What if I continue to show the same pitance to Evolutionists, with no alternative?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I was reluctant to make this a thread, since it is only hanging on by a question of sacrifice - nothing else - but I thought "that is the sacrifice the Lord made, its the same thing". So here goes...

What if I continue to show the same pitance (meant as an extension of the word "pity", but in the sense of 'concession' bit by bit - as a pittance is small), to Evolutionists, with no alternative, but to adapt to what I show them? In the sense that they would say "the selection pressure appears to be: agreeing with a pitance, in exchange for dialogue that is not causally flawed (like talk about Evolution, was causally flawed the way Evolutionists did it))"??

I mean basically, I would be allowing tension concerning "survival" to build up, to an unknown conclusion, as far as I understood it, but to them somehow a great proof, that I was becoming an Evolutionist - on the premise I would have to give in at some point: see where I am going with this? It's a moot concession, which to them looks like it could evolve, but to me, I know I am never going to offer more than a pitance, a show of pity (that they make a sign of their fallen state that their lawlessness flourish).

I think God is pleased with the idea, that I am going to just let "Evolution" as I understand it, to be something trivial, something without note, that it never in the end saved me - the way confessing such for Jesus' sake, did. I think Jesus would say "that's a reason to die: that you not be lead astray, by doctrine of change".

I guess what I am saying is, I don't think Evolution saves - there is no "Salvation" Evolution.

But am I leading people astray, by just feigning an almost meaningless pity?

I don't even know why I am saying this, but does this make room to evolve for Jesus? Is Evolution going to be at the Great White Throne Judgment?

I want what is good about Evolution to rub off on me, but at the same time I don't want to compromise truth, truth that is evidentially well founded on that which is fit for the storm.

How do you evolve, words that never pass away?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi there,

So I was reluctant to make this a thread, since it is only hanging on by a question of sacrifice - nothing else - but I thought "that is the sacrifice the Lord made, its the same thing". So here goes...

What if I continue to show the same pitance (meant as an extension of the word "pity", but in the sense of 'concession' bit by bit - as a pittance is small), to Evolutionists, with no alternative, but to adapt to what I show them? In the sense that they would say "the selection pressure appears to be: agreeing with a pitance, in exchange for dialogue that is not causally flawed (like talk about Evolution, was causally flawed the way Evolutionists did it))"??

I mean basically, I would be allowing tension concerning "survival" to build up, to an unknown conclusion, as far as I understood it, but to them somehow a great proof, that I was becoming an Evolutionist - on the premise I would have to give in at some point: see where I am going with this? It's a moot concession, which to them looks like it could evolve, but to me, I know I am never going to offer more than a pitance, a show of pity (that they make a sign of their fallen state that their lawlessness flourish).

I think God is pleased with the idea, that I am going to just let "Evolution" as I understand it, to be something trivial, something without note, that it never in the end saved me - the way confessing such for Jesus' sake, did. I think Jesus would say "that's a reason to die: that you not be lead astray, by doctrine of change".

I guess what I am saying is, I don't think Evolution saves - there is no "Salvation" Evolution.

But am I leading people astray, by just feigning an almost meaningless pity?

I don't even know why I am saying this, but does this make room to evolve for Jesus? Is Evolution going to be at the Great White Throne Judgment?

I want what is good about Evolution to rub off on me, but at the same time I don't want to compromise truth, truth that is evidentially well founded on that which is fit for the storm.

How do you evolve, words that never pass away?

Evolution is false. How do I know? God says specifically that He created all that we see, including us. There is room for different but related creatures within a species. That is adaptation. Pity does not save people. Jesus saves. It is truth that sets people free. Jesus IS the Truth! And yes, the question of evolution is trivial. I've wasted far too many keystrokes on the subject.

 

[pdudgeon]

Hi there,

So I was reluctant to make this a thread, since it is only hanging on by a question of sacrifice - nothing else - but I thought "that is the sacrifice the Lord made, its the same thing". So here goes...

What if I continue to show the same pitance (meant as an extension of the word "pity", but in the sense of 'concession' bit by bit - as a pittance is small), to Evolutionists, with no alternative, but to adapt to what I show them? In the sense that they would say "the selection pressure appears to be: agreeing with a pitance, in exchange for dialogue that is not causally flawed (like talk about Evolution, was causally flawed the way Evolutionists did it))"??

I mean basically, I would be allowing tension concerning "survival" to build up, to an unknown conclusion, as far as I understood it, but to them somehow a great proof, that I was becoming an Evolutionist - on the premise I would have to give in at some point: see where I am going with this? It's a moot concession, which to them looks like it could evolve, but to me, I know I am never going to offer more than a pitance, a show of pity (that they make a sign of their fallen state that their lawlessness flourish).

I think God is pleased with the idea, that I am going to just let "Evolution" as I understand it, to be something trivial, something without note, that it never in the end saved me - the way confessing such for Jesus' sake, did. I think Jesus would say "that's a reason to die: that you not be lead astray, by doctrine of change".

I guess what I am saying is, I don't think Evolution saves - there is no "Salvation" Evolution.

But am I leading people astray, by just feigning an almost meaningless pity?

I don't even know why I am saying this, but does this make room to evolve for Jesus? Is Evolution going to be at the Great White Throne Judgment?

I want what is good about Evolution to rub off on me, but at the same time I don't want to compromise truth, truth that is evidentially well founded on that which is fit for the storm.

How do you evolve, words that never pass away?

But there is nothing good about Evolution.

God created, He called it Good; so anything else is by it's very nature, a series of small steps away from God.
And when you take steps to move yourself and your thoughts away from God, you are only moving away from the life that He intended for you, and towards death, which is what satan desires to see happen.

Don't go there.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I want what is good about Evolution to rub off on me, but at the same time I don't want to compromise truth, truth that is evidentially well founded on that which is fit for the storm.

What exactly is it that could be good about evolution ?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Is Evolution going to be at the Great White Throne Judgment?

Love will be there.

 

[The Barbarian]

What exactly is it that could be good about evolution ?

It's an observed fact. And while reality may be disturbing, it is the truth, and that's the side God is on. If that puzzles you, go look up what the word means in biology. (hint; use a scientific dictionary)

On the other hand, you can still be saved, even if you're a creationist. God doesn't care whether you approve of the way He created things or if you don't. That's not how He will judge you.

So take comfort in that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is false. How do I know? God says specifically that He created all that we see, including us.

And you suppose He wasn't able to do it by evolution? God is a lot wiser and more powerful than most creationists are willing to have Him be.

 

[MrsFoundit]

It's an observed fact.

This depends on what is meant by the word "evolution". I was seeking clarity about that from the OP in the context of their point because no one else could know.

 

[MrsFoundit]

God is a lot wiser and more powerful than most creationists are willing to have Him be.

God is a lot wiser and more powerful than most people are willing to have Him be.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And you suppose He wasn't able to do it by evolution? God is a lot wiser and more powerful than most creationists are willing to have Him be.

I have God's word on it. He said that He formed us. He said that he specifically made creatures with certain characteristics. (For example, Job 39:13 and Jeremiah 1:5) I don't see any way of putting evolution into those statements. If man evolved, the idea of sin is meaningless. If God is involved, as He claims to be, then either He is lying or the theory of evolution is false. There is no middle ground.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have God's word on it. He said that He formed us. He said that he specifically made creatures with certain characteristics. (For example, Job 39:13 and Jeremiah 1:5)

And you suppose He wasn't able to do it from nature, as He tells us in Genesis? How so?

I don't see any way of putting evolution into those statements.

If He did it by evolution, why would that be offensive to you? He certainly doesn't say how it was done.

If man evolved, the idea of sin is meaningless.

You're not making any sense here. If humans evolved, and God gave two of them living souls, and they chose to disobey Him, you think that wouldn't be sin? How so?

If God is involved, as He claims to be, then either He is lying or the theory of evolution is false.

You have it backwards. Evolution would be God's involvement. He does almost everything in this world by natural means. Do not accuse God of lying, just because He's done something you don't like.

 

[The Barbarian]

God is a lot wiser and more powerful than most people are willing to have Him be.

Maybe so. But we see it more often expressed by creationists.

 

[The Barbarian]

This depends on what is meant by the word "evolution".

In biology, it's "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." A lot of creationists confuse evolution with agencies of evolution (like natural selection) or consequences of evolution (like common descent).

I was seeking clarity about that from the OP in the context of their point because no one else could know.

If you want to discuss biological evolution, there it is.

 

[MrsFoundit]

If you want to discuss biological evolution, there it is.

Are you the OP in this thread?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Maybe so. But we see it more often expressed by creationists.

I see no reason to agree - can you provide objective proof?

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you the OP in this thread?

I'm just showing you what the word means. If you want to talk biology, then that's the definition.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see no reason to agree - can you provide objective proof?

I'm merely noticing that creationists claim that God couldn't have done it by evolution.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And you suppose He wasn't able to do it from nature, as He tells us in Genesis? How so?

Dictionary definitions:
Create: "to bring into existence".

Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was created by God's command, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible."

Some versions use "form" instead of create. A distinction without a difference.


If He did it by evolution, why would that be offensive to you? He certainly doesn't say how it was done.

Dictionary definition of "form" : bring together parts or combine to create (something).
Definition of evolve: "develop gradually."


You're not making any sense here. If humans evolved, and God gave two of them living souls, and they chose to disobey Him, you think that wouldn't be sin? How so?

I was not aware of your theory that God selected pre-existing humans. If they did not have a soul, then how could you call them human? What happened to the rest of the "soul-less humans?" Why do they not still exist? Oh, Noah's flood. Or do you reject the universal flood as well? How can soul-less humans sin? If they did not sin, why would God destroy them?

God states categorically that he formed man from the dust of the earth. See previous definition of "form".

Genesis 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being."

If it was a pre-existing creature, it would have been alive already. Or did God kill it first, then make it alive again? You make no sense to me.


You have it backwards. Evolution would be God's involvement. He does almost everything in this world by natural means. Do not accuse God of lying, just because He's done something you don't like.

God speaking the universe into existence is hardly natural.

 

[The Barbarian]

[/QUOTE]
Barbarian asks:
And you suppose He wasn't able to do it from nature, as He tells us in Genesis? How so?

Dictionary definitions:
Create: "to bring into existence".

Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was created by God's command, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible."

Some versions use "form" instead of create. A distinction without a difference.

I was hoping for an answer. Why would you suppose He wasn't able to do it from nature, as He tells us in Genesis.

If He did it by evolution, why would that be offensive to you? He certainly doesn't say how it was done.

Dictionary definition of "form" : bring together parts or combine to create (something).
Definition of evolve: "develop gradually."

So two sides of the same thing. But you're still not explaining why you think it couldn't happen the way God says it happened in Genesis.

Barbarian asks:
You're not making any sense here. If humans evolved, and God gave two of them living souls, and they chose to disobey Him, you think that wouldn't be sin? How so?

I was not aware of your theory that God selected pre-existing humans.

That's only one of several ways. It happens to be consistent with the evidence, and since He didn't say precisely...

If they did not have a soul, then how could you call them human?

But they did have souls. God gave them souls directly. Just like you. There have been various species of Homo, and we don't know precisely which species was first given living souls. Why would it matter?

What happened to the rest of the "soul-less humans?" Why do they not still exist?

Only one species of humans still here, and they apparently from a very small population.

Oh, Noah's flood. Or do you reject the universal flood as well?

Since God doesn't say it was universal, there's really no need to add that to scripture.

How can soul-less humans sin?

God gave them living souls.

God states categorically that he formed man from the dust of the earth. See previous definition of "form".

He just doesn't say how. As you know, Christians, a long time ago, showed that the creation story was not a literal history.

You're trying to read new things into the account, while ignoring the actual message.

You have it backwards. Evolution would be God's involvement. He does almost everything in this world by natural means. Do not accuse God of lying, just because He's done something you don't like.

God speaking the universe into existence is hardly natural.

But using the resulting creation to produce life (as He tells us in Genesis) is quite natural.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Barbarian asks:
And you suppose He wasn't able to do it from nature, as He tells us in Genesis? How so?



I was hoping for an answer. Why would you suppose He wasn't able to do it from nature, as He tells us in Genesis.

If He did it by evolution, why would that be offensive to you? He certainly doesn't say how it was done.



So two sides of the same thing. But you're still not explaining why you think it couldn't happen the way God says it happened in Genesis.

Barbarian asks:
You're not making any sense here. If humans evolved, and God gave two of them living souls, and they chose to disobey Him, you think that wouldn't be sin? How so?



That's only one of several ways. It happens to be consistent with the evidence, and since He didn't say precisely...



But they did have souls. God gave them souls directly. Just like you. There have been various species of Homo, and we don't know precisely which species was first given living souls. Why would it matter?



Only one species of humans still here, and they apparently from a very small population.



Since God doesn't say it was universal, there's really no need to add that to scripture.



God gave them living souls.



He just doesn't say how. As you know, Christians, a long time ago, showed that the creation story was not a literal history.

You're trying to read new things into the account, while ignoring the actual message.

You have it backwards. Evolution would be God's involvement. He does almost everything in this world by natural means. Do not accuse God of lying, just because He's done something you don't like.



But using the resulting creation to produce life (as He tells us in Genesis) is quite natural.[/QUOTE]
Your replies are inconsistent and make no sense to me. I don't know why you have to redefine scripture, but that's your choice. I'll not enter into this discussion further.