Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8782 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2017 11:57 AM
118 online now:
Coyote, DOCJ, DrJones*, Faith, herebedragons, Meddle, nwr, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Stile (11 members, 107 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,620 Year: 21,226/21,208 Month: 1,659/2,326 Week: 114/881 Day: 36/78 Hour: 12/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 1 of 76 (2485)
01-19-2002 3:12 PM


I found this link at Yahoo Clubs: Darwin and Jesus Can Get Along:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/

Within that site is the authors "Essay in Favor of Theistic Evolution"
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

Is much more also - Looks to be a real nice site.

Moose

------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 3:41 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-20-2002 11:30 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-19-2002 6:27 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 71 by almeyda, posted 08-06-2004 5:41 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 76 (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 yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 3 of 76 (2496)
01-19-2002 5:36 PM


I like this site, however, I will raise one point of contention.

Quotes from http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

From "The Possibilities of Genesis" section:

quote:
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.

From "Young-Earth Creationists" section:

quote:
Many creationists portray their positions as a choice between believing the Word of God, and believing the theories of fallible humans who are interpreting what they observe about the earth. They are leaving out the fact that it is also fallible humans who are interpreting God's Word in the Bible. There are two layers of interpretation here (of the Bible and of the earth), not just one.

The Bible -> theological interpretation <--> scientific interpretation <- the earth.

The Bible cannot be wrong, but it can be interpreted wrongly.


I repeat:

quote:

They are leaving out the fact that it is also fallible humans who are interpreting God's Word in the Bible.

and:

quote:

The Bible cannot be wrong, but it can be interpreted wrongly.

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?

Moose.

------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 6:08 PM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 07-19-2003 10:46 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 76 (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 responded

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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 5 of 76 (2505)
01-19-2002 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by TrueCreation
01-19-2002 6:08 PM


quote:
True Creation: 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.

TC, this doesn't seem to be at all up to your normal level of eloquence.

Is he, perhaps, recognizing the difference of, and separation between science and religion?

------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 01-19-2002 6:08 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 8:21 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 01-20-2002 11:51 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 6 of 76 (2506)
01-19-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 7:11 PM


Part of True Creations response to http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html :

quote:
True Creation: ...infact doesn't propose too much knowledge on the known theories on the Global Flood

What amounts to being a response from the above cited:

quote:
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. These catastrophes are not reported in the Biblical account of the flood, and we don't need to add them.

Moose


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 9:04 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 12:22 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 76 (2510)
01-19-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 8:21 PM


"The Bible cannot be wrong, but it can be interpreted wrongly."

Well that about sums it up to me as to why creationism can NEVER be considered science...Its proponents systematicaly refuse to put to the test the very corner stone upon which rests their entire theory


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 12:30 AM LudvanB has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 8 of 76 (2561)
01-20-2002 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 3:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I found this link at Yahoo Clubs: Darwin and Jesus Can Get Along:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/

Within that site is the authors "Essay in Favor of Theistic Evolution"
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

Is much more also - Looks to be a real nice site.

Moose


There's also a real nice bunch of links there:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/references.html

Da Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 12:32 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 76 (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 yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 76 (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 yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 76 (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 yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 76 (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 yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 13 of 76 (2599)
01-21-2002 11:45 AM


The evolution/creation debate has long been polarized as evolution versus fundimentalist creationist anti-evolutionism.

It is often aserted by the evolution side, that many view evolution and Christian religion (and creationism?) to be something that can co-exist.

This thread attempts to explore such middle ground. Of course, this still runs against the beliefs of the fundimentalists.

I would be interested to hear from the Christian evolutionist side, as to what they find to be a suitable "flavor" of creationism.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 12:33 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-22-2002 9:25 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 76 (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 (http://www.reasons.org) 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 yet responded

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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 76 (2669)
01-22-2002 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
01-21-2002 12:33 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"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[/QUOTE]

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?

Science is the naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena. That's it.

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"?

quote:
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.

Pure Bull, TC, this is pure sour-grapes bull.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 12:33 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 6:51 PM nator has not yet responded

    
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017