IF evolution is true,

What version are you using???

Mine reads:

Is this typical of YEC interpretations? You are bringing much baggage into the text brother!

Rob

 

Theistic evolution’s (T.E.) appeal is its acceptance of modern science and basic principles of evolutionary theory. These main beliefs gave T.E. its initial name, “Concordism”.

Theistic evolution is most simply portrayed by a fully wound clock.
Theistic Evolutionists feel it would be inappropriate for God, who presumably is a consummate designer, to intervene periodically to adjust the clock.

Howard Van Till calls his form of T.E., The Fully Gifted Creation. He believes that God has created a universe which depends continually upon God, which has been endowed with the ability to accomplish what God wants it to accomplish without any "corrections" or "interventions."

The theory of Theistic Evolution magnifies God’s immanence and providential wisdom (foresight).

Please understand, I do not support T.E. myself but follow the literature as I learn from those wiser than I.

Rob

 

Is this typical of YEC interpretations? You are bringing much baggage into the text brother!

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]I realize that the verse was taken out of context. Nevertheless it still aptly describes the theistic evolutionist.

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I would never describe Scripture as baggage but then those who believe in evolution treat Genesis 1-11 as baggage.

 

Gold Dragon

You said, "The definition of what makes one "species" distinct from another "species" has been blurred by increased human understanding of genetics. This supports evolution because it shows commonalities between what we have historically classified as different species to the extent that common ancestry is difficult to deny."

I don't believe that was the point they were making. The idea was that the old definition was too restrictive (i.e. the scientists couldn't show speciation events according to the old definition, so they changed it to fit what they were finding. That way, they can claim "thousands" of examples of evolution.)

You said, "I'm not sure what you mean by "separate DNA" since my children will have different and separate DNA from myself. Could you clarify what your criteria is for "separate DNA"?

Your children have human DNA. They do not have chimp DNA, or dog DNA. I want to see an example of one species (distinct according to its DNA sturcture) change into another species. Or, better yet, some intermediate form that shows the transition is taking place.

 

I was referring to Intelligent Design theory and the ideas of Irreducible Complexity, a recent popular theory that was made popular through the book Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe.

 

I don't feel it is inappropriate for God to intervene periodically.

Theistic evolution simply says that God used evolution in His divine act of creation and that it is part of his design for life to adapt to changes in the environment.

 

Gold Dragon

I first want to compliment you on your politeness. You are quite the gentleman.

Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Do you believe that every human being on the planet is a descendant of Noah and his sons?

The theory of intellegent design is not "pop-science". Those who developed it were all once proponents of evolution that simply could not hold on to a theory that had so many problems.

 

Of all the heresies that have been advocated under the banner of religion, I find none more repugnant than that of "theistic evolution." I am sickened at heart to be reminded that there are those who claim to be Baptists, and thus are presumably members of Baptists churches, who have embraced this damnable heresy.

God have mercy on us.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Amen Mark

 

This theistic evolutionist approves of calls for God to have mercy on us all and I also believe that God intervenes on a regular basis, I have seen it in my life, the Bible affirms it has happened in world history and there is no reason He wouldn't have started intervening througout all the evolutionary past the universe has seen. On the other hand it would seem His beyond nature interventions are episodic while his continual sustaining and influence are within the bounds of His own natural laws.

 

There are two possibilities.

a) Adam, First Man, was selected out of the evolving species by God and placed in the garden

b) The Adamic story is symbolic and meant by God to teach the spiritual truth about our sin nature in a manner men could understand in the infancy of our race.

Personally, I vote for a)

 

I've never read anything so ridiculouly opposed to Scripture in all my life.

FWIW


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Don't hide things, tell us how you really feel!

Mark, that was a flame. A statement with no facts to back it up.

I have read the OLD theology books of the early to mid century and am familiar with the propaganda that was (and still is being) taught to theology students about T.E.
IMHO, they were bigoted and misleading; have you updated your library on the subject?

What are your grievances with T.E. that cause you to place it top on your list of heresies?
(one or two at a time please)

Rob

 

I personally vote for c):

c) God formed man with His own hands from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.

Gen 2:7-8 KJV
[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
[8] And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

What is your reasoning for interpreting Genesis using a non-literal hermeneutic?

Chad

 

Carry this theory to its logical extreme and you wind up with pantheism [the force be with you], the god of many pagan and far eastern religions.

 

Thanks for your kinds words. Others around these parts don't seem to do so well with differing opinions.

I personally do. Although I am open to the possibility of option b) that Paul of Eugene stated. Whether Adam and Eve are literal or not, sin entered this world because of man to separate us from God. The good news of Jesus reconciles us to God.

Maybe, maybe not. I lean towards a local flood. Genesis is true in that the world, as known by the inspired author of Genesis was flooded.

I consider pop-science to be science that is recently made popular through books aimed at the general public instead of through scientific journals. They very well may be true, but it will take time for the theories to be challenged and accepted/rejected by the scientific community.

 

Mark

I agree wholeheartedly. The theistic evolutionsts have corrupted the Revelation of God by introducing the atheistic philosophy of evolution into the Christian faith.

Frankly I don't know what words describe the theistic evolutionist. Some have apparently studied atheistic evolution more than Scripture so I can't call them naive. Some apparently just believe it because its the acceptable thing to do, not really understanding that theistic evolution is destructive to the Christian faith. Then of course there is always the fact that Satan is at war against the Church.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I lean towards a local flood. Genesis is true in that the world, as known by the inspired author of Genesis was flooded.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then Gold Dragon you contradict the writers of the New Testament.

The author of Hebrews certainly believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real and world wide since he writes in Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Peter also believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real since he states in 2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

But then evolutions are not really concerned about contradicting Scripture are they?

By the way, was the inspired author of Genesis directed by God to write false information about creation?

 

Local flood?

Care to show how a "local flood" could cover the mountains of Ararat "locally"?
Care to show how the mountains in that region of the world could be covered over by 15 cubits of water "locally" and not encompass the entire world?



In HIS service;
Jim