IF evolution is true,

[Plain Old Bill]

I think it takes monumental faith to be a theistic evolutionist.
one DNA molocule contains enough information to fill 1,000 college text books.Imagine if you will that the process takes place and finally after billions of years we have a man with a sense of God.This is amazing.What is even more amazeing is that this event also occurred to a woman.In addition to that we have animals,birds,fish,and insects male and female.The mathematical probabilities of this happening boggle my poor little brain.We don't even have numbers to properly describe the chances this would happen.I would say if we give the theistic evolutionist all he/she asks for that billions of years would not be enough time,it would take more that giga trillions of years if it ever happened the evolutionary way.Now my frind that is faith.

My poor simple mind only has enough faith to believe what God' Holy Word says the way He says it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
My poor simple mind only has enough faith to believe what God' Holy Word says the way He says it.

My poor feeble mind also believes God's Holy Word the way He says it.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Deacon:
Mark, that was a flame. A statement with no facts to back it up.

I have tried giving facts to evolutionists and have found that they are not interested in facts - they are interested in being respectable in the eyes of the educational establishment. So why bother.

Suffice it to say that anyone familiar with the Bible knows that it is at hopeless odds with the evolution heresy. I find it a travesty that some Baptist churches have embraced this heresy and it's advocates.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Paul of Eugene]

It isn't necessary to interpret the Bible to be inconsistent with evolution; that is only a choice made by some. It is perfectly possible to interpret the Bible to be compatible with evolution, in exactly the same way it is perfectly possible to interpret the Bible to be compatible with a rotating earth as the cause of day and night and an orbiting earth as the cause of the seasons.

These interpretations do in fact occur. They are justified by the evidence in favor of evolution and in favor of a rotating, orbiting earth as the cause of day/night/seasons.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by gopchad:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
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 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 </font>[/QUOTE]Check out the interpretation offered by Mercury in the following thread on the non-indexed science section of the Baptist board:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/71.html?

 

[jdcanady]

Gold Dragon

You said:
"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."

You may be right that people who support intelligent design have written books aimed at the general public. My point is that the scientific community is rejecting the theory of intelligent design out of hand, without carefully studying and applying the scientific method to it. Very few (if any) scientific journals would publish the theory or the efforts to apply the scientific method to it. On the other hand, they accept the theory of evolution without studying or applying the scientific method to it. In fact, you have many examples in history where evolutionists have fabricated data in an effort to give some evidence to support it.

I stand by my statement that for the scientific community in general, to have the theory of evolution shown to be impossible because of the complex nature of the DNA code is a terrifying prospect because they have no good alternative theory (which can exclude the existence of God) to put in its place.

I have found (please don't think I'm saying this of you, I am not) that many people who want to somehow reconcile science with scripture (i.e. many theistic evolutionists) simply don't want to be thought of as simple minded folks who cannot think critically. The problem is that the people they are trying to impress would still consider them simple minded, unless they reject their faith altogether.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
I have found (please don't think I'm saying this of you, I am not) that many people who want to somehow reconcile science with scripture (i.e. many theistic evolutionists) simply don't want to be thought of as simple minded folks who cannot think critically.

You can throw me in there. I don't want to be someone who is simple minded and cannot think critically. I personally don't care if someone else thinks that of me.

Just because I wish to think critically doesn't mean I know it all and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and simple minded or uncritical. There are many respected critical thinkers who stand on opposite sides of issues.

Originally posted by jdcanady:
The problem is that the people they are trying to impress would still consider them simple minded, unless they reject their faith altogether.

I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm just trying to responsible to the mind that God gave us to use and to honestly seek truth, no matter what "position" it supports. Using our minds does not involve rejecting faith. None of the early Christian scientists of the Renaisance and the Enlightenment felt that this was necessary.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I have found (please don't think I'm saying this of you, I am not) that many people who want to somehow reconcile science with scripture (i.e. many theistic evolutionists) simply don't want to be thought of as simple minded folks who cannot think critically. The problem is that the people they are trying to impress would still consider them simple minded, unless they reject their faith altogether.

This is certainly a fair statement.

There are many problems with evolution as a theory. But there are yet more problems with the scientific theories proposed by creationists.

The only problem I have is with those who insist on a literal Genesis 1-11 and question the faith or salvation of those who do not agree.

There are many reasons, examining the Bible with a literary and historical eye, to suggest that Genesis 1-11 is theological epic and not literal history. You don't have to believe it is such but that doesn't mean that there are not valid reasons to assume this.

I am called arrogant by some young earth literalists - yet I have never questioned their faith or salvation. On the other hand I have been on the receiving end of acerbic statements byt young earthers. And It's funny that the most spiteful smug creationists are usually the ones with no scientific OR theological education.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
It isn't necessary to interpret the Bible to be inconsistent with evolution; that is only a choice made by some. It is perfectly possible to interpret the Bible to be compatible with evolution, in exactly the same way it is perfectly possible to interpret the Bible to be compatible with a rotating earth as the cause of day and night and an orbiting earth as the cause of the seasons.

These interpretations do in fact occur. They are justified by the evidence in favor of evolution and in favor of a rotating, orbiting earth as the cause of day/night/seasons.

A rotating, orbiting earth has nothing to do with the atheistic philosophy of evolution and theistic evolution is an oxymoron.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
There are many problems with evolution as a theory. But there are yet more problems with the scientific theories proposed by creationists.

It might be informative if you would identify the "problems with the scientific theories proposed by creationists."

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
There are many reasons, examining the Bible with a literary and historical eye, to suggest that Genesis 1-11 is theological epic and not literal history. You don't have to believe it is such but that doesn't mean that there are not valid reasons to assume this.

Then why do the authors of the New Testament quote from Genesis 1-11 as if it wrer history?

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Theistic-evolutionists are more concerned with what other people think than with truth. They don't want to be seen as stupid by evolutionists, so they embrace evolution. They don't want to be perceived as infidels by Christians, so they profess to believe in the Bible as well.

But a man who really believes in the Bible, or in evolution for that matter, knows the two are mutually exclusive. The following facts are obvious to any honest man:

1. The Bible teaches that the world was created about 4000 years before Christ which is not enough time to account for any form of evolution.

2. The Bible teaches that the world, and everything in it, was created in 6 days.

3. The Bible teaches that all life brings forth after it's own kind - a fact which, by the way, is provable by science.

4. The Bible teaches that all human beings came from one man, Adam.

5. The Bible teaches that man was a special creation, distinct from the beasts, created in God's image. Evolution teaches that man is derived from animals.

6. The Bible teaches that man was created as a sexual being, whereas evolution teaches that man's ancestors - however remote - were asexual beings.

Nothing is the Bible is compatible with the theory of evolution. It's an either/or situation. You either believe in the Bible or you believe in evolution - you can't believe both.

Those who say the Bible can be interpreted consistently with evolution simply reject what the Bible says and call their rejection a different interpretation. Notice also that those who embrace theistic-evolution not only reject the Bible account of creation, but the subsequent events recorded in Genesis as well. Which proves that they will reject anything in the Bible which does not fit their ungodly theories - whether about evolution or anything else if it suits their purpose.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[OldRegular]

Amen Bro. Mark!

 

[Charles Meadows]

It might be informative if you would identify the "problems with the scientific theories proposed by creationists."

Where do I start??

To begin with ALL of the creationist theories are rooted in attempts to show a potential alternative to evolution, already presupposing a literal Genesis. Most of today's scientific theories have come about by attempts to just look at facts. Granted many evolutionary scientists are anti-Christian and are quite biased. But that would not typify the majority.

I worked some in the bio dept at college, helping teach undergrad bio to the premeds. Most of the professors were just average scientist guys - no fervent antiChristian agendas, just "matter of fact guys". They would all readily admit that evolution is just a theory - but a theory which would, if true, make a heck of a lot of sense.

The fact that evolution is still theoretical and that a handful of people with PhDs are now AIG creationists does not change the fact that science basically suggests that the earth is old.

Like I said - you don't have to but it. But we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand and resort to intellectual dishonesty in teaching our children. We should present facts accurately, keeping in mind that nothing is set in stone.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Theistic-evolutionists are more concerned with what other people think than with truth.

If my position on this depended on what people thought of me, I would be a YEC. Most folks in my church, my family members, folks that I interact with on message boards, people that I respect are YECs.

I do care about my relationship with people, so I usually avoid the topic altogether unless they bring it up. I know that origins is a very emotional topic for many Christians. I try to correct misunderstandings of evolution and theistic evolution, but I will not try to convince anyone of my view.

If you have a proper understanding of evolution and still reject it, that is great. If you believe theistic evolution to be heresy, Satanic, whatever, then that is your prerogative.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Creation science grassroots campaign affecting the culture and commerce (The Smell of Fear is in the Air). It looks like the culture is changing. Enjoy.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally question by OldRegular:
It might be informative if you would identify the "problems with the scientific theories proposed by creationists."

Response by Charles Meadows:
Where do I start??

To begin with ALL of the creationist theories are rooted in attempts to show a potential alternative to evolution, already presupposing a literal Genesis.

Creation Scientists assume Divine Creation. Evolutionists assume that God is the creation of the mind of ancient man and still propagated by the unlearned and stupid. So what else is new?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Old Regular, this evolutionist does not assume God is the creation of the mind of ancient man, this evolutionist assumes man is the creation of God but He happened to have used evolution as his working tool to work the dust of the earth into mankind.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Old Regular, this evolutionist does not assume God is the creation of the mind of ancient man, this evolutionist assumes man is the creation of God but He happened to have used evolution as his working tool to work the dust of the earth into mankind.

Why?

 

[shannonL]

What amazed me as I read all the posts each page is this. I think those of you who want to support T.E. don't even realize it yourself but your opinion places the the theory of evolution in a higher position than the Authority of Scripture.
To me you would seem to have a view of God that describes God as "needing help" In my opinion your view makes God look weak. Not strong like Scripture portrays when it says "God said"

How can you take a position that right off the bat would lend itself to weakening the authority of Scripture on this matter?
Why choose your own as well as other men's speculations when you have the Word of God that explains clearly that "God spoke" and it happpened.
How can you question the supernatural creation of earth by God and not question the supernatural change that takes place in a person's life when they come to Christ? If your going to question the literal interpretation of Gen 1- 11 why believe in any of the miracles? Why should they be true if Gen 1-11 are not true?
IMHO, T.E. is just another way for man to knead God down to their level of understanding all because they either can't accept the fact that He is all-powerful or because they just lack the simple faith to take God at His Word. They want a God that can be managed, that can be explained fully. They want a man-sized God not the God of the Bible. I just believe at the core of alot of this stuff it comes down to a unwillingness to submit to the Authority of Scripture.
All truth on this earth that man can know and all that he can't know begins with God's Word. God doesn't need the help of Science. Science is puny and worthless without God. The best science could do without God was that man crawled out of the water from some goobly goob and then over time evolved into a man. What rubbish. How hopeless. And Christians want to lend the word theistic to such drivel. What a disgrace! I'll take the God of the Bible.
Paul of Eugene you have some imagination. "He happened to have used evolution as His working tool to work the dust of the earth into mankind".

What do you base that observation on? Definitly not the Bible.
BTW just exactly when did man "evolve" into the image of God Gen 1:26? When was man able to dominate the beast of the field? The fish of the sea? I just don't get it. If that makes me simple minded then I'm simple minded. Paul you just dreamed that up out of thin air. You may suppose that God used evolution as a working tool. Just one problem the Bible tells us otherwise. But hey you theistic E. guys don't take it literally in the first 11 chapters so why argue. If you can't start with God's truth all your left with is each man for himself. Evolution is from the Pit! If the Bible doesn't teach it we all know who came up with it. Our ole adversary. Make no mistake evolution no matter what kind, be it theistic or whatever it is definitly adversarial toward Scripture. It is designed to cast doubt on what God said in Word. Anything like that is of the devil plain and simple. We can be different and still be united in the Body but we must be united on what God's Word says. T.E. is not.