the soteriological hazards of theistic evolution

[Nathan Poe]

now you're thinking!

critical thinking is encouraged (unless you're an evolutionary biologist) when the ultimate goal is truth.

let's examine the verse in it's totality:

Proverbs 30:5-6

"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

since we know that Jesus is really God in bodily form (Colossians 2:9), and since we know that Jesus inspired additional books (NT), why would Jesus want to "rebuke" his own prior works?

The wheels on the logic go round and round...

Circular reasoning is never pretty.

1: Proverbs (Old Testament) says not to add to the Bible. Fair enough.
2: The entire New Testament should, therefore, be excluded from the Bible...

EXCEPT...

The New Testament is the account of Jesus, who was God in the flesh, so therefore it is a clear exception to what Proverbs says, right?

BUT WAIT A MINUTE...

How do we know that the exception applies? how do we know that Jesus was God incarnate, and thus deserving of special treatment?

Why, because the New Testament tells us so, that's why!

SO...

The New Testament clearly does belong in the Bible, and the justification for this is in the description of Christ, which is spelled out in the New Testament...

Also, if the NT were nullified by proverbs 30:5-6, then there would be no fulfillment of prophecy, which is a major tenet of Christianity (i.e. eternal life, etc.).

Yes, so? That would mean that Christianity is wrong. How does this prove the NT is supposed to be there?

regardless, the creation account stands on it's own, since it is found in both the OT and the NT.

Regardless, the existence of Thomas Sawyer stands on its own, since it is found in both The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

You cannot prove a myth to be true by pointing to its sequel.

 

[packsaddle]

You cannot prove a myth to be true by pointing to its sequel.

but this job is for theistic evolutionists only.

atheists need not apply.

 

[Arikay]

Pack, sorry to say but it appears many of the atheists here understand theistic evolution better than you. Don't ignore an opportunity to learn.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

if you have specific evidence of one creature turning into another creature, please start a new thread so we can examine said evidence, in detail.

Been there. Done that. about 100 times. Theraspids.

And isn't someone stating that ad hominem is a typical tactic by one particular group of people an ad hominem attack in itself?

I can't wait to get an avatar so I can have an irony meter to blow up.

 

[packsaddle]

Okay, let's tackle this. Two problems:

1) Theistic evolutionists do not reject God's word. They interpret it differently.

2) Creationists (or literalists if you prefer) reject God's Creation. Why?

1. theistic evolutionists DO reject God's word, since God said he created man and woman, and that woman was formed from man.....evolutionary theory doesn't say that, or did you not know?

2. I can't speak for "creationists" or "literalists"...all I can speak for is myself, and God said that he created everything, including man and woman, and I believe that, and you should too, unless you have some new evidence that can conclusively demonstrate that a single-celled organism really did become a human, capable of self-awareness.

anyway, since we're is getting waaaaaay off topic, why don't you start a new thread......give us evolution's biggest and best.

but, keep it specific, and let's just see how strong, or weak, your beloved theory really is.

looking forward to it!

 

[packsaddle]

Been there. Done that. about 100 times. Theraspids.

well, I'm new here, so why don't you explain, in detail, how theraspids turned into something else, or used to be something else and turned into theraspids.

please support your answer with valid evidence from an objective source.

thanks!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1. theistic evolutionists DO reject God's word, since God said he created man and woman, and that woman was formed from man.....evolutionary theory doesn't say that, or did you not know?

Perhaps it was a metaphor for the evolution of sexuality. Or the biolgical development of the two sexes. Or the unity of men and women required in producing offspring.

OOC, what do you think the "in our image" part means regarding the creation of humans?

2. I can't speak for "creationists" or "literalists"...all I can speak for is myself, and God said that he created everything, including man and woman, and I believe that, and you should too, unless you have some new evidence that can conclusively demonstrate that a single-celled organism really did become a human, capable of self-awareness.

Okay. Look up "zygote".

anyway, since we're is getting waaaaaay off topic, why don't you start a new thread......give us evolution's biggest and best.

but, keep it specific, and let's just see how strong, or weak, your beloved theory really is.

looking forward to it!

Two red flags.

1) There are plenty of threads where evidence for evolution has been discussed. No need to continually rehash the same thing ad nauseum.

2) There is no "magic bullet" evidence for evolution. It's the cumulation of evidence that must be considered, not any single piece of evidence in a vacuum.

But if you're up to it, you might want to have a look at this thread on Endogenous retroviruses. Creationists seem to be avoiding it for some strange reason...

 

[Arikay]

1) To say it again, christians can accept gods word without interpreting it literally. Unless you mean to tell me that Rome taxed the entire world like china as the bible says. One of the many examples of where the bible shouldn't be taken literally.

2) Yet gods creation has said that things such as the flood and literal creation are not true. We have know the flood wasn't true since the early 1800's, by studying gods creation.
So again, if you wont dodge the question this time, Why do you ignore gods creation?
Have you just not studied it enough to understand it?

1. theistic evolutionists DO reject God's word, since God said he created man and woman, and that woman was formed from man.....evolutionary theory doesn't say that, or did you not know?

2. I can't speak for "creationists" or "literalists"...all I can speak for is myself, and God said that he created everything, including man and woman, and I believe that, and you should too, unless you have some new evidence that can conclusively demonstrate that a single-celled organism really did become a human, capable of self-awareness.

anyway, since we're is getting waaaaaay off topic, why don't you start a new thread......give us evolution's biggest and best.

but, keep it specific, and let's just see how strong, or weak, your beloved theory really is.

looking forward to it!

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

please support your answer with valid evidence from an objective source

SCREEEEEECH!!!!!

Ahhhhhh the sound of the goalposts being moved!

I was just going to provide a link to previous discussions but since you have decided to qualify your requirement, I would like to hear what you consider valid evidence from an objective source first.

Edited to add: oh and thanks to whomever did what they did. You know who you are. Mucho appreciated.

JTH

 

[packsaddle]

Pack, sorry to say but it appears many of the atheists here understand theistic evolution better than you. Don't ignore an opportunity to learn.

Ari, sorry to say but it appears that you don't understand the issue.

an active atheist (one who deliberately rejects God) is, by definition, incapable of understanding biblical revelation, because their hearts are far from God.

consequently, they may be better at understanding atheistic issues than I, but until they set apart Christ as Lord, they are in error, per Jesus.

Don't ignore an opportunity to learn.

 

[PhantomLlama]

I think 'objective source' may be the killer here.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Ari, sorry to say but it appears that you don't understand the issue.

an active atheist (one who deliberately rejects God) is, by definition, incapable of understanding biblical revelation, because their hearts are far from God.

consequently, they may be better at understanding atheistic issues than I, but until they set apart Christ as Lord, they are in error, per Jesus.

Don't ignore an opportunity to learn.

If I read this correctly, the logical conclusion of this is that one cannot argue against the bible unless one already agrees with it anyway.

Nice getout clause.

 

[packsaddle]

I was just going to provide a link to previous discussions but since you have decided to qualify your requirement, I would like to hear what you consider valid evidence from an objective source first.

goalposts?

you made a claim.

I asked for specific, valid evidence to support that claim.

that is good science.

all you have to do is demonstrate, using good, sound scientific practices (i.e. testable, repeatable, observable, etc.), how theraspids were once something other than theraspids, or became something other than theraspids.

I prefer your own words, but if you want to link, we can dissect it one specific at a time.

start a new thread.

this could be fun!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

an active atheist (one who deliberately rejects God) is, by definition, incapable of understanding biblical revelation, because their hearts are far from God.

Oh, puh-leaze! This is such a cop-out.

There are many atheists who were Christians (including fundamentalists) at some point. You're trying to say that they didn't understand Christianity?

 

[Arikay]

Ah, the great, they can't understand because they don't agree with me, fallacy.

I understand the issue pretty well, you have decided to judge christians as false christians because they don't think the same as you (a sin I believe). It appears that you haven't even researched their view before coming to this conclusion. As an atheist I could give you multiple bible verses about this very thing, but they will be ignored because I obviously don't understand them. (Sorry to tell you, but I learned from christians)

Ari, sorry to say but it appears that you don't understand the issue.

an active atheist (one who deliberately rejects God) is, by definition, incapable of understanding biblical revelation, because their hearts are far from God.

consequently, they may be better at understanding atheistic issues than I, but until they set apart Christ as Lord, they are in error, per Jesus.

Don't ignore an opportunity to learn.

 

[ForeRunner]

Actually, that is not how science works...

Observations are made
A Hypothesis is formed to explain those observations
An attempt to Falsify the Hypothesis is made
If the hypothesis is not falsified through repeated testing it is accepted as the best explination of the evidence we have.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ari, sorry to say but it appears that you don't understand the issue.

it apprears we understand it all too well.

an active atheist (one who deliberately rejects God) is, by definition, incapable of understanding biblical revelation, because their hearts are far from God.

The definition of "Atheist" says no such thing. you're special pleading now.

consequently, they may be better at understanding atheistic issues than I, but until they set apart Christ as Lord, they are in error, per Jesus.

Logical fallacies are both an Atheistic and Christain issue.

Don't ignore an opportunity to learn.

Don't jump on an oppertunity to sound clever.

 

[packsaddle]

If I read this correctly, the logical conclusion of this is that one cannot argue against the bible unless one already agrees with it anyway.

not at all.

if one is going to criticize the bible, one must have sufficient knowledge of pertinent details, including the history of the bible, the authors, the supportive archaeological evidence, the various versions and their differences, the biblical scholars and their interpretations, etc.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Instead of starting another Theraspid thread, I'll just encourage you to mosey on over to Phred's Endogenous Retrovirus thread and pick apart that evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

 

[Nathan Poe]

not at all.

if one is going to criticize the bible, one must have sufficient knowledge of pertinent details, including the history of the bible, the authors, the supportive archaeological evidence, the various versions and their differences, the biblical scholars and their interpretations, etc.

None of which has anything to do with whether one believes in God or not.