Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 78 (2488)
01-19-2002 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 3:12 PM


"http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html"
--For one, he dosn't get along with the bible very well it seems, infact doesn't propose too much knowledge on the known theories on the Global Flood, or much of creation science for that matter doing a very bad job of discrediting it.
---------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 3:12 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 78 (2502)
01-19-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 5:36 PM


"This possibility is often called the "Day-Age Theory." A common criticism of the day-age theory is that the order of days/ages does not match up with evolutionary theory. The answer to this criticism is that if Genesis 2:18-20 is apparently free to change the order of creation for animals and man from Genesis 1:24-27, why should we conclude that the order of creation days is strictly sequential and non-overlapping? If I were permitted to change the Bible (and I'm not), the only switch I would make would be to swap days 3 and 4. The Biblical order matches up well enough for me."
--The author has a problem here, because the bible says that when God first made creatures he did do it in sequential order, this is similar to the 'contrediction' of the order things were created. After God did this he then did another creation in front of adam to see what he would name them, thus there is a problem with the oder of creation and what evolution predicts, but ofcourse its good enough for his satisfaction, this doesn't conclude the scenario.
"The Bible cannot be wrong, but it can be interpreted wrongly."
--Agreed, though its quite obvious what the bible asserts.
"The author is not conceding that it is also "fallible humans" that produced the physical Bible. How can one be certain that the Bible "cannot be wrong", when "fallible humans" have been involved in it's production?"
--Picture it like this, you have this person, say it was the writter of the Genesis creation, God didn't write it yes, but what it was was inspired by God, (God Breathed), think of it in terms of the writter of Genesis saw the creation with his own eyes in say a vision. He can only explain what he saw in his words and his own understanding, but it is still accurate, quite simmilar to the topic of what God is like or looks like, the bible gives us something to work with, but it was written by the person that could only write it to his own understanding. I once heard in these forums that Genius is the ability to reduce the complexity of terms to simplicity, God did a very good job.
----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 5:36 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 7:11 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 78 (2562)
01-20-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 7:11 PM


"TC, this doesn't seem to be at all up to your normal level of eloquence."
--Care for a challenge of his statements? My eloquence is decided on the basis of my ability to do so. There should be a relative validity to anything that sounds eloquent.
"Is he, perhaps, recognizing the difference of, and separation between science and religion?"
--Also his illiteracy in scripture, the way he portrays his connection from scienct and scripture is an obvious attempt to reconfigure the text. Trying to put science into his faith, portraying genesis as so, and then denying that science is that is relevant.
-----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 7:11 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 78 (2564)
01-21-2002 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 8:21 PM


"The Flood is a miracle, either global or local. Why is there a need to invent pseudo-science to "explain" it? We don't need 70-mile high geysers, volcanoes, massive earthquakes, and entire continents appearing and disappearing in a matter of days."
--I hope that this is atleast an exaduration because this is a statement that sure portrays ignorance of any theory. Also there sertainly is no pseudo-science involved in any aspect of it. Also, earthquakes would have been an obvious cause of the fountains of the deep breaking up, also later in Job God asks him if he has seen the springs of the deep, having a connection with undersea volcano's. "all the springs of the great deep burst forth" they 'burst' forth, they didn't leak out or something. The author seems to try and portray it simply as a miracle and that it happend, so nothing more needs to be known about it because it doesn't matter. Its quite self explanatory his falacy in reality, though it may seem relevant but inconclusive, God did judgement, and he left evidence so we would realize it was judgement. I don't know exactly where he got the 'entire continents appearing and disappearing in a matter of days' assertion from as there werre no 'disapearing or reapearing' continents.
"These catastrophes are not reported in the Biblical account of the flood, and we don't need to add them."
--They sertainly are portrayed all throughout genesis of a massive catastrophy and all of these are obvious by observation and today's topographical knowledge.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 8:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 78 (2565)
01-21-2002 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LudvanB
01-19-2002 9:04 PM


"Well that about sums it up to me as to why creationism can NEVER be considered science..."
--I HIGHLY (I rarely type in caps!) should hope that your not interpereting the validity of the scientific method creation science.
"Its proponents systematicaly refuse to put to the test the very corner stone upon which rests their entire theory."
--This guy doesn't even have a theory really! By the way he's a theistic evolutionist, meaning he's not a creationist! He's full in for evolution, just with God to fill in all the gaps of origins and the problems with evolution by saying 'goddidit' and that it was all 'miracles' which is what creation science (because it is science) avoids.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 9:04 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 78 (2567)
01-21-2002 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Minnemooseus
01-20-2002 11:30 PM


"There's also a real nice bunch of links there:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/references.html
--I'm just hoping their not as crazy as the other inside link!
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-20-2002 11:30 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 78 (2601)
01-21-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Minnemooseus
01-21-2002 11:45 AM


"It is often aserted by the evolution side, that many view evolution and Christian religion (and creationism?) to be something that can co-exist."
--They can I guess in a sence but when looked at the whole picture, including the various verses in Genesis, it simply contredicts what it says. You have to twist and bend and even invalidate much of Genesis for it to sound even slightly adequate. Though this doesn't make relevance whether you accept Jesus and thus inherit his kingdom. I really have no extream problem with evolution when looked at in that sence, but it is publicized in the schools as if it discredits God and the bible directly and thus leading to an abundance of lost souls, the way teachers teach evolution sertainly is inconceivable when considering the validity of his word, though I do know that the bible isn't going to get much of a part if any in the public school system, its the way they are teaching, its simply indoctrination instead of education.
"I would be interested to hear from the Christian evolutionist side, as to what they find to be a suitable "flavor" of creationism."
--I would be most interested to discuss with a theistic Evo, though I don't think I've located any in the forums? Probley one of the more popular theistic Evolutionists are Hugh Ross (Home - Reasons to Believe) et al. in his organization or ministry.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2002 11:45 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 3:28 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 33 by truthlover, posted 07-21-2003 2:35 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 39 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 10-03-2003 10:49 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 78 (2778)
01-25-2002 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
01-22-2002 3:28 PM


"Evolution, and science in general, does not address religion or God or the supernatural at all. If everyone in a science classroom was Hindu or Bhuddist, would it be OK to teach science, but not if everyone is Protestant Fundamentalist Christian?"
--I was not addressing science, I was addressing the ToE as it is perpertrated as the FoE (Fact of Evolution) no matter in what scence, they say there are many theories on how it happened, but they say that it Did happen. Science is Great, I love science, otherwize I would be in no place to be in this discussion, and even enjoy it.
"Science is the naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena. That's it."
--Exactly
"Should The Atomic Theory of Matter, The Germ Theory of Disease, or Gravitational Theory not be taught in schools, because if some religious sects feel that the teaching of these subjects "discredits God"?"
--Again I was not asserting against Science, but against the ToE. These theories you propose discredit God in no way or, known to me, sercumstance, its the way they teach it, as I have first hand experience as I am still inhereting public school education.
"Pure Bull, TC, this is pure sour-grapes bull."
--I would suspect a response such as this.
"Creation "science" is religiously-based and it's fundamental tennets are based not upon evidence and observation, but upon faith that a particular interpretation of a particular part of a particular chapter in Genesis is correct, with no evidence ever changing that.
--I would advise reading of my posted literature, as you have unsuccessfully proved this wrong, and even in your attempts to make it as you say, I have proved it wrong as one of the few that you can actually 'prove' as I have to the degree of this posted time in our converstion. Are you at all interested in the facts or are you only interested in your own pre-conceived belief on creation science, you would be successful if you accused creationism, but not creation science, as it is purely scientific in natural phenomenal explinations.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 3:28 PM nator has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 78 (2779)
01-25-2002 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Minnemooseus
01-22-2002 9:25 PM


"I guess my intent really is to address this topic to the people of the evolution side. The fundimentalist creationist side is naturally opposed to theistic evolution as it includes a substantial acceptance of evolution.
So, evolution side, what do you think of theistic evolution?"
--I agree, but would this inquire discussion?
--If someone is a theistic bible believing evolutionist, then I am glad to hear that, at least they are believers of the biblical fundementals, and don't let me stray you another direction in believing scripture, as long as your on the foundation.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-22-2002 9:25 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024