Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[Biliskner]

Gnostic Christianity was a cult in the early stages of the building of the Church, who split off to become a... errr... cult.

FYI - those who mightn't know.

 

[Biliskner]

This kind of communication block occurs when non-scientists are unaware of how large and differentiated a group may be, even when it is called by a single name. Most people (and not just creationists) think of "fruit fly" as referring to a group like "zebra" i.e. as a single species or a small group of closely related species like "zebra and horse".

that's where they differ. not "communication block".

Evolution doesn't work by generating new species which belong on different branches of the "tree of life" but by creating new species on each branch.

the Evolution I read in Blind Watchmaker does.

 

[gluadys]

that's where they differ. not "communication block".



the Evolution I read in Blind Watchmaker does.

Find me a single citation in the Blind Watchmaker which has a new species located in a different genus than its parental species.

 

[Biliskner]

Find me a single citation in the Blind Watchmaker which has a new species located in a different genus than its parental species.

the Blind Watchmaker is full of computer programs that he (or someone else) wrote on a computer to prove evolution.
(yeh you heard right, for all those who haven't read it before.)

all i can say to that methodology is:

so now it sits on the bottom shelf of my bookcase waiting to be used as money well spent in my fireplace... when i get a fireplace and need something to light the wood.

 

[gluadys]

the Blind Watchmaker is full of computer programs that he (or someone else) wrote on a computer to prove evolution.
(yeh you heard right, for all those who haven't read it before.)

all i can say to that methodology is:

so now it sits on the bottom shelf of my bookcase waiting to be used as money well spent in my fireplace... when i get a fireplace and need something to light the wood.

And do any of those computer programs allow a new virtual species to be located on a different phylogenic branch from its parent species?

 

[kofh2u]

Find me a single citation in the Blind Watchmaker which has a new species located in a different genus than its parental species.

It is unnecessary to find agreement in the religious community in regard to the science of evolution. The science was not underfire so much as whether it was Biblical should we deem to accept it.

Remember that the Pope HAS accepted the fact that there is too much evidence on its side to debate the idea.

Now, what is important, is for the Religious Community to understand that the literary criticism of Genesis as a metaphor actually sets the foundation for understanding many other unexplanable verses.

What emerges from a new look is amazing.

In finding an once unrealized compatibility of Scripture with Science, the opportunity presents itself to understand, in the observations of modern knowledge, what many have long believed.

Is 32:4 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and
understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.

Is 32:3 Then at last the eyes of Israel will open wide to God and his
people will listen to his voice.

Is 32:5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes!
Wealthy cheaters will not be spoken of as generous, outstanding men!

 

[gluadys]

It is unnecessary to find agreement in the religious community in regard to the science of evolution. The science was not underfire so much as whether it was Biblical should we deem to accept it.

OK. I can go along with that. But I would also say that if the science is right, the task is not to determine if it is biblical, but to determine how the bible is to be understood in the light of this new information.

Remember that the Pope HAS accepted the fact that there is too much evidence on its side to debate the idea.

Right.

Now, what is important, is for the Religious Community to understand that the literary criticism of Genesis as a metaphor actually sets the foundation for understanding many other unexplanable verses.

I certainly find that a non-literal interpretation of the early part of Genesis is most enlightening as to the true meaning.

What emerges from a new look is amazing.

In finding an once unrealized compatibility of Scripture with Science, the opportunity pr4s3nts itself to understand, in the observations of modern knowledge, what many have long believed.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I do not think there is any justification for assuming that modern scientific knowledge is somehow coded into the biblical text. Better to take references that suggest an ancient cosmological view as evidence the writers accepted that cosmological view. It is not a slander against them or the bible to be aware they are people of their time.

 

[Biliskner]

And do any of those computer programs allow a new virtual species to be located on a different phylogenic branch from its parent species?

they all (the lines) join.
that is how it contradicts Scripture.

 

[gluadys]

they all (the lines) join.
that is how it contradicts Scripture.

But they join like a tree right? You don't have any twigs jumping from one branch to another. Right?

 

[kofh2u]

Hello mr/ms gluadys,
I had said,
"In finding an once unrealized compatibility of Scripture with Science, the opportunity presents itself to understand, in the observations of modern knowledge, what many have long believed."

You responded with:
I am not sure what you mean by this.

KOFHY:
I meant, that we are living in a new paradigm of thinking which necessarily forced(s) us to re-examine much of our pre-set and enculturated predisposition to things. The Bible is one of those things.

gluadys:
I do not think there is any justification for assuming that modern scientific knowledge is somehow coded into the biblical text.

KOFHY:
Not any further than implied by the rounding off of pi at 3.0 in the bible.

My observation is that the Bible discourses to this present generation as effectively as it has proven to resist ridicule by all the previous generations. Eithout lecturing us on geology, for instance, the seven "days" correspond quite well with our recently informed concept of seven Eras.

gluadys:
Better to take references that suggest an ancient cosmological view as evidence the writers accepted that cosmological view.

KOFHY:
No.
No, I do not see that the revealed Word was subject to its first readership. I do not believe that scripture was written in accomodation of iron age understandings, although its literary technique was to present the material in a way that all the further readers would accomodate themselves with.

What I mean is that literary germane of the (1) EPIC spoke to the Jews 9n the days of Moses. But, the understanding of scripture was gradually interpreted in te ms of Jewish (2) HISTORY. In and before the days of Jesus, Scripture was recog ized as (3) LAW.

We know that the early Christian Church needed to contend (4) MYTHOPAEICALLY with Paganism and Arianism in order to establish the 1000 year reign of Christ as the only name for God in our Western Culture.

RATIONALISM, (5), founded during the Platonic paradigm during the later Middle Ages essential changed, not scripture, but how scripture was understood.

Again, today, following this Age of Enlightenment by the scientific revolution, we find more and mo aders seeing a (6) THEISTIC EVOLUTIONARY interpretation as an underlying metaphor for the facts we now know.

And, (7) The FREUDIAN INTERPRETATION is like a cloud just beginning to roll over every 8nderstanding as it becomes obvious this Bile is mostly about Human Behavior.

gluadys:
It is not a slander against them or the bible to be aware they are people of their time.

KOFHY:
Exactly!

They have all been faithful to the Truth will out, in the darkness of the understandings.

1Cor. 13:12 For now (in this 1st Century, AD) we see (in (semi-consciousness) as through a glass, darkly, (we perceive as well as our growing knowledge allows); but then, (in the coming time of Daniel, [12:4], in the Information Age of the 21st Century), face to face (with secular understanding and Truth of God, found in his Word): now I know (both God and his Truth) in part; but then shall I know (tangibly) even as also I am known, (concretely).

 

[gluadys]

It's "ms."

For the most part I find your posts are so heavily laden with the jargon of you theological/metaphysical understanding as to be incomprehensible as a form of English.

Rather than try to decode such nonsense as "our recently formed concept of seven eras" (I never heard of this) I will respond to the only thing that seems to have a glimmer of meaning.

gluadys:
Better to take references that suggest an ancient cosmological view as evidence the writers accepted that cosmological view.

KOFHY:
No.
No, I do not see that the revealed Word was subject to its first readership.

I disagree. The intention of an author is to communicate with an audience of which s/he is aware in terms they will understand. So the audience is always contemporary with the author and the terms of communication are those common to author and audience. It is always the first readership which sets the meaning of the text.

Later generations may read it according to a different paradigm, but they would be wrong to say the paradigm they use is to be grafted into the text as written. Unfortunately, that is what most interpreters do. They fail to distinguish between their contemporary paradigm and that of the original text and so identify their personal interpretation with the word of God.

 

[kofh2u]

It's "ms."

For the most part I find your posts are so heavily laden with the jargon of you theological/metaphysical understanding as to be incomprehensible as a form of English.

Rather than try to decode such nonsense as "our recently formed concept of seven eras" (I never heard of this) I will respond to the only thing that seems to have a glimmer of meaning.



I disagree. The intention of an author is to communicate with an audience of which s/he is aware in terms they will understand. So the audience is always contemporary with the author and the terms of communication are those common to author and audience. It is always the first readership which sets the meaning of the text.

Later generations may read it according to a different paradigm, but they would be wrong to say the paradigm they use is to be grafted into the text as written. Unfortunately, that is what most interpreters do. They fail to distinguish between their contemporary paradigm and that of the original text and so identify their personal interpretation with the word of God.

1) Scripture falls into the literary classification of Mysteries, pertaining to those societies which existed prior to the advent of Christianity. m
It is the only written Mystery ever rrvealed to the profane. The other mystery societies left no definitive text, always secret, very similar to the secret society nof the Masons today. As such, it was not exactly written for an audience of the literal reading, but more of a hidden manna to guide a knowing priesthood, as in the days of Aaron.

But, I again point to the 8nique and amazingability of these writings to speak to the early ignorance of western culture and yet accomodate us today in our arrogance of science.

2) Seven Eras?

The Seven Geological Eras of Time. Surely you are informed that geology and paleonotology understand that the earth has gone through seven distinct Eras:

Gen. 1:5 And God, (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first "day," (the Azoic Era).

 

[gluadys]

1) Scripture falls into the literary classification of Mysteries, pertaining to those societies which existed prior to the advent of Christianity. m
It is the only written Mystery ever rrvealed to the profane. The other mystery societies left no definitive text, always secret, very similar to the secret society nof the Masons today. As such, it was not exactly written for an audience of the literal reading, but more of a hidden manna to guide a knowing priesthood, as in the days of Aaron.

But, I again point to the 8nique and amazingability of these writings to speak to the early ignorance of western culture and yet accomodate us today in our arrogance of science.

Ah, so you believe the bible is a mystery text like those of the Pythagoreans or of the followers of Hermes Trismegistus. Can't say I would buy into that. I am much too pragmatic to get involved in this new-agey stuff.

2) Seven Eras?

The Seven Geological Eras of Time. Surely you are informed that geology and paleonotology understand that the earth has gone through seven distinct Eras:

Gen. 1:5 And God, (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first "day," (the Azoic Era).

well now, if you had originally said "seven geologic eras" I might have made the connection. I can only find reference to six anyway. Never heard of the Azoic. In any case I don't favour Day-Age interpretations of Genesis.

 

[kofh2u]

gluadys:
Ah, so you believe the bible is a mystery text like those of the Pythagoreans or of the followers of Hermes Trismegistus.

KOFHY:
Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism: Rev 3:14), the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of Collective Jungian Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of the psycke'), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERYOF GOD, (the hidden manna: [Rev 2:17]), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture: [Dan 12:4]).

gluadys:
Can't say I would buy into that. I am much too pragmatic to get involved in this new-agey stuff.

KOFHY:
?
New?

Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, (listen to this clear meaning), let him hear what the Spirit, (the Sevenfold Psyche), saith unto the churches, (that is, the evolving body of Christianity); To him that overcometh, (he who sublimates beyond the archaic interpretations of scriptural misunderstandings), will I give to eat of (the Jew Kabbalah), THE HIDDEN MANNA, (the hidden organizational pattern in Genesis), and will give him a white "stone," (a piece of paper), and in the stone a new name written, (one of the twelve fruits from the Biological Tree of [the animal and plant kingdom of all] Life: Rev 22:3), which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

gluadys:
well now, if you had originally said "seven geologic eras" I might have made the connection.

KOFHY:
My apology.

gluadys:
I can only find reference to six anyway. Never heard of the Azoic.

KOFHY:
Try the dictionary.

A-zoic, before anything... in the beginning, Hawkings physics.

gluadys:
In any case I don't favour Day-Age interpretations of Genesis.

KOFHY:
Just pass the Final Judgement:

Matt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Matt. 25:35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Matt. 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

 

[Biliskner]

But they join like a tree right? You don't have any twigs jumping from one branch to another. Right?

nope.

what's ur point?

 

[Biliskner]

wow you guys are really into this New Age Pantheistic bung

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.

but i'm willing to bet that if ppl wanted to they can interpret Christ however they wanted.

Jn. 14:5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

Jn. 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys:
Can't say I would buy into that. I am much too pragmatic to get involved in this new-agey stuff.

KOFHY:
?
New?

Well it's true that there is nothing new about New Age philosophies. They have been with us forever, they just get called by different names in different ages. Like "theosophy" in the late 19th/early 20th century.

I still have no patience for it.

 

[gluadys]

nope.

what's ur point?

Go back to your post of April 22 in which you quoted a paragraph from talkorigins on the branching nature of evolution and suggested that "they're saying that things DO NOT evolve."

When I challenged you, you responded by saying that the perspective on evolution which talkorigins presents was not the same as the evolution you had read about in the Blind Watchmaker (post #102).

So I asked for an example from the Blind Watchmaker which disagreed with the branching model outlined on talkorigins.

You explained that the trees in the Blind Watchmaker were computer generated. So I asked for an example from the computer generated trees that disagreed with the branching model.

You have now agreed that there is no example in the Blind Watchmaker that disagrees with the talkorigin's description of how evolution works.

So your assertion that the story of evolution in the Blind Watchmaker is different than the model on talkorigins (which is also the model I have been presenting) turns out not to be true.

There is no example of evolution in which the child is not of the same "kind" as the parent. Yet evolution happens.

You want an explanation of this trick? Go back to the talkorigins article and read it again, paying close attention.

 

[kofh2u]

wow you guys are really into this New Age Pantheistic bung

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.

but i'm willing to bet that if ppl wanted to they can interpret Christ however they wanted.

Jn. 14:5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

Jn. 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me.

Oh, yeah, the New Age people I have encountered on the net can pull a verse here or two to underline some point.

I find they they soon are unable to integrate the whole of scripture in the message they communicate. In fact, the conversation soon reduces to insinuation that only by reading long dissertations, which they quickly recommend, can one come to some "deep" knowledge of Cosmic Consciousness.

ONLY BIBLE MYSTERIES.

Only matters mentioned in the bible, and only scripturally supported possible meanings qualify, IMO, for real attention.

New Agers are really re-inventing a theology that is surrealistic, and full of slightly different, but religious metaphysics similar to the denominational differences of opinion. They have no more concrete descriptions about such Bible mysteries as the coming "life without death," the "end of death" as we know it, a world "without pain." They do not talk around matters of the "Seven fold Spirit" and the "Iron Rod," as the denominational churches do. They just totally ignore these ideas.

They refer to the bible, often, implying they have insights from it, while they ignore the issues of Bible passages even the best Christians can not interpret. When they do offer answers, they, too, invent metaphysical, man-made ideas.

I always ask them if they EVEN believe that their IS a HIDDEN MANNA?
And, is it supported by Bible text?

I remind them that the Jews insist that some Kabbalah was once known, particularly in the days of Moses. I tell them that Maddonna and Guy Richie, out in LA, attend a synagogue that prays to understand it again.

And, we KNOW the Jews lost the URIM and THUMMIM.

What, I ask, was the myste ious two-pronged pair9ng of His f9ngers all about in the "fire baptism?"

Matt. 3:12 Whose fan (of forked fingers) is in his hand (held as the Kohamin), and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


These subjects are "old age," and in fact, "age old" bible matters which religious people MUST wait to be answered.

Neither NEW agers nor OLD agers have a clue, do they?

But, religious people need to look forward to these Christian mysteries, never dismissing them as something not part of their Christianity.

Because, they ARE in the Scriptures, are they not?
Ignoring, that would be more sinful, dismissing the Scriptures, than entertaining cults in fashion. That would be DENYING the Word, itself. Right?

 

[shernren]

oh dear. I wonder where in the Bible is there any support at all for calling God a "Universal Force". That's anathema!

Biliskner, maybe you're having trouble seeing that we define species very differently from the way scientific creationists define a "Genesis kind". the standard biological definition is basically that two species are two populations that have various "mating blocks" i.e. circumstances that would prevent natural production of fertile offspring. Whereas the Genesis kind seems to be "defined" (not very rigorously) as any group of biological forms which can inter-mate. It seems to be more analogous with the concept of a "clade".

And when a new species is formed, it is always formed as a species belonging to the same clade as its parents. So that's why speciation always produces new species, but never new "kinds". But the fact that there are no new "kinds" doesn't say a lot. If we took a creationist back in time to the first speciation which produced the first mammal population from reptiles, and showed him that first mammal population speciating into different families, guess what the response would be?

"Oh I see, the mammals are one big created kind!"

Which isn't saying a lot. The reason we don't see things like new phyla, new families etc. in the lab is simply because we haven't been researching evolution all that long. Things like this take time.