How Do Thestic Evolutionist Chrsitians Account for man and species transformation?

[Luke2427]

Ummm.....that's what I was saying Luke...Here's what you bolded Actually,
That's from you:
Here was my previous statement:



That's what I've been saying. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying...but that's what I've been saying Luke.

No. Here is what Ham says in that quote you cherry picked:

It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb “formed” to mean “had formed” or “having formed” in Genesis 2:19

They are not at all saying this stuff you keep saying:

He is not "continuing the creative process"...he is forming the animals which are to inhabit the garden with him......

He is now forming animals and plants in front of him from the earth in the garden.


God made all beasts to come out of the ground (one copy each) ONLY IN THE GARDEN!!!!

... in chapter 2, only in the garden he "formed" from pre-existing material.

 

[Inspector Javert]

..........
I want to know what you think the Morris quote you provided does to support this ridiculous notion!

I didn't provide a Morris quote, you did. I referred you to his book which I do not have with me atm....you are getting somewhat visibly angry I think you are not following me.

Whether God is forming animals in front of Adam in the garden or not (and no, I'm not alone in that)....(some suggest that's why Eve could be fooled by the serpent and not Adam).

Or whether as he suggests use the perfect "had formed"...Genesis 2 is still not a recounting of the entire creation from Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is about events on day six. That is still our fundamental disagreement.

 

[Luke2427]

I didn't provide a Morris quote, you did. I referred you to his book which I do not have with me atm....you are getting somewhat visibly angry I think you are not following me.

Whether God is forming animals in front of Adam in the garden or not (and no, I'm not alone in that)....(some suggest that's why Eve could be fooled by the serpent and not Adam).

Or whether as he suggests use the perfect "had formed"...Genesis 2 is still not a recounting of the entire creation from Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is about events on day six. That is still our fundamental disagreement.

No you ARE ABSOLUTELY ALONE.

You provided a bunch a quotes that have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with what you are contending.

Genesis 2, EVERY EVANGELICAL SCHOLAR ON EARTH AGREES, is a recounting of the creative acts in Genesis 1.

If Genesis 2 is ONLY a recounting of the events on day six then this weird mess you keep rolling out about God making some animals in front of Adam is true. But it is not true as has been proven. God made the birds on day five and Genesis 2 tells us how he made them- he formed them out of the ground.

NOBODY BUT YOU thinks this psycho, weirdo mess about God forming out of the ground in front of Adam some more of the animals God had already created in Genesis 1.

NOBODY.

Do you hear me?

NOBODY.

Your whole PREMISE rests on that ridiculous notion and you lied and misrepresented Answers in Genesis and Henry Morris by insinuating that they support such absurd assertions.

Now you owe everybody a retraction and an apology for being dishonest and not educated enough to take up our time in this debate.

 

[Luke2427]

This all started when you tried to say that I was wrong about birds being formed from the ground.

You ignorantly quoted Genesis 1:20 claiming they were formed from water. You were trying to show that YECers are really diligent students of the word.

Then I showed you that the next chapter reveals more detail as to how they were formed and says clearly that they WERE INDEED AS I HAD SAID, formed out of the ground.

Then you just went "bat-crap crazy" and made up this ridiculous mess about God forming some animals in front of Adam.

I said, "God formed every living creature from out of the ground."

Then you said...

Not according to the Scriptures:
According to them, the birds and the fishes were brought forth from the waters. Here's the Bible:

Gen 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The problem with non YEC's....is that they usually haven't REALLY read the Scriptures closely. Usually, there's something OBVIOUSLY and CRITICALLY wrong with their very understanding of Genesis.......
You're just wrong Luke; read Genesis again...it isn't as imprecise and stupid as you might think, it's VERY specific.

Yes, it is......and the fish and the fowl came from the "waters" and the "beasts" and the man and the "creeping things" (and also the 'cattle') came from the "Earth".

Read Genesis again.

Any retractions?

Was I right or not?

 

[Inspector Javert]

You are losing your head Luke:

No you ARE ABSOLUTELY ALONE.

You provided a bunch a quotes that have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with what you are contending.

I provided 1 quote Luke....1. You are ascribing some of your own quotes to me.

Genesis 2, EVERY EVANGELICAL SCHOLAR ON EARTH AGREES, is a recounting of the creative acts in Genesis 1.

No...The quote you provided yourself demonstrates that these are events from day six in more detail.
You provided a quote from Ken Ham about this yourself, Luke:

Actually, Genesis 2 is not a different account of creation. It is a more detailed account of Day 6 of creation. Chapter 1 is an overview of the whole of creation; chapter 2 gives details surrounding the creation of the garden, the first man, and his activities on Day 6.

That was your quote and you put it in huge bold letters remember??

If Genesis 2 is ONLY a recounting of the events on day six then this weird mess you keep rolling out about God making some animals in front of Adam is true.

I don't know about it being ONLY a recounting of day six.....but the relevant verses are.

Your whole PREMISE rests on that ridiculous notion and you lied and misrepresented Answers in Genesis and Henry Morris by insinuating that they support such absurd assertions.

That the passage in chapter two is about specific events on day six is held by AIG and Henry Morris....your own quote demonstrates that.

 

[Luke2427]

You are losing your head Luke:

I provided 1 quote Luke....1. You are ascribing some of your own quotes to me.

No...The quote you provided yourself demonstrates that these are events from day six in more detail.
You provided a quote from Ken Ham about this yourself, Luke:


That was your quote and you put it in huge bold letters remember??


I don't know about it being ONLY a recounting of day six.....but the relevant verses are.

That the passage in chapter two is about specific events on day six is held by AIG and Henry Morris....your own quote demonstrates that.

It IS talking about the events of day six!!!

It is also talking about the events of day FIVE!!!

You are saying it is ONLY talking about the events of day six.

I am showing you that AIG and MORRIS disagree with you. They believe that the birds HAD ALREADY BEEN FORMED on day five and that Genesis 2:19 is speaking of that fact which means that they were indeed made from the GROUND!!!.... as I said to start with and you ignorantly denied.

Morris and AIG agree with me that birds were formed from the ground on day five. NOBODY agrees with you that some animals were formed on day six before Adam's eyes in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:19 is speaking of that fact which means that the birds were indeed made from the GROUND!

Why can you not GET that???

 

[BobRyan]

For they hold to God using the evutionary process, so how would that process produce in man the Image of God, and how would it account/make species changing happen?

They seek the "imagine" of a god who meant to say "billlions and billions of years until finally all life on earth evolved" and said instead "SIX DAYS you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[quantumfaith]

They seek the "imagine" of a god who meant to say "billlions and billions of years until finally all life on earth evolved" and said instead "SIX DAYS you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".

in Christ,

Bob

Now Bob.... I did not know you were prone to "drive bys"

 

[Yeshua1]

Theistic evolutionists are not a monolithic movement.

People like Hugh Ross and Michael Horton believe that God made Adam special, different from other creatures which evolved over time.

That there were hominids before Adam is almost surely the case. but Adam was the first of his kind and all human beings descended from him.

There were various apes/monkey primates that God had created, but there were NO transistion from ANY of those primates into Adam, as manking is a seperate/distinct creation of God, ONLY creature onEarth God made in His own image!

 

[Yeshua1]

What recent facts refute the concept of the Big Bang? In fact, the "idea of the Big Bang" did a great deal to bolster and support the theism that you and I cherish.

For you reading pleasure!
www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses

 

[Yeshua1]

You have GOT to be kidding!!!

The Bible says in NO uncertain terms that God FORMED...

Got that? FORMED..

FORMED...

the birds from the ground.

God formed the birds from the ground.

All this lengthy mess above of yours is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face after you were made to look like a fool.

God formed the birds out of the ground. That's what the Bible teaches.

You think Genesis 1:20 identifies how God FORMED them. It doesn't. It just speaks of where they come from not what they were made out of.

Evolutionary scientists agree that living breathing creatures began in the sea. They were formed, obviously, from the soil in the sea bed.

It is not a dichotomy to say that birds came forth from the sea and were made of soil.

again, why place your FAITH in evolution, a "fact" that cannot be proven, as thescientists themselves stae its not a repeatable/observable/tesdtable event/process, and they still have NO transistions to prove it inthe Fossil records!

God revealed to Moses what happened in genesis, why do you keep insisting words have nio literal real meaningss?

Do theistic evolutionists agree with the Bible there there were historical Adam/Eve, and there was a snake and literalGarden, and a literal Fall that happneed?

 

[Yeshua1]

No he doesn't. I showed you that Henry Morris says what I have been saying to you.

That Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of Genesis 1.

Nobody, not even the most RABID YEC's like Ham and Morris are stupid enough to say anything close to what you say here:



They think the proper translation is "HAD FORMED."

NOBODY believes this crud you are saying here. NOBODY!!

I want to know what you think the Morris quote you provided does to support this ridiculous notion!

again, wa there a literal garden of eden?

JUST Adam and Eve only humans in there?

did the fall lietrally happen?

was there death and fossils on earth happening BEFORE The fall of man?

Could not be as sin had not yetentered Gods creation though!

 

[Yeshua1]

It IS talking about the events of day six!!!

It is also talking about the events of day FIVE!!!

You are saying it is ONLY talking about the events of day six.

I am showing you that AIG and MORRIS disagree with you. They believe that the birds HAD ALREADY BEEN FORMED on day five and that Genesis 2:19 is speaking of that fact which means that they were indeed made from the GROUND!!!.... as I said to start with and you ignorantly denied.

Morris and AIG agree with me that birds were formed from the ground on day five. NOBODY agrees with you that some animals were formed on day six before Adam's eyes in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:19 is speaking of that fact which means that the birds were indeed made from the GROUND!

Why can you not GET that???

why can't you get that God did NOT use Macro evolution to process life on earth, that he created all things at the start afterown kinds, and NO transistion process happened!

Next yoyu will say Gid DID NOT create Universe from nothing, right?

 

[quantumfaith]

For you reading pleasure!
www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses

I have read Dr. Gish's article previously.

"Big Bang Theory Collapses" (Taken from)

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218195/k.7AAB/The_Origin_of_the_Universe.htm

The banner headline in Nature magazine read "Down with the Big Bang."(6) Sounding more like a 60s chant about the Establishment, the editorial was, however, very serious. And Nature magazine is perhaps the most respected science publication in the world. Why was the editor so exercised about the leading cosmological theory? Because it was "philosophically unacceptable." "The origin of the Big Bang is not susceptible to discussion," fumed John Maddox. And besides that "Creationists . . . have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang." So, for Maddox, a scientific theory that is only rivaled in acceptance by evolution is "thoroughly unsatisfactory" because (1) it says that scientists cannot know everything and (2) the theory might encourage belief in a creator. But materialists like Maddox are not alone.

"Big Bang Theory Collapses" shouted the title of an article written in a creationist journal. It went on to make such remarks as "The Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another" and "A cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all." They reported the "death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory" as if this were the main theory cosmologists had developed. Remarks suggesting results from the COBE satellite "should really make them wish they had gone into some other field" came across as very unprofessional. The description of scientists as "smug in their assurance" about the cosmic background radiation seemed more descriptive of this article itself than the theory it was attempting to criticize.(7)

Young earth creationists find the Big Bang theory a failure primarily because it does not fit an interpretation of Genesis 1 that requires the universe be created less than 50,000 years ago. But what are the scientific problems with the Big Bang?

One continuing problem surrounding theories of the origin of the universe has been "How much matter is there in the universe?" It is generally agreed that there is indirect evidence of far more matter in the universe than we have been able to detect. But what form is this matter in? This so-called "missing mass" may, by some estimates, make up 90% of all the matter in the universe. But where is it? Several theories attempt to answer this question, but at the moment, there are not many ways to test competing theories.

Another continuing problem is finding out what caused the clumpiness of the universe? When we look out into the sea of galaxies that surrounds our own, we find that the swirling pools of stars are not evenly distributed in space but rather segregated into "walls" separated by "voids." It is not yet known what accounts for this foam-like structure, but any theory of galaxy formation needs to provide an answer.

So, while the Big Bang certainly has difficulties, and may be replaced some day, it has also been the basis for many correct predictions about the structure of the universe. Like any scientific theory, the Big Bang is not a static idea but a theory that is always open to new information that may change its basic form, or lead to its rejection, or merely confirm that it is indeed correct. But, especially for Christians, it's ironic that while most scientists have been searching for a naturalistic answer for the origin of the universe, they have instead, ended up with a theory that points strongly to a Creator.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have read Dr. Gish's article previously.

"Big Bang Theory Collapses" (Taken from)

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218195/k.7AAB/The_Origin_of_the_Universe.htm

The banner headline in Nature magazine read "Down with the Big Bang."(6) Sounding more like a 60s chant about the Establishment, the editorial was, however, very serious. And Nature magazine is perhaps the most respected science publication in the world. Why was the editor so exercised about the leading cosmological theory? Because it was "philosophically unacceptable." "The origin of the Big Bang is not susceptible to discussion," fumed John Maddox. And besides that "Creationists . . . have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang." So, for Maddox, a scientific theory that is only rivaled in acceptance by evolution is "thoroughly unsatisfactory" because (1) it says that scientists cannot know everything and (2) the theory might encourage belief in a creator. But materialists like Maddox are not alone.

"Big Bang Theory Collapses" shouted the title of an article written in a creationist journal. It went on to make such remarks as "The Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another" and "A cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all." They reported the "death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory" as if this were the main theory cosmologists had developed. Remarks suggesting results from the COBE satellite "should really make them wish they had gone into some other field" came across as very unprofessional. The description of scientists as "smug in their assurance" about the cosmic background radiation seemed more descriptive of this article itself than the theory it was attempting to criticize.(7)

Young earth creationists find the Big Bang theory a failure primarily because it does not fit an interpretation of Genesis 1 that requires the universe be created less than 50,000 years ago. But what are the scientific problems with the Big Bang?

One continuing problem surrounding theories of the origin of the universe has been "How much matter is there in the universe?" It is generally agreed that there is indirect evidence of far more matter in the universe than we have been able to detect. But what form is this matter in? This so-called "missing mass" may, by some estimates, make up 90% of all the matter in the universe. But where is it? Several theories attempt to answer this question, but at the moment, there are not many ways to test competing theories.

Another continuing problem is finding out what caused the clumpiness of the universe? When we look out into the sea of galaxies that surrounds our own, we find that the swirling pools of stars are not evenly distributed in space but rather segregated into "walls" separated by "voids." It is not yet known what accounts for this foam-like structure, but any theory of galaxy formation needs to provide an answer.

So, while the Big Bang certainly has difficulties, and may be replaced some day, it has also been the basis for many correct predictions about the structure of the universe. Like any scientific theory, the Big Bang is not a static idea but a theory that is always open to new information that may change its basic form, or lead to its rejection, or merely confirm that it is indeed correct. But, especially for Christians, it's ironic that while most scientists have been searching for a naturalistic answer for the origin of the universe, they have instead, ended up with a theory that points strongly to a Creator.

Do christian Theistic evolutionists hold to God creating Univrse itself from"out of nothing" or not?

 

[Luke2427]

again, wa there a literal garden of eden?

Yes

JUST Adam and Eve only humans in there?

Yes

did the fall lietrally happen?

Yes

was there death and fossils on earth happening BEFORE The fall of man?

Yes

Could not be as sin had not yetentered Gods creation though!

Sin brought spiritual death.

 

[Luke2427]

why can't you get that God did NOT use Macro evolution to process life on earth, that he created all things at the start afterown kinds, and NO transistion process happened!

Because it will take more than an exclamation point at the end of each of your statements to prove it.

Next yoyu will say Gid DID NOT create Universe from nothing, right?

No. God created the universe "ex nihilo"- out of nothing.

I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, Yesh.

I contend that you are embracing tradition more than the Bible. I contend that I am embracing the Bible to spite tradition.

I contend that I am the one between the two of us being most faithful to the Word of God.

 

[quantumfaith]

Do christian Theistic evolutionists hold to God creating Univrse itself from"out of nothing" or not?

You would have to ask each one. As for myself, yes I believe the fiat of God is the source of the Big Bang.