Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[Biliskner]

Some coinage is, for instance. We know when the Roman Emporers lived. If a coin of known date is found with something else, then that something else can be dated to "round about" the same time as the coin. A few years either way is precise in archaeological terms!

And, like I said, similar things can be dated by comparison with definitely dated objects.

And dendrochronology is exceedingly exact for various places. Periods of drought, for example can be placed exactly in the time span for a particular area, even if it is pre-history.

But you DO agree (?) that it is NOT 100%?

Thus my point in my few posts back. You cannot know for sure. Agree/No?

 

[Biliskner]

Delta: No-one disregards Genesis. In fact, we are trying to figure out how to keep Genesis 1 when God has created an entire world with the evidence of a few billion years of history.

 

[Maccie]

But you DO agree (?) that it is NOT 100%?

How certain is your 100%? Do you want day, month and year???

Dendrochronology, within certain limitations, is exact dating to a particular year. The limitations are that there has to be a "master Strip" for the tree species and for the area. I.E there has been a lot of work done in the Aegean, and with Bristlecone pines in N. America, but there are areas where work has not been done.

But yes, there is a pretty good certainty of dating things. Obviously, the "newer" they are, the nearer things are to historic times, then the easier it is, because more artificts have survived.

And it is not all "stuff that has been dug up" as you rather disparagingly put it!! Foundations and remains of buildings can tell us a lot. But the best thing an archaeologist can find is an ancient rubbish heap!!

 

[kofh2u]

oh that made a hell of a lot of sense.

thank you.

You are right.

I didn't make sense with such bevity.

I meant, you keep quoting a couple of verses from different chapters in Romans.

You seem to feel that they are self explanatory in regard to your scripture interpretation, which I assume is anti-evolutionism.

I mean, that if you read the whole Chapter, which was it, now, 5 or 8, or 9?

If you read it with an open mind, it seems compatible with Darsinism.

Why not?

What IS it, specifically in your verses that bothers you, or doesn't support evolution?

 

[kofh2u]

How certain is your 100%? Do you want day, month and year???

Dendrochronology, within certain limitations, is exact dating to a particular year. The limitations are that there has to be a "master Strip" for the tree species and for the area. I.E there has been a lot of work done in the Aegean, and with Bristlecone pines in N. America, but there are areas where work has not been done.

But yes, there is a pretty good certainty of dating things. Obviously, the "newer" they are, the nearer things are to historic times, then the easier it is, because more artificts have survived.

And it is not all "stuff that has been dug up" as you rather disparagingly put it!! Foundations and remains of buildings can tell us a lot. But the best thing an archaeologist can find is an ancient rubbish heap!!

1) Remember, I am NOT attacking YECism.
They are saved, regardless of their doomed interpretations of Genesis.

2) YECs ONLY accept Scriptural arguments and will "invent" appropriate miracles even where the Bible doesn't explicitly stat such a miracle.
Such miracles are "implied" in their think9ng, because those miracles would be REQUIRED to support their interpretation.

3) My appeal to YECs is thru the s riptures which say the Hebrew word, yom, translated as 24 hour day is wrong.

Genesis clues us to the metaphor by saying "that was the close and opening of a new moment" in the Creation Process, i.e., "evening and morning." (metaphor).

3) YECs have no effective resnse for the BIBLE FACT that the 24 hour "DAY" was created ON THE 4th YOM.

4) Then, these arguments about Noah's day, time and events andreatures being way different.
This idea that now is no ruler for then.

The attempt to "INVENT" and unstated miracle, that God made different ages differently, different enough to account for tge impossible time duratiobs we can measure and extrapolate to Noah's time.

Well, TIME is constant. The BIBLE says so.

Jesus said, when the son of man returns, everything will be AS IN THE DAY OF NOAH... the same, eating, drinking, giving and taking in marrying...

Metaphor is a way better inte pretation than straignt fairy tale literal. Really.

 

[invisible trousers]

It does not change is an assumption, and while yes the scientists do work and assume they don't change, that doesn't mean they don't. (FYI, no I don't think the fundamental laws of physics changes)

No, it's not an assumption. It's a fact. If the constants of the universe did change, then the universe would completely fall apart. They're called "constants" for a reason

And how can you stretch the unchangability of an electron's mass to the unchangability of the species existant on earth? IE: today and Noah?
that thought is absurd at best.

I can't, and I didn't. You're just misrepresenting my argument. Classy.

With your reasoning, miracles cannot happen.

words about miracles

Awesome, you're misrepresenting my argument again!

The Bible is practically littered with unreasonable "sciences" yet I assume you accept it because you are a Christian.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the bible is littered with sciences. I don't understand how you relate the two.

Show me where I've done that.

This thread is ABOUT TE being unbiblical, some "person" posted that talkorigins site.

My apologies, these threads all look the same after a while.

Well, I can show where you've used some faulty arguments and logic. I have what 6 pages to go through? This should be easy...

that might be true during the time of Galileo and Newton but science has been polluted like a stinky river over the past 3 centuries.

No, it's that you're so adament in your faulty view of creation that you ignore everything you don't agree with.

the only "pure" science i see now is physics, and perhaps (maybe) mathematics/chemistry. the geological/biological science however are debatable (with exceptions of lab based biology, cutting up rats; gene experimentation; growing plants)

Geology and biology (less so) for the most part are physics applied to the real world.

when one digs up an ape tooth, it does not say "i am 6 million years old" and that should be enough to make any geologist/archaeologist a skeptic.

Deliberately misrepresenting archaeology.

Evolution is NOT science. It is dogma. Why? Because it is NOT Falsifiable. It is also circular reasoning.

We've covered this many times, in fact I've given you the smackdown on the definition of falsifiable, but you continue to lie about it!

Wrong.
I am a Young Earth Creationist.
Why?
Because Evolution is invalid.
Why?
1. Circular Reasoning.
2. Non scientific (first of all it is UNFALSIFIABLE).

Misrepresenting TE AGAIN! Man I'm on a roll!

if i understand that correctly they're saying that things DO NOT evolve. that's kind of funny. i'm not sure if the site is supposed to support hardcore creationism or hardcore evolution (i don't even know which way it leans!) lmao. good site, kind of amusing

Deliberate misrepresentation.

a word of caution: Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Using our God-given brain and reasoning we make theories based on the evidence God left of how he created the universe is hollow and deceptive? Please.

i'm arguing for the roots of evolution, that evolution from amoeba to humans does not happen.

Deliberate straw man.

You can draw lines stretching till the kingdom comes, but you're talking dogma and unfalsifiable claims.

Once again, lying about the definition of unfalsifiable.

can your PDA become a laptop?
can your laptop become a super computer?

organic life is 1,000,000 MORE complicated than inanimate objects.
if my PDA cannot become a laptop, evolution cannot happen and my ancestor was not an ape, he was Adam, created from the dust of the earth.

Rockin' the straw man.

you see the allele mutate. yes it changes color. that we can see and prove.
but you extend that to eukaryotes becoming humans that that is possible too. what the heck? am i the only one that sees that as the most absurd thing to believe? (yes it is a belief, you BELIEVE that euks can become humans, you have NO proof whatsoever).

Deliberate misrepresentation.

so frequency of alleles
+ "selection"
= evolution?

you forgot one thing in there. magic.

if a mutation of one allele cannot make an amoeba spawn legs - or whatever - then how does adding natural selection make evolution happen? the idea might not be absurd as such, but the conjecture and its logical conclusion is.

Yet another straw man!

what we're doing here is not science, it is philosophy, therefore the extrapolation of "micro evolutionary FACTS" and attempting to employ it into MACRO EVOLUTION is philosophy, not science

Deliberately lying about evolution.

i'm saying: "evolution cannot happen because in the beginning IF there was just a primordial soup, there is NO gene of a human, and because we DO HAVE HUMANS on this earth (let alone all the other creatures), from JUST THE MUTATION OF FREQUENCY OF ALLELES evolution is bung."

Deliberate misrepresentation of the theory of evolution.

lol. and someone said before that quantum mechanics makes falsifiable conjectures. that's one "lmao" comment...

That someone would be me, and once again you're lying about the definition of falsifiable.

I think that's enough to make my point.

With regards to TE conflicting with the bible, here's the problem:

YEC's make God to be a liar.

Why would God give us substantial evidence of creation through nature but to only have it contradict with Genesis? Does that mean God went "Oh hey My followers, please ignore everything you see in nature, don't use reasoning and logic I gave you, and follow a strict interpretation of Genesis which puts Me at odds with the evidence through nature I give you."

No, it means your interpretation of scripture is wrong. When YECs make God a liar, I'm inclined to not believe a single idea put forth by any of them, theological or not.

 

[kofh2u]

I wish YECs would come over to the TE side and influence unbelieving young people in the next generation that Science is suppor ing the faith we had in our beliefs that Jesus was right about dying in the sin of Selfishness and becoming born again as altruistic, giving, loving people.

Science makes them present obvious non-sense emphasizing on stubbornous a if it were a virtue.

They can not explain that only on Yom four, the 4th "day," was the 24 hour day created.

They can not explain a world wide flood to the mountain tops.

They can not explain all those animals in a little bitty 30x50x300 box.

The "flood" was Modern Homo sapiens, starting @ 40,000 years ago. These newly evolved creatures killed Neanderthal, and in the "ark" of his skull came a new world, a new heaven and new earth a only he would see it, and with speech, new names never utered before for all creatures.

 

[shernren]

Look, Biliskner, stop doing this or chances are you'll damage your brain. Maybe is some sort of sign language for "I'm right and you're all wrong, neener neener!" and I'm going to assume exactly that until you be clear and consistent about what all these mean. Of course, it could just mean "I don't like how credible they sound, so I'll slap away the evidence and accuse them of not understanding my framework!"

Sigh.

First you complain:

wow. i can see how those questions are HIGHLY scientific.

And then you show a high lack of science in your own posts.

Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one (*cough* Woodmorappe/TalkOrigins) takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy (*cough* employ today's data into Noah's world), which depends on human tradition (*cough* logic of assumptions and human thinking/what is possible/what is not possible) and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

By the way, Woodmorappe is not an evolutionist. He's one of the world's most important "Flood theorists". Now, walk your talk and "see to it that Woodmorappe does not take you captive!" teehee.

How about:

See to it that no-one takes you captive
through hollow and deceptive philosophy (since AiG believes that all contrary evidence is deceptive no matter how real it is. Telling!)
which depends on human tradition (pandering to the Christian conservative politic, restricted to a reductionist Enlightenment reduction of truth to history and science)
and the basic principles of the world (egotistically assuming that just because you can't understand something means it doesn't have a right to be true)
rather than on Christ (who would surely advocate unity among the church, instead of YEC's gang-banging TE's and even attacking other creationists who don't agree exactly with them, and who would not have created a liar of a universe).

And if this is flaming, then I don't mind it being removed, as long as somebody reads and understands. These are real things.

An assumption is made here that today's environment is EXACTLY the same as Noah's day. Tell me how that is NOT dogmatic?

You see, we believe that God made scientific laws for a reason. Why would God create scientific laws, show us how to investigate them (for Christianity has always been a driving force for science), and make them self-consistent if He was going to break them half the time?

Furthermore, God's characteristics must be reflected in His creations. This is Scripturally verifiable, as God continually points to His creation to glorify Himself. Now, what would creating a universe only to toss its scientific consistency aside half the time reveal of God? It would "reveal" a "God" who is, well, not very self-consistent. Hmm. I wonder if that's Scriptural.

Now, we believe that God stopped creating on the seventh day, right? I personally take this to mean that God chose to stop violating the law of mass-energy conservation. (Indeed, a very honest position to take is that all mass and energy were created at the first instant of the universe, and all further development in Genesis 1, whether literal or not, simply consisted of a rearrangement of already-created matter.)

This gives me, personally, a guide into how God deals with the physical laws of the universe. He doesn't wantonly throw them aside. Often, He does a miracle because it is the smallest-impact method with which He could do a certain thing. Also, God does not create new matter and/or energy, because that would imply incompleteness and imperfection in His first work of creation.

My favourite illustration is when Elisha caused the axhead to float. Did God contravene physical laws? Maybe yes, maybe no. If God had caused a local fluctuation in the density of the water, in effect bunching up all the water molecules where the axhead was, there would be no physical laws contravened (besides the ones involved in prohibiting super-dense water). The flotation force pushing the axhead to the surface would be a perfectly valid Newtonian force, its magnitude verifiable along with the acceleration of the axhead to the surface. Perhaps at that instant the physical laws would indeed be the same: and yet one cannot extrapolate this to say that iron would float on water all the time!

My point is, while miracles cannot be explained by science, they can be explored within a scientific framework. They may not be quantifiable, but we can speculate on how God altered the natural laws to admit the happening.

My problem with the Flood theorists is that they just don't admit that you could not have had the Flood without a drastic reworking of scientific laws. I suspect that if they did so, their cover would be blown. For once you admit that scientific laws can be bent you might as well stop investigating the event scientifically. If you say that you are scientifically investigating the Flood, that includes an assumption that the scientific laws you are working with quantifiable over the period of study. Either they are changing in a quantifiable way with falsifiable consequences (which obviously has not happened, seeing as the consequences have indeed been falsified), or they are constant.

Now you were asking who is assuming that:

today's environment is EXACTLY the same as Noah's day. Tell me how that is NOT dogmatic?

Answer: the Flood theorists. The same people whom you are trusting to tell you that the Flood was scientifically possible are dogmatic in your books? Hmmm.



with warm (white-hot) regards,

shernren

 

[kofh2u]

mhess13:
Evolution is not compatible with the Bible.

KOFHY:
Is too!

mhess13:
There could not have been millions of years of death before sin.

KOFHY:
What sin was that?

And, whose death? Animals? Plants? Early evolving primates?

And, I know this will throw you off, but life is a genetic vine, there is no death unless a species becomes extinct. All living creatures are just the "flowers" on their particular genetic vine, that reproduce, fade, are recreated again.
Their genes reconstruct them again and again.

mhess13:
Rom 5:12 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

KOFHY: (TE interpretation)

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man, (the first 24/7 conscious humanoid), sin (of Free Willed selfishness) entered into the world, and death (in a series of extinctions) by sin (of Free Willed replacement of instinctual behaviors); and so death (in the termination, extinction, of genetic lines of ascent) passed upon all (evolving) men, for that all have sinned (in partial Consciousness):

mhess13:
MAN introduced death into the world because of sin.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

KOFHY: (TE interpretation)

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned (in termination of various species and even whole humanoid societies) from Adam (Ramaphiticus man) to Moses (Modern Homo sapiens) even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, (a selfish self preservation), who is the (physical) figure of him, (Homooiusian man), that was to come (with a new psyche in heart).

mhess13:
If evolution is true, slow gradual changes over millions of years of death brought man into the world. The Bible and evolution are teaching 2 different things. Note that the Bible calls death an enemy.

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

KOFHY: (TE interpretation)

1Corinthians 15:20-24[/b]
"But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (in the facility of their Unconscious Mind). For since by a man came death (in his partial and premature consciousness, unable to utilize his genetic memory of previous incarnations), by a man (in the ansfiguration) also came the (first) resurrection of the dead (or sleeping world of phylogenetic memory). For as in Adam, (only partial consciousness), all (previous phylogenetic memories) die (can not be remembered in the next genetic reconstruction), so also in Christ, (sons of God who evolve), all, (totally Conscious), will be made (awakened), alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits (of awakened Conscience), after that those who are (awakened to the same Conscience as) Christ's at His coming, (true Christians, Homoiousian sapiens), then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom (of mind within) to the God and Father (imaged in the trinity of our Conscious Mind, Subconscious Mind, and Unconscious Mind), when He has abolished (selfishness, in the Free Will of the Conscious Mind), all rule (over others) and all authority (over others) and power (over others)." - 1Corinthians 15:20-24

mhess13:
When reading 1COR15 you can clearly see that PHYSICAL death is being discussed and it is described as an enemy that Christ has defeated through his resurrection. PRAISE HIM!

KOFHY:
Absolutely! Praise the Lord!

Revelation 21:4-5 And God, (blessing them with Total Consciousness: [Carl Jung]), shall wipe away, (in their awakened Unconscious Mind: [Freudian Hypothesis]), all tears from their eyes, (for life is a genetically rememberable continuum from one generation to the next living generation); and (in genetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind) there shall be no more death (though we shall all "sleep:" [1Co15]), neither sorrow (for we, individually, are part of a living continuum of our own pasts), nor crying (for we are happy in these revelations), neither shall there be any more pain (as circumvented by hypnosis today): for the former things (in Modern Homo sapiens life experience) are passed away.
And he, (the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind), that sat upon the throne (of the Homoiousian sapiens' brain) said, Behold, (in this way) I make all things (in human experience) new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true (rational, and scientifically feasible) and (worthy of) faithful (belief).

mhess13:
So then you cannot have death in the world (as evolution teaches) millions of years before Adam's sin. BOTH EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE CANNOT BE TRUE-they teach different things!

Rom 8:18-19 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

KOFHY:
You just don't integrate our knowledge of Genetics with the Truth.

Rom. 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time, (in
this present genetic incarnation), are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us (in our next genetic re-manufacturing).

Rom. 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature, (Modern Homo sapiens), waiteth for the (evolving) manifestation of the sons of God, (the next step for mankind, Homoiousian sapiens).

mhess13:
Because of death and sin the whole creation is futile according to the Bible.

KOFHY:
Sin is anti-love, or Selfishness.
Death does not exist, genetically speaking, unless a species goes in the lake of firey extinction, fossilized in the hot bedrock of time.

mhess13:
Rom 8:20-22 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

KOFHY: (TE interpretation)

Rom. 8:20 For the creature, (Modern Homo sapiens), was (innately) made subject to vanity (of selfishness), not willingly, but by reason of him, (the first Adam, Ramaphitecus), who hath subjected (himself to) the same, (a self centeredness), in hope (of survival, an instinct),

Rom. 8:21 Because the creature, (Modern Homo sapiens), itself also
shall be delivered from the (personal) bondage of (sociological)
corruption (resulting from an enculturated collective selfishness) into the glorious liberty of the children of God, (the next step for mankind, Homoiousian sapiens).

Rom. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation (of mankind) groaneth and travaileth in pain (of individual selfish methods aimed at survival of the fittest), together, until now.

mhess13:
But we know that during the Millennial Reign of Christ Or if you are an amillennialist during the new heavens and the new earth; the creation will be restored. DEATH because of sin is what wrecked the creation.

KOFHY:
No, the millennial reign is over. Satan, the Big Satan as Islam recognizes him, is/has been loose since the Renaisannce.

Death has not yet been abolished until we evolve such as to have conscious access to the genetic memories locked in our present Unconscious Mind.

mhess13:
So what does the theistic evolutionist propose? They will say that plants died before the fall of man. But plants are not alive in a Biblical sense. They are a self replicating food source. The haven't got the breath of life and they have no blood. Plants are never spoken of as dying in scripture. They fade and wither, but never die in the sense as humans and animals. All animals and man were vegetarians in the Garden,...

KOFHY:
Hmmm... not ALL vegetarians...

Gen. 4:2 And she, (as a line of human ascent), again (evolved a new sub-species), bare his brother, (Lucy), Abel, (Australopithecus afarensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, but Cain (a vegeterian,) was a tiller of the ground.

mhess13:
...humans were not to eat meat until after the flood.

KOFHY:

"... And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep,"...

mhess13:
This further proves that death was not part of God's original creation, but was an enemy, an intruder, brought in by sin.

KOFHY:
Death refers to Extinction.
Any life form that is NOT extinct was never "dead."

Every living cell, animal & plant, is a product of cell division by a pre-existing, already living cell.
When an organism "passes away," what we call death, its genetic blueprint still exists. The gene pool, the waiting place of Ghenna, will resurrect that organism again, in time.

See what I am saying, there really is NO death, only extinction.

mhess13:
Furthermore, insects may not even be alive in a biblical sense-I don't know. That's a good topic to study up on.

KOFHY:
Nah, immaterial.

mhess13:
What theistic evolutionists are really saying is that sickness, disease, death and suffering were here long before sin. What does this make God? How can we explain cancer, gout, heart disease? With the theistic evolution model and logic, this suffering and sickness was part of God's very good creation.

KOFHY:
We are flowers on our own genetic vine and figs on the (biological) Tree of Life.

mhess13:
Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden standing on top of thousands of fossils buried in the dirt. Adam and Eve were both destined to die physically even prior to their spiritual separation from God. Is this what the Bible teaches?

KOFHY:
The axe stands at the (biological) tree (of life) ready to eliminate any species which does not conform to God's plan in the Universe.

The sin of a conscious, self centered selfishness, selfish behavior emerging from man's evolving Consciousness, leads to human extinction.

Christ, preaching altruism, saves us from that end.

mhess13:

However, when we believe that death and sickness were brought on because of sin, a light clicks.

KOFHY:
No way.
Those things are part of life, eternal, through genetic reconstruction.

Sin, selfishness, leads to Extinction, real, real permanent human death.

mhess13:
It makes sense that God is good and didn't create us to be sick and die.

KOFHY:
That's a self centered point of view.

mhess13:
The effects of the Fall were enormous! We begin to see sin as it is.

KOFHY:
Yep!
Its the opposite of "love your neighbor."

Selfishness!

mhess13:
We see the ugliness and destructive nature of disobedience to God.

KOFHY:
Yep!
Selfishness and self serving behavior.

mhess13:
We then have hope of the glorious resurrection and the restoration of all things through the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

KOFHY:
Absolutely!

mhess13:
THEISTIC evolution seriously downplays the fall of man.

KOFHY:
No way!
TE identifies sin as the result of an evolving Human Consciousness, one leading to Free Willed selfishness as a hoped for survival strategy.

mhess13:
Without a clear understanding of how huge the Fall was, how can we fully grasp the work of the atonement?

KOFHY:
Isn't Human Selfishness the original sin?
Can we grasp how "love thy neighbor" will save us from self destruction, in the oblivion of extinction, in the awaiting lake of eternal fire and brimstone fossilization?

mhess13:
Evolution wars against the plan of salvation.

KOFHY:
Evolution is God's process of refining us, developing early humanoids into Homoiousian sapiens.

 

[gluadys]

mhess13:
KOFHY: (TE interpretation)

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man, (the first 24/7 conscious humanoid), sin (of Free Willed selfishness) entered into the world, and death (in a series of extinctions) by sin (of Free Willed replacement of instinctual behaviors); and so death (in the termination, extinction, of genetic lines of ascent) passed upon all (evolving) men, for that all have sinned (in partial Consciousness):


KOFHY: (TE interpretation)

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned (in termination of various species and even whole humanoid societies) from Adam (Ramaphiticus man) to Moses (Modern Homo sapiens) even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, (a selfish self preservation), who is the (physical) figure of him, (Homooiusian man), that was to come (with a new psyche in heart).


KOFHY: (TE interpretation)

1Corinthians 15:20-24[/b]
"But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (in the facility of their Unconscious Mind). For since by a man came death (in his partial and premature consciousness, unable to utilize his genetic memory of previous incarnations), by a man (in the ansfiguration) also came the (first) resurrection of the dead (or sleeping world of phylogenetic memory). For as in Adam, (only partial consciousness), all (previous phylogenetic memories) die (can not be remembered in the next genetic reconstruction), so also in Christ, (sons of God who evolve), all, (totally Conscious), will be made (awakened), alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits (of awakened Conscience), after that those who are (awakened to the same Conscience as) Christ's at His coming, (true Christians, Homoiousian sapiens), then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom (of mind within) to the God and Father (imaged in the trinity of our Conscious Mind, Subconscious Mind, and Unconscious Mind), when He has abolished (selfishness, in the Free Will of the Conscious Mind), all rule (over others) and all authority (over others) and power (over others)." - 1Corinthians 15:20-24

kofh2u

I do appreciate that you are standing up for theistic evolution.

But these intepretations are not TE interpretations. They are your interpretations. Please identify them properly as kofh2u interpretations.

TEs have many different interpretations depending on their theological background and personal study. So each TE needs to take personal responsibility for their own interpretation, and not suggest that it has any standing as a TE intepretation unless they know that a significant number of TEs agree with it.

I have opinions about how to interpret scripture that I know many TEs do not agree with. So, when I refer to them, I always say this is my interpretation, not that it is a TE interpretation.

 

[kofh2u]

kofh2u

I do appreciate that you are standing up for theistic evolution.

But these intepretations are not TE interpretations. They are your interpretations. Please identify them properly as kofh2u interpretations.

TEs have many different interpretations depending on their theological background and personal study. So each TE needs to take personal responsibility for their own interpretation, and not suggest that it has any standing as a TE intepretation unless they know that a significant number of TEs agree with it.

I have opinions about how to interpret scripture that I know many TEs do not agree with. So, when I refer to them, I always say this is my interpretation, not that it is a TE interpretation.

Hmmmm...
Interesting response, indeed.

I hadn't thought about that. mDemocratic TE, where we sort of agree what is theistic bible evolution.

I guess. You suggest that we are rather independent, widely separated, and not exactly a defined body of TE interpretation.

In what ways do you differ in interpreting the scriptures in the posts above?

Maybe if I had read other inte pretatiins I would mention that they also exist.

How do you, as a TE, interpret Roman 5,8,9? 1Co15?

 

[gluadys]

Hmmmm...
Interesting response, indeed.

I hadn't thought about that. mDemocratic TE, where we sort of agree what is theistic bible evolution.

I guess. You suggest that we are rather independent, widely separated, and not exactly a defined body of TE interpretation.

In what ways do you differ in interpreting the scriptures in the posts above?

Maybe if I had read other inte pretatiins I would mention that they also exist.

How do you, as a TE, interpret Roman 5,8,9? 1Co15?

Here is an interpretation of theistic evolution.

Here is another. Don't be put off by the fact that he uses the term "evolutionary creationism" instead of "theistic evolution". They both mean the same thing, and he gives reasons for preferring the former. I agree with him, but I put up with "theistic evolution" as it is more widely known.

Another site you can explore is Glenn Morton's site which has a number of articles on theistic evolution from his unique perspective.

And in this very forum we have this thread which provides still another perspective.

As for the biblical passages, could you please provide complete references i.e. chapter and verse(s)?

 

[Biliskner]

How certain is your 100%? Do you want day, month and year???

100% as i mean in the sciences when we say we know something for certain. Like F=MA is 99% certain, not 100, but very close etc. Gravity is 99% certain, you can test it with experiments; the wave pressure of sound is 99% certain etc. i always leave 1% uncertainty because in physics you can always get so close but there are always "anomolous" results which make it not-100%.

so the question is more: is historical dating the same as physics? 99%? or is it more like 20%, 30% accurate?

But yes, there is a pretty good certainty of dating things. Obviously, the "newer" they are, the nearer things are to historic times, then the easier it is, because more artificts have survived.

And it is not all "stuff that has been dug up" as you rather disparagingly put it!! Foundations and remains of buildings can tell us a lot. But the best thing an archaeologist can find is an ancient rubbish heap!!

i guess my argument is that the dating method of dug up stuff can be flawed, especially IF the world was 6MYO or whatever. if the world is that old, then knowing the decay rate of an isotope today and assuming that it has been the same for 6MYs is absurd. what kind of science is that? you can't get a result from today and multiply it a few MILLION fold and assert that it is correct? (well you can assert it and that's what people have done.)

as you've said, the "newer" these things are the easier it is to date them, therefore the whole debate on whether things are a few million years old or a few thousand. point being, no one can know for sure. but whether or not that makes TE unbiblical is a theological perspective, and we're probably a little bit off topic.

 

[Biliskner]

No, it's not an assumption. It's a fact. If the constants of the universe did change, then the universe would completely fall apart. They're called "constants" for a reason


I can't, and I didn't. You're just misrepresenting my argument. Classy.



Awesome, you're misrepresenting my argument again!

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the bible is littered with sciences. I don't understand how you relate the two.



My apologies, these threads all look the same after a while.

Well, I can show where you've used some faulty arguments and logic. I have what 6 pages to go through? This should be easy...


No, it's that you're so adament in your faulty view of creation that you ignore everything you don't agree with.


Geology and biology (less so) for the most part are physics applied to the real world.



Deliberately misrepresenting archaeology.


We've covered this many times, in fact I've given you the smackdown on the definition of falsifiable, but you continue to lie about it!


Misrepresenting TE AGAIN! Man I'm on a roll!


Deliberate misrepresentation.


Using our God-given brain and reasoning we make theories based on the evidence God left of how he created the universe is hollow and deceptive? Please.


Deliberate straw man.


Once again, lying about the definition of unfalsifiable.


Rockin' the straw man.



Deliberate misrepresentation.


Yet another straw man!


Deliberately lying about evolution.


Deliberate misrepresentation of the theory of evolution.


That someone would be me, and once again you're lying about the definition of falsifiable.

I think that's enough to make my point.

With regards to TE conflicting with the bible, here's the problem:

YEC's make God to be a liar.

Why would God give us substantial evidence of creation through nature but to only have it contradict with Genesis? Does that mean God went "Oh hey My followers, please ignore everything you see in nature, don't use reasoning and logic I gave you, and follow a strict interpretation of Genesis which puts Me at odds with the evidence through nature I give you."

No, it means your interpretation of scripture is wrong. When YECs make God a liar, I'm inclined to not believe a single idea put forth by any of them, theological or not.

 

[Biliskner]

First you complain:

And then you show a high lack of science in your own posts.

By the way, Woodmorappe is not an evolutionist. He's one of the world's most important "Flood theorists". Now, walk your talk and "see to it that Woodmorappe does not take you captive!" teehee.

How about:

See to it that no-one takes you captive
through hollow and deceptive philosophy (since AiG believes that all contrary evidence is deceptive no matter how real it is. Telling!)
which depends on human tradition (pandering to the Christian conservative politic, restricted to a reductionist Enlightenment reduction of truth to history and science)
and the basic principles of the world (egotistically assuming that just because you can't understand something means it doesn't have a right to be true)
rather than on Christ (who would surely advocate unity among the church, instead of YEC's gang-banging TE's and even attacking other creationists who don't agree exactly with them, and who would not have created a liar of a universe).

And if this is flaming, then I don't mind it being removed, as long as somebody reads and understands. These are real things.

mate, the thread is:

Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

 

[Biliskner]

How do you, as a TE, interpret Roman 5,8,9? 1Co15?

oops. serves me right for using the keypad.

what i mean is Romans 8, the last passage i quoted you.

how do you (RE)interpret the passage when Paul talks about God subjecting the whole of creation to bondage and decay and that in the New Creation it will be liberated from this bondage and decay.

... since TEs (i don't even know if you are one) say that death and decay + disease have been around BEFORE Adam Sinned etc.

cheers.

 

[Biliskner]

Romans 8:19 - 8:25

 

[Biliskner]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

this has got to be the single most waste of time website i've ever read.

why pose problems that no one can understand?

the whole assumption is that today's observation is the same as Noah's day. how is that good science?

It's good science because things like that don't change. The permeability of free space does not change. Planck's constant does not change. An electron rest mass does not change. For your statement to hold true, they and other natural constants would have to change. That doesn't quite make sense though, since if constants changed then the whole universe would completely fall apart.

When you call the talk origins webpage a "waste of time" do you mean "it destroys every argument I have"? Because if it does, then it is definitely a waste of time website.

Do you have any scientific and testible evidence to support your theory? I mean really, every time this question is asked to a YEC, they try switching the topic or do the classic straw man misrepresentation of evolution--which you and others have done numerous times in this thread.

No, it's not an assumption. It's a fact. If the constants of the universe did change, then the universe would completely fall apart. They're called "constants" for a reason

I can't, and I didn't. You're just misrepresenting my argument. Classy.

Awesome, you're misrepresenting my argument again!

Deliberately misrepresenting archaeology.

We've covered this many times, in fact I've given you the smackdown on the definition of falsifiable, but you continue to lie about it!

Misrepresenting TE AGAIN! Man I'm on a roll!

Deliberate misrepresentation.

Deliberate straw man.

Once again, lying about the definition of unfalsifiable.

Rockin' the straw man.

Deliberate misrepresentation.

Yet another straw man!

Deliberately lying about evolution.

Deliberate misrepresentation of the theory of evolution.

I post Noah's ark from TalkOrigins. You post something about physics "things like that don't change". Then you say I misrepresent you? You misrepresent yourself.

I said:
"the whole assumption is that today's observation is the same as Noah's day. how is that good science? "

And you said:
" It's good science because things like that don't change. The permeability of free space does not change. Planck's constant does not change. An electron rest mass does not change. For your statement to hold true, they and other natural constants would have to change. That doesn't quite make sense though, since if constants changed then the whole universe would completely fall apart. "

Then you said again:

" I can't, and I didn't. You're just misrepresenting my argument. Classy.

Awesome, you're misrepresenting my argument again!

Deliberately misrepresenting archaeology.

We've covered this many times, in fact I've given you the smackdown on the definition of falsifiable, but you continue to lie about it!

Misrepresenting TE AGAIN! Man I'm on a roll!

Deliberate misrepresentation.

Deliberate straw man. "

I think you are the straw man, and you have been caught with your pants down. Go put on some visible pants.

 

[kofh2u]

Here[/url] is an interpretation of theistic evolution.

Here[/url] is another. Don't be put off by the fact that he uses the term "evolutionary creationism" instead of "theistic evolution". They both mean the same thing, and he gives reasons for preferring the former. I agree with him, but I put up with "theistic evolution" as it is more widely known.

Another site you can explore is ... which has a number of articles on theistic evolution from his unique perspective.

And in this very forum we have ...this thread[/url] which provides still another perspective.

As for the biblical passages, could you please provide complete references i.e. chapter and verse(s)?

Hi gluads,

Oh yeah, what a nice guy, gmorton... and very well educated, too.

He has been a long time Christian, one well travellled, and now, with Chinese in-laws, probably a modern day apostle to the whole billion member secular community of China!

The rational and logical interpretation of our Bible will be mandatory there, and much more acceptable to the authorities over there. They fear the power of these unapproproachable religious "aut orities" who lead sheep that MUST believe... before they UNDERSTAND, which never really happens beyond the Intuitive grasp that, "they have the Truth."

He, too, is a phyicsist. Strange. So many physicists in TE.

Glennmorton www....
My discussions with glenn have focused on two major points.

1) He doesn't carry through with TE much after the seven days of Proclamation.
For instance, he searchs for excuses of a lesser flood, and doesn't argue the illogical literal reading of Adam living 930 years.

In this, he side steps all but Genesis 1, arguing for both the metaphysical and science, one and the same time.

He can not dispute the metaphorical appropriateness of the "flood" representing "waters" of evolving Modern Homo sapiens. This coincidently was a massive population explosion, exactly 40 thousand days and nights ago of years.

See the metaphor? Waters = people and nations and tongues ie, Daniel. (Exegesis)

2) As I bring to your attention now, glenn also is impeded in proseltyzing TE ideas because he has no complete Bible exegesis of TE throughout.

Other than the Freudian Bible Interpretation (not yet available) which I am editing, and which is a complete synergy of TE and how it reads in scripture, there does not seem to be a ready response to Fundamentalist quotes.

As you, yourself, who inquire here, "As for the biblical passages, could you please provide complete references i.e. chapter and verse(s)?"

ANSWER:
I mean the whole Bible.

Like, when ministers stand at the pulpit, they stand ready to deliver a complete Bible interpretation incorporating every "hard thing to understand" into a presupposed metaophysical, if NOT mythological, paradigm.

They have long sloganize difficult concepts, such that it is unnecessary to "clothe these emperors" in rational definition.
Spirits, angels, heaven, hell, saved, justification, and mantras of words that make a person different, Holy, just by announcing those quotes, etc.

TE needs a similar paradigm, one that can be demonstrated to be cast over all of scripture.

In this regard, at your request, I say, give me another TE interpretation BESIDES those I have posted. Not a verse, but for all of Romans, Chapter 5 and all of Chapter 8, and all of Chapter 9, and so on. For the whole of scripture, demonstrate that TE as a paradigm, is appropriate, possible, and demonstrably a guide to other TE advocates.

See where glenn and I part company? In scope and degree, not insight.

 

[invisible trousers]

100% as i mean in the sciences when we say we know something for certain. Like F=MA is 99% certain, not 100, but very close etc. Gravity is 99% certain, you can test it with experiments; the wave pressure of sound is 99% certain etc. i always leave 1% uncertainty because in physics you can always get so close but there are always "anomolous" results which make it not-100%.

This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

I post Noah's ark from TalkOrigins. You post something about physics "things like that don't change". Then you say I misrepresent you? You misrepresent yourself.

No, Since I have sound logical arguments I tend not to misrepresent myself. My response actually had to do with decay rates, but I don't think I was clear enough or whatever, so I'll just let it slide.

I think you are the straw man, and you have been caught with your pants down. Go put on some visible pants.

You're probably one of the most entertaining poster in this thread right now--your bizarre logic is a great source of amusement to me! I've called you out on something like 13 different lies and misrepresentations of yours, and then you proceed to call me a straw man? What on earth are you thinking?

You still haven't addressed the fact that your interpretation of scripture makes God a liar. I'm led to believe you don't have an argument against that, so I won't be too disappointed when you ignore it again.