Theistic Evolution

[tiglathpileser]

Man aquiring a sin nature really isn't secondary theology....but of the Theo-Evo, they simply dismiss the verses about it or assign it new meaning disrupting many other verses in the bible....which is bad theology...based upon evolutionary assumptions.

Agree 100%

 

[tiglathpileser]

Even though you may only notice water on the Earth's surface, there is much more freshwater stored in the ground than there is in liquid form on the surface. In fact, some of the water you see flowing in rivers comes from seepage of groundwater into river beds. Water from precipitation continually seeps into the ground to recharge aquifers, while at the same time water in the ground continually recharges rivers through seepage.

I saw a programme on TV about life underwater and some of the shots taken by a remote submersible camera were several kilometres under the surface.

 

[Hoghead1]

There are many different thinkers into TE and no all say the same thing. As to sin, most TE people would agree that we are sinful. The argument is over why. I, for example, and many others do not believe in original sin. We find it unbiblical and irrational, to start with. I also find that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Not all evil can be accounted for, then, by simply pointing top evil intentions. Sin isn't flesh, sin is insensitivity.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. It is better to lose one part of your body, than for your whole body to end up in hell.

Matthew 5:30 If your right hand causes you to sin, chop it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one part of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Mark 9:45 If your foot causes you to sin, chop it off. You would be better off to go into life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

Luke 16:18 It is a terrible sin for a man to divorce his wife and marry another woman. It is also a terrible sin for a man to marry a divorced woman.

Romans 6:6 We know that the persons we used to be were nailed to the cross with Jesus. This was done, so that our sinful bodies would no longer be the slaves of sin.

Romans 6:12 Don't let sin rule your body. After all, your body is bound to die, so don't obey its desires

1 Corinthians 6:18 Don't be immoral in matters of sex. That is a sin against your own body in a way that no other sin is.

Judging by these verses from scripture, sin is very much to do with the flesh.

 

[Loudmouth]

Man aquiring a sin nature really isn't secondary theology....but of the Theo-Evo, they simply dismiss the verses about it or assign it new meaning disrupting many other verses in the bible....which is bad theology...based upon evolutionary assumptions.

Theistic evolution is the least of your worries if you are going with a literal translation.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[lasthero]

Even though you may only notice water on the Earth's surface, there is much more freshwater stored in the ground than there is in liquid form on the surface. In fact, some of the water you see flowing in rivers comes from seepage of groundwater into river beds. Water from precipitation continually seeps into the ground to recharge aquifers, while at the same time water in the ground continually recharges rivers through seepage.

I saw a programme on TV about life underwater and some of the shots taken by a remote submersible camera were several kilometres under the surface.

So? Several kilometers is nothing. The mantle of the Earth alone is 2,900 kilometers thick.

 

[-57]

Theistic evolution is the least of your worries if you are going with a literal translation.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

I fail to see your point...
Perhaps you don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Theistic evolution is not scientific, it is theistic.

There is no evolution, theistic or otherwise.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian (variation in the species). When Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook (variation within the species).

Neither the Asian nor the African evolves into the Afro-Asian. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

The Asian remains an Asian and the African remains an African. The Husky remains a Husky and the Mastiff remains a Mastiff.

Just as T-Rex remained T-Rex and Triceratops remained Triceratops from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

There is no such thing as evolution of one species into another except in the mind of believers - theistic or otherwise.

These:

Are no different than these:

Just different infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong. They have simply incorrectly classified the fossils as separate species instead of per observations of the real world.

If evolutionists had never seen a dog before and found fossils of the mastiff and Husky - and then later in the strata found fossils of the Chinook - they would claim the Husky or mastiff evolved into the Chinook. And as we know would be totally wrong - just as they are wrong in their classifications of the fossil record as separate species - when they are merely different infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong just as are all dogs - all cats - all humans.

 

[-57]

There is no evolution, theistic or otherwise.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian (variation in the species). When Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook (variation within the species).

Neither the Asian nor the African evolves into the Afro-Asian. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

The Asian remains an Asian and the African remains an African. The Husky remains a Husky and the Mastiff remains a Mastiff.

Just as T-Rex remained T-Rex and Triceratops remained Triceratops from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

There is no such thing as evolution of one species into another except in the mind of believers - theistic or otherwise.

These:

Are no different than these:

Just different infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong. They have simply incorrectly classified the fossils as separate species instead of per observations of the real world.

If evolutionists had never seen a dog before and found fossils of the mastiff and Husky - and then later in the strata found fossils of the Chinook - they would claim the Husky or mastiff evolved into the Chinook. And as we know would be totally wrong - just as they are wrong in their classifications of the fossil record as separate species - when they are merely different infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong just as are all dogs - all cats - all humans.

+1

 

[PsychoSarah]

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. It is better to lose one part of your body, than for your whole body to end up in hell.

Matthew 5:30 If your right hand causes you to sin, chop it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one part of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Mark 9:45 If your foot causes you to sin, chop it off. You would be better off to go into life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

Luke 16:18 It is a terrible sin for a man to divorce his wife and marry another woman. It is also a terrible sin for a man to marry a divorced woman.

Romans 6:6 We know that the persons we used to be were nailed to the cross with Jesus. This was done, so that our sinful bodies would no longer be the slaves of sin.

Romans 6:12 Don't let sin rule your body. After all, your body is bound to die, so don't obey its desires

1 Corinthians 6:18 Don't be immoral in matters of sex. That is a sin against your own body in a way that no other sin is.

Judging by these verses from scripture, sin is very much to do with the flesh.

If you take it literally, rather than for the allegory this obviously is. After all, our hands and feet cannot force us to do anything we don't want to do (except in exceedingly rare medical conditions that biblical authors would be unlikely to know about. And in those cases, the left hand does stuff all on its own, but not necessarily sinful things).

I could easily interpret the Matthew and Mark verses as telling people to take accountability for their actions, not cut limbs off. Not that it would be the most insane thing that the bible has advised; context beyond a sentence would be nice.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evolution, theistic or otherwise.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY mastiff.

Are chimps and humans separate species?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are chimps and humans separate species?

You bet they are - because they were never the same species to begin with.

Monkey mates with monkey and produces ONLY monkey.

Chimp mates with Chimp and produces ONLY Chimps.

Gorillas mate with Gorillas and produce ONLY Gorillas.

Why would you even need to ask such a question except to try to distract from the post?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Even though you may only notice water on the Earth's surface, there is much more freshwater stored in the ground than there is in liquid form on the surface. In fact, some of the water you see flowing in rivers comes from seepage of groundwater into river beds. Water from precipitation continually seeps into the ground to recharge aquifers, while at the same time water in the ground continually recharges rivers through seepage.

I saw a programme on TV about life underwater and some of the shots taken by a remote submersible camera were several kilometres under the surface.

That's where all the flood water came from, those fountains of the deep - and that is where it all returned to. Remember - even at the beginning no rain fell - instead a mist came up from the ground and watered the earth.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

As a matter of fact it is this underground water that is now thought to be the source of the earth's oceans, not comets.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's where all the flood water came from, those fountains of the deep - and that is where it all returned to. Remember - even at the beginning no rain fell - instead a mist came up from the ground and watered the earth.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

As a matter of fact it is this underground water that is now thought to be the source of the earth's oceans, not comets.

-_- earth had a point in it's history that it didn't have water on it at all, neither above or underground, in significant amounts. The water had to come from an outside source, and a comet is the most reasonable explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The water had to come from an outside source, and a comet is the most reasonable explanation.

Then why isn't the earth flat on one side and round on the other?

Like the letter D?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- earth had a point in it's history that it didn't have water on it at all, neither above or underground, in significant amounts. The water had to come from an outside source, and a comet is the most reasonable explanation.

Only in your incorrect theories where you ignore how water is created.

http://www.space.com/24422-solar-wind-makes-water-star-dust.html

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-lunar-soil-solar-result-comet.html

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~phayne/diviner/cwatkins/Moses_watersource_Icarus_1999.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ071i020p04855/full

https://books.google.com/books?id=J_vfBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA509&lpg=PA509&dq=hydroxyl+radical+formation+by+proton+bombardment&source=bl&ots=TLE5TM5HO_&sig=j0uEQQ9QXFbt_cgoF3BDL6covZE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj245OW7PPKAhUW2mMKHahQBboQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=hydroxyl radical formation by proton bombardment&f=false

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4304.pdf

So if you give up your Fairie Dust and accept the science you'll begin to understand.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then why isn't the earth flat on one side and round on the other?

Like the letter D?

Earth was getting bashed from all sides at that early stage of existence. That kept the mass fairly round, but it is noteworthy that Earth isn't actually a perfect sphere. It is somewhat pear shaped. I don't know how many comets ended up providing the water either.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Only in your incorrect theories where you ignore how water is created.

http://www.space.com/24422-solar-wind-makes-water-star-dust.html

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-lunar-soil-solar-result-comet.html

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~phayne/diviner/cwatkins/Moses_watersource_Icarus_1999.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ071i020p04855/full

https://books.google.com/books?id=J_vfBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA509&lpg=PA509&dq=hydroxyl+radical+formation+by+proton+bombardment&source=bl&ots=TLE5TM5HO_&sig=j0uEQQ9QXFbt_cgoF3BDL6covZE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj245OW7PPKAhUW2mMKHahQBboQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=hydroxyl radical formation by proton bombardment&f=false

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4304.pdf

So if you give up your Fairie Dust and accept the science you'll begin to understand.

Comets are made of frozen water. Do you disagree with this statement? If you agree that said statement is valid, then you have no reason to claim that the water on Earth coming from a comet is impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Earth was getting bashed from all sides at that early stage of existence. That kept the mass fairly round, but it is noteworthy that Earth isn't actually a perfect sphere. It is somewhat pear shaped. I don't know how many comets ended up providing the water either.

If everything is expanding outward from a central point, how can something "get bashed from all sides"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If everything is expanding outward from a central point, how can something "get bashed from all sides"?

The mass of the sun pulls smaller masses towards it, slightly derailing their path. Everything is still moving outward though, as the sun is doing it too, and pulling the detracted masses along with it.