-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why I rejected theistic evolution
- Thread starter Martyrs44
- Start date
- Status
And is chemical evolution (which I have indeed heard of) Darwinian? Why or why not?
Why is it a basic scientific error to speak of chemical evolution and biological evolution as if they were the same thing?
You have it backwards. The origin of life led to the origin of the first species.
And Darwin never discussed the origin of the first species. Unfortunately for clarity "species" is one of those words (like "sheep" deer" fish") which have the same spelling in singular and plural. But anyone who has actually read Darwin's masterpiece knows his intent is the plural. Origin of Species is not about the origin of one species, but the origin of many species; it is not about the origin of the first species, but of species who lived much, much later than the origin of life. So his theory doesn't address the origin of the first species at all.
No: This (14 billion years of cosmic evolution) covers it all. See chemical evolution above. Same comments/question apply to cosmic evolution.
I never denigrated your education, nor Henry Morris, nor anyone else's. I am sure you are very well educated in whatever field you chose to study.
It is simply appears that you did not choose to focus on evolution and are now pretending to an understanding you don't actually have.
I could be wrong, and you could prove I am wrong by displaying some actual knowledge of both the theoretical basis and evidence for biological evolution rather than conflating Darwin's theory--and its modern revisions--with areas of science that are irrelevant to it.
Remember, you gave me cause to suspect Deism. I didn't pluck it out of thin air, but from your own words.
Why do you harp on this "unjust" accusation instead of showing that it is actually unjust?
I gave you the invitation to do just that and you have ignored it.
Here, I will offer you the opportunity again.
Show me I am wrong. Just what do you mean by nature being "pre-programmed".
In my vocabulary, when I pre-program my television to record a film, I make it possible for the film to be recorded in my absence.
Deism is a name for a view of God that sees God as absent from nature.
Your "pre-programming" remark suggested that you see God as absent from nature. Nature runs merrily along doing whatever its programming says with no attention from God at all.
In my book that view is Deism.
If that was not what you intended to say, by all means spell out what you really meant.
In my vocabulary, when I pre-program my television to record a film, I make it possible for the film to be recorded in my absence.
Deism is a name for a view of God that sees God as absent from nature.
Your "pre-programming" remark suggested that you see God as absent from nature. Nature runs merrily along doing whatever its programming says with no attention from God at all.
In my book that view is Deism.
If that was not what you intended to say, by all means spell out what you really meant.
You have also not responded to this exchange on the same topic:
Martyrs44 said:
Possibly. Does God limit himself to designing and programming nature and then let it run, exerting no influence on the natural world? By your own definition (below) that is Deism.
Martyrs44 said:
Or is God much more than a designer-programmer? Is God a nurturer, sustainer, helper, companion, encourager, and always present lover of nature? If so, then that is not Deism.
Which of these is nearer your understanding of God and nature? Would you like to clarify just how you see God and nature interacting?
Maybe not. Maybe it is easier to simply whine about an "accusation" than to refute it through a proper presentation of your actual theology in regard to God and nature. Maybe you enjoy the sympathy factor that goes with being "unjustly accused" more than doing the work of showing how false the suspicion is.
Bottom line: if I have "dragged you down" you have the capacity to raise yourself up and to show that I have my foot in my mouth.
I wait to see if you will do so. And, I would actually be pleased if you succeed.
Your friend Mark Kennedy would be pleased too. He is always saying we don't talk enough theology here.
Upvote
0
You have the freedom to be wrong and keep believing the nonsense that the neo's are putting out. But I don't believe them and I am by no means alone. I gave you just a little bit of evidence (if you could grasp it) and you either ignored it or shunned it. That evidence stands.
The presence of C14 in coal, diamonds, etc. is a very stong indication of a young earth. Radio polonium haloes are another. The evidence I posted about the galaxies that reveal 'mature' galaxies at the very edge of what is supposed to be the young part of the universe is a visible fact. There are over a hundred others I can post. So if you wish to continue to be 'tricked' then it is your own fault.
The 'appearance' of age you are tripping over backfires on you & those who likewise have a problem with it.....................why?............because even if you move God's creation back 13.7 billion years to the 'big bang' time then anything that comes out in the wash will have the appearance of age, de facto. So moving the time scale of God's 'act of creation' back like that doesn't solve your problem.
Those 'geniuses' that taught you evolution didn't tell you that, did they?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
gluadys
Just stop it, gluadys. I am tired of you trying to deceive me & the other posters with this stuff.
Unless you can find it in your heart to apologize for referring to me as a 'deist' then no further discussion between us will occur. In case you hadn't noticed the other creationists are laughing at you over that one. We are all at opposite poles from deism and your statement was outrageous.
So unless you reveal some humility in the matter, I won't waste another minute with you because you are clearly way out in left field even beyond your fellows.
Just stop it, gluadys. I am tired of you trying to deceive me & the other posters with this stuff.
Unless you can find it in your heart to apologize for referring to me as a 'deist' then no further discussion between us will occur. In case you hadn't noticed the other creationists are laughing at you over that one. We are all at opposite poles from deism and your statement was outrageous.
So unless you reveal some humility in the matter, I won't waste another minute with you because you are clearly way out in left field even beyond your fellows.
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Wow, I'm seeing an awful lot of thinly veiled insults thrown back and forth, but not much true discussion. May I suggest an alternative? Since I saw that apparently there is not enough theological discussion, then I propose this: to the TE's please post your top 3 verses in the bible that you believe best speak to God's use of evolution, or even that the creation is billions of years old, and a short explanation as to why you believe it says that. We yec's believe the whole of Genesis is our biblical evidence so there isn't much point to our posting ours lol. 
From there we can hopefully move forward with a conversation that may get us somewhere! I hope...
May God Richly Bless You! MM
*addendum*
I say this with all possible love to my brothers and sisters in Christ, but we are all falling for Satan's trap. We are getting distracted and infighting and in that he wins. We should be trying to bring people to Christ, and I know that creation is a touchy subject, but our personal attacks on each other do not forward the cause of Christ. I think the forum could be one of the greatest tools for God, but right now we are driving a wedge between ourselves instead of being solidified for Christ. Sorry if this sounds preachy, but I just don't want us all to lose sight of the real purpose we as Christians are called for. I freely admit to getting just as distracted and disgusted as anyone else here, but I truly want our conversations to build us up and to build up our case for Jesus instead of tearing each other down like crabs in a bucket. I pray God blesses each and every person on this forum.
From there we can hopefully move forward with a conversation that may get us somewhere! I hope...May God Richly Bless You! MM
*addendum*
I say this with all possible love to my brothers and sisters in Christ, but we are all falling for Satan's trap. We are getting distracted and infighting and in that he wins. We should be trying to bring people to Christ, and I know that creation is a touchy subject, but our personal attacks on each other do not forward the cause of Christ. I think the forum could be one of the greatest tools for God, but right now we are driving a wedge between ourselves instead of being solidified for Christ. Sorry if this sounds preachy, but I just don't want us all to lose sight of the real purpose we as Christians are called for. I freely admit to getting just as distracted and disgusted as anyone else here, but I truly want our conversations to build us up and to build up our case for Jesus instead of tearing each other down like crabs in a bucket. I pray God blesses each and every person on this forum.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
I ignore it, I don't have thoughts above my station enough to talk about science in a way that will do justice to the work of God.
I don't claim I'm being tricked, I'm fully convinced in my own mind (Rom 14:5), it's you who are saying that I have been deceived and that God says something different, the logical conclusion of these three facts is that you are telling me that God is tricking me, tricking the list of Pastors, Priests and scientists that share my position that science is compatible with the Christian faith that I gave you two posts ago.
Can you at least get my position correct, God started creating 13.7 bya finished creating 6000 years ago and topped it off with an inauguration week which is recorded in Gen1. As I've already hinted at I'm far more interested in the theological side of the origins theology side of things so if you want to discuss that I'd be willing to oblige, however if you're going to keep dragging me into a discussion of science then I don't really see why I should continue to debate you in this thread.
Upvote
0
Then you must have missed what Mark Kennedy and I in particular have posted, at length, with documentation. Check out for instance my OP, post #44 and how I documented my case opposing gluadys.
Don't go there brother. The rebukes that some of us have given the TE's are well deserved. We simply cannot just stand aside and let them get away with the awful unbelief and denials they are displaying on these threads.
Upvote
0
O.K. but the 13,7 bya figure is still wrong. There is no subtantive evidence for it, period.
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Well it's a bit of an arbitrary period, I just choose 13.7 by as an example taken of course from the current cosmological theory about the age of the universe, it could very well have happened in an instant, say if I was to take 1:1 as part of the narrative rather than a literary device to open Genesis and specifically the 1st creation account, I would hold that the universe was created in an instant 6000 years ago and then there was the inauguration week.
Upvote
0
C
cupid dave
Guest
It isn't.
Cosmic Evolution is the proper term for all the unfolding of the Reality which presents itself to us at any moment in time.
That unfolding ever changing reality is the master whcih demands we adapt to it or die, forever, in the extinction of our species.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,381
- 11,921
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Bible believing Christians agree with evolutionists who freely admit that "Six days you shall labor..In Six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day" Ex 20:8-11 is not even remotely compatible with evolutionism.
That point is incredibly obvious to even the most casual reader of this topic.
The other thing about that which is incredibly obvious to all the objective readers - is that Exodus 20:8-11 is legal code - not poetry.
Thus on topic like "evolution vs the Bible" it is no wonder that the Christians appeal to an incredibly obvious point admitted to by both Christians and evolutionists like Darwin.
in Christ,
Bob
Upvote
0
C
cupid dave
Guest
As a young man I argued for evolution vehemently as a professing Christian. Then I was given a copy of Dr. Henry Morris's book The Twilight of Evolution and I was shocked to discover that he himself was once an evolutionist. His stuff was more clear to me than any evoloutionist author/scientist I ever read.
After reading that it was downhill for evolution for about two years until the final blow. Once I realized that Biogenesis was law and that life can only come from the Creator and that nature is incapable of generating life, there was no question to me that the Bible was accurate in saying, "IN Him is life..." All life on earth came originally from the Lord. Nature can only do what it is pre-programmed by its Creator.
Secondly, the long ages of time in the matter of millions and billions of years is in direct conflict with both scripture and science. I realized that Moses did not waste his time giving the chronology of mankind in the early stages of human history. The fact is that Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke all give the same names...at least in the early stages of human history. The first twelve names given are identical in each of the three accounts. That spoke very loudly to me because I came to realize that Jesus family lineage as stated in Luke has to be legitimate and correct in order to be legal by Jewish law. Otherwise the Lord could not make legal claim to the throne of David when the kingdom comes.
Thirdly, the dating methods that are used in our time are all fraught with assumptions. No matter what the method, we cannot know by observation or even experimentation what the conditions of the so-called 'early earth' were according to evolution theory. The truth is that if God 'spake and it was done'...a la 'Let there by light and there was light' then anything He made would have to have the appearance of age. in light of this there have been countless numbers of rock samples dated in the range of millions of years that were later discovered to come out of volcanoes of the last few hundred years including the ones from Mount St. Helens.
In the last fifteen yrs creation scientists have documented our position quite well in the matter of assumptions. Ex:
http://www.rae.org/pdf/radiodat.pdf
There are many other reasons I rejected evolution or any thought that God created the world in any other way than what He plainly told us in Genesis and the scriptures that confirm what is said in Genesis. There are many and not one scripture suggests evolution or long ages of time as the TE's suggest.
The first postulate of Theistic Evolution is that the first six "days" were not earth man's 24 hour days, because god does not even make the Sun the time keeper of a 24 hour day until the third "duration" of His own "day."
We can understand this much better when we ralize that the English word "day" is interpreted from the Hebrew word Yowm.
Yown can mean half a day, a day, a year, and Age, or any duration of length approprite to the context one understands from the passage.
Upvote
0
C
cupid dave
Guest
The actual six durations recognized by Science today are called the six Geological Eras:
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Martyrs44 said:
I'm not saying we shouldn't confront one another if we believe the other is in error, but are insults going to make our case any stronger or are we stooping to a level that does none of us any good? Rebukes of un-Godly or straight heretical, willful disregards for the Word and God are fine, but right now (and I'm just as guilty of this as anyone) it seems like that is all we're doing. I only wish to have our conversations glorify Him, and help us grow. I mean no disrespect to you or mark.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
cupid dave said:
Actually I must lovingly disagree here. Yom, when qualified with a numeral as is the case in Genesis 1 always means a literal 24 hour day. Also remember that God created the light before the sun, so the sun was not necessary for time keeping. Besides, God was the only one there to keep time anyway, lol.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
A little explanation here: http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1
Progmonk this may interest you as well!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
C
cupid dave
Guest
I know the first reaction is to fault this rather idiosycratic explanation when the medieval church has pounded away with the errors about the 24 hour day, and ignored Gen 1:14, but bear with me and trust that yowm is defined by the context of the way a passage is to be understood.
The Light that did not at first appear with the Big Bang was delayed for 400 million years because of a Cosmic Dark Age hich we now understand:
Gen. 1:3 And God, (Father Nature who says, "I am," almighty Reality), said, Let there be light: and there was light, (which was delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang)
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Time: From the Big Bang Creation to the Present[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Note: 400 my Dark Age)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Note: 400 my Dark Age)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Amazingly accurate, Genesis claims that light appeared, with some implied delay, after the initial creation of the matter which would ultimately form the heavens and earth.)
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:4 And God, (Father Nature, or almighty Reality), saw the light, that it was good: and God, (Father Nature, or almighty Reality), divided the light from the darkness.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gen 1:5 ... and the (the Galaxy Stage) evening (of the Big Bang-Formative Era)...
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]THE MORNING OF THE FIRST "DAY"...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Link to Gen 1:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Link to Gen 1:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:5 ... and the (the Cryptic Stage) morning (of the Hadean Era) were the first "day," (yowm in the Hebrew meaning an unspecified length of time).
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
You may want to check the link I posted as an edit to my last post.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Yes יום in Genesis 1 is literal Jewish days, evening to evening.
Cupid Dave, would probably be better described as a Gnostic Pantheist with lashings of misunderstood Kabbalah and deep fried in good old delusions of self-grandeur.
Upvote
0
I know the first reaction is to fault this rather idiosycratic explanation when the medieval church has pounded away with the errors about the 24 hour day, and ignored Gen 1:14, but bear with me and trust that yowm is defined by the context of the way a passage is to be understood.
The Light that did not at first appear with the Big Bang was delayed for 400 million years because of a Cosmic Dark Age hich we now understand:
Gen. 1:3 And God,(Father Nature who says, "I am," almighty Reality), said, Let there be light: and there was light, (which was delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang)
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Time: From the Big Bang Creation to the Present[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Note: 400 my Dark Age)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Amazingly accurate, Genesis claims that light appeared, with some implied delay, after the initial creation of the matter which would ultimately form the heavens and earth.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:4 And God, (Father Nature, or almighty Reality), saw the light, that it was good: and God, (Father Nature, or almighty Reality), divided the light from the darkness. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gen 1:5 ... and the (the Galaxy Stage) evening (of the Big Bang-Formative Era)...[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]THE MORNING OF THE FIRST "DAY"...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Link to Gen 1:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:5 ... and the (the Cryptic Stage) morning (of the Hadean Era) were the first "day," (yowm in the Hebrew meaning an unspecified length of time).[/FONT]
[/FONT]
My assessment: No.
If this were true then our common work week would be almost 13 billion yrs long and the sabbath would be nearly a billion yrs long. In other words I don't take it seriously.
Pardon me, but I don't need that much rest.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
