Theistic evolutionists please explain this.

[Nicaea 325]

Good argument! I hadn't thought of this one before. I'm interested to see if the creationists here have a counter. EastAnglican, what is your view of this argument?

Hence this present discussion.
In the Old Testement God told the Isrealites to kill everyone in Canaan but you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who supports genocide.

 

[lucaspa]

I'd encourage you to do some research on hermeneutics, and try to gain an appreciation of the way it is interpretted by those who believe the truth of Scripture. Your understanding is primitive.

Pot, meet kettle. The whole point, Micaiah, is that hermeneutics disagrees with Biblical literalism. Here are the rules for interpretation. Notice that Didaskemos' position is mentioned in them as the Rule of Historical Background. Didaskemos and I are saying that Biblical literalists ignore this rule.
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

 

[lucaspa]

Hence this present discussion.
In the Old Testement God told the Isrealites to kill everyone in Canaan but you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who supports genocide.

It seems as tho you agree. After all, you are saying that 21st century people were not being spoken to.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: If you can't represent either Christianity or evolution accurately, then you are not in a position to discuss it. Your inaccurate description of Darwin and how it relates to Mendelian genetics also shows unfortunate ignorance of the subject of evolution.

That is absurd! I can''t represent an oak tree because I am not one. Does that mean I can't say what it looks like and what it does?
Is this a conspiracy to keep the ignorant, ignorant?
I would have probably been less ignorant now if it wasn't for people posting their inflated ego's.

Thank you for demonstrating my point about representing positions accurately! You didn't represent my position accurately. I said you are not in a position to discuss a position unless you could represent that position accurately. I never said you had to be that position, did I? And yet what is your first statement? "I can''t represent an oak tree because I am not one." You don't have to be an evolutionist in order to discuss evolution, but you have to represent it accurately!

I am not a creationist or an ID, yet I do discuss both. But I do state what creationism and ID are accurately. I don't misrepresent them as saying something they don't.

The point is that you are misrepresenting what evolution is and what it says.

The irony of your statement of "trying to keep the ignorant, ignorant" is just too much. There are so many sources of information out there on evolution, starting with Origin of the Species that there is no way I can keep anyone "ignorant" of evolution. It's obvious that what I am doing is providing information to you and trying to prevent you from passing on misinformation to others and prevent them from being "ignorant".

As natural selection is happenning right now in my back garden, I can't declare that as no longer relevant can I?
What I was saying was that Darwin was on to some things but he didn't get everything that is now in thought by many as scientific fact.

Excuse me, but that is not what you were trying to do. Let's review:

In post #24 you stated "I know God is the father of all creation, but I don't think that's what evolutionist mean."

That is a claim. I addressed that claim. That is, can "evolutionist" mean that God is the father of all creation? I chose as data Darwin's statement on the subject, since he is the father of evolution and the first Darwinist.

So my reply in post #31 was:
"Evolution, like all scientific theories, is agnostic. It doesn't comment on God and his role in creation at all. The scientific theory neither affirms nor denies that "God is the father of all creation". It can't comment. However, Darwin thought just as you do.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449. "

Now, you replied in post #34
"Further more, no one who seriously studues evolution at this time quote Darwin, when it came to genetic mutation, Charles Darwin was completely clueless. He didn't even know genes exsisted, so."

Now, look at what you are doing. You apparently didn't like that Darwin thought that "God was the father of all Creation". Darwin's statement refutes your contention about what an "evolutionist" is. Instead of discussing Darwin's statement, you made a blanket rejection of all Darwin's statements. Notice that last "if you take Darwin at face value, oyu dispute both The Bible and modern science".

Now you contradict yourself with your "What I was saying was that Darwin was on to some things but he didn't get everything that is now in thought by many as scientific fact"

Before you had said that Darwin was wrong on all counts. Now you say we can take him at "face value" on natural selection.

Now, the issue is still whether Darwin was wrong about "God being the father of all creation" and whether "evolutionist" means that God is not the father of all creation. You are doing a great dance around this subject but I'm not going to give up on this. It is a major misconception among anti-evolutionists and I am going to correct that. If you think this is arrogance, then so be it. Being "arrogant" and teaching students is what I get paid for.

And part of that teaching in this forum includes how to have a discussion and what tactics are used to try to cover up an erroneous position. People need to know these in order to follow and evaluate other discussions. I'm sorry you are providing a negative object lesson. You can change that anytime.

For instance, all you had to do was say "I was unaware that Darwin thought that God was the father of all creation. The quotes show that. I guess 'evolutionist' doesn't mean what I thought it meant." And that would have been that. We could have gone on to discuss other things.

 

[Nicaea 325]

The Father of all creation quote was in the context of all primates having a common ancestor. A thiest evolutionist could claim God as the common ancestor, but that's not the common ancestor they are referring to is it?

 

[ThePhoenix]

The Father of all creation quote was in the context of all primates having a common ancestor. A thiest evolutionist could claim God as the common ancestor, but that's not the common ancestor they are referring to is it?

Why does God as a common ancestor bring to mind the greek's Zeus and Hera style deities? I can't even figure out what you're talking about here. A common ancestory is a species that evolved into both apes and humans.

 

[Nicaea 325]

Why does God as a common ancestor bring to mind the greek's Zeus and Hera style deities? I can't even figure out what you're talking about here. A common ancestory is a species that evolved into both apes and humans.

A hymn to Zeus contained the phrase "In him we live and move and have our being. The apostle paul used it refering to what they called The Unknown god, saying that they can know him.

 

[ThePhoenix]

A hymn to Zeus contained the phrase "In him we live and move and have our being. The apostle paul used it refering to what they called The Unknown god, saying that they can know him.

But what were you talking about? What were you talking about? That's the pertinent question.

 

[Didaskomenos]

A hymn to Zeus contained the phrase "In him we live and move and have our being. The apostle paul used it refering to what they called The Unknown god, saying that they can know him.

Paul did not use that phrase referring to the unknown god, but brought home his monotheistic point by collapsing the Greek conception of the unknown god with Zeus, the king of the gods, into one deity - the Judeo-Christian God. Minor point, perhaps, but just for accuracy's sake...

 

[lucaspa]

The Father of all creation quote was in the context of all primates having a common ancestor. A thiest evolutionist could claim God as the common ancestor, but that's not the common ancestor they are referring to is it?

1. I dispute your claim about context. Let's go back and look at the context.
" I am not purposefully lying, What was this common ancestor? I know God is the father of all creation, but I don't think that's what evolutionist mean."

The two sentences are next to each other but they don't form a context; they are not linked. The common ancestor for apes and humans and "God is the father of all creation" are two separate concepts. If you had meant to be in the context, you would have said "God created the common ancestor of apes and humans."

2. No one can claim God as the "common ancestor". God is not in any sense our ancestor. We are not related to Him by any genetic basis. Both creationists and theistic evolutionists claim that God created us. When we "create" something -- as in make it, such as a car -- we don't say we are the "ancestor" of that car. Henry Ford is not the "ancestor" of the Model T. He is the creator or maker of the Model T.

Now, please notice that Darwin did refer to God as creating (in your sense of "creating" as in making by miraculous means) the ultimate of "common ancestor" -- the first living being.

 

[lucaspa]

A hymn to Zeus contained the phrase "In him we live and move and have our being. The apostle paul used it refering to what they called The Unknown god, saying that they can know him.

Didaskomenos showed how you are misusing the quote from Paul.

ThePhoenix's point is that the Greek gods were interfertile with humans such that they could interbreed and produce fertile children. Your comments about God being the "common ancestor" of apes and humans brings to mind that concept of a material god who can have sex with, and produce fertile offspring with, apes and humans. Not the Christian concept of a Creator God who is separate from His Creation. Remember, God is not human the way we think of human. He became human in Jesus, but the critical thing to remember is that "became".

 

[ThePhoenix]

Didaskomenos showed how you are misusing the quote from Paul.

ThePhoenix's point is that the Greek gods were interfertile with humans such that they could interbreed and produce fertile children. Your comments about God being the "common ancestor" of apes and humans brings to mind that concept of a material god who can have sex with, and produce fertile offspring with, apes and humans. Not the Christian concept of a Creator God who is separate from His Creation. Remember, God is not human the way we think of human. He became human in Jesus, but the critical thing to remember is that "became".

I'm always glad when I read your posts, because I feel that someone, somewhere, is getting my point, and that I'm not really being unreadable by trying to be concise. It's too bad that the posts are usually you explaining to them a point I thought I was making clear.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm always glad when I read your posts, because I feel that someone, somewhere, is getting my point, and that I'm not really being unreadable by trying to be concise. It's too bad that the posts are usually you explaining to them a point I thought I was making clear.

Don't feel bad. We all need help being interpreted sometimes. I know I've been very happy sometimes when someone has understood what I've been trying to say!

In the Greek/Roman theogeny, gods literally were the ancestors of people. The Romans, for instance, said that they were the descendents of Aeneas and Aeneas himself was a son of Apollo (right god?). So the Romans did claim that a god was their ancestor.

So what East Anglican is proposing is very much contrary to Christian doctrine. As I said, no TE would ever make the claim he is making. Not only does it go against evolution, but it goes against Christianity!

 

[Nicaea 325]

Didaskomenos showed how you are misusing the quote from Paul.

ThePhoenix's point is that the Greek gods were interfertile with humans such that they could interbreed and produce fertile children. Your comments about God being the "common ancestor" of apes and humans brings to mind that concept of a material god who can have sex with, and produce fertile offspring with, apes and humans. Not the Christian concept of a Creator God who is separate from His Creation. Remember, God is not human the way we think of human. He became human in Jesus, but the critical thing to remember is that "became".

It was unintentional. It is not an idea I would put forward. Greek gods were also fallible where as our God is infallible. It's these blasted computers! If it isn't all explained in the minutest detail, a serious discussion turns in to an episode of The Jerry Springer Show. As you your self said later,

"
Don't feel bad. We all need help being interpreted sometimes. I know I've been very happy sometimes when someone has understood what I've been trying to say!

I am in agreement with you. Are you saying that the common ancestor is completely unknown?

 

[lucaspa]

It was unintentional. It is not an idea I would put forward.

Good.

Greek gods were also fallible where as our God is infallible.

I would be careful about this one, too. Remember, the "infallible" God changed His mind on the dietary laws! Acts 12, I believe.

It's these blasted computers! If it isn't all explained in the minutest detail, a serious discussion turns in to an episode of The Jerry Springer Show.

It's not the computers. It's sloppy language, and this can happen verbally as well as in print. The problem is our human pride when we are unable to admit that we phrased something imprecisely. You corrected yourself above. I've had to do the same thing on more than one occasion. Episode done.

Are you saying that the common ancestor is completely unknown?

Do you know your great to the 12th grandfather? Precisely? I don't. The problem with humans is the record keeping. Same problem in biology. To find fossils those fossils have to be at the surface. We simply don't have the right strata (7-9 million years ago) in the right location (Africa) at the surface and examined in detail. In the last 3 years 3 different hominids have been found from approximately that time period. They are all close to the common ancestor but probably none of them is the common ancestor. All have very primitive features that are neither ape nor human but have a resemblance to both. Just what a common ancestor would have. You can tell they are close to the common ancestor by the fierce debate as to which lineage -- chimp or human -- they belong to. Obviously they could be in either.

But, just like we don't know precisely who our great to the 12th grandfather is, we know we had one. Same here. Right now, the fossil record links us by means of transitional individuals from H. sapiens to H. erectus to H. habilis to A. afarensis. We are sure we evolved from another species and were not specially created.