Three powerful challenges to theistic evolutionists

[Martyrs44]

progmonk:

I had originally written something I think wasn't that conducive to the discussion, especially as you didn't address my beliefs and instead threw a red herring at me, here is a better response to your above quote: creation was finished 6,000 years ago, we both agree on this point, we differ on what the point of Gen 1 is and I will freely admit that, you choose to read it for what it is without any outside considerations, I read it for what it is with consideration to the cultural (both its own and those around its own) views. Just as Christianity isn't played out in a vacuum (we need other Christians around us) I don't think we can treat the Bible as if it has no cultural ties (or to a lesser extent treat our culture as if it is the culture to which the Bible was written to).

My answer: I don't agree.

 

[Keachian]

My answer: I don't agree.

What don't you agree with? This statement: "Just as Christianity isn't played out in a vacuum (we need other Christians around us) I don't think we can treat the Bible as if it has no cultural ties (or to a lesser extent treat our culture as if it is the culture to which the Bible was written to)."?

 

[Martyrs44]

What don't you agree with? This statement: "Just as Christianity isn't played out in a vacuum (we need other Christians around us) I don't think we can treat the Bible as if it has no cultural ties (or to a lesser extent treat our culture as if it is the culture to which the Bible was written to)."?

If you are indeed 'leaning towards 6,.000 yrs'...as you said then let's let it rest at that.

Best wishes.

 

[Keachian]

If you are indeed 'leaning towards 6,.000 yrs'...as you said then let's let it rest at that.

Best wishes.

Thank you for a nice conversation

 

[sfs]

No, you got it while rehearsing a snappy comeback in your mirror.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Why on earth would I need to practice comebacks in the mirror? (A more relevant charge would be that I pulled out well-worn, cliched comebacks.

But you didn't help your case with such a comeback and your answers are still, 'no, no, and 'I haven't got a clue'

I haven't tried to make a case -- all I've done is answer some questions that I thought (and still think) were quite silly. For all of your attitude, you haven't given me a sliver of a reason to think that you have anything useful to say about either science or the Bible.

...never mind that it is obvious that God Almighty didn't wait until Darwin to, ahem(pardon the expression) 'clue us in'.

Obvious to you, of course. What's obvious to me is that you're treating your own deeply-ingrained, unexamined cultural assumptions about how to read scripture as given, and trying to shout down anyone who doesn't share those assumptions. Since I grew up with those assumptions, I don't need to be introduced to them again, and you're not exactly going out of your way to make a reasoned case for them.

 

[BobRyan]

Three questions which have not been answered yet...only deflected.

1. Can you give a scripture from God's Word that teaches evolution?

2. Can you name 1st century Christians who believed in evolution? If so, quote them.

3. Why did God Almighty wait until 1859 (date of Origin of the Species by Darwin) to inform all of us about the true origins of our world?

Please cover all three and do not change the subject.

1. No Bible text teaches blind faith evolutionism - but as Darwin points out the Bible flatly contradicts evolutionism. They are two opposing religions.

2. No Bible author in any age preached evolutionism - it would be self-conflicted with their message about God as Creator "For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:11

Rev 14:7 "Worship Him who MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of water"

3. the fact that man-made myths such as darwinism would arise against the Word of God - does not make darwinism compatible with the Bible - rather it is predicted by the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Martyrs44]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Why on earth would I need to practice comebacks in the mirror? (A more relevant charge would be that I pulled out well-worn, cliched comebacks.)

Quite.

I haven't tried to make a case -- all I've done is answer some questions that I thought (and still think) were quite silly. For all of your attitude, you haven't given me a sliver of a reason to think that you have anything useful to say about either science or the Bible.

Then you are truly 'without a clue' and your only possible excuse is that you haven't read my posts and/or topic threads in this very Origins theology section.

Obvious to you, of course. What's obvious to me is that you're treating your own deeply-ingrained, unexamined cultural assumptions about how to read scripture as given, and trying to shout down anyone who doesn't share those assumptions.

No, I just shut down Orwellianized TE's that have dumbed down their critical thinking skills to utter nonsense and can't even think straight and yet all-the-while insist that their opinions are correct. Do you qualify?

Since I grew up with those assumptions, I don't need to be introduced to them again, and you're not exactly going out of your way to make a reasoned case for them.

I am not giving assumptions. I am giving facts and supporting my position with good sources and strong documentations...from scripture and otherwise. And I am not alone.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

 

[BobRyan]

This thread is for those who have not had their intellect and critical thinking skills eradicated by neo-Darwinian newspeak.

[Martyrs44 inserts fingers in ears and starts humming.]
Why do you ask questions if you don't want to read the answers? Why do you issue "challenges" to people who disagree with you, and then announce that you're not interested in hearing responses from people who disagree with you?

The challenge in the OP and in that first post above is to "use critical thinking skills" -- to "notice the details" to answer the 3 questions objectively either for or against the T.E self-conflicted idea of marrying blind faith evolutionism to the Bible.

The fact that even Darwin admits that such a marriage is not possible should be a hint to those tempted to toss critical thinking out the window and go down that self-conflicted path.

Be that as it may - your answer only avoids the challenge set forth in the OP - it does not address it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Martyrs44]

1. No Bible text teaches blind faith evolutionism - but as Darwin points out the Bible flatly contradicts evolutionism. They are two opposing religions.

2. No Bible author in any age preached evolutionism - it would be self-conflicted with their message about God as Creator "For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:11

Rev 14:7 "Worship Him who MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of water"

3. the fact that man-made myths such as darwinism would arise against the Word of God - does not make darwinism compatible with the Bible - rather it is predicted by the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks for that, Bob.

 

[Martyrs44]

The challenge in the OP and in that first post above is to "use critical thinking skills" -- to "notice the details" to answer the 3 questions objectively either for or against the T.E self-conflicted idea of marrying blind faith evolutionism to the Bible.

The fact that even Darwin admits that such a marriage is not possible should be a hint to those tempted to toss critical thinking out the window and go down that self-conflicted path.

Be that as it may - your answer only avoids the challenge set forth in the OP - it does not address it.

in Christ,

Bob

What he calls 'silly' is of utmost importance in understanding why believers in Christ should not throw in the towel and accept Darwin's theory. Those 3 questions bite...but like his companions in error he smiles through the pain and pretends it doesn't hurt.

Actually there is neither biblical nor scientific evidence for evolution. They have only an interpretation of the facts by people who should know better.

 

[mark kennedy]

Name me an evolutionist from the time of the reformation then.

Who care what form of unbelief motivates it, it's the same suborn mockery.

Calvin ties the incredulity of the 5000 years to the cross from my understanding, that is setting right the thing that God foresaw would happen in the garden, it's not about creationism, it's about the Grace of God coming from the Cross. If he is making any statement about the origins of the universe then he is stating that it happened as opposed to the other contending idea that is far more against the Bible than Big Bang cosmology, that is what we generally call steady state theory, iirc philosophically this was proposed around the first century by some greek philosopher under a different name.

Clearly Calvin has creation in mind, so you guys don't do this just with the Bible, you do it with anything you don't agree with right? I mean just twist it around till it suites you. The origins and creation are the same thing pretty much, if not the exact same thing, Calvin is speaking from a literal understanding of Genesis 1.

I wait in expectant hope of the return of my God and King, what is your point?

You seemed to have touched base on three primary doctrines of the faith but dismissed the other people and miracles of the Bible. Since TEs never discuss these parts of the Bible I get curious and sometimes even suspicious that they have just went and redefined everything.

I did no such thing, while I will admit that I was scathing towards Martyrs, it was in reference to him using Calvin in a way in which Calvin certainly wasn't intending to be used, in much the same way as other YEC use Mark 10:6 as Christ being against theistic evolutionists, especially since Christ is not talking about creation in that passage but rather about marriage! In the same way I don't think Calvin was talking about the universe having a beginning 5000 years ago but rather that it had a beginning at all, the 5000 years is just there to back up his claim. And before you say that an infinitely old universe is the same as a 14 billion year old universe, there is an eternity of eternity's difference between the two of them.


I felt delving into some Calvin would be interesting.

Mark 10:6 is a clear indication the Jesus was a creationist and why wouldn't he be, he was and it the Creator.

 

[Keachian]

Who care what form of unbelief motivates it, it's the same suborn mockery.

Well it'd be all right if you could prove that someone was arguing for an old universe that wasn't an infinitely old one, from there you could probably argue that Calvin was arguing against OEC, but that's not what it appears to me that he is arguing against when he talks about the people jeering saying "Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness?" for both you and I hold that an eternity passed before God set to work on creating the universe do we not?

Clearly Calvin has creation in mind, so you guys don't do this just with the Bible, you do it with anything you don't agree with right? I mean just twist it around till it suites you. The origins and creation are the same thing pretty much, if not the exact same thing, Calvin is speaking from a literal understanding of Genesis 1.

You still seem to be avoiding what I'm pointing out in what Calvin is saying, yes Calvin is speaking from a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and is using a timeline roughly similar to that of Ussher's, however this is as I pointed out before in defence against what appears to be the idea that the universe has existed for eternity which was the popular alternative at his time.

You seemed to have touched base on three primary doctrines of the faith but dismissed the other people and miracles of the Bible. Since TEs never discuss these parts of the Bible I get curious and sometimes even suspicious that they have just went and redefined everything.

I haven't redefined anything much, I dismiss the other peoples because they're not who we're talking about and have very little relevance to the topic at hand as I see it the doctrines that I believe should be discussed in this subforum are as follows:

• God as Creator
• God as Sustainer
• Man in the Image of God
  • Adam's Role
  • Christ's Role
  • God as Initiator

Mark 10:6 is a clear indication the Jesus was a creationist and why wouldn't he be, he was and it the Creator.

It's about Marriage, I make no claims about whether it is or isn't an indication that Jesus believed a six day creation atm, I would rather get his point from the passage as a whole than niggle about how one little verse taken out of context speaks of one thing or another, it's just too much like jumping the gun.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well it'd be all right if you could prove that someone was arguing for an old universe that wasn't an infinitely old one, from there you could probably argue that Calvin was arguing against OEC, but that's not what it appears to me that he is arguing against when he talks about the people jeering saying "Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness?" for both you and I hold that an eternity passed before God set to work on creating the universe do we not?

Clearly, Calvin is not arguing for but from a young earth point of reference. This would be the 16th century so he is looking at a creation just short of 4,000 BC.

To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains in his treatise,​

If you look at this in context, Calvin is actually talking about predestination. He seems convinced that it remains self-evident and feels confident that appealing to the creation and the divinity of the Spirit and Christ (the Trinity) is supportive of this doctrine. I see nothing about an old earth and I find it hard to believe that an old earth cosmology would have even occurred to him.

You still seem to be avoiding what I'm pointing out in what Calvin is saying, yes Calvin is speaking from a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and is using a timeline roughly similar to that of Ussher's, however this is as I pointed out before in defence against what appears to be the idea that the universe has existed for eternity which was the popular alternative at his time.

He is speaking from a literal chronology exactly the same as Ussher's, there is nothing rough or sketchy about it. I really don't know where you are getting this business of ' the universe existing from eternity' because I see no indication he is even considering such a thing.

I haven't redefined anything much, I dismiss the other peoples because they're not who we're talking about and have very little relevance to the topic at hand as I see it the doctrines that I believe should be discussed in this subforum are as follows:

• God as Creator
• God as Sustainer
• Man in the Image of God
  • Adam's Role
  • Christ's Role
  • God as Initiator

It's nearly impossible to divorce the credibility of the New Testament from the reliability of the Old Testament especially considering the New Testament clearly regarded the Old Testament as literal history. The ongoing process of redemptive history includes many people by whom God has spoken to (see Hebrews 11). Jesus often ascribes the credibility of his authenticated works to the predictive prophecy of the Old Testament going all the way back to Abraham who 'rejoiced' to see his day.

The message of the Scriptures, Old and New Testament is Christ.

It's about Marriage, I make no claims about whether it is or isn't an indication that Jesus believed a six day creation atm, I would rather get his point from the passage as a whole than niggle about how one little verse taken out of context speaks of one thing or another, it's just too much like jumping the gun.

Jesus refers to the marriage of Adam and Eve as the beginning, I don't know how much clearer the New Testament can be in this regard:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19:4-6)​

There is nothing out of context here, the subject is marriage, the people are Adam and Eve and the reference is clearly Genesis 2. I don't see anyway you can jump the gun with the Scriptures being that explicit.

I must say, we seem to have some major differences here but it is rather pleasant discussing these things with you progmonk. Unlike some of the others you simply make your arguments and leave it go at that. I believe your wrong about some things but certainly your gentlemanly behavior is a credit to your views.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Keachian]

Clearly, Calvin is not arguing for but from a young earth point of reference. This would be the 16th century so he is looking at a creation just short of 4,000 BC.

To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains in his treatise,​

If you look at this in context, Calvin is actually talking about predestination. He seems convinced that it remains self-evident and feels confident that appealing to the creation and the divinity of the Spirit and Christ (the Trinity) is supportive of this doctrine. I see nothing about an old earth and I find it hard to believe that an old earth cosmology would have even occurred to him.

Yes Calvin is talking about predestination and I'd agree with him that the doctrine of God as creator is somewhat supportive of the Doctrine of predestination, I'd also agree with your statement that he is arguing from a YEC perspective.

He is speaking from a literal chronology exactly the same as Ussher's, there is nothing rough or sketchy about it. I really don't know where you are getting this business of ' the universe existing from eternity' because I see no indication he is even considering such a thing.

You're right he appears to dismiss it without much thought, but I do believe that that is what he is arguing against based on the competing ideas about the origin of the universe from his time (and even before his time), he is also arguing against instantaneous creation elsewhere in the Institutes, saying that the fact that the Bible says God took time is to be more explanatory about creation and his sovereignty and providence over such, I'd probably argue along the same lines for my position.

It's nearly impossible to divorce the credibility of the New Testament from the reliability of the Old Testament especially considering the New Testament clearly regarded the Old Testament as literal history. The ongoing process of redemptive history includes many people by whom God has spoken to (see Hebrews 11). Jesus often ascribes the credibility of his authenticated works to the predictive prophecy of the Old Testament going all the way back to Abraham who 'rejoiced' to see his day.

The message of the Scriptures, Old and New Testament is Christ.

Well yes I agree with you here, don't get me wrong it's downright ludicrous in my opinion to have a Jewish Messiah without understanding what his role is prophesied to be, etc. It's just that I see that sort of study to be more valid for the questions of the History of the People of God, Christology and the Transmission of the Scriptures. The work of Christ on the Cross affects every possible area of theology, it is very important therefore. However as I said I'd much rather focus upon the relationship between Christ and Adam in this subforum as it is most relevant here.

Jesus refers to the marriage of Adam and Eve as the beginning, I don't know how much clearer the New Testament can be in this regard:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19:4-6)​

There is nothing out of context here, the subject is marriage, the people are Adam and Eve and the reference is clearly Genesis 2. I don't see anyway you can jump the gun with the Scriptures being that explicit.

Well dealing with the Matthew one alone, Jesus could be referring to the original image of marriage, this is not possible when it comes to looking at Mark 10 as well, however as I said recently in another thread Jesus is God's ultimate condescension to us, he could very well in his incarnation have limited his knowledge, either that or he was giving them an answer that they would understand.

I must say, we seem to have some major differences here but it is rather pleasant discussing these things with you progmonk. Unlike some of the others you simply make your arguments and leave it go at that. I believe your wrong about some things but certainly your gentlemanly behavior is a credit to your views.

I would agree that we have some differences, however to me they fall in the difference of opinion box, after all we've been discussing mostly Calvin's views on creation, I hardly think that God has revised the Canon of scripture to include the Institutes

 

[sfs]

Quite.

So why did you make your pointless remark about mirrors? I realize you were trying to be insulting, but could you try a little harder to make your insults appropriate, please?

Then you are truly 'without a clue' and your only possible excuse is that you haven't read my posts and/or topic threads in this very Origins theology section.

If that is the only explanation you can think of, you have a very limited imagination. I've seen you harangue, I've seen you assert, and I've seen you insult. Of reasoned argument I've seen precious little. To a Christian who accepts evolution, your "powerful challenges" are a dismissal of all of science, of all knowledge not in the Bible, in fact. Since you undoubtedly don't engage in that kind of rejection in most of life, you give the impression of engaging not in critical thought, but in post hoc justification for a position you'd already adopted.

No, I just shut down Orwellianized TE's that have dumbed down their critical thinking skills to utter nonsense and can't even think straight and yet all-the-while insist that their opinions are correct. Do you qualify?

Should I take it that this is your idea of reasoned argument? Or is this another of your free-floating insults?

I am not giving assumptions. I am giving facts and supporting my position with good sources and strong documentations...from scripture and otherwise. And I am not alone.

Of course you're not alone; creationism is common in the U.S.. Are you seriously suggesting on a Christian forum that we should choose a position because it's the more popular one?

 

[sfs]

What he calls 'silly' is of utmost importance in understanding why believers in Christ should not throw in the towel and accept Darwin's theory. Those 3 questions bite...but like his companions in error he smiles through the pain and pretends it doesn't hurt.

Well, you got one thing right: I am smiling.

Actually there is neither biblical nor scientific evidence for evolution. They have only an interpretation of the facts by people who should know better.

There is zero biblical evidence for evolution, as there is for every other scientific theory developed in the last 200 years. There is abundant, compelling scientific evidence for evolution, evidence that creationists do their best to ignore or dismiss.

 

[Martyrs44]

Well, you got one thing right: I am smiling.

Try and smile before Christ when you have to answer Him, that is if you can manage to stop trembling.

Done here.

Checking out.

 

[Philis]

Three questions which have not been answered yet...only deflected.

1. Can you give a scripture from God's Word that teaches evolution?

2. Can you name 1st century Christians who believed in evolution? If so, quote them.

3. Why did God Almighty wait until 1859 (date of Origin of the Species by Darwin) to inform all of us about the true origins of our world?

Please cover all three and do not change the subject.

Hi Martyr44,

I haven't really read through all the posts on this thread so sorry if you've already explained this but I have a question. How exactly is this a challenge that has to be avoided? I don't see how this is devastating to their position.

Try and smile before Christ when you have to answer Him, that is if you can manage to stop trembling.

Again, I don't understand. What are they going to have to answer for? Even if they are wrong, don't we all have sins in our lives that have been covered by the blood of Jesus?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Sorry about the late reply.

I am not giving assumptions. I am giving facts and supporting my position with good sources and strong documentations...from scripture and otherwise. And I am not alone.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

If you look carefully you'll note something else important: taken altogether evolutionists outnumber creationists, even in the highly religious USA. More importantly you'll also notice theistic evolutionists greatly outnumber atheistc evolutionists.

So if you're relying on numbers to bolster your argument, evolutionists still have the upper hand.

 

[Trogool]

Try and smile before Christ when you have to answer Him, that is if you can manage to stop trembling.

Done here.

Checking out.

You always know you've won an argument when you have to yell "Well! You'll still burn in Hell one day!" and then run away.