Theistic Evolution vs. creationism

[California Tim]

See, Tim, there ARE YEC's that argue like that! So, next time you say that YEC's don't really take such positions, I will just refer you to this thread! :0)

If there were only more YEC's like Jase . . .

You speak of this with apparent glee, but your "deuce" still doesn't come close to my "full house" of quotations from the TE camp denigrating everything from our public witness to our ability to be educated. You want me to produce a "hand" right now, or can we stay focused on the issues?

 

[Vance]

You forget that I have a longer history on this forum and between here and the C&E forum, I could produce a full deck of such YEC's! So much so that it is difficult to tell if a particular YEC is serious or whether they are atheists posing as YEC's to make YEC'ism look bad. Just yesterday, a Creationist PM'd me to ask whether a particular YEC was legit or just a poser, and I had to tell her that it was impossible to tell, since so many YEC's do as much damage as any poser would do. It turns out that he is probably legit. Just as bad for YEC'ism, though.

But no, I will let it be. I do like your choice of "duece", though! :0)

 

[California Tim]

You forget that I have a longer history on this forum and between here and the C&E forum, I could produce a full deck of such YEC's!

LoL. I don't doubt you compiled a deck (52 cards worth) since you've been here long enough to post over 4000 times. I, on the other hand have close to 2/3 of a deck of TE'ist quotes in the time it takes to post few over 300 times. So, to put all into perspective, by the time I get to 4000 posts, I will be able to play blackjack with 5 decks to your 1.

 

[herev]

It's incredible that a fellow Christian (I can only assume you are) couild attack Bible believing Christians like that.

Hello Jase, welcome, see here's the issue, you just said, and defend in this post, that Evolution=Atheist. In other words, you, a fellow Christian, are attacking Bible believing Christians even worse, watch that plank in your eye

Were you there? It sounds to me that you have allowed secular influences cloud your understanding of God's Word, when in fact you are called to cloud the understanding of secular influences with God's Word.

another attack on a fellow bible believing Christian

If you are saying it happened differently, then you are attacking not only Genesis, but questioning God. Brave, but unwise.

A third one

 

[Non-ape Jase]

Hi Herev,

If I am 'attacking' someone, then are you not doing the same to me? I don't recall having a go at anyone. We are called to rebuke false teaching. Jesus and the Apostles often did this. That doesn't mean they were against individuals, nor does that mean that I am against individuals who try to fit an unproven theory into the Bible. At no point have I resorted to name calling, though someone on this thread has called Ken Ham and his people 'scam-artists', which is a personal attack on fellow brothers and sisters. I've been reading AIG for a few years and I have never come across anything that is unbiblical. And yet Theistic Evolution is unbiblical, because it denies the plain teaching of Genesis. So why is an organisation whose very existence is to uphold the authority of the Bible attacked with name calling? Is it wrong to uphold the authority of God's Word or is it wrong to change God's Word?

Of course a Christian can believe in evolution and be saved. But it is a secular theory that has no room for God, and which people use as an excuse for not believing in a creator God. Why should the church even consider something like that? When you play with fire...

 

[Vance]

I think you had better spend some time around here and get educated on exactly what theistic evolutionists believe, and why, before you start spouting off. All you are doing is embarassing your fellow YEC's by behaving exactly as they assure us TE's that YEC's don't behave.

I am a conservative, Spirit-filled, Spirit-led, Bible-believing Christian. AND I think that God used evolution as part of His creative process.

Also, your use of the phrase "unproven theory" just proves you don't know basic science, so why should anyone give any credibility to anything you say on the subject?

And, by saying that Genesis is plain and obvious, you are contradicting many, many great men of God, including St. Augustine.

Again, I think you should follow this group for a while and read the discussions to see the scope of the debate rather than just coming in and making such statements.

 

[herev]

Hi Herev,

If I am 'attacking' someone, then are you not doing the same to me?

No, I was pointing out to you the other side of the coin. I have not called you anything but a Christian!

I don't recall having a go at anyone.

Which is why I thought you needed it to be pointed out.

We are called to rebuke false teaching. Jesus and the Apostles often did this.

Then you should give arty the same benefit of the doubt, as he thinks your teachings are false

That doesn't mean they were against individuals, nor does that mean that I am against individuals who try to fit an unproven theory into the Bible.

You're not? Good, I don't know of anyone around here that does that.

At no point have I resorted to name calling

yes, you did, that was the point of my post--you said evolution=athiest. For those of us that are Christian and accept evolution, you called us a name

, though someone on this thread has called Ken Ham and his people 'scam-artists', which is a personal attack on fellow brothers and sisters.

It is personal if you are Ken Ham or one of his people...are you?

I've been reading AIG for a few years and I have never come across anything that is unbiblical.

Good for you.

And yet Theistic Evolution is unbiblical, because it denies the plain teaching of Genesis.

that would be your interpretation and your opinion. For those of us that are TE's, it does not deny anything. What do you mean by plain?

So why is an organisation whose very existence is to uphold the authority of the Bible attacked with name calling?

I don't know that AIG's very existence is to uphold the authority of the Bible.

Is it wrong to uphold the authority of God's Word or is it wrong to change God's Word?

I would think that would be an obvious, but the problem is you are assuming and insinuating that TE's are somehow changing God's word. This is a false assumption and another insult on your part.

Of course a Christian can believe in evolution and be saved.

Thanks, I appreciate your vote

But it is a secular theory that has no room for God,

Evolution makes no reference to God at all. Theistic Evolutionists have no problem seeing plenty of room for God, so you are either misguided or deliberately saying things that are not so about your fellow Bible-believing Christians--which from your earlier post, I assume you would never do?

and which people use as an excuse for not believing in a creator God.

people use many excuses for not believing in a creator God. I know one person who says that any religion that tries to convince anyone of a virgin birth can't be true on any points. So, since it is used as an excuse, should the church abandon its belief in the Virgin birth?

Why should the church even consider something like that?

Since its not like that...well, the question is moot

When you play with fire...

yes? you were about to insult again?

 

[Non-ape Jase]

yes, you did, that was the point of my post--you said evolution=athiest. For those of us that are Christian and accept evolution, you called us a name

I never said theistic evolution=atheist

It is personal if you are Ken Ham or one of his people...are you?

No I am not - just a subscriber.

Good for you.

What do you mean by plain?

Genesis chapter 1

you were about to insult again?

No

 

[Elbereth]

Do you use a "plain" interpretation of Revelation?

 

[artybloke]

We are called to rebuke false teaching.

Which is exactly why I call "scientific creationism" a lie.

 

[herev]

I never said theistic evolution=atheist

But since TE's subscribe to evolution, when you say evolution=atheists, that includes us, do you not see the insult there? If you mean those who are not believers who hold to evolution, then they are called atheistic evolutionists, hence there is no need to equate them with atheism. But as is testified repeatedly on this board, evolution does NOT =atheism, since we are living testimony to that fact.

Genesis chapter 1

you miss the point. What do you mean by plain. It's not as if we TE's want to throw Genesis 1 out the window. You said,

And yet Theistic Evolution is unbiblical, because it denies the plain teaching of Genesis.

my question is how? What is your definition of plain? We TE's do not deny any teaching of Genesis--not one

 

[Alchemist]

In otherwords, "you'll love your neighbor when they love you first".

No Tim. Evolution is not atheism, anyone who says that evolution = atheism is lying. It's that simple really. We are not to lie as Christians; I know that we all resort to it sometimes, and so cannot really judge, but that doesn't mean that we should encourage people to spread lies. I will not let anyone spread lies about my faith, and that of others. Anyone who says that evolution is atheism, or that evolution attempts to disprove God is lying.

Careful, these are fellow brothers and sisters you are bad mouthing, not to mention brothers and sisters who are also scientists. It's incredible that a fellow Christian (I can only assume you are) couild attack Bible believing Christians like that.

Yes, Jase, perhaps a better word could have been used here. But by your own argument, you seem to think that every scientist who accepts evolution (and this includes thousands of Christians) is misled, and trying to deceive you. All these Christian evolutionists believe in the Bible as much as any other Christian. Not two paragraphs after this comment, you accuse artybloke of letting 'secular' influences 'cloud' his faith. Is this not an attack on his faith?

What would Jesus be doing in this situation? Well, he'd still be quoting from Genesis. And since everything was made through him, he is in the best situation to know.

Indeed, he probably would quote Genesis. But none of us here denies Genesis. We just have different understanding of it. Adam and Eve, the serpent and the Tree of Life, the Flood and the Garden of Eden mean as much to me as they do to any other Christian, even though I have a different opinion of what they mean than others.

If you want a certain understanding of the Bible, thats fine . But don't get upset if people don't have the same understanding as you, and don't imply that people who don't follow your understanding are in some way less Christian than you.

If I am 'attacking' someone, then are you not doing the same to me?

No; he is telling you not to be so judgmental. You are raising your interpretation of the Bible above everyone elses, and saying that by denying your interpretation we are opposing God! This is a blatant attack on fellow Christians; is it a sin to stand up against this?

We are called to rebuke false teaching.

Yes. But what makes you so sure that your 'teaching' is not false? Because the Bible says so? Well actually, your interpretation of the Bible says so. They are not the same Jase.

Theistic Evolution is unbiblical, because it denies the plain teaching of Genesis.

You seem to be suggesting that the 'plain' reading is the best. But the Bible is not plain. It is God's word. It is holy. It is to be studied, contemplated. You seem to be led to believe that literalism is the only way to read the Bible. But one must ask why there are over a billion Christians who don't accept young-earth creationism if theistic evolution was anti-Biblical. Now I'm not a Catholic, but I think that if the Pope is an evolutionist, then surely it can't contradict the Bible!

So why is an organisation whose very existence is to uphold the authority of the Bible attacked with name calling?

Because AiG's very existance is not based around upholding Biblical authority. It is about upholding extremely poor science, based on lies and misinformation about evolution. If AiG understood evolution, they would not make the claims they do. If AiG was about the Bible, then they would not need scientists to try and prove that the Earth is young, they would simply make their point, show some Bible verses, and Christians who had faith would believe them.

But it is a secular theory that has no room for God...

Wrong. Millions of Christians (if not over a billion Christians) are evolutionists. The fact is secular means it has room for God! Secular is not the same as atheistic...

...and which people use as an excuse for not believing in a creator God.

Yes, some do. But does that make it wrong? Many use the Bible's conservative stance onf homosexuality as an excuse for not believing in God. Does this make this stance wrong? I would say no. Many use the Bible's stance on woman teachers as an excuse for not believing in God. Does this make this stance wrong? Of course not. There are many excuses for not believing in God. But it has nothing to do with actually evolutionary teaching. People only believe that evolution contradicts the Bible (their only excuse) because people tell them it does. Are not your accusations about the un-Biblical nature of evolution doing exactly this?

I thought I'd address this one last:

That doesn't mean they were against individuals, nor does that mean that I am against individuals who try to fit an unproven theory into the Bible.

Jase, this might be hard for you to accept, but God is an unproven theory. I, like many Christians, have faith in the Bible and its teachings because it does not contradict the world around us. If the Bible told you that the Earth was created last Tuesday, would you believe it? I doubt it. Why wouldn't you? Because you can remember it? Because you see evidence for an older earth?

The whole point is, God cannot be proven. The Bible cannot be proven. We believe in God because we have faith. Is it really faith if you rely on scientific evidence to back up your interpretation? Can you not just accept that God made the Earth 6000 years ago without relying on 'scientific' arguments put forward by AiG, not one of which has not been thoroughly (and repeatedly) disproven by mainstream scientists? Jase, if you think the Earth is young because the Bible says so, BELIEVE IT! But please; science does not accept your theory. Most Christians don't accept your theory. Nothing you, your pastor, or AiG - any other creation research institute for that matter - say or do will change that, whether you like it or not. We believe by faith, or proof.

This may sound heinous to you, but we shouldn't accept or reject the world around us because of the Bible. We should accept or reject the Bible because of the world around us, because if the world in anyway contradicts what is written in the Bible, then it cannot be the truth. Yes, it is possible that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. But science cannot prove this. Are you going to accept that God created 6000 years ago, and trust God by faith? Or are you going to try and prove your beliefs by spreading misinformation about other peoples faith, just so you can feel justified in yours? Jase, God is about faith. Faith is not faith, if to defend it, you need to defend AiG: why is AiG right, not someone else? Believe, because you trust God - if you really trust God, then you would have no use for creation science.

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[TwinCrier]

LoL. I don't doubt you compiled a deck (52 cards worth) since you've been here long enough to post over 4000 times. I, on the other hand have close to 2/3 of a deck of TE'ist quotes in the time it takes to post few over 300 times. So, to put all into perspective, by the time I get to 4000 posts, I will be able to play blackjack with 5 decks to your 1.

Do it! Call his bluff.

 

[Vance]

TwinCrier, you shouldn't speak, since you would be on that list of YEC's who have said things that Tim swear up and down that YEC's DON'T say! You would be one of the ones that prove my point.

Are there more TE's who belittle the intelligence of YEC's or more YEC's who belittle the faith of TE's? The only problem right now would be that the archive only goes back so far, and most of the worst YEC offenders have left, to be replaced by more respectful and thoughtful YEC's, like Tim.

 

[California Tim]

No Tim. Evolution is not atheism, anyone who says that evolution = atheism is lying. It's that simple really.

Is that the only explanation available here? Anyone who draws a conclusion which happens to be contrary to yours is "lying"? I see you make no allowance here for a simple mistake or an exagerration erroneously over-emphasizing a point. It seems obvious to me that the easiest way to diffuse situations like these is to simply respond without emotion, with gentleness and respect - even if you feel slighted in any way. In reading the last page of posts here, almost all of them are focused on an individual rather than the issue of the thread. Unfortunately, it could all have been avoided by having the insulted party respond with a "gentle answer" or better yet, overlook it unless it was repeated.

For the sake of perspective, I challenge each TE'ist here to take a few moments to identify various posts in this forum where the term "PRATT" was hurled in response, or the poster was instructed by the "veterans" on the board to go do some research on what they already have been answering for the last "X" months. You will find, as I have, that the overwhelming majority of those insults are hurled by TE'ists who feel obligated to defend a point of view with sarcasm, emotion or evasion. I mean really - if you feel compelled to say "PRATT" or any similar argument, why even bother to post? Why not simply leave the thread as you have no intention of advancing the topic. I have seen so much disrespect for new members who happen to raise the obvious questions about Genesis (more than any other topic), I no longer wonder why so few YEC'ists remain to debate.

I remember one of the first threads that caught my eye in this forum was titled something like "Are there any YEC's left?". This gist of the response was "why bother" when all that is produced are endless insults? By the way, a very quick study in AiG on the creation scientists reveals this is not limited to average forum participants. The number one issue raised is the personal criticism the scientists must endure when presenting their YEC evidence. It seems obvious by this forum, that constructive debate repeatedly hits a roadblock and detour from the actual issue whenever the conclusion or evidence offered pricks the conscience of a TE'ist here. No matter how many ways it is said that the majority of YEC'ist do not question the potential personal salvation of a TE'ist, it is never enough. Each and every single time anyone eludes to the contrary (sometimes unintentionally), the thread is highjacked and the personal attacks are on.

We continually must handle this topic with kid's gloves to ensure no TE'ist feelings are hurt. But, I must confess, it is tiring - to the point that as I write this, I have decided I too am nearing the end of my visit here. I have repeatedly tried to keep threads on topic to no avail. I am not on the "origins" forum to debate salvation, yet am forced into it time and again. I have enjoyed the mandate to study all these issues more deeply, have learned more about "what" I believe , and "why" in the process of engaging in many good debates here. As a result I have dozens of new browser links that will keep me busy studying for months to come. I think it's time for me to wind down here and let some other "fresh" YEC'ist take up the banner. (I know. I won't let the door hit me in the rear on the way out)

Peace

 

[Vance]

Tim, here is the problem with this forum dynamic. The TE's tend to stick around and discuss these issues for a long time, hashing out the various scientific and theological issues, etc. There are also a few YEC's who stick around for an extended time to engage in serious and respectful discussion, such as yourself. But we also get waves of obnoxious YEC's who blow in hurling conclusory statements and question-begging pontification which shows that they have not even bothered to see what the discussions are all about. They almost always have very little understanding of the breadth and depth of the overall subject, they just come in parroting the anti-evolutionist rhetoric that they have fed to them by YEC pastors, sites or books. You see this all the time over in the C&E forum. They come in blazing away, intent on engaging in the battle, doing their little bit to destroy "evilution". It's gets very tiring. For every one of you, there are many more of them. I am sure even you get embarrassed by them at times (even if you won't admit it publically).

And yes, we should be more patient. But when a point HAS been addressed and discussed fully (which would usually be apparent with a simple review of earlier topics), why should we have to address those same tired points over and over again? It is not as if a YEC has rebutted the rebuttal and we take the debate from there, in most cases. Usually, it goes like this:

YEC says "A! So there!"
TE says "Well, the answer to that is B."
Silence.
YEC will often then, later, in another post say "But A!", never having responded to B.
TE's say "But, again, the answer to that is B".
Silence.
Then YEC, rather than answer B, begins to use polemics and attack TE's faith.
TE gets annoyed, discussion goes nowhere because B has never been responded to.

New YEC comes in and yells "A!!!!"
Rinse and repeat, dozens of times.

So, eventually, TE's and evolutionists in general say, in response to "A", "PRATT", point responded to a thousand times. This is not an insult, it is a response which says, "listen, we have already addressed this point over and over again. The least you can do is review the earlier discussions to see what that response is and then address THAT."

This is not too much to ask.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'd like to add a little bit about my history on the CED forums.
i started out studying the issues about 3 years ago, (not for the first time, but pretty much fulltime)
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

the first forum i found was:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/
go look at the archives, it is dominated by 2 YECists

then i moved to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/

i hung out there for about a year.

then moved to TWeb, then here, i read and post both places. These are perhaps the most kindly to YECist yet informative postings/threads i have seen. And it is because there is a core of thoughtful and considerate TE's who patiently, as Vance points out, civilize the incoming YEC barbarians (just a little kidding, it is a Hannah Arndt quote). Part of the issue is the immense amount of work it takes to get to a reasonable understanding of the issues. Once someone commits to this learning curve and sticks to it, the odds seem to greatly favor TE's and not YECs.

If you think this is bad, check out internet infidels....*grin* or watch talk.origins on news

 

[TwinCrier]

TwinCrier, you shouldn't speak, since you would be on that list of YEC's who have said things that Tim swear up and down that YEC's DON'T say! You would be one of the ones that prove my point.

Are there more TE's who belittle the intelligence of YEC's or more YEC's who belittle the faith of TE's? The only problem right now would be that the archive only goes back so far, and most of the worst YEC offenders have left, to be replaced by more respectful and thoughtful YEC's, like Tim.

Amen brother, you know me so well. I don't hide my feelings to be politically correct. I can't always say what I truly feel because of forum rules, but I'm not going to lie and say what I don't mean just to prove you wrong either.
My favorite quote by you:

Oh, no, it is STILL damaging even if it is true. It can still definitely be a stumbling block, and an unecessary one since it is not a salvation issue. There is simply no good reason to teach a young earth dogmatically, as an either/or issue (earth is young or Bible incorrect), and TONS of reasons NOT to teach it dogmatically.

So, why do it?

James and Paul both spoke out against placing unecessary stumbling blocks in the path of the Gospel, and this is exactly what an either/or teaching of a young earth is.

Who would have ever been able to paint a picture of the bible being a stumbling block unto itself but you. Quite impressive.

 

[Vance]

Are you saying that Tim, by being respectful and refusing to hurl insults and attack people's faith is just being "politically correct"? Or could it be that he is simply being more respectful?

 

[Non-ape Jase]

...but God is an unproven theory.

Oh dear me