the soteriological hazards of theistic evolution

[packsaddle]

no, it is not bibically refuted, because you have not actually proven to be false the claim that we evolved from lower [sic] life forms. Really we shouldn't say lower, we should say we evolved from earlier homonids, since to do otherwise indicates your species bias, which is not present in evolution.

it is not my duty to prove your claim false.

you're making the claims.

therefore, it is your responsibility to show me.

this has not been done since I last checked CNN.

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.

details are where it's at......or not at.

 

[MartinM]

"All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Timothy 3:16)

...says Scripture.


Well, well. How convincing.

 

[MartinM]

you're making the claims

Saying that something has been biblically refuted is not a claim?

this has not been done since I last checked CNN

Ah, you get your science from CNN. Try picking up a textbook.

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

If you mean speciation, yes, we have plenty of evidence. If you mean change from one 'kind' of creature to another 'kind', define 'kind'.

 

[Jet Black]

it is not my duty to prove your claim false.

you're making the claims.

you just claimed that it had been biblically refuted. In what way has it been biblically refuted? we should also address all your presuppositions as well.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Don't you evilutionists know that the Bible's right because it says it's right? A lotta critical thinking going on there...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Something that seems to get lost in the discussion of Biblical literalism, is what is really at stake here.

What is more important?

a) That God made everything

b) That God made everything according to a literalist interpretation of Genesis

If B, then Christianity is screwed, since this sets up Christianity to be falsified via God's own Creation. Face it, the reason ideas like a ~4.5 billion year old Earth, ~14 billion year old universe, biological evolution, etc, are around is because of evidence in God's Creation.

YECs insist on clinging to a literalist interpretation of the Bible, but why? All they've done is set up Christianity to become falisified by the very thing that God supposedly created.

But if it's A, then Christianity is off the hook. As to why God chose to impart His creation message the way He did, who knows? Maybe He thought it was poetic. Maybe He thought it would be easier to spread the message that way, especially since people were largely illiterate and scientifically ignorant throughout much of human history. Or maybe He thought we'd figure it out eventually, and come a true understanding of what He was trying to say.

I dunno, I've never really understood the YEC viewpoint. They seem to desperate to prove their literalist interpretation true, that I wonder why. If YEC is false, does this mean God doesn't exist? Does this mean Christianity is a sham? Is this what YECs feel they risk losing if their Biblical interpretation is wrong?

Maybe a YEC could explain to me why they feel the way they do, because I still don't have it figured out.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

It must be nice to be able to go around smugly telling everyone that you're right and they're wrong based on your half-a** study of an ancient book of myths.

 

[Split Rock]

"All Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Timothy 3:16)

Is this inconsistant with scripture being inspired? What does "God-breathed" mean in this context?

God used certain fallible men to deliver his infallible message.

OK

Jesus quoted scripture many times.

would Jesus have quoted erroneous messages?

If Jesus is truly The Christ, then no, he would not write anything erroneous. Please show me which part of the bible was written by Jesus.

it is against God's nature to err.

if God is omnipotent (Job 42:2, Matthew 19:26, etc.), is it beyond his abilities to correspond an infallible message to fallible men, to produce an infallible message for the benefit of all who believe?

God created Fallible humans. Therefore he must accept that anything he inspires them to write will not be infallible. Do you disagree?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It must be nice to be able to go around smugly telling everyone that you're right and they're wrong based on your half-a** study of an ancient book of myths.

I admit, it seems a large of part of the YEC mindset rests on sheer hubris.

The way some YECs seem to have an "ivory tower" view of mainstream science, it doesn't surprise me they seem to think they can decimate the 200 years of scientific research by quoting a handful of web sites.

But such attitudes aren't exclusive to YEC, as people do the same with corporations, government, etc. It seems more like a general paranoid mindset, but in this case targeted at science because of perceived conflicts of personal interest.

Again, I'm left scratching my head as to the real motivations behind YECs.

 

[Arikay]

Anyone else notice how biblical literalism treats the bible as god and themselves as Jesus (an infallible human) when it comes to reading the bible?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Anyone else notice how biblical literalism treats the bible as god and themselves as Jesus (an infallible human) when it comes to reading the bible?

In a manner of speaking, yes. And this is a glaring contradiction in the YEC mindset.

On the one hand, they want the conclusions from mainstream science to be utterly wrong, citing fallible humans, conspiracies, you name it, to validate this position.

On the other hand, the Bible was written, interpreted, translated, and interpreted again and again by fallible humans. Yet, they want the Bible (and their interpretation) to be completely infallible despite the human component.

It's a glaring contradiction and this is another reason why I can't understand how the YEC mind works. I mean, if you're willing to conclude that most of mainstream science is a sham based on human fallibility, why not apply the same logic to your own religion? (Of course, this is another reason why YECism is a danger to Christianity; when one does apply the same logic to Christianity, one can easily dismiss it for the same reasons YECs dismiss the conclusions of mainstream science.)

 

[MartinM]

It's a glaring contradiction and this is another reason why I can't understand how the YEC mind works

The YEC mind works?

 

[JohnCJ]

the divine revelation of special creation, while disclosed to us throughout the entire bible, is highlighted of course in the book of genesis, which is commonly accepted to have been written by moses.

so, what does the bible say about the credibility of Moses?

well, we know through david, that "He (God) made known his ways to Moses..." - Psalm 103:7.

we also know that Jesus himself agreed with moses i.e. "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?". - John 5:46-47

in other words, moses wrote about the pre-incarnate Jesus (aka God), and the things that moses wrote about (including the creation account) appear to have a great significance, according to Jesus.

from this, I assert that theistic evolutionists do not worship the biblical God, the Creator of man and woman, but instead worship a false god, a god that did NOT create man and woman, special and distinct from other creatures.

in soteriological terms, this would be sufficient enough to forfeit one's salvation.

genesis 3:6-11 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

At that time man's eyes were opened and we bacame aware of things around us that the Lord had not ment for us to see. So now we see them and what we learn with science we learn because they ate of the tree of life. The more we learn the greater the glory for the Lord. We weren't meant to see but we do and it can only give glory to the creator.

Job 36:3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.

 

[packsaddle]

The way some YECs seem to have an "ivory tower" view of mainstream science, it doesn't surprise me they seem to think they can decimate the 200 years of scientific research by quoting a handful of web sites.

there sure is a lot of talk on this thread about YEC.

who brought up YEC anyway?

not me.

regardless, it's really a red herring for this thread, which is a standard evolutionist's tactic.

the topic of this thread is the biblical references to special creation (of which there are over 1000), the fact that God said he created man and woman, and the reasons why theistic evolutionists reject God's word.

if there are more references to divine, special creation than there are references to Jesus' ressurrection, why would a christian believe one and not the other?

that is the issue here.....why do they discriminate between miracles?

I noticed that quite a few atheists have jumped in here, but they are really not the target audience of this thread.

this is about theistic evolution, it's followers, and the ramifications of such beliefs.

I am still awaiting the response from a theistic evolutionist as to how they can just dismiss the instructions of Jesus himself in John 5:46-47, the revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus in Isaiah 42:5, etc.

did moses and job and david and isaiah and Jesus and paul et al. simply lie?

can Jesus even lie?

of course not.

if you have some other specific topic you want to discuss, in detail, start a new thread and I'll be there......but this thread is for theistic evolutionists and their soteriological dilemma.

God said he created man and woman and everything else.

God cannot lie.

it's really a theologically simple concept, yet is obfuscated by the apparent erroneous interpretations of man.

 

[MoonlessNight]

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? 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.).

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

Well then, that explains why you can accept Jesus, but what about the writings of Paul? He certainly wan't God. Or is it because he was "filled with the Holy Spirit?" In which case, wouldn't it be possible that Darwin was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when he wrote his theory of evolution?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

there sure is a lot of talk on this thread about YEC.

who brought up YEC anyway?

not me.

regardless, it's really a red herring for this thread, which is a standard evolutionist's tactic.

Oh, I agree it's off-topic for this thread. I was just composing thoughts at the time (and "standard evolution tactic" my foot; based on my experience, creationists wander off topic at the drop of a pin).

the topic of this thread is the biblical references to special creation (of which there are over 1000), the fact that God said he created man and woman, and the reasons why theistic evolutionists reject God's word.

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?

if there are more references to divine, special creation than there are references to Jesus' ressurrection, why would a christian believe one and not the other?

Because God's Creation does not suggest He created as per a literal reading of Genesis.

that is the issue here.....why do they discriminate between miracles?

See God's Creation.

I noticed that quite a few atheists have jumped in here, but they are really not the target audience of this thread.

Then you should have posted it in the Christian-only section.

I am still awaiting the response from a theistic evolutionist as to how they can just dismiss the instructions of Jesus himself in John 5:46-47

So? Who says theistic evolutionists don't believe what Moses wrote. And what was Jesus talking about when He said that, hmmm? Creationism?

, the revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus in Isaiah 42:5, etc.

So God made stuff. I don't see what the issue is.

God said he created man and woman and everything else.

God cannot lie.

Last time I checked, theistic evolutionists believe God made everything. So why is this an issue again?

it's really a theologically simple concept, yet is obfuscated by the apparent erroneous interpretations of man.

The irony, huh?

 

[bevets]

people who get all bent out of shape and start saying that the other side is getting flustered and defensive, when in reality they didn't really do anything (in this case, he just called you a pompous a--). there is truly no worse logical arugment than "hey, you used the a-word, you're flustered, so i win! YEC is correct!" there's got to be a name for that sort fallacy

There is a name for it: Argument Ad Hominem. Argument Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well are two favorite and often used evo tactics. Underneath the blatant attempt to distract attention there is an admission: 'I don't have a strong argument, but... Hey! Look what I just said about that guy!!'

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

 

[Bushido216]

The Masses Agreed: It Was Time

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

There is a name for it: Argument Ad Hominem. Argument Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well are two favorite and often used evo tactics. Underneath the blatant attempt to distract attention there is an admission: 'I don't have a strong argument, but... Hey! Look what I just said about that guy!!'

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

you forget that God too created Logical Fallacy, Designed and created by a perfect God. Which should only be used for Gods Glory...I will pray for you.

 

[Jet Black]

The Masses Agreed: It Was Time

the world seems so peaceful now.