Three powerful challenges to theistic evolutionists

[Martyrs44]

The Lord will determine who will be in hell, not me.

 

[Trogool]

The Lord will determine who will be in hell, not me. I will let God sort out those who were phony Christians/pretenders as opposed to those who betrayed the cause of Christ and joined the neo-Darwinian cause against the Bible. To my brethren who did this there will be a lot of bitter tears and shame before the throne.

*rolls eyes in boredom*

All that melodrama aside, evolution isn't a "cause against the Bible". It has nothing to do with the Bible.

 

[Philis]

The Lord will determine who will be in hell, not me.

Does He base it on our faith in Jesus and our relationship with Him, or does He base it on our view of the creation account?

If we recognize that we are sinners and repent, doesn't that make us a Christian regardless of how we think God made us?

 

[mark kennedy]

Does He base it on our faith in Jesus and our relationship with Him, or does He base it on our view of the creation account?

If we recognize that we are sinners and repent, doesn't that make us a Christian regardless of how we think God made us?

It's the same thing:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; (Hebrews 1: 1,2)​

 

[Philis]

It's the same thing:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; (Hebrews 1: 1,2)
​

What are you trying to say?

 

[Assyrian]

The Lord will determine who will be in hell, not me. I will let God sort out those who were phony Christians/pretenders as opposed to those who betrayed the cause of Christ and joined the neo-Darwinian cause against the Bible. To my brethren who did this there will be a lot of bitter tears and shame before the throne.

What is it about creationism that produces such bitter fruit? It is really sad.

 

[Martyrs44]

It's the same thing:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; (Hebrews 1: 1,2)
​

Thanks, Mark. That verse sums up the entire position quite nicely for it involves each of the most important points.

Praise the Lord.

 

[Keachian]

It's the same thing:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; (Hebrews 1: 1,2)​

Disregarding the fact that I know no theistic evolutionist who believes that God the Father didn't make everything through the Son, I think you are putting too much weight on a topic of mental assent. Surely what is more important is whether God has graciously chosen us to be conformed back into His image.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

 

[Philis]

Thanks, Mark. That verse sums up the entire position quite nicely for it involves each of the most important points.

Praise the Lord.

What part of the verse Mark quoted runs contrary to the other theological views on the origins theology forum?

Why have you skipped over my last couple posts with simple questions? From my perspective you seem to be struggling when you have to explain the details of your view.

 

[Keachian]

What part of the verse Mark quoted runs contrary to the other theological views on the origins theology forum?

I don't understand it either, however it probably just bolsters the false dichotomy between God creating by divine fiat and God creating by divine fiat using the processes that science has termed evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

What are you trying to say?

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made;(Nicean Creed)​

Do you think it's accidental that the confession of the incarnation is sandwiched in between two confessions of Christ as Creator? Theistic evolution is a mindset devoted to nothing but attacking creationists for simply believing what Genesis says. The attacks are always personal, derogatory and never stay on the topic of the thread but instead focus on the person.

This leads some to wonder what you profession is since it's always the views of others brought front and center. We know very well what evolutionists don't believe but what they do profess to believe as Christians remains ambiguous. You completely missed the part of the verse that says 'by whom he made the worlds' but instead started a dialogue about what my problem is.

Why would Christ as Creator be inextricably linked to the incarnation be an object of such constant scorn and biting personal remarks if it's a faith all Christians have in common? Do note, faith in evolution is not a requirement for a Christian profession, a foundational believe in Christ as Creator invariably is.

 

[Trogool]

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made;(Nicean Creed)​

Do you think it's accidental that the confession of the incarnation is sandwiched in between two confessions of Christ as Creator?

Do you think you could just answer Philis' question?

 

[gluadys]

Do you think it's accidental that the confession of the incarnation is sandwiched in between two confessions of Christ as Creator? Theistic evolution is a mindset devoted to nothing but attacking creationists for simply believing what Genesis says.

That sounds to me like a total non sequitor.

Do note, faith in evolution is not a requirement for a Christian profession, a foundational believe in Christ as Creator invariably is.

Granted. But denial of evolution is not a requirement for a Christian profession either.

 

[Philis]

You completely missed the part of the verse that says 'by whom he made the worlds' but instead started a dialogue about what my problem is.

What makes you think I missed that part of the verse? Don't TEs also believe that God made the world?

When you quote a verse that all of the Christians here support, and you quote it as if it's a put down to half the Christians when I can't see how, then I'm going to ask you for clarification. Is that a reasonable thing for me to do?

I still don't understand what your purpose was in quoting that verse.

 

[mark kennedy]

What makes you think I missed that part of the verse? Don't TEs also believe that God made the world?

I wouldn't know, they never discuss it.

When you quote a verse that all of the Christians here support, and you quote it as if it's a put down to half the Christians when I can't see how, then I'm going to ask you for clarification. Is that a reasonable thing for me to do?

Or simply understand that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator. All Christians are creationists, that much should be understood. Just as the YEC should have no problem with evolution as properly defined scientifically no TE should have a problem with creationism as properly defined doctrinally. Now it's a clutch phrase that does terrible violence to the essential doctrine, not just any doctrine, the first line of the Nicene Creed, Hebrews and John 1. Darwinism know no bounds, I don't think you fully realize how dangerous this philosophy is to Christian theism.

I still don't understand what your purpose was in quoting that verse.

In the beginning God created is not an ANE cultural meme, it's a foundational doctrine of Christian theism. When you understand that the rest will be much easier to understand.

 

[mark kennedy]

That sounds to me like a total non sequitor.

It most certainly does follow.

Granted. But denial of evolution is not a requirement for a Christian profession either.

Define evolution because the scientific definition is perfectly consistent with a young earth and living creatures fully formed 6 thousand years ago. Evolution is a living theory, it begins where life starts. It does not dictate that all causation must be exclusively naturalistic, that is called Darwinism.

A rejection of Darwinism is certainly in order for the Christian profession since Darwinism rejects God's work in creation categorically very much before the evidence is considered.

Which definition of evolution are you using because clearly there are at least two.

 

[samaus12345]

Hay Mark if 2 people,23 chromosomes each then the variability in chromosomes for a kid is 2^23 times 2^23 or is it just 2^23?

 

[gluadys]

Hay Mark if 2 people,23 chromosomes each then the variability in chromosomes for a kid is 2^23 times 2^23 or is it just 2^23?

The 2^23 is the figure for the chromosomal mix in the gamete (sperm or ovum).

The square of that is what you get when the gametes fuse to make a zygote.

Of course, this calculation is now out of date because it neglects chromosomal recombination during meiosis. Now one has to factor in that there is a 50% chance that the gamete will receive a recombined chromosome that is a mix of grandma and grandpa's chromosome.

 

[gluadys]

It most certainly does follow.

Perhaps if you explained how it follows instead of simply asserting that it does, it would be clear to me.

Define evolution

Why go off on another tangent?

Whatever the definition, it is still the case that denying evolution is not a requirement of a Christian profession of faith.

I have already agreed that endorsing evolution is not a requirement of a Christian profession of faith.'

If we all agreed to those two propositions, we could all at least agree that whatever our view of science we are one in Christ.

So, is there something about denying evolution you believe IS a requirement of professing faith in Christ?

 

[sfs]

The 2^23 is the figure for the chromosomal mix in the gamete (sperm or ovum).

The square of that is what you get when the gametes fuse to make a zygote.

Of course, this calculation is now out of date because it neglects chromosomal recombination during meiosis. Now one has to factor in that there is a 50% chance that the gamete will receive a recombined chromosome that is a mix of grandma and grandpa's chromosome.

Correct, except that the chance of receiving a recombined chromosome is much higher than 50%. There is, on average, roughly one crossover per chromosome arm in each meiosis, so you almost always get a mixture of the two grandparent chromosomes. Since the crossing over can occur anywhere in the chromosome, the actual number of possible genetic outcomes is much larger than 4^23 -- greater than (100,000,000)^23, anyway.