Students at Wheaton start Young Earth Club, show Young Earth film to the dismay of faculty

[Baptist Believer]

I have seen no evidence to support Theistic Evolution...

Have you looked at the best evidence?

I have recommended Adam and the Genome to you more than a half-dozen times to you in this thread, but I suspect you have not made any plans to read it. If you refuse to read it (or another similar book that discusses the evolutionary findings of the human genome), then you can't fairly say you "have seen no evidence to support theistic evolution."

...and do see that some who hold to that, and do not see a literal historical aspect in genesis are trying to fit and acomodate evolutionary theory into scriptures.

Two points to make here:

(1) If a person does not interpret the creation narratives of Genesis as literal, historical accounts, what is wrong with them accepting the views of well-documented science? As someone who realized that the creation accounts were not to be interpreted as literal, historical events (tentatively in 1985, and conclusively in 1991 after working through the passages in Hebrew), I did not come to confidently embrace evolutionary theory until 2017 when I did some reading on the human genome. I can't speak for anyone else, but I began with a scriptural conviction first, then a scientific conviction more than 25 years later.

(2) Just because there are some people who do not have a strong view of inspiration or the reliability of scripture interpret the creation narratives as non-literal, non-historical passages, does not mean that ALL or even MOST people who interpret the creation narratives in a similar way also share an inadequate view of inspiration or the reliability of scripture. That's just not logical, nor bore out in real life. Almost every atheist I've ever talked to about the creation narratives has interpreted the Genesis 1:1-2:3 passage as describing seven, 24-hour days -- just like you. Of course, that doesn't make you an atheist nor make them Christian.
​

I asked you a question in my last post and you have avoided answering it. I have been respectful enough to you to answer just about every question you have asked as soon as possible, so I would hope that you would extend to me the same courtesy. I will ask again:

Will you now have enough humility and grace not to criticize and attack persons who understand the Genesis creation narratives differently than you?​

By saying yes to this question, you are not compromising yourself, not betraying your own viewpoint. I realize it can take a while to carefully work through these issues and be convinced in one's own mind. You may also have a community of faith or family members who will shun you if you depart from your current, publicly-stated convictions, so you need to work that out in your own way and I will extend the grace to you to do that.

So what do you say?

 

[Yeshua1]

Have you looked at the best evidence?

I have recommended Adam and the Genome to you more than a half-dozen times to you in this thread, but I suspect you have not made any plans to read it. If you refuse to read it (or another similar book that discusses the evolutionary findings of the human genome), then you can't fairly say you "have seen no evidence to support theistic evolution."


Two points to make here:

(1) If a person does not interpret the creation narratives of Genesis as literal, historical accounts, what is wrong with them accepting the views of well-documented science? As someone who realized that the creation accounts were not to be interpreted as literal, historical events (tentatively in 1985, and conclusively in 1991 after working through the passages in Hebrew), I did not come to confidently embrace evolutionary theory until 2017 when I did some reading on the human genome. I can't speak for anyone else, but I began with a scriptural conviction first, then a scientific conviction more than 25 years later.

(2) Just because there are some people who do not have a strong view of inspiration or the reliability of scripture interpret the creation narratives as non-literal, non-historical passages, does not mean that ALL or even MOST people who interpret the creation narratives in a similar way also share an inadequate view of inspiration or the reliability of scripture. That's just not logical, nor bore out in real life. Almost every atheist I've ever talked to about the creation narratives has interpreted the Genesis 1:1-2:3 passage as describing seven, 24-hour days -- just like you. Of course, that doesn't make you an atheist nor make them Christian.
​

I asked you a question in my last post and you have avoided answering it. I have been respectful enough to you to answer just about every question you have asked as soon as possible, so I would hope that you would extend to me the same courtesy. I will ask again:

Will you now have enough humility and grace not to criticize and attack persons who understand the Genesis creation narratives differently than you?​

By saying yes to this question, you are not compromising yourself, not betraying your own viewpoint. I realize it can take a while to carefully work through these issues and be convinced in one's own mind. You may also have a community of faith or family members who will shun you if you depart from your current, publicly-stated convictions, so you need to work that out in your own way and I will extend the grace to you to do that.

So what do you say?

The view of theistic evolution woudl not rise to be a heresy, but would not be consistent view in regards to how god was a Crteator directly, and there is no evidence in the scriptures to support otherwise!

 

[Baptist Believer]

The view of theistic evolution woudl not rise to be a heresy...

I thank God for that.

...but would not be consistent view in regards to how god was a Crteator directly...

Says who? You?

Many of us who believe in theistic evolution believe that God (please not the capitalization) was DIRECTLY involved in the creative process of evolution. How else would it work if God were not involved?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Podcast with the authors of Adam and the Genome, that gives an overview of some parts of the book. It is not a replacement for reading the book, but it will give you an overview of their perspective.

 

[Yeshua1]

I thank God for that.


Says who? You?

Many of us who believe in theistic evolution believe that God (please not the capitalization) was DIRECTLY involved in the creative process of evolution. How else would it work if God were not involved?

There again is no evidence to support evolution!

 

[Yeshua1]

I thank God for that.


Says who? You?

Many of us who believe in theistic evolution believe that God (please not the capitalization) was DIRECTLY involved in the creative process of evolution. How else would it work if God were not involved?

Why woudl God need evolution though? IF you mrean by that species evolved within themselves, as in dogs had dofferent breeds, no problem, but if you mean species change...
And it still cannot account for mankind in very image of God....

 

[Baptist Believer]

Why woudl God need evolution though?

Why not? You are asking a question only God can answer.

But since we are asking questions about why God does things a certain way, you claim that God created the universe in six, 24-hour days. Why didn't He do it in the blink of an eye?

Taking a historical, literal position, why did God not immediately intervene after Adam and Eve fell, and have Jesus become incarnate as a full-grown man, have Jesus explain Who He was, be crucified for the sins of Adam and Eve, make atonement, be raised to life again, give Adam and Eve the Great Commission, and be ascending to the right hand of God in the same afternoon?

IF you mrean by that species evolved within themselves, as in dogs had dofferent breeds, no problem, but if you mean species change...

Both.

And it still cannot account for mankind in very image of God....

Sure it can. "Let Us make humankind in our own image."

It strikes me that you might somehow view being in the image of God as some sort of biological or genetic thing. Is that the way you see it?

 

[Baptist Believer]

There again is no evidence to support evolution!

Saying this over and over does not make it true.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not? You are asking a question only God can answer.

But since we are asking questions about why God does things a certain way, you claim that God created the universe in six, 24-hour days. Why didn't He do it in the blink of an eye?

Taking a historical, literal position, why did God not immediately intervene after Adam and Eve fell, and have Jesus become incarnate as a full-grown man, have Jesus explain Who He was, be crucified for the sins of Adam and Eve, make atonement, be raised to life again, give Adam and Eve the Great Commission, and be ascending to the right hand of God in the same afternoon?


Both.


Sure it can. "Let Us make humankind in our own image."

It strikes me that you might somehow view being in the image of God as some sort of biological or genetic thing. Is that the way you see it?

No, I take the genesis account as real history, as God created Adam Himself, and breathed into Him then a Human soul/spirit, and afterwards created Eve for him as his wife.
Image of God is that quality unique to man where we can have intimate and personal relationship with our Creator.
Your answer about why Kesus came when he did is found in Romans 5:6

 

[Yeshua1]

Saying this over and over does not make it true.

There is no support for Darwinian evolution!

 

[Baptist Believer]

No, I take the genesis account as real history, as God created Adam Himself, and breathed into Him then a Human soul/spirit, and afterwards created Eve for him as his wife.

That's wonderful. I hope that works for you. Just remember that fellow faithful Christians understand the texts differently.

Image of God is that quality unique to man where we can have intimate and personal relationship with our Creator.

That's part of it. The concept is much richer than that, for it includes humankind being co-creators, moral actors, and able caretakers of the world that God has created and inhabits -- and that barely scratches the surface.

Your answer about why Kesus came when he did is found in Romans 5:6

I agree. Jesus came "at the right time" or "at the fullness of time" in God's perfect providence. So your assertion that God would not work through billions of years of action is quite unfounded since God gets to choose His timing.

So let's stop making the foolish argument that God MUST have done things quickly (according to human terms).

 

[Baptist Believer]

There is no support for Darwinian evolution!

You have used the term "Darwinian" evolution in opposition to "Theistic" evolution previously. Do you mean atheistic evolution when you say "Darwinian evolution?" If so, I agree and we have no conflict.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's wonderful. I hope that works for you. Just remember that fellow faithful Christians understand the texts differently.


That's part of it. The concept is much richer than that, for it includes humankind being co-creators, moral actors, and able caretakers of the world that God has created and inhabits -- and that barely scratches the surface.


I agree. Jesus came "at the right time" or "at the fullness of time" in God's perfect providence. So your assertion that God would not work through billions of years of action is quite unfounded since God gets to choose His timing.

So let's stop making the foolish argument that God MUST have done things quickly (according to human terms).

The scientific evidence points towards a younger, not older earth/universe model though, and again, we haveto accept the fact that the majority view before Darwin was as I see it!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have used the term "Darwinian" evolution in opposition to "Theistic" evolution previously. Do you mean atheistic evolution when you say "Darwinian evolution?" If so, I agree and we have no conflict.

I am glad that we can agree that Darwinian evolution is junk science. Do you hold to evolution as in species change though as those holding to DE would?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am glad that we can agree that Darwinian evolution is junk science.

You didn't answer my question whether or not you are using "Darwinian evolution" as a stand-in for "atheistic evolution."

I agree that atheism is a foolish position and that current evolutionary theory has gone well beyond Darwin's observations and initial theories, but I have said nothing about "junk science."

Do you hold to evolution as in species change though as those holding to DE would?

Yes.

Do you believe in parallel parking your car in the same way that an atheist evolutionist would?

 

[Baptist Believer]

The scientific evidence points towards a younger, not older earth/universe model though...

No, it really doesn't.

...again, we haveto accept the fact that the majority view before Darwin was as I see it!

Actually, you have never established that point. There were many different viewpoints on the Genesis narratives.

Moveover, you are making yet another appeal to tradition, which does not necessarily agree with you (Augustine) and you happily ignore when you like the scientific conclusions (for instance, Luther and Calvin's views on Copernicus).

So why do you reject Augustine's views that the "days" of Genesis 1 are not literal, and why do you reject Luther and Calvin's views on the rotation of the earth around the sun?

And both of us reject Christian religious tradition when it comes to infant baptism.

Don't appeal to tradition unless you want to refute what I have previously posted on that subject.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it really doesn't.


Actually, you have never established that point. There were many different viewpoints on the Genesis narratives.

Moveover, you are making yet another appeal to tradition, which does not necessarily agree with you (Augustine) and you happily ignore when you like the scientific conclusions (for instance, Luther and Calvin's views on Copernicus).

So why do you reject Augustine's views that the "days" of Genesis 1 are not literal, and why do you reject Luther and Calvin's views on the rotation of the earth around the sun?

And both of us reject Christian religious tradition when it comes to infant baptism.

Don't appeal to tradition unless you want to refute what I have previously posted on that subject.

Again, the traditional viewpoint onb Genesis is the most consistent view, and that accounts for how it is seen in the Bible!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Again, the traditional viewpoint onb Genesis is the most consistent view, and that accounts for how it is seen in the Bible!

So you can’t respond to any point I have made... All you can do is repeat your assertion.

That’s quite telling.

I have given quite a bit of evidence that my view is consist with scriptures AND science, but you insist that I am wrong and you are right.

Do you at least have the humility and good sense to say that faithful Christians of good will can understand these issues differently?

 

[Yeshua1]

So you can’t respond to any point I have made... All you can do is repeat your assertion.

That’s quite telling.

I have given quite a bit of evidence that my view is consist with scriptures AND science, but you insist that I am wrong and you are right.

Do you at least have the humility and good sense to say that faithful Christians of good will can understand these issues differently?

I have never stated that this rises to heresy, but stated that this does happen many times by someone trying to forcefead into scriptures assumed 'scientific facts", that ar far from that!

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have never stated that this rises to heresy, but stated that this does happen many times by someone trying to forcefead into scriptures assumed 'scientific facts", that ar far from that!

I haven't tried to "forcefead" (I think you mean "forcefeed," although that's a strange word to use here) science into the scriptures, even though you claim I do.

Moreover, the facts are quite well established, but I doubt you know that since you have given me no indication that you have looked into them.

If I simply post, "six, 24-hour day creationism is wrong" over and over in the thread from now on, you would get rightly annoyed. You are essentially doing the same thing.

It is clear you have no real basis for your assertions.