Theistic Evolution - an Oxymoron.

[Crusadar]

Crusader...one point the Theo-Evos keep forgetting is that the bible says Eve was formed from Adams side (rib). This IS NOT evolution.

If evolution occucured then this verse would not be in the bible.

No it is not evolution, it is basic genetics, for the nucleus of bone marrow cells contain already the 46 chromosomes required to clone an exact replica of a person. So it is written, as it had been done.

 

[notto]

No it is not evolution, it is basic genetics, for the nucleus of bone marrow cells contain already the 46 chromosomes required to clone an exact replica of a person. So it is written, as it had been done.

So are you saying that Eve was a clone of Adam? How far will you go to try to use science poorly to justify your interpretation of scripture that was falsified by Christians over 200 years ago?

 

[notto]

And so notto do you enjoy seeing others suffer or be in pain, or do you enjoy it yourself. No one really enjoys suffering and yet it is reality - just look around you - throughout nature their is pain, suffering, life and death struggles, torturing, disembowment, cancer and atrocious diseases which take hold and eat the host from the inside out - making use of a slow painful death.

Do you honestly believe that a God of love as scripture tells us would create using such atrocities and say that it was good? Such were the result of Adam's sin and not in the character of God at all. For if you believe differently then you obviously have been deceived. For creation was the result of His handiwork, according to what has been written, not what men have concocted to be what has not been written in Scripture.

Nope, I don't enjoy it, but I don't question it. It is part of the creation. It is of the flesh right? So it doesn't matter, right?

Do you honestly believe that God would punish a baby (notice my appeal to emotion to counter yours) using the attrocities you describe because of a sin he could have prevented? I refuse to believe that God is that cruel.

 

[Vance]

Notice that Crusader conveniently ignores the times in the Scripture where God orders the killing of innocent enemy children. In fact he ignores the whole idea that it is not for us to second guess God's motives. If he can order the killing of children, he can establish a world in which death and suffering are a natural part.

We also must separate the type of suffering caused by man (which is, indeed, caused by Man's Fall into sin), and the death and suffering which is the normal part of God's Creation. There is nothing evil or sinful about the death, or even pain and suffering, which is the natural order of Creation. There is no evil, or sin, in nature. Only Man brings that into our existence.

Don't get these confused. This is a VERY important point.

 

[wblastyn]

No it is not evolution, it is basic genetics, for the nucleus of bone marrow cells contain already the 46 chromosomes required to clone an exact replica of a person. So it is written, as it had been done.

Why didn't He just zap Eve into existance, and why did he have to use dust to make Adam?

 

[notto]

"Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." - Darwin

Perhaps our goal as Gods creation is to surpass our instincts using the free will and intellect that God has given us.

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." - Darwin

 

[Crusadar]

vance said: You know, Notto, it sounds like one significant reason Crusader refuses to accept an old earth or evolution as the means of God's creaton is because he does not like what that may say about the nature of God.

What I refuse to accept is your perversion of God’s word by saying that He used evolution – simply because scripture mentions nothing of it. What I do or do not like is really of no concern for God does not need us to defend Him, what is of concern is that our faith is consistent with what the word of God says.

But really, who are we judge the nature of God? This is the God that told the Israelites to destroy every man, WOMAN and CHILD of the enemy on more than one occasion. We can not know the ways of God.

And who are you to dismiss scripture to include the strictly man made concoction of evolution and then have the audacity to call it the truth of God - when it denies everything that God stands for?

And yes God does have His reasons for what He does for is man in any position to question the methods of God? And yet you note well that they were the enemy, for scripture does tell us:

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12:30

So make sure that it is the right side that you are on.

His ways are not our ways. If He chose to create a world in which most of the species go extinct, who am I to say that is not in God's nature? If He created a world in which the natural course of events seems cruel and even sadistic to our poor human perspective, who am I to say that this is not part of a larger and more incredible plan He has?

Exactly. So why would He create using a creative process which contradict His very character – after all could God violate His own character? If He could than would He be considered God? And who are you to say that God used a method of creation that denies a God who not only claims to be a God of Love but also a God of justice. For even among men there is a sense of justice and love, how much more can an infinite being hold these qualities?

I take God at His written word, but often find that His Creation, which can not lie, helps me understand better what his written word is telling me.

You take His word only when it doesn’t conflict with your word of man, right? It figures, when man’s word is compared with God’s word it is obvious whose word is changed – due simply to man’s rebellious nature. It is not creation that lies – it is man’s interpretation of the things that has been made in that of evolution that is the lie.

Again, if I did NOT do this, I would still be a geocentrist. Even Crusader can not deny that he uses the evidence of God's Creation to inform his interpretation of Scripture (as with geocentrism). He just refuses to do it when it might conflict with his existing interpretation or his human conception of God's nature.

You would be a geocentrist, yes, not me – for scripture does not teach it. And again it is not God’s creation that does not point to God the creator. It is your interpretation of His creation that does not - for it denies already His very character.

What interpretation? It plainly says in scripture – no interpretation was needed, read God’s word for crying out loud instead of regurgitating the worn out theistic evolutionist excuse of being the creationist interpretation. For if God does not mean what He says then why is it that we believe at all?

I don't try to understand God's nature, I just accept the truth of what He is showing me, and just accept the gift of redemption.

Maybe that may be the problem vance, since you already made a mold for God to be in by disreagarding scripture and now simply substitute that understanding with your own version of god instead of trusting scripture – for scripture does paint for us a very clear picture of God’s character. And since it is not scripture you look to for support but to man made interpretations of a fallen creation - your reasoning of God using evolution now becomes spiritually futile.

 

[Crusadar]

notto said : So are you saying that Eve was a clone of Adam?

What I am saying is what scripture tells us - for Eve was made from the rib of Adam, and since that is how we to an extent clone lesser species - it is logical God would have been much more successful then we will ever be at simply separating the x chromosome from that of man and therefore creating woman.

How far will you go to try to use science poorly to justify your interpretation of scripture that was falsified by Christians over 200 years ago?

Now really who is using science poorly, the one who uses it to deny the character of God by using it to justify his very own version of creation – apart from what the word of God? Or the one who accepts scripture for what it says and uses science to understand it rather than change it?

First you assume as you are told and have come to believe that God has set in motion this great creative process of evolution in that chance and time alone will bring into being any organic complexity when evolution not only violates the very character of God as revealed to us so clearly in scripture – it violates the very known laws of nature as life emerging from no life has been and always been an improbability to the highest degree. For God is the only source of life as scripture does tell us and life was not the result of mere process for was it not Christ who said:

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 11:25

And yet this is what evolution blatantly teaches! That life arose strictly through a combination of time working on matter and energy alone!

What is falsified? I think you are jumping to your own conclusions here. The word you are looking for is disbelief in God. And yes it was falsified by so called "Christians". As usual you use the term loosely, making no distinction between the true believers and those who are simply along for the ride. If it has been falsified than there is no point for me to be here is there?

 

[Crusadar]

notto said: Nope, I don't enjoy it, but I don't question it. It is part of the creation. It is of the flesh right? So it doesn't matter, right?

No one enjoys pain and suffering, that is why we are willing to go to such extremes to rid ourselves of pain and suffering and yet to no avail. It is only Christ who can deliver us from it for as scripture tells us.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11: 28

It does matter for it reminds us that pain and suffering are the result of Adam's disobedience and not a by product of God's creative process. Only then can it be justified that deliverance from such is logically conceivable in the redemption process.

Do you honestly believe that God would punish a baby (notice my appeal to emotion to counter yours) using the attrocities you describe because of a sin he could have prevented? I refuse to believe that God is that cruel.

What I believe again does not matter but what scripture says for it clearly tells us that:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12

Does God punish a baby, no. It is the consequence of sin that has marred His creation and it if it results in suffering than it is man's own doing. But rather than destroy creation as a result, God has instead provided deliverance.

And how would God prevent this sin - by not creating the tree and therefore not tempt Adam or Eve? By making it impossible for them to commit the sin? How could this have shown a God of Love by creating man without the choice to love or reject God? Can anyone gain true love by force? Is it genuine love to allow no other choice in man but to obey God? And yet it shows us of the infinite love of God in that even though man rejected God’s love and chose rather death, God was willing to give up His beloved Son as a sacrifice for us who rejected Him!

How does allowing the consequence of sin to run its course and providing for deliverance from such show cruelty? It is only cruelty in an evolutionary world were sacrifice of individuals cannot be of any significance where death has no meaning. What meaning is there then in the death of Christ, for death is but a part of a creative process?

 

[Crusadar]

vance said: Notice that Crusader conveniently ignores the times in the Scripture where God orders the killing of innocent enemy children. In fact he ignores the whole idea that it is not for us to second guess God's motives. If he can order the killing of children, he can establish a world in which death and suffering are a natural part.

There is no reason for me to second guess God’s intentions vance since I already trust God for who is and what He does as Scripture tells me. It then becomes clear that the ones who are second guessing God are those who twist scripture to fit the man made theory of evolution - in that they now have their own version of God’s word.

We also must separate the type of suffering caused by man (which is, indeed, caused by Man's Fall into sin), and the death and suffering which is the normal part of God's Creation. There is nothing evil or sinful about the death, or even pain and suffering, which is the natural order of Creation. There is no evil, or sin, in nature. Only Man brings that into our existence.

Is there really a distinction vance, or are you making this all up due to your faith in evolution? Since man was made in the image of God and put in dominion over nature - what man does has a direct consequence on all that has been put in His care. For does not scripture tell us:

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:22

Don't get these confused. This is a VERY important point.

It is only important because you say so, for scripture makes no distinction between the two nor does Scripture support that God used such in creating, therefore the significance that exists is nothing more than an invention of your own making therefore there is no point.

 

[Vance]

Vance said:

His ways are not our ways. If He chose to create a world in which most of the species go extinct, who am I to say that is not in God's nature? If He created a world in which the natural course of events seems cruel and even sadistic to our poor human perspective, who am I to say that this is not part of a larger and more incredible plan He has?


Crusader replied:

Exactly. So why would He create using a creative process which contradict His very character – after all could God violate His own character? If He could than would He be considered God? And who are you to say that God used a method of creation that denies a God who not only claims to be a God of Love but also a God of justice. For even among men there is a sense of justice and love, how much more can an infinite being hold these qualities?

Vance replies:

The use of evolution would not contradict His character in the least. How would using evolution violate His character? Again, you seem to be equating evolution with atheism, since your only answer to this question is that God would not use a method which denies God. But evolution does not deny God, you have bought the lies of the atheists on this point. Don’t let yourself be deceived by lying atheists. And how does God’s nature of love and justice come into it? There is nothing contrary to God’s love in the theory of evolution. Again, I ask you whether you would say it is within God’s nature of order the killing of innocent women and children. Again, I say that we can not always understand God’s motives or purposes. You can not say that you accept that a God of Love can order such killings then say that at God of Love could not create through evolution. I say He can do both.


Vance said:
I take God at His written word, but often find that His Creation, which can not lie, helps me understand better what his written word is telling me.


Crusader replied:
You take His word only when it doesn’t conflict with your word of man, right? It figures, when man’s word is compared with God’s word it is obvious whose word is changed – due simply to man’s rebellious nature. It is not creation that lies – it is man’s interpretation of the things that has been made in that of evolution that is the lie.

Vance Replies:

No, I really don’t care what the "word of man" is. I do agree that the conflict comes from man’s interpretation, but you refuse to even accept the possibility that it is man’s interpretation of Scripture which is at fault. Which was at fault when science finally discovered the truth of Heliocentrism? It was man’s interpretation of Scripture. So we know it can happen.

Vance said:

Again, if I did NOT do this, I would still be a geocentrist. Even Crusader can not deny that he uses the evidence of God's Creation to inform his interpretation of Scripture (as with geocentrism). He just refuses to do it when it might conflict with his existing interpretation or his human conception of God's nature.


Crusader replied:
You would be a geocentrist, yes, not me – for scripture does not teach it. And again it is not God’s creation that does not point to God the creator. It is your interpretation of His creation that does not - for it denies already His very character.

Vance replies:

You are right, the Bible does not truly teach Geocentrism, since the Bible does not make such mistakes. BUT, the church sure *believed* that the Bible taught geocentrism! Christians at the time were convinced based on their plain reading of Scripture that the sun HAD to revolve around the Earth. There was no question about it. And to believe otherwise was to deny the validity of Scripture. In fact, they used nearly every argument that YEC’s use now for refusing to accept the evidence of God’s Creation. They were wrong then and YECs are wrong now.


Crusader said:
What interpretation? It plainly says in scripture – no interpretation was needed, read God’s word for crying out loud instead of regurgitating the worn out theistic evolutionist excuse of being the creationist interpretation. For if God does not mean what He says then why is it that we believe at all?

Vance replies:

God does mean what he says, but we don’t always get it right. Again: geocentrism.

 

[DaQo'tah]

lost the topic as I read all the posts....

too many "replies"...

as for me?...I am a good christian, I also believe that evolution is likely true....

I believe that evolution is a tool of God,,and is in harmony with genesis

 

[Crusadar]

Vance said: The use of evolution would not contradict His character in the least.

Of course it won’t in the least, because it already denies His character in the most blatant way - that life was the result of chance, and does a God who is omniscient really use the method of chance? For omniscience and chance are very much an oxymoron.

Chance is the primary mover behind evolution (despite theistic evolutionists’ objections) is a finite concept invented by man since he knows nothing about how God created. How can chance be used thus by God who is omniscient? Can such a being as perfect as God depend on a process which is finite and uncertain as chance to represent His omniscience and omnipotent in the process of biogenesis?

Your reasoning I suspect stems from nothing more than the failure to realize that there are more philosophical reasons behind evolution than true scientific evidence- and why is that? Can you imagine the implications if man was able to prove to Himself that God did not create as He has told us?

Scripture does not disagree with real science, it is evolution that the natural sciences knows nothing of. Evolution has a very strong stench of atheistic humanism many "Christians" have not yet recognized. Those who laugh at the idea of God creating the universe as scripture tells them laugh no more when they understand how unscientific evolution really is.

Take for example the evolutionist’s formula for life.

Matter + energy + time = life

Show me where life has ever arisen in nature on its own. Non living matter does not organize itself into living matter spontaneously. No scientist today works with the above formula, and here is the reason why, because life as we know today has never did, whether it be in the past, present or future, came to be by the above method!

And now lets look at the creationist’s formula for life:

Matter + energy + time + information (thought, concept, idea) = life

This is how all scientists work today by adding their own intellect into their experiments, using controlled methods and existing genetic information they are able to produce other varieties and species of life - not the chance methods as they tell us after all is it?

How would using evolution violate His character?

Since scripture already gives us a clear description of the character of God and it is scripture that tells us it is such virtues of meekness, mercy and poverty of spirit that Christ values in believers, it becomes illogical to assume that such qualities are unimportant as precepts to becoming likened to the character of God – after all it is commanded of us to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect and what or how do we become in character as our Heavenly Father if such virtues are meaningless?

Would God really use a creative process using methods that demand that the weak, sickly, ill, and unfit are denied the right to continue to exist and perpetuate its species in favor of the strong? And yet this is the very process of natural selection, where the vigorous and brutal forms of life that can muscle their way for reproductive rights are guaranteed survival while the weak become simply fertilizer.

How does this represent the character of God? Did not Christ’s ministry center on healing the sick, raising the dead, comforting the weak? How can this be? Why give comfort to that which is to be eliminated by a process set by God for ensuring the survival of the fittest. Did God simply change His mind now that we have evolved into thinking feeling beings from what was once pond scum?

Does Christ not value in us virtues that seem to be opposite of God’s assumed evolutionary creative process? For is their any other way in which we can bypass practicing such virtues so that we can become in character like that of our Heavenly Father? If God demands such from us than it must be of some significance, and to say that His method of creativity allows Him to circumvent what He mandates - invalidates already the very virtues He places value on.

Again, you seem to be equating evolution with atheism, since your only answer to this question is that God would not use a method which denies God.

If that is your conclusion then maybe you should question your claims to what the atheist also believes? And since an infinite being who is perfect in every aspect chooses to use a method that is very much imperfect in every aspects - it tells us nothing about the God we know from scripture at all does it? It therefore is a denial of God to say the very least for what logic is there for a God who wishes for His creation to come to believe in Him to use a system of creation that can also be used to deny Him?

But evolution does not deny God, you have bought the lies of the atheists on this point. Don’t let yourself be deceived by lying atheists.

It is not atheists I am worried about brother, it is the father of all lies that walks about like a roaring lion and those believers who have compromised with the unbelievers on a common ground. In the spiritual battlefront there is no common ground, for does God really compromise with man His truth or allow man to determine His own version of truth apart from His Word?

And how does God’s nature of love and justice come into it? There is nothing contrary to God’s love in the theory of evolution.

And so God loves us so much that is why he allows us to suffer in every manner known simply because He is unable to do it any other way - through the slow painful process that includes crippling deformities, atrocious mutations and unspeakable diseases that maim and kill at every level. And so it becomes illogical then to even allow us the option to pray for relief from that which is merely His creative process - since He does love us.

Again, I ask you whether you would say it is within God’s nature of order the killing of innocent women and children.

I would say that I am simply His creation and am on my knees in submission as He is God and I am simply man. For can a creation question the Creator as to His consequence for disobedience? I do not know why He allows such to happen even to those who believe Him or may seem innocent, but is anyone really innocent? Is a child born innocent?

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

What sin is this verse referring to? We are not born sinless, for it is not the bad in a child that we teach for that comes naturally, it is the good that must be continually reinforced and brought out.

Again, I say that we can not always understand God’s motives or purposes.

And yet God is not unpredictable nor is He unknowable – for do we not believe in Him and His word – at least some of us anyway.

You can not say that you accept that a God of Love can order such killings then say that at God of Love could not create through evolution.

What I cannot accept is the version of a god you have invented for yourself. For there is a reason for everything under heaven for have you not read:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: Ecclesiastes 3:1

Does God purposely use a system of creation that causes pain and suffering? And yet it is man’s disobedience that has brought such upon himself and unto all man – it is what scripture tells us.

I say He can do both.

And again I care not what you think God can do. What matters is what He told us He did do.

They were wrong then and YECs are wrong now.

So those who put their trust in the word of God first before that of man are obviously wrong then? Have you ever thought that evolution is wrong and scripture is right? Or are you so busy agreeing with men that you have forgotten where it is your faith in God has its foundations in – Scripture.

 

[Les Grands Pieds]

Why do you feel that you have the need to understand how and why God did everthing that he has done? Can't you just accept the fact that there are some things we may only find out when we go to be with God? Part of believing in God is realizing that we may really never be able to understand everything which there is to know. When you try to figure out every last stinking detail of our existance, you just end up getting a headache. Just be happy with the things of which you already have knowledge!

 

[Vance]

Vance said: The use of evolution would not contradict His character in the least.

Crusader replied:

Of course it won’’t in the least, because it already denies His character in the most blatant way - that life was the result of chance, and does a God who is omniscient really use the method of chance? For omniscience and chance are very much an oxymoron.

Vance Replies:
"Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect which Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance."



From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html



Chance is the primary mover behind evolution (despite theistic evolutionists’’ objections) is a finite concept invented by man since he knows nothing about how God created. How can chance be used thus by God who is omniscient? Can such a being as perfect as God depend on a process which is finite and uncertain as chance to represent His omniscience and omnipotent in the process of biogenesis?

See above that the foundation for your concept is wrong to begin with. In any case, God does allow random events to effect our lives every day. He set up natural laws and, to the extent He does not directly intervene with a supernatural act, those natural laws effect our lives. They are random in the sense that each event is not specifically initiated by God, but they are not random in that the forces which cause all the events are the result of a Divinely created process. Just like evolution.



Your reasoning I suspect stems from nothing more than the failure to realize that there are more philosophical reasons behind evolution than true scientific evidence- and why is that? Can you imagine the implications if man was able to prove to Himself that God did not create as He has told us?

You are buying into the atheistic teaching again. Evolution arose purely as a scientific observation, not a desire to overturn Biblical teaching. Do you think Darwin started out to discover an alternative to the traditional understanding of Creation, and came up with evolution as a good candidate? If so, you know little about how evolution originated. In fact, your entire statement about evolution having little scientific foundation and being mostly philosophical shows a profound ignorance of the entire subject. Do you get most of your information on this subject from Creationist sources? If so, that would explain it.

Scripture does not disagree with real science, it is evolution that the natural sciences knows nothing of.

I am not sure what you mean by this? Evolution is one of the most widely accepted concepts in the scientific world. Many areas of science besides biology actually use the concepts of evolution as the basis for their own studies and experiments. Not surprisingly, these concepts hold up every time.

Evolution has a very strong stench of atheistic humanism many "Christians" have not yet recognized. Those who laugh at the idea of God creating the universe as scripture tells them laugh no more when they understand how unscientific evolution really is.

You are mistaking atheism with evolution again. I have pointed out before how atheists have used evolution for their own ends, but they are mistaken. YEC’s have simply bought into their teaching (or the other way around, I am not sure). I know of no Christians who laugh at the idea of God creating the universe in six 24 hour days (even though this is not necessarily what Scripture tells them), all of them recognize that God could have done that if He liked.

Take for example the evolutionist’’s formula for life. Matter + energy + time = life

No, this is an atheistic view of the origin of life. This is not evolution. Again, you are listening to lies. Evolution is simply:

natural selection pressures + time = change.



Show me where life has ever arisen in nature on its own. Non living matter does not organize itself into living matter spontaneously.

You are correctly arguing against atheistic views of the origin of life, not evolution.

No scientist today works with the above formula, and here is the reason why, because life as we know today has never did, whether it be in the past, present or future, came to be by the above method!

Agreed. Again, this has nothing to do with evolution.



And now lets look at the creationist’’s formula for life:Matter + energy + time + information (thought, concept, idea) = life


This is the creationists’ formula for life?




This is how all scientists work today by adding their own intellect into their experiments, using controlled methods and existing genetic information they are able to produce other varieties and species of life - not the chance methods as they tell us after all is it?


Well, since they never told you they used chance methods, I am not seeing what point you are making.



How would using evolution violate His character?

Since scripture already gives us a clear description of the character of God and it is scripture that tells us it is such virtues of meekness, mercy and poverty of spirit that Christ values in believers, it becomes illogical to assume that such qualities are unimportant as precepts to becoming likened to the character of God –– after all it is commanded of us to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect and what or how do we become in character as our Heavenly Father if such virtues are meaningless?


Did God only use these characteristics?



Would God really use a creative process using methods that demand that the weak, sickly, ill, and unfit are denied the right to continue to exist and perpetuate its species in favor of the strong? And yet this is the very process of natural selection, where the vigorous and brutal forms of life that can muscle their way for reproductive rights are guaranteed survival while the weak become simply fertilizer.

No, this is another false view of natural selection and evolution. You really had better read up on it (again from other sources than Creationist books and websites) before making conclusory statements like this. First of all, the criteria for evolutionary selection is the ability to survive in the environment. This does not always mean those who kill off the others. Those with the traits which most likely will allow it to survive in the environment it is currently located will more often live and reproduce. That is all.


Now, here is the important thing: the leading Creationists agree that this process takes place, they just limit it to micro, rather than macro, growth. In short, they agree that this process of selection of the most "fit" actually occurs every day. How does that square with your equating this process with a lack of "meekness" and "humbleness"? Are they just wrong?



How does this represent the character of God? Did not Christ’’s ministry center on healing the sick, raising the dead, comforting the weak? How can this be? Why give comfort to that which is to be eliminated by a process set by God for ensuring the survival of the fittest. Did God simply change His mind now that we have evolved into thinking feeling beings from what was once pond scum?


Actually, I think that God does have a special plan for Mankind and Jesus’ teachings reflect that plan. I don’t think the way God created nature to work is how He wants us to behave toward each other today. In short, God wants us to overcome our very human nature, that of selfishness. For isn’t all sin really the result of selfishness? I think it is ironic (but true) that one of the leading books about evolution is entitled "the Selfish Gene". Sounds pretty much like human nature without God’s guidance to me.

Does Christ not value in us virtues that seem to be opposite of God’’s assumed evolutionary creative process? For is their any other way in which we can bypass practicing such virtues so that we can become in character like that of our Heavenly Father? If God demands such from us than it must be of some significance, and to say that His method of creativity allows Him to circumvent what He mandates - invalidates already the very virtues He places value on.


No, you have it backwards. See above.



continued in the next post due to length

 

[Vance]

continued

Vance said:

Again, you seem to be equating evolution with atheism, since your only answer to this question is that God would not use a method which denies God.

Crusader replied:

If that is your conclusion then maybe you should question your claims to what the atheist also believes?


Atheists believe in a lot of things you believe in as well. This is a non-point.


And since an infinite being who is perfect in every aspect chooses to use a method that is very much imperfect in every aspects - it tells us nothing about the God we know from scripture at all does it?


I do not see the earth He created, even if He used evolution, as "imperfect" in any way. Human sinfulness is the problem not death or natural selection.


It therefore is a denial of God to say the very least for what logic is there for a God who wishes for His creation to come to believe in Him to use a system of creation that can also be used to deny Him?


Really? Where is faith? Where is belief in the statement in Scripture that He created it all? This is sufficient for me, and for most Christians. If your conclusion was true, then the only Christians left would be those who do not believe in evolution. The fact that most Christians DO believe in evolution proves your point false.


But evolution does not deny God, you have bought the lies of the atheists on this point. Don’’t let yourself be deceived by lying atheists.




It is not atheists I am worried about brother, it is the father of all lies that walks about like a roaring lion and those believers who have compromised with the unbelievers on a common ground. In the spiritual battlefront there is no common ground, for does God really compromise with man His truth or allow man to determine His own version of truth apart from His Word?


Truth is truth and can not be compromised. You mistake is in assuming that the YEC interpretation of that Truth is correct and every other Christian’s interpretation is incorrect. I agree that the battle is with Satan, it is just that I think that Satan actually works through the atheistic lie that Scripture and evolution are incompatible, and that YEC’s are actually aiding him in that lie.





And how does God’’s nature of love and justice come into it? There is nothing contrary to God’’s love in the theory of evolution.





And so God loves us so much that is why he allows us to suffer in every manner known simply because He is unable to do it any other way - through the slow painful process that includes crippling deformities, atrocious mutations and unspeakable diseases that maim and kill at every level. And so it becomes illogical then to even allow us the option to pray for relief from that which is merely His creative process - since He does love us.




No, you are continuing in your mistake above. See there for my response.


Again, I ask you whether you would say it is within God’’s nature of order the killing of innocent women and children.






I would say that I am simply His creation and am on my knees in submission as He is God and I am simply man. For can a creation question the Creator as to His consequence for disobedience? I do not know why He allows such to happen even to those who believe Him or may seem innocent, but is anyone really innocent? Is a child born innocent?


And yet, you are questioning God’s actions throughout this entire post! You say here "who am I to question God when he seems cruel?" And yet above you go to great lengths to show that you are questioning whether God can, within His nature, allow such things to happen. This is entirely inconsistent.



What sin is this verse referring to? We are not born sinless, for it is not the bad in a child that we teach for that comes naturally, it is the good that must be continually reinforced and brought out.


Right, we must be taught to live differently than our inherent nature of selfishness. This is very much in accord with evolution.


Again, I say that we can not always understand God’’s motives or purposes.



And yet God is not unpredictable nor is He unknowable –– for do we not believe in Him and His word –– at least some of us anyway.




OK, now you are jumping back to your prior position. You really must be consistent on this point.



They were wrong then and YECs are wrong now.




So those who put their trust in the word of God first before that of man are obviously wrong then?



Strawman. I also place my trust in the word of God before that of man. It is a common YEC tactic to equate a belief in any scientific theory *they* don’t accept with accepting man’s science over God’s word. This begs the question, of course, that the scientific principal is contrary to God’s word.




Have you ever thought that evolution is wrong and scripture is right? Or are you so busy agreeing with men that you have forgotten where it is your faith in God has its foundations in –– Scripture.





Of course, I started with the belief that evolution was wrong and the traditional reading of Genesis was right. I just came to realize that this wasn’t the case. It has nothing to do with agreeing with men and not Scripture. I agree with Scripture entirely.