Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[Greg1234]

It appears you've run out of arguments and misquotes if your only retort is to criticise a person's username.

It we assume 1 Corinthians 15:39 is being literal, the fact that animals, birds, fish and humans have different 'flesh' is hardly a surprise. This has been said before, but saying animals cannot breed beyond their "kind" doesn't disprove evolution - it supports it. Animals have difficulty breeding beyond the species level (although plants do not). No sensible evolutionist would say that chimps can give birth to humans.


Good.

All things have their spiritual pattern and man's image is but one example. "All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference. The only recourse for you and yours is to say that the spiritual pattern of the plant overlaps into man and the plant was not created in and does not unfold into the perfection of its own kind.

 

[Greg1234]

So you've made God a human and the whole idea of creationism basically boils down to a gnostic heresy?

He's not the one that made God a present day human. Additionally creationism boils down to an OT, NT, Platonic, Hermetic, Gnostic, Kabbalistic and scientific "heresy."

 

[Greg1234]

wave away

http://www.christianforums.com/t7621623-20/#post59595607

 

[Keachian]

He's not the one that made God a present day human. Additionally creationism boils down to an OT, NT, Platonic, Hermetic, Gnostic, Kabbalistic and scientific "heresy."

If it is platonic, then it is not Orthodox and I will not participate, if it is hermetic, then it is not Orthodox and I will not participate, if it is Gnostic, then it is not Orthodox and I will not participate, if it is Kabbalistic, then it is not Orthodox and I will not participate, if any of these hold then creationism is a Christian Heresy and as such should not be believed by any Christian.

 

[Greg1234]

This person who doesn't even have enough spiritual discernment to not use a pagan name and the face of a pagan avatar (Ashurbanipal, the bloodthirsty tyrant who murdered God's people and flayed his enemies alive) expects discerning Christians to believe what he says about evolution and Darwin? He thinks that by twisting scripture (in this case, I Corinthians 15:39) that such behavior engenders respect for him or for his views?

Notice that he refutes....not mathetes123...because mathetes didn't say ONE WORD; he only quoted the scripture. Yet the pagan-named-one decides to refute the obvious meaning of the verse! He has proven to all who are not brainwashed like he is that it doesn't make any difference how clear-cut and understandable God's Word is..........like the Jehovah's Witnesses he twists the scripture to mean what he wants them to mean; all to defend his evil cause, Darwinian evolution.

After making a few more posts I'll be leaving Christian Forums today for perhaps quite awhile.

Best wishes to all my faithful friends.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind


All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

End of line.

 

[Assyrian]

"All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference.

I think I see your problem here.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

All things have their spiritual pattern and man's image is but one example. "All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference. The only recourse for you and yours is to say that the spiritual pattern of the plant overlaps into man and the plant was not created in and does not unfold into the perfection of its own kind.

1 Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection, not creation (the whole chapter here) so it's probably not being literal.
Besides, as far as I know animals don't have any form of spirituality.

 

[Keachian]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7621623-20/#post59595607

(I'm getting a little nervous talking about the "code" of the organism, since "genetic code" means something specific, and it's something that very rarely changes.) Yes, genetic variation is always present in (almost) every natural population, and often a whole lot of variation. Selection can act on existing variation (usually called "selection on standing variation") or on new variants that appear as mutations. Ultimately, all of the variants arose as mutations in some ancestor or other, of course. Sometimes they'll just drift around in frequency in the population because they're selectively neutral or mildly deleterious, and then a change to the environment will make them beneficial and they'll take off for higher frequency.

So the genetic code is more the underlying rules what amino acids come from the different combinations of three nucleotides, rather than the individual genetic sequences?

Keep up with the conversation Greg, it's nothing waved away, it is misunderstandings being corrected. Which would you rather a flagrant misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution says being propagated or them being corrected and shown why they are in error? Of course it is up to the individual to either assimilate the knowledge or go figure out if it is true or not.

 

[Greg1234]

Keep up with the conversation Greg, it's nothing waved away, it is misunderstandings being corrected. Which would you rather a flagrant misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution says being propagated or them being corrected and shown why they are in error? Of course it is up to the individual to either assimilate the knowledge or go figure out if it is true or not.

There was no misunderstanding. There is an intelligent mechanism governing adaptation. The quote you posted is simply an expansion on the tangent. Perhaps it's your leader which is at fault.

 

[Greg1234]

1 Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection, not creation (the whole chapter here) so it's probably not being literal.

How exactly does simply saying not literal mean Darwinism? In any event, non-literal facilitates the inclusion of even more spiritual elements.

Besides, as far as I know animals don't have any form of spirituality.

Spirit. And the spirit is at the foundation of all.

 

[Greg1234]

I think I see your problem here.

there was a sentence preceding that

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

How exactly does simply saying not literal mean Darwinism?

It doesn't. I'm not saying 1 Corinthians 15 proves evolution - Mathetes123 originally posted it to try prove creationism. But as I said, if you read the entire chapter it's actually talking about resurrection. Animals are only briefly noted.

Spirit. And the spirit is at the foundation of all.

You originally wrote ' "All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference.' What exactly are the spiritual difference between animals, birds and fish? I don't really see how a baboon is spiritually different from a tapeworm. Religion is a human phenomenon.

 

[Assyrian]

there was a sentence preceding that

Yes but not one where you established any justification for the claim that followed.

All things have their spiritual pattern and man's image is but one example. "All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference.
​

Sounds more like Plato than the bible to me. First you would have to establish that everything does have its Platonic ideal form. Then and more importantly, you would need to show that this is what Paul was talking about when he said about birds, fish and humans having different sorts of flesh.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes but not one where you established any justification for the claim that followed.

All things have their spiritual pattern and man's image is but one example. "All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference.
​

Sounds more like Plato than the bible to me.

Man being made in the image of God is found in the bible.

First you would have to establish that everything does have its Platonic ideal form.

Hardly. The image of man in the image of God is found in the bible. Things which are seen being made from things unseen is found in the bible.

Then and more importantly, you would need to show that this is what Paul was talking about when he said about birds, fish and humans having different sorts of flesh.

All that needs to be shown is that flesh is composed of a spiritual underlying aspect. Then the significance of Paul's words becomes apparent, as a material distinction expands into a spiritual distinction, and the spirit comes first. This can also be shown in the bible. Paul was contending with the notion that

 

[Greg1234]

It doesn't. I'm not saying 1 Corinthians 15 proves evolution - Mathetes123 originally posted it to try prove creationism. But as I said, if you read the entire chapter it's actually talking about resurrection. Animals are only briefly noted.

There's a list of things which proves creationism, the fact that animals, plants and humans are fundamentally distinct is but one example. They were individually created at that fundamental level, and did not arise through a collection of chemical errors. The spirit came first.

You originally wrote ' "All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference.' What exactly are the spiritual difference between animals, birds and fish? I don't really see how a baboon is spiritually different from a tapeworm. Religion is a human phenomenon.

The spirit is not a religion.

 

[Assyrian]

Man being made in the image of God is found in the bible.

Hardly. The image of man in the image of God is found in the bible. Things which are seen being made from things unseen is found in the bible.

So there are animal, bird and fish gods who made animals, birds and fish in their image too? I am sure that can't be what you mean because it runs into problems with Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. The thing is you were trying to establish Paul's reference to animals birds and fish having different sorts of flesh was a reference to their having some sort of platonic spiritual pattern.

All that needs to be shown is that flesh is composed of a spiritual underlying aspect. Then the significance of Paul's words becomes apparent, as a material distinction expands into a spiritual distinction, and the spirit comes first. This can also be shown in the bible. Paul was contending with the notion that

No because even if birds and fish did have an underlying spiritual aspect, and Paul even thought he did, it doesn't mean this is what Paul was talking about in that passage. Your problem is you have this one size fits all idea and seem to read it into every passage you come across. You need to look at what the text is actually saying.

 

[SkyWriting]

Religion is a human phenomenon.

Proving again that were are not part of the animal kingdom.

 

[Incariol]

Proving again that were are not part of the animal kingdom.

1. We don't know if religion is a human only phenomenon. We haven't exactly got evidence one way or the other. It is possible that some other higher animals have a concept of spirituality.

2. If we aren't in the animal kingdom, which kingdom are we in?

Plantae?
Fungi?
Protista?
Bacteria?
Archaea?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The spirit is not a religion.

But again, you wrote "All flesh is not the same" denotes a fundamental spiritual difference.' What are the spiritual difference between animals, birds and fish?

Another intresting quote from the same chapter:

"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

(1 Corinthians 15:44-46)​

Proving again that were are not part of the animal kingdom.

We are animals - but we are spiritual animals. That's one of the things that makes us unique. The natural came before the spiritual.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

We don't know if religion is a human only phenomenon. We haven't exactly got evidence one way or the other. It is possible that some other higher animals have a concept of spirituality.

Probably not. I doubt we'll find any missionaries trying to teach a group of chimpanzees about the life of Jesus.