Kenneth Miller: Respected Christian Champion of Evolution

You can't call Genesis a narrative and also believe in theistic evolution. I mean you can but it makes you ridiculously inconsistent.

 

Amazing thast the Christian Church had no problem accepting genesis as historical lieter historicak account of origins, but once fake science of evolution hit, had to now redo the viewpoint!

 

Yes, as Jesus, who was there by the way, saw Adam and Eve as created by him dierectly, no evolutioanry process involved, and paul saw that Adam was a single historical indivudual, not a whole tribe of them!

 

I really don't seehow one can read what Dr Walton has written, and see that as the proper way to view Genesis and origins!

 

Well, Bill Nye the Science Guy thinks that maybe we came from Mars so wouldn't that cover your atheistic evolution account of primordial elements and material conditions? Is it correct to say that where science contradicts Scripture that you always go with science? That is where people like Richard Land and Norman Geisler are coming from.

 

God inspired Moses to pen down genesis, and yet knew that until godless evolution hit the scene, no Christian could really understand it correctly?

 

You ignore all of the evidence that contradicts your view, so why should I bother restating the evidence. Augustine, for one, did not accept six, 24-hour day, creation. But you should already know that since we have discussed it.

Really? When did Jesus tell you that there was no evolutionary process? The scripture does not record that He addressed the issue. We've been through this before, but you could not interact with my explanation... You simply restate your premise as if the mere repetition of it is somehow evidence.

That's a nice theory except that Paul uses Adam as an archetype. Again, we've been through this.

 

No, and the answer is stunningly obvious.

God is the Creator of the universe (including Mars) and there is no life except what He had created. Placing human origins on Mars, Pluto, in another galaxy, or on Earth doesn't change the fundamental issue that there is no material world, nor life, without the direct action of God. Atheism fails precisely because it cannot explain the most basic reality of existence.

No, and I don't think Land and Geisler would agree with your statement.

When science appears to contradict our understanding of scripture, we have to conclude one of the following:

(1) The current scientific theory is wrong.
(2) Our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.
(3) Both the current scientific theory and our current interpretation of the biblical witness is wrong.

When scripture and science appear to conflict, we must humbly go back to both and reexamine the evidence for the scientific theory and reexamine the evidence for our interpretation of the biblical text.

 

When the scriptures state to us that God made One Adam, divine creation, no need for evolutionary process, and when Pauldescribed Adam as being the sole and one representative for us before God in the test....

 

How do you know that Bill Nye the Science Guy is wrong since you weren't there? And Land and Geisler have said that they go with science and call YECs presuppositionalists so you are wrong about them.

 

As I said, you dismiss the geologists, astronomers and biologists, etc., who say differently. Here it's evident you don't dismiss them based on superior learning, but on the prejudices of those by whom you wish to be accepted and esteemed.

Um, because it would be true?

Puh-leeze. After asserting your superior learning, you're tripped up on an anachrony?

Your assertions are old hat, and have been soundly refuted by believing scientists and OT scholars. There is no real question about what Genesis is saying. The best evidence is children, as such you must become if you're to receive the preaching of Christ, which is deeply rooted in Genesis. You don't have to tell a child that Jesus wasn't saying He was a literal door when He said, I am the door, or that He was saying he was processed wheat when He said He was the bread of life.

They know.

And the boy who drives the plow knows that Genesis is saying something altogether different than the Evolution chapter in his middle school science text book. Genesis was written for him, not for your friends.[/quote]

 

Be specific. What was that cosmology?

Give an example.

 

Those who support Theistic evolution seem to ALWAYS have their finalauthority the assured "scientific facts" of evolution!

 

When scripture and science conflict we can know that science is wrong.

 

Science facts when interpreted correctly always agree with scripture, but the danger is when one uses those "facts" to override scripture!

 

Science is not devoid of its masters scientists.

 

If one says that God created the heavens and the earth and He did it by evolution, then you are clearly challenging the perfection of Scripture and then one should be asked how he knows Genesis 1:1 is true?

 

The Louvre contains miles of scientific books that were in their day considered fact. Now, they have all been wholly or in major part proven wrong. Darwin himself said for his theory to be correct, the cell had to be simple. If the cell were proven to be complex, his theory would fail. I take his word for it.

 

Exactly! The cell has proven to be very complex with DNA!

All this chaos in science began with the Enlightenment and this chaos would have ended already if American scientists were not so biased. For example, the man who first discovered the evidence for the Lake Missoula Flood at the end of the Ice Age when a lake twice the size of Lake Erie broke free and emptied into the Pacific Ocean was shunned for forty years until aerial photography confirmed his hard work.

 

Kenneth Miller: Respected Christian Champion of Evolution

I wonder what it feels like to be a respected champion of one of the biggest myths in history.