheistic, and you should not say it is atheistic.

I didn't, I said it was one step removed, try to keep up.

Well many of us think that it is compatible with believing in God and therefore such thinking is possible and you should stop saying accepting evolution is equal to atheism.

I never said that, I said Darwinism is atheistic materialism. I also defined evolution which is something TEs with their great passion for science never seem to be willing to do.

And God is the creator of the world and all the processes going on in the world, which means God is the creator of evolution since evolution has been scientifically shown to be going on in the world.

Yea but refer to God as even the Designer, let alone Creator and the TEs descend like an angry mob.

That's just it, many of us including many scientists DO give God credit for His creation even though we accept He used evolution as part of the creative process. You just seem to actively deny we even exist, and we do exist, as proof you are wrong to say we cannot exist.

As long as he does it by exclusively naturalistic process, suggest a miracle and it's another story.

There was no global flood 4000 years ago, such a flood would have left clear signs and those signs are absent.

Except the clear testimony of Scripture, including confirmation in the New Testament and flood stories in the deepest of antiquity.

Have a nice day
Mark