Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[Biliskner]

I sure read your list, and think your line of logic is quite flawed.

you're not the first. and no, not the last, thankfully. keeping me sharp.

You're ridiculously simplifying archaeology in order to try and prove a point, but it's not working. I'm curious as to what group is saying some fossil is 6 million years old and what group is saying 6000 years old. Does one of the groups have actual physical evidence and tested scientific methods behind its' conclusion? Better yet, is one of the groups ignoring data in favor of misguided religious ideas?

www.answersingenesis.org

be warned: "it's not a peer-review magazine, yet."

In fact, you managed to show I was right. I said you didn't like those sciences/whatever because they disagree with your view on the creation, and you didn't contest it one bit. If you're going to criticize a science, please do it on scientific basis, not religious.

read the conversation between me and glaudys

Uh...no? My point was that the people who whine most about archaeology, geology, geophysics, etc, are people whose beliefs are challenged by the constant new information gathered by those disciplines, not people who have legitimate complaints.

oh yes of course. those people who whine about Christianity's moral laws are those people whose beliefs are challenged by apparent dogma and superstition.

your attempt at "unity" within the "scientific field" is dictatorship elitism in disguise - now what problems do you have with creationism?

Ah, yes, we've come to the point in the thread where you show your lack of understanding of how science works. Scientific theories aren't proven by a lack of evidence to show them being wrong, but by evidence itself that shows it to be wrong. Scientific theories cannot be proven right, but only proven wrong. They also are written under the premise that they're the best result of the knowledge we have right now and to be consistantly accurate under their defined conditions.

what a fasionable thing to say - it shows you have no understanding of philosophy, but no matter, i'm sure i didn't too at one stage. therefore, recommended reading for today:

Karl Popper "what is science?" - good for beginners - probably available on amazon for AU$14.95.

Newton's laws of motion were pretty good for a long time, given what we knew then. They're also good until you start approaching the speed of light, where we run into...

Special/General relativity, works nearly all the time given what we know. The results from those theories can be applied to whole lot of situations, except when dealing with things like black holes, or motion at the quantum level, which leads into...

String theory. Since quantum mechanics and GR don't quite go together, we've been trying to find a theory that will unite both of them. String theory is still in its' early infancy and could very well be completely wrong. In fact, none of the string theories have even made firm predictions that allow them to be tested!

Do you see how this works? The theories are made with the best knowledge at the time, but are continually updated as experiments/theories/whatever show them to be wrong. String theory might be found to be wrong, but we'll move on to something else that is more accurate. This process will probably be repeated forever, at least until God decides to visit and explain the whole universe.

good stuff.
Newton has been proven with countless experiments.
Einstein has been proven with some, and some theoretical stuff.

String/Quantum?, err... yes, all "mathematically proven" - but unfalsifiable.

Wrong! I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse, although I'm led to believe that you are. A idea/theory/etc is falsifiable if in principle it is is possible to make an oberservation that would show it to be false, even if the observation hasn't been made. An example of such would be the statement "All current American coins in circulation are made from silver colored metals" which is falsified by pennies. If it is not possible to show the theory can't be wrong, then it isn't falsifiable, and probably doesn't belong in science. Here's a better example, relating to above.

err... and "evolution is what spawned man (and other stuff we see today)" is falsifiable? gg.

Aristotelian mechanics was falsified by Galileo's experiments, which were kind of replaced by Newton's laws of motion. The Youngian wave theory of light (the ether) then replaced Newton's ideas of light particles, but were falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Those were superceded by some of the greatest work in all of physics--the derivation of the speed of light by Maxwell's equations and natural constants, and those being incorporated into special (and later general) relativity.

you forgot Gilbert's "loadstones and magnetism"

Again, no. I'm saying that it's a lot easier to be open-minded about monsters existing in your closet, until you go turn on the light and see they aren't there. Essentially it is easy to make all sorts of ideas and theories when you know next to nothing.

that's better than saying that there's a monster in the closet and turning on the light and not seeing one YET asserting that the monster IS STILL there (go evolutionism!)

I'd appreciate if you elaborate on this since it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Also, this thread is for discussing evolution, not questioning the spirituality of other forum members. There are many subforums that would be much more appropriate for something of that nature.

this thread is for discussing theistic evolution as unbiblical.

*bang bang* - the conversation with you has been terminated.

 

[Biliskner]

hmm ok, kofhy, you should talk about origins since you're talking on an origins thread. I hope that's clear.

biliskner: first you say:


then AiG says:

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Now, let's think logically, assuming both of you are right. Mutations don't increase genetic information. Mutations do confer an advantage, sometimes. Therefore there is a way to confer advantage without increasing genetic information, i.e. mutations.
Now AiG says from the same page:

But, you already showed that "the generation of tens of millions of 'letters' of new information" is not required! Teehee.

And, you can't show me the method to make a young rock look old? My point exactly.

i already showed? showed what? i don't remember a conversation with you.

Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes,
New eyes for blind cave fish? and
Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?

here's your rock, catch:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp

 

[gluadys]

so frequency of alleles
+ "selection"
= evolution?

No. A change in the frequency of alleles, whether it is brought about by natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, founder’s effect, bottlenecks or population sampling is evolution. Natural selection is only one of the more important mechanisms for changing the distribution of alleles.

you forgot one thing in there. magic.

No, you forgot mutations.

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.

There is no need for legs to occur in a single generation. Take a look at the origin of the tetrapod limb.

and through this bacterium a bacteria can grow extremities to become a pre-fish like fish?
(common, say it, i know that is what you are thinking.)

No, it can exploit a food source no other form of life does. Legs only appeared among animals. Does that mean bacteria, archea, and non-animal eukaryotes such as diatoms, fungi, algae and plants never evolved? Each followed their own path of evolution. Legs are not a be-all and end-all of evolution.

and that model is flawed. just like the pythagorean theory of mathematics was flawed but many people of that time believed it to be a fantastic model
(we know better, with Newton and Leibniz.)

There is no way that you can evaluate that it is flawed since you don’t have any understanding yet of how it works, or is even supposed to work. When you overcome your ignorance of evolution, you will have the right to evaluate it.

what i meant was: "i can't be bothered looking up the quote, because we don't need it to discuss genetics."

I contend no such quote exists. So until you do make the effort to look it up, my answer still stands.

 

[invisible trousers]

this thread is for discussing theistic evolution as unbiblical.

*bang bang* - the conversation with you has been terminated.

Hey..uhm...the last two quotes I was responding to were not yours, but those of kofh2u. If I am constantly quoting a poster, I will only use their name in the first quote, and not the others. I think I got it right there, but my apologies if it appeared to be misleading.

www.answersingenesis.org

be warned: "it's not a peer-review magazine, yet."

Neat, I wonder if they have an agenda.

read the conversation between me and glaudys

I've been reading it, and it appears you've been getting your butt handed to you on a plate.

your attempt at "unity" within the "scientific field" is dictatorship elitism in disguise - now what problems do you have with creationism?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. What specific unity am I attempting? And I'm also curious about dictatorship elitism as well. I honestly don't know understand your point. Oh, my beefs with creationism? I basically said it in my previous post, but will repeat it here since CF's default posts per page view is ridiculous.

* Constantly ignoring important scientific discoveries and findings because you disagree with them.
* Basing the majority of your arguments on straw men.
* Pushing religious theories of questionable value into a science classroom where they do not belong.
* Having the fundamental theory of creation be unfalisfiable and unscientific.

what a fasionable thing to say - it shows you have no understanding of philosophy

Oh my, this is grand. My 100% accurate explanation of how scientific theories work does not mean I do not understand philosophy, it means that you simply don't understand how science works and how theories are created. You're obviously not stupid, so my only guess is that you're deliberately ignoring it because it must disagree with your beliefs.

therefore, recommended reading for today:

Karl Popper "what is science?" - good for beginners -

I can't tell if you're trying to insult me or something, but I'll let you in on a little secret: Karl Popper is the guy who was the first to advance falsifibility as a scientific principle, a concept whose meaning you twist into something scientifically incorrect in order to make it fit to your beliefs, as evidenced by...

Newton has been proven with countless experiments.
Einstein has been proven with some, and some theoretical stuff.

NO! I'm still not sure why you chose not to (or don't) understand this. I'll repeat myself again for the sake of clarity and convenience.

Newton's laws of motion aren't, can't, and will never be "proven" because there are situations where they don't work--anytime an object's velocity is approaching the speed of light. They don't work, and are *quite* wrong. His laws are falsified because there are measured conditions where they simply don't hold true. Lucky for us we can't get ourselves into situations where that happens. Time dilation is so small with everyday occurances it isn't even an issue; if an observer were to watch a car travel at 100 km/h for 10 seconds and compare the times found when accounting for dilation and when not, the difference is 4E-15, or 0.000000000000004 seconds.

SR/GR have not proven to be right. Every time GR (and SR) has been tested, it been shown to be right, but a theory is not proven by evidence showing it to be true, but disproved by evidence and situations where it can be shown to be wrong. GR predicted the perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit, the bending of light by objects with extremely large mass, the expansion of the universe, and the existance of black holes.

String/Quantum?, err... yes, all "mathematically proven" - but unfalsifiable.

Once again, no! We know for a fact that GR simply doesn't work when used with the high energies of quantum particles. String and quantum theory have not been mathematically proven one bit. String theories are our best effort to try to reconcile GR and quantum mechanics. String theories are so relatively (what a terrible pun) new and unverifiable that it is absolutely ludicrious to consider them "mathematically" proven, inasmuch proven at all. In fact, there currently aren't any results of string theories that we can even create experiments with.

err... and "evolution is what spawned man (and other stuff we see today)" is falsifiable? gg.

Oh it certainly is! If God came down right now and smote every person who believed in a form of evolution, the theory would be falsified pretty fast.

Right. n00b you've been pwned*

you forgot Gilbert's "loadstones and magnetism"

I wasn't aware that they fit into my Cliff's Notes history of physics, but it would be nice if you could explain a little more about them.

that's better than saying that there's a monster in the closet and turning on the light and not seeing one YET asserting that the monster IS STILL there (go evolutionism!)

You've stretched my analogy to such an extreme that it doesn't even mean the same thing as I meant it to. Nice try, though.

See, the issue is that I'm really questioning your overall judgement regarding nearly anything scientific. You have chosen to mangle some of the most basic principles of general science that I can't help but wonder if you're purposely mangling and/or misrepresenting other scientific principles, discoveries, theories, etc, in order to fit them into your unsound view of creation.



*I'm sorry, I absolutely couldn't resist saying that. I'm sure you get quite enough of it playing CS, however

 

[kofh2u]

you're not the first. and no, not the last, thankfully. keeping me sharp.



www.answersingenesis.org

be warned: "it's not a peer-review magazine, yet."



read the conversation between me and glaudys




oh yes of course. those people who whine about Christianity's moral laws are those people whose beliefs are challenged by apparent dogma and superstition.

your attempt at "unity" within the "scientific field" is dictatorship elitism in disguise - now what problems do you have with creationism?




what a fasionable thing to say - it shows you have no understanding of philosophy, but no matter, i'm sure i didn't too at one stage. therefore, recommended reading for today:

Karl Popper "what is science?" - good for beginners - probably available on amazon for AU$14.95.




good stuff.
Newton has been proven with countless experiments.
Einstein has been proven with some, and some theoretical stuff.

String/Quantum?, err... yes, all "mathematically proven" - but unfalsifiable.




err... and "evolution is what spawned man (and other stuff we see today)" is falsifiable? gg.




you forgot Gilbert's "loadstones and magnetism"




that's better than saying that there's a monster in the closet and turning on the light and not seeing one YET asserting that the monster IS STILL there (go evolutionism!)




this thread is for discussing theistic evolution as unbiblical.

*bang bang* - the conversation with you has been terminated.

It is true that the sciences are just our best ideas to date.

It is true that even fundamentals might and have been changed, even discarded. (Law of Conservation of Matter).

And, it is true that Christianity is our best ideas about Scripture. Christianity, fundamentally is, maybe changed, too. (The Reformation).

I am not sure why we are pursuing this line of doubt.

The issue seems to confirm that our best Logical Thinking seems in conflict with our best Intuitive Thinking.

Is this strange? Or, are you guys single? Or, maybe we aren't all guys in this discussion?

Socrates asked men who they would less like to spreak with than their wives.

Jung postualed that our psyche will dominate in one, either the Logical Function or the Intuitive Function.

Essentially, science insists upon sensorily verifiable statements while religion accepts "magic."

Nevertheless, both come together when the once "magic" is logically explained.

What I see is a failure in Creationism to allow the magic of it to be logically explained, a synergy comparable to a happy marriage.

 

[shernren]

Oops. The "you" there was YECism, collective. Sorry. My bad. But it did get the point across, right?

From Beetle Bloopers:

In short,

1. Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go ‘uphill’—to add information.
2. The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don’t change the information, or the ‘meaning’ in the code) or else they are informationally downhill—defects which lose/corrupt information.
3. The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling, all appear to be like this wingless beetle—downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.

This gets interesting. Firstly, evolutionary theory requires some mutations to create bias in reproductional success. Mutations which we "observe to be genetically neutral" confer reproductional success bias (from no. 2 and, gee, the whole article). Therefore, evolution doesn't require mutations to add information. This directly contradicts no. 1. In no. 3 it is asserted that since mutations are either neutral or downhill, they are in the "wrong direction for evolution". However this "direction" is defined by no. 1, which was contradicted by no. 2, leaving no. 3 a non-issue.


From "Antibiotics" (since the cave fish one was pretty much in the same league as the beetles one)

In conclusion, there is nothing to support any information gain at all. But evolution posits that the information content of the simplest living organisms, the mycoplasma with 580,000 ‘letters’ (482 genes), was increased to, say, the 3 billion letters equivalent in man. If this were so, we should be able to observe plenty of examples of information gain without intelligent input. But we have yet to observe even one, including the example you cited.

Can you show rigorously that this is information gain? How do you decide that a bacterium is less complex than a man?


Here are two stones for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
*catch!*

String/Quantum?, err... yes, all "mathematically proven" - but unfalsifiable.

Actually, most quantum theories are completely falsifiable: they do make falsifiable predictions, just that these predictions occur at insane physical conditions we are not yet able to recreate in the lab.

 

[kofh2u]

Is TE unbiblical?

Whereas Evolution might be debated as being unscientific, the thread question is detoured by such consideration.

And, yes, String Theory is merely a mathematical construct that is essentially founded upon a discipline, Math, which is, ITSELF, based on Twelve Field Postulates. Postulates mean unprovable, necessary assumptions.

Belief in Evolution, Strings, even math dependent QM, and Newtonian Physics REQUIRE FAITH in mathematics.

So, science is dependent upon mathematics and its measurements, which is dependent upon "faith" in twelve unprovable axioms. A house of cards?

No.
This is the "mechanism" that connects us, inside our skull, with whatever is "out there."

We call this Thinking. mNothing is "proved," so much as it is "approved."

The first premise of Traditional, ancient bible interpretation AND TE interpretation must be Genesis 1:26-7. We MUST assume man created in a way that the image he comes up with in his mind CAN be the Truth about reality. mI argue that the first agreement between medievil Platonian Interpretors of the Bible and TE theories is just this first interpretation og Genesis 1:26.

Abstractions. Mental schemes derived by "playing around" with five sensory inputs, create images of reality. There are many possible "images," but trial and error, time, experience has eliminated most. The one's that work the best, they have and seem best to aid survival.

The Truth is life, and the lie is extinction.

TE, from this point of view, argues for a "Darwinian Psychology."
"Darwinian Psychology" means man is "evolving" an understanding of "the world."

From one generation forw
rd into the next, man is accumulating a written and psychologically stored inventory of knowledge about himself, others in society, and the physical reality.

This is a coping mechanism. The mechanism is being sharpened and honed in the fires of time that purity it. Regardless of the preposterous conflagrations against or even for Biological Evolution, psychological darwinianism seems essential to Christian mandates that in the light of Truth, men OUGHT change. Is that TE?.

I ask those who say Theistic Evolution is Unbiblica, does it follow, that Truth is evolving in the mind of man?

Does not the survival of the fittest minds depend directly upon its emergence, Truth?

Is ask whether it is obvious that knowledge is more universal to men, and education broader, and wissom better suited to the Information Age of this most recent, and unique, moment in history.

What says ye who argue TE is unbiblical?


Is TE actually a necessary AND sufficient postulate to interpretation of The Truth, the Word of God?

 

[gluadys]

The first premise of Traditional, ancient bible interpretation AND TE interpretation must be Genesis 1:26-7. We MUST assume man created in a way that the image he comes up with in his mind CAN be the Truth about reality. mI argue that the first agreement between medievil Platonian Interpretors of the Bible and TE theories is just this first interpretation og Genesis 1:26.

The world is real (because God doesn't make fake worlds) and the world is knowable. Right.

Abstractions. Mental schemes derived by "playing around" with five sensory inputs, create images of reality. There are many possible "images," but trial and error, time, experience has eliminated most. The one's that work the best, they have and seem best to aid survival.

The Truth is life, and the lie is extinction.

TE, from this point of view, argues for a "Darwinian Psychology."
"Darwinian Psychology" means man is "evolving" an understanding of "the world."

Some people might call it "Darwinian" but it was around long before Darwin. It just means we learn new things about the world by studying it.

This is a coping mechanism. The mechanism is being sharpened and honed in the fires of time that purity it. Regardless of the preposterous conflagrations against or even for Biological Evolution, psychological darwinianism seems essential to Christian mandates that in the light of Truth, men OUGHT change. Is that TE?.

Humans ought to conform their ideas to the truth of God's created reality. I don't think that is just TE. I think that is fundamental theistic theology. Remove the reference to God, and its pretty fundamental to any philosophy.

I ask those who say Theistic Evolution is Unbiblica, does it follow, that Truth is evolving in the mind of man?

Does not the survival of the fittest minds depend directly upon its emergence, Truth?

I am TE and I don't agree with that. Truth doesn't evolve or emerge. But our access to truth does change. The earth did not begin to orbit the sun after Copernicus declared it did. It has been orbiting the sun ever since it was formed. The fact that human knowledge did not include that information, even asserted the opposite, does not mean the truth was not real. It just took some time for humanity to come to know the truth.

The change is in our knowledge of truth, not in truth itself.

Is TE actually a necessary AND sufficient postulate to interpretation of The Truth, the Word of God?

Of course not. It is neither necessary nor sufficient as an interpretation of God's Word. All it does is screen out an interpretation of scripture which cannot be correct in the light of God's Word as revealed in God's Creation.

 

[shernren]

I am TE and I don't agree with that. Truth doesn't evolve or emerge. But our access to truth does change. The earth did not begin to orbit the sun after Copernicus declared it did. It has been orbiting the sun ever since it was formed. The fact that human knowledge did not include that information, even asserted the opposite, does not mean the truth was not real. It just took some time for humanity to come to know the truth.

The change is in our knowledge of truth, not in truth itself.

That's right. We are not inventing anything. Just discovering it.

 

[kofh2u]

KOFHY:
I ask those who say Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical, does it follow, that Truth is evolving in the mind of man?

Does not the survival of the fittest minds depend directly upon its emergence, Truth?

gluady
I am TE and I don't agree with that. Truth doesn't evolve or emerge. But our access to truth does change.

KOFHY:
This is my take on t is dicotomy between Truth and Reality:

Reality is static.

Truth is a body of concepts.

Truth refers to what men believe, about reality, but that which agrees with it.

BUT BELIEFS ARE MENTAL.

Truth is a body of thought.
It is opposed to that thinking which is Falsehood.

There is no Truth until man contemplates whether a particular matter concerning reality is Truth or Lie.

So, Truth "evolves"... develops, as man contemplates various facets of reality.
Especial areas of reality not previously considered.

gluady:
The earth did not begin to orbit the sun after Copernicus declared it did.

KOFHY:
But, the Truth about this DID NOT exist until Copernicus THOUGHT about it. The LIE did exist.

gluady:
It has been orbiting the sun ever since it was formed.

KOFHY:
That was the reality of the matter, and it is the Truth most certainly today.
It might even have been the Truth for some few who did understand.

gluady:
The fact that human knowledge did not include that information, even asserted the opposite, does not mean the truth was not real.

KOFHY:
Yes, it means the Truth did not even exist because Truth is the corresponding understanding of the external reality to the mind thinking about that which is "out there."

gluady:
It just took some time for humanity to come to know the truth.

KOFHY:
Exactly.
Over time, our understanding evolved, from total darkness through a growing contemplation into the light of correct understandings.

gluady:
The change is in our knowledge of truth, not in truth itself.

KOFHY:
Knowledge, as used in your statement, means our understanding of something thought to be correct. Geocentricism was the knowledge prior to Copernicus, while Heliocentricism is our knowledge afterwards. mMen assume knowledhe is true, but the Truth gradually evolves as the correct think9ng about Reality, that which is for real.

gluady:
Is TE actually a necessary AND sufficient postulate to interpretation of The Truth, the Word of God?

KOFHY:
Theistic Evolution is implied in the name of Hod, YHVH. "I am becoming"... and He is Truth.

Reading Gen 1:26-7 as Reality, what actual "is," becomes imaged in man.

Reality, the "I am," "becomes" imaged in man's mind when that image is the Truth.

gluady:
(TE) It is neither necessary nor sufficient as an interpretation of God's Word.

KOFHY:
By my argument, before Consciousness evolved on the Tree of Life, (Biological Tree), there was no hope for the kind of thinking that would image Reality for what it was, the Truth.

So, evolution of a comprehensive Consciousness, (one sufficient to the task), capable of understanding reality is/was/will be necessary.

gluady:
All it does, (TE), is screen out an interpretation of scripture which cannot be correct in the light of God's Word as revealed in God's Creation.

KOFHY:
I agree that, as a discipline, this seems true, the above sentence.

TE as an interpretation of Genesis seems true.

But I mean, evolution of a life form, man, is or is to produce the final product of a species which mentally understands the truth.

This new creature is the sons of God, knowing the Truth about what is real and what is false, Homoiousios sapiens.

 

[kofh2u]

That's right. We are not inventing anything. Just discovering it.

Hmmm....
We invent abstractions of reality, which, as you say come as discoveries. The Reality was always there. Our recognition of it is the discovery. Our perception of it's meaning is invention of ideas about it.

When the correspondence is one-to-one, the invention of our mental abstraction is called Truth.

I am saying there is Reality without mind, but not Truth.

 

[Biliskner]

No. A change in the frequency of alleles, whether it is brought about by natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, founder’s effect, bottlenecks or population sampling is evolution. Natural selection is only one of the more important mechanisms for changing the distribution of alleles.

hmm. i know you'll disagree, but you are running around the bush making me chase you. i've had enough, so you can make someone else chase you.

i am saying that this CHANGE in freq. in alleles CANNOT equate to evolution. your above paragraph tells me it can. why? well, i was going to make my own analogy, but better for Behe and Darwin's Black Box to outline that.

what we see today, eyes, blood clotting, immune system defense, bacteria flagellum etc. etc. are all complex systems that if in the beginning did not exist, then evolution cannot occur. how can evolution evolve an amoeba into blood clotting? it would first require that it HAD the alleles for blood clotting, but a few posts you said that it didn't, and just above you specify that it is specifically the changing of freq. of alleles that make evolution happen. if that sounds convoluted, it is because it is, you're running around a bush and no one can follow your trail.

There is no need for legs to occur in a single generation. Take a look at the origin of the tetrapod limb.

but there is a need for those irreducible complex systems to evolve within one generation, otherwise that system is useless and would not be needed in the next generation and thus discarded.

No, it can exploit a food source no other form of life does. Legs only appeared among animals. Does that mean bacteria, archea, and non-animal eukaryotes such as diatoms, fungi, algae and plants never evolved? Each followed their own path of evolution. Legs are not a be-all and end-all of evolution.

are you understanding a word i am saying? apart from those bits you're trying to refute?

i started by saying that ok "if it's just the freq. of alleles mutating to give evolution then it cannot happen" then you said "no it's not just freq. of alleles" then i asked "what" then you said "natural selection" then now you say that it is "the change of freq. of alleles".
what the heck? sigh.

There is no way that you can evaluate that it is flawed since you don’t have any understanding yet of how it works, or is even supposed to work. When you overcome your ignorance of evolution, you will have the right to evaluate it.

i think you're actually in the bush.

I contend no such quote exists. So until you do make the effort to look it up, my answer still stands.

what answer? your answers have been:
"look at this"
"look at that"
"look at this"
"look at that"
"look at that"
"look at that"
"look at this"
"what about this"
"what about that"
"what about this"
"what about this"
"what about that"
"look at that"
"look at this"

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."

your natural selection only selects what is present to select, that much is true. but in the great divine primordial soup, there is NOTHING to select from; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

there, i'm sure lots of you will be like "blah blah blah blah" but i've seen your evidence, and they prove nothing.

 

[Biliskner]

It is true that the sciences are just our best ideas to date.

It is true that even fundamentals might and have been changed, even discarded. (Law of Conservation of Matter).

And, it is true that Christianity is our best ideas about Scripture. Christianity, fundamentally is, maybe changed, too. (The Reformation).

err. no. fundamentally Christianity has always been about Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. it will never change.

I am not sure why we are pursuing this line of doubt.

oooo.... me me me !!

we're pursuing this line of doubt because light is being cast onto the "science of evolution", which when seen in the light, is not a real science at all.

What I see is a failure in Creationism to allow the magic of it to be logically explained, a synergy comparable to a happy marriage.

if you're talking about evolution it is because evolution is not logical in the big sense of evolution. the micro scale however does make sense. some call it "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"
MOST people disagree with MACRO but almost everyone agrees with MICRO. Micro evolution isn't even evolution, it's the "selection" of species as it adapts to the ever changing environment that has been "subjected to bondage and decay"
IE: (let me translate for you) "species are dying out, the world is dying, therefore only the "'strong'" will survive, but inevitably the whole world will become death and decay, thus the (in some sense) "need" for a New Creation."

 

[Biliskner]

Is TE unbiblical?

Whereas Evolution might be debated as being unscientific, the thread question is detoured by such consideration.

yes it is (it is ONLY MY opinion).

i asked about 4 weeks ago to a TE about how they interpreted ROMANS 5, and the Scriptural authority of that. still waiting on that answer...

the problem i have (just to reiterate) is the interpretation of Scripture. Even if we just ignore the Genesis 1-2 problem, there are NT passages that get warped, twisted and "reinterpreted in the light of evolution". and in danger of being fatalistic, the Scriptures does warn of such foolishness, but hope is always at reach, and while Christ still reigns in heaven on high stretching out the last days for repentence opportunities of lost souls, we will always be debating this topic, for the devil has been thrown out of heaven, and stalks about on earth trying to snuff out the light of God's people.

And, yes, String Theory is merely a mathematical construct that is essentially founded upon a discipline, Math, which is, ITSELF, based on Twelve Field Postulates. Postulates mean unprovable, necessary assumptions.

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

Belief in Evolution, Strings, even math dependent QM, and Newtonian Physics REQUIRE FAITH in mathematics.

Newtonian mechanics brings us "closer" to the real world. i can test gravity by throwing things into the air, and measure the rate of acceleration for gravity, test the spectrum of visible electromagnetic waves with prisms, etc. etc.

careful how you use QM, it's also an abbrev. for Quantitative Methods, i assume you mean quantum mechanics.

So, science is dependent upon mathematics and its measurements, which is dependent upon "faith" in twelve unprovable axioms. A house of cards?

possibly true. but it is the fact that mathematics as a model which seemingly fits so well into our science, that makes it 'weird' - although since that discipline is analytic a priori, on the other hand it makes perfect sense that it should fit into the world of physics.

We call this Thinking. mNothing is "proved," so much as it is "approved."

you'll be surprised (??) that Descarte sets out to prove that God does exist, but alas the secular world has taken his thinking out of context and said what you said above, that "nothing can be proven." i wish he was still alive, to rebuke all of you

The first premise of Traditional, ancient bible interpretation AND TE interpretation must be Genesis 1:26-7. We MUST assume man created in a way that the image he comes up with in his mind CAN be the Truth about reality. mI argue that the first agreement between medievil Platonian Interpretors of the Bible and TE theories is just this first interpretation og Genesis 1:26.

hmmmmm.......

The Truth is life, and the lie is extinction.

that doesn't say much. what do you mean?

TE, from this point of view, argues for a "Darwinian Psychology."
"Darwinian Psychology" means man is "evolving" an understanding of "the world."

which is nothing but dogmatic.

I ask those who say Theistic Evolution is Unbiblica, does it follow, that Truth is evolving in the mind of man?

nope. man has always been this foolish, blinded by the creation and not following God. Adam chooses Eve over God's command? what the hell is that? and now? Man chooses Evolution over Scripture? what the hell is that? (no, it's not choosing evolution over scripture, it's re-interpreting scripture... yep yep, ok.)

Does not the survival of the fittest minds depend directly upon its emergence, Truth?

that is where the evolution and creation worldview collides.
evolutionists say that we're ever evolving (becoming better and better, whether in our psyche or whatever). i say that the creation is groaning for it is in bondage and decay, the world is dying (cf Romans 5)

Is ask whether it is obvious that knowledge is more universal to men, and education broader, and wissom better suited to the Information Age of this most recent, and unique, moment in history.

What says ye who argue TE is unbiblical?

Is TE actually a necessary AND sufficient postulate to interpretation of The Truth, the Word of God?

i say that Adam (apart from Jesus) was the smartest man known in our history. He was made perfect. He had a perfect mind and the knowledge to do everything that we can plus more. He was not enslaved to Sin.
After all, did not God give the WHOLE OF CREATION to Adam to subdue and have dominion?? The problem is he disobeyed God. And now the whole world is $#*@ed, to put it lightly.

Whatever we have, medicine, technology, it doesn't matter. The facts remain the same, the world is in bondage and decay. We as image bearers of God are warped and stained by filth and garbage. Naked at the foot of the cross. Nothing but a worm. Is that not what the Disciples wrote of us? Is that not what King David said?

-------------
Ro. 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, Ro. 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Ro. 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Ro. 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Ro. 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Ro. 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Ro. 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Ro. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is for ever praised. Amen. Ro. 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Ro. 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Ro. 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Ro. 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, Ro. 1:30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; Ro. 1:31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Ro. 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them.
-------------


Not a good image my friend. Not a good image.
And we should take heed. That letter was to the Romans of the Roman Empire, Gentiles, as we are (I assume, correctly?)

 

[kofh2u]

Hello mr Biliskner,
Thank you for returning from the side issue of whether TE is science and speaking directly to the issue concerning whether it is Biblical.

Below, you merely point out that the middle age Platonic intetpretation of scripture is Biblical if we apply metaphysics for assumptions not specifically stated in scripture.

Ad is pointed out below, YOU say that Adam was "perfect" but certainly Not "good" as only the Father is that.

"i say that Adam (apart from Jesus) was the smartest man known in our history. He was made perfect..."

NOW, TE takes the same liberties, to be sure. TE days this about Adam:

Gen. 4:1 And Adam, (an eponym for the whole species, Ramaphitecus Man), knew Eve, (mother of all hominoids), his wife; and she conceived, (through her line after thousands of years), and bare Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another species of hominoid), from the LORD.

So far we are both Biblical in that our interpretations are directly applied to scripture.
Though I must fault you in the assumption of an undefined "perfection." I do recognize that like all creatures afapted perfectly to their moment, this type of "perfection" is assumed by the TE interpretation and your own Roman Catholic Plato-istic understandings.

 

[gluadys]

NOW, TE takes the same liberties, to be sure. TE days this about Adam:

Gen. 4:1 And Adam, (an eponym for the whole species, Ramaphitecus Man), knew Eve, (mother of all hominoids), his wife; and she conceived, (through her line after thousands of years), and bare Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another species of hominoid), from the LORD.

I have never heard TEs say that. That is a Day-Age interpretation, not necessarily a TE interpretation.

 

[kofh2u]

Hello glaus,

True, probably, "I have never heard TEs say that. That is a Day-Age interpretation, not necessarily a TE interpretation"

The TE people have gotten very Bogged down about the seven days being literally 24 hours that they never get to fat beyond the more interesting metaphor that follows.

The metaphysical interpretations get even more difficult to defend. The church, from the Middle Ages, is seeped in that Plato and Aristotlian paradigm. Literally accepting a red dragon in Revelation symbolism found a ready audience then. But today, for us to ignor metaphor and blindly accept an Afam who actually lives for 930 "days" ought get harder and harder to swallow, IMO.

Peyer says a "day" is a thousand years to the Lord. So, 930,000 years for our first humanoid ancestor, Adam type species, is Biblical.
But, it is also pretty close to our paleonotology for that descentant, too.

The TE interpretation applied to Scripture also matches the paleonotology for the evolution of meat eating primates. This evolutionary step was necessary for the required protein supply to support our higher mental capabilities.

And, in regard to being Bibcal, there is really NO reasonable Middle Age exanation for the murde of Abel because of nutrional differences.

Gen. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain, (a vegetarian), brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Gen. 4:4 And Abel, (carnivorous), he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect, (in regard to themevolutionary value of a high protein diet), unto Abel and to his offering:

 

[gluadys]

Hello glaus,

True, probably, "I have never heard TEs say that. That is a Day-Age interpretation, not necessarily a TE interpretation"

The TE people have gotten very Bogged down about the seven days being literally 24 hours that they never get to fat beyond the more interesting metaphor that follows.

My point, is that, other than the rejection of a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis, TE interpretations vary. Some are very like a Day-Age theory, though I haven't seen any like the one you presented.

Am I right in assuming you identify yourself as TE? That's fine. But you have a unique way of interpreting scripture. You should refer to it as your interpretation. It is a bit misleading to call it the TE interpretation. It is an interpretation by one TE.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

Whatever. All theistic evolution says is that God created macroevolution, too.

The Bible says God CREATED us, not EVOLVED us...

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

hmm. i know you'll disagree, but you are running around the bush making me chase you. i've had enough, so you can make someone else chase you.

i am saying that this CHANGE in freq. in alleles CANNOT equate to evolution. your above paragraph tells me it can. why? well, i was going to make my own analogy, but better for Behe and Darwin's Black Box to outline that.

what we see today, eyes, blood clotting, immune system defense, bacteria flagellum etc. etc. are all complex systems that if in the beginning did not exist, then evolution cannot occur. how can evolution evolve an amoeba into blood clotting? it would first require that it HAD the alleles for blood clotting, but a few posts you said that it didn't, and just above you specify that it is specifically the changing of freq. of alleles that make evolution happen. if that sounds convoluted, it is because it is, you're running around a bush and no one can follow your trail.



but there is a need for those irreducible complex systems to evolve within one generation, otherwise that system is useless and would not be needed in the next generation and thus discarded.



are you understanding a word i am saying? apart from those bits you're trying to refute?

i started by saying that ok "if it's just the freq. of alleles mutating to give evolution then it cannot happen" then you said "no it's not just freq. of alleles" then i asked "what" then you said "natural selection" then now you say that it is "the change of freq. of alleles".
what the heck? sigh.




i think you're actually in the bush.




what answer? your answers have been:
"look at this"
"look at that"
"look at this"
"look at that"
"look at that"
"look at that"
"look at this"
"what about this"
"what about that"
"what about this"
"what about this"
"what about that"
"look at that"
"look at this"

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."

your natural selection only selects what is present to select, that much is true. but in the great divine primordial soup, there is NOTHING to select from; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

there, i'm sure lots of you will be like "blah blah blah blah" but i've seen your evidence, and they prove nothing.

AMEN!!!!