Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron?

For exactly the same reason you take passages which suggest geocentrism, flat-earthism, and the Earth having four corners non-literally. Although you must believe that an omnipotent God could have made a flat four-cornered stationary Earth, you also know perfectly well that he didn't.There is no similar objection to the miracle of Lazarus, so you take that literally.If people who have a sounder knowledge of biology than you do follow the same basic hermeneutic principle, I don't see how you get to complain about it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You may wait awhile since there are not many Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled and many, many that are failed.But maybe you know of one and can educate us about it. Pick one that you think has been fulfilled and let's discuss it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I see others have replied to you already, but I will present my own ideas for comparison: It makes sense if we have evidence telling us that man was not made "relatively suddenly" by having life breathed into him. If you have two options, and one is made impossible by evidence, you are left with the other.This has no bearing on any of the other miracles: there is no evidence telling us that Jesus didn't do the water-wine thing, nor that Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, so they remain open possibilities. In the case of either, it is a personal choice as to whether you believe it happened or it didn't. But that is not what the theistic evolutionist believes. The T-Eist believes that yes, God did create life in whatever fashion, and left it to evolve on its own, but that he also showed up every so often and made adjustments of whatever kind he thought were necessary.While this can fill the requirement for deism, it ignores the later "interference" such as allowing Jesus to do all his fancy tricks or even whether God interfered to ensure humanity's development. The deist believes that the baker left the bread and went home forever; the T-Eist believes that every now and then, God came back to maybe turn the heat down or to move the loaf down a level. No. One couldn't apply that to every miracle. When I say "certain facts" I mean things like the evidence denying spontaneous formation of all biodiversity in its current form or the event of a global flood wiping out everything except one little boatload. These things have been conclusively denied by evidence - they could not have happened. But, this does not include things like the Resurrection. Yes, natural laws say that it shouldn't be possible, but if you add the god-factor, you can bend or break those rules. And we have no evidence to say it didn't happen, so again, it is a possibility and it is up to you whether to believe it or not.Agreed, miracles by definition defy reality, but there are miracles we have evidence for, miracles we have no evidence of, and miralces we have evidence denying. There are the laws broken for the miracle, and then there are the effects that miracle has. These are not the same thing.Jeebus waking up again is of the second category; the Fludde is of the third; and I have as yet not heard of any in the first category. There is no hypocrisy in recognising an open possibility and choosing one side of it, yet denying the possibility of something that is evidenced to be untrue and therefore either fiction or embellishment.

LOL. Click on Buzsaw sometime when you've got a few hours to read my history. When you come to one that's failed, go ahead. Substantially refute it's fulfillment or failure to be on track for relatively near fulfillment.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

LOL. Click on Buzsaw sometime when you've got a few hours to read my history. When you come to one that's failed, go ahead. Substantially refute it's fulfillment or failure to be on track for relatively near fulfillment.

---

That's already been done. For all of them.

But there is just as much evidence that water does not have the properties to become wine outside of a miracle. The same goes for a man in a fish belly for three days. The evidence is that it would take a miracle.In fact, there is less evidence for the creation story than for the above, since the complexity of the aggregate amount of complex life is evidenced more by planning and intelligent design than by natural processes. My bread analogy is a model. There is no model whatsoever for water suddenly turning to wine.As well, there is corroborating evidence of the existence of the Biblical god, Jehovah whereas there is none corroborating the above two, i.e. wine and fish. No. You must mix the ingredients properly, knead and shape them in a pan, etc. to become dough and look like a loaf of bread. Nij, this is just a silly nonsensical alibi for demeaning a creator/designer god to caretaker status, essentially designing nothing. This borders on blaspheming and insulting the Biblical god, capable of raising dead bodies from elements of the dust. Many bodies of believers who will be in the resurrection would long since have been reduced to dust. There's no logical reason why God who will revive those elements into an intelligent being would not have designed the human body to begin with..

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Alleges the dogged secularistic skeptic, catagorically denying all evidence to the contrary.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

No; we have physical laws that suggest it isn't possible for water to immediately become wine beyond an extremely extremely unlikely turn of events. That is where you invoke miracles.But the point of difference is, we have zero evidence suggesting that Jeebus did not do it. Hence, while it's not possible* that it happened, we have no way of saying whether it actually did or not. We have substantial evidence that can only lead to the fact that the Fludde did not happen, in addition to the implausibility when considering natural laws.I think you have not grasped that difference, between "know it shouldn't, but don't know it didn't" and "know it shouldn't, and know it didn't". And that's when threads get derailed by people turning it into "God exists!" "No it doesn't!". We'll skip that here for obvious reasons. {You quoted yourself there, not me. I think you meant to quote my section of that reply, so...}But once you have done the kneading, you let it rise. You come back, you knead it again, you let it rise for a second time. Then you come back, you put it in the oven, and you leave it to bake into its final form with only a little bit of initial input into the shape.
Every time you knead the dough, you interfere. But God's kneading is done by the nature he manipulates: mutations to give rise to oxygen production in plants to create an oxygen atmosphere, meteorites to remove the dinosaurs and permit mammalian dominance. In the same way as a baker kneads dough then lets it rise, God only gets involved when necessary at crucial points, then leaves nature to run its course otherwise. Hell, I don't know, I'm an atheist arguing the devil's advocate.On what basis can you deny the possibility that your god did not only design man in its image, but designed a system that would bring about exactly what he had designed with minimal interference? Methinks that if your deity exists, it might be far more intelligent than you would ever give credit for.

quote:

---

Alleges the dogged secularistic skeptic, catagorically denying all evidence to the contrary.

---

Yawn. I've refuted everything you've put up. It's all there in the threads. The threads that YOU challenged Jar to go and look at. And I'm ready to do it again.

Been there Buz, and done that. Every prophecy you have ever brought up has been refuted, every single one IIRC.And the old "go look at all the crap I've posted" gambit is getting old too. We have all heard you use that for years.Now you are the one that introduced the nonsense of Prophecy to this thread. It's time for you to finally step up to the plate and at the very least give us the Chapter and Verse for one fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

PaulK and Jar, Thousands of Biblical scholars far more advanced and educated in theology would agree with me that these prophecies have valid fulfillments. Your assertions are bare assertions. I know your minds are closed. Let open minded readers decide for themselves. This is not the thread to delve into specific prophecies in depth.As I said, you're welcome to bring up any threads in which these prophecies have been debated. I'll not get bogged down in responding to nonsense and bare assertions but if you have some fresh substantial evidence refuting fulfillment claims, bring them forth.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The scientific (I say scientific) evidence against the flood is debatable, relative to pre-flood properties of the atmosphere and surface of the planet.The scientific (I say scientific) evidence of water being turned into wine is not debatable in that the properties of water and wine are known. Edited by Buzsaw, : Fill in for double post.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So as usual, you simply refuse to support your position. They are not here in the discussion and they are not the one making the claim, you are.I would think that if you believe there is a fulfilled Biblical Prophecy it would be a simple matter for you to give us a Chapter and Verse.We can "Let open minded readers decide for themselves" if you are simply once again refusing to support your assertions.Have you ever even read the Bible Buz?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Climatologists, and or other scientists, and or news media and or people in homes and on the street today use similar sun and flat earth like terminology such as sunrise, sunset, corners of the earth, across the earth, etc. Isa 40:22 speaks of the circle of the earth, circular which can be appliable to flat or global, there being no Hebrew for global so far as I'm aware. The context determines application as there are relatively few Hebrew words compared to English.

quote:

---

PaulK and Jar, Thousands of Biblical scholars far more advanced and educated in theology would agree with me that these prophecies have valid fulfillments. Your assertions are bare assertions. I know your minds are closed. Let open minded readers decide for themselves. This is not the thread to delve into specific prophecies in depth.

---

And yet you cannot defend even one. Your "thousands" apparently failed to equip you with even a single successful prophecy that you could defend. In fact, is it not the case that your preferred "experts" are people that many Christians would rightfully dismiss as loons ? The sort of people who promote nonsense like the idea that UPC barcodes are the "Mark of the Beast".

quote:

---

As I said, you're welcome to bring up any threads in which these prophecies have been debated. I'll not get bogged down in responding to nonsense and bare assertions but if you have some fresh substantial evidence refuting fulfillment claims, bring them forth.

---

Let us note that YOU are offering no more than bare assertions. And let it be noted that apparently your invitation to reopen threads - aside from being an attempt to shift the burden of proof - is apparently only open if we add "fresh evidence" - which we don't need to do.You claimed that there were successful prophecies. Your only support was to tell people to go digging in the archives. Something you are clearly not prepared to do yourself. Clearly you are hoping that an "open minded" reader will simply believe you instead of looking. So I think that it is worth pointing out the truth - that if they do look they will find you refuted again and again.