Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

Definitely. Darwin understood science. Science is not dogmatic. Everything in science is wrong because one day, there will be a better explanation for it. Until then, the scientific explanations that we have now are as good as it gets. </font>[/QUOTE]I prefer to base my salvation on the sure Word of God, the Bible, not the shifting sands of science!

 

Historically, we have seen this all happen before, with reference to the cause of day and night. In the ignorant past of our race, it was viewed as due to the motion of the sun across the sky. With the beginnings of modern science with such as Copernicus and Gallileo and others, the idea began to circulate that, instead, the rotation of the earth causes night and day.

This idea was declared by all the clerics - Catholic, Protestant, whichever of them commented at all on the subject - as against scripture.

The sands on this issue shifted. It was not the science that shifted. It was the interpretation of scripture that shifted.

For this reason, it is disingenious to say that science is "shifting sands" and the Bible is "sure" . . . we can only understand the Bible through our interpretation of the Bible. History shows that the most dogmatic and inflexible interpreters of scripture have turned out time after time to be wrong again and again.

 

Yeah, and we still talk about the sun rising and setting, just like those ignert Bible authors...

 

actually the cleric's had him declared a heretic only after the scientific communtiy of his day went to them and mis-used scriptures to show that copernician model (geocentric) was true, perhaps you show read the "rest of the story". lol. Galalio believed in heliocentric, which went against the scientific knowledge of his day, other scientists even tried to get him to recant showing mathmatical similarities between the two system views, but Galalio would have none of it, then they (the EVIL scientific establishment) tried to keep their jobs, and (diabolicly) went and told on him to the pastor (priest). scientists (as proven then) should NEVER be allowed to intrepret scripture.

have a nice day.

 

Uh - yeshua4me2 - copernicus work was put on the banned list preciesely because he DISAVOWED the geocentric model and went for the sun as the center of the solar system; moreover, he also said the earth rotated as the cause of night and day. For thus contradicting scripture his work was banned. Fortunately for him, he postponned publication until he was on his deathbed and the clerical establishment could never do anything to him personally. (This was the dark ages, when the catholic church could be very dangerous to heretics, including baptists).

Blessings on you

 

Well, we might say something like that TODAY - but the clerics who opposed Copernicus, Gallileo, et. al. all said that they were not just an alternate way of looking at it, they were WRONG and made to recant, banned, stuff like that.

 

"Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?"

Yes. The premise of evolution is naturalism- that everything that exists can be explained by natural causes and forces.

Darwin was certainly looking for a system that didn't require God.

Belief in evolution may not prevent someone from believing in God but the theory itself is by definition atheistic.

"a"= without, "theos"= god.

A true atheist will probably claim no hostility toward God... since they don't believe He exists it would be absurd to acknowledge Him. Evolutionists make the same claim for the theory. It isn't hostile to Him since it assumes He doesn't exist or else doesn't matter with regard to the natural universe.

 

UTEOYW.
You recently wrote:

Don't evolutionists claim that we came from apes? How then could they have denied that this 'missing link' Nebraska man was a human ancestor?

What did they think he evolved from, a frog?

 

When people say things like this it makes me wonder how they expect to argue intelligibly against evolution. . .

Basically, the evolutionary tree has branches.

 

These are all statements from confirmed evolutionists.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West], “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record.” [Steven M. Stanley], Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley], Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts, "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach; Nature 293:19, 1981]

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge; Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould; Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

 

Woot-woot! Quote mining! Perhaps you'll give us all of these quotes in context, at least in a full paragraph and with no ellipses? I find it interesting to see that all of the evolutionists got their act together by 1986. If you'd used more recent sources I would be able to look up the context myself without having to go to the library.

For educational purposes, here is a page on quote mining.

 

Basically, 'evolution' is man's attempt to do away with God's hand in the creation of life.

'Theistic evolution' is definitely an oxymoron. By linking the two words together, one denies that God is capable of spontaneously creating anything from nothing, but that He had to stoop to doing it over a period of eons.

Either God is God, and He is able to speak into existence that which did not exist beforehand, or He is not God, and does not have that power. If He can not create life, then what do we do in regards to the resurrection of Jesus?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Except that we don't, so that can't be right, can it?

 

Don't evolutionists claim that we came from apes? How then could they have denied that this 'missing link' Nebraska man was a human ancestor?

What did they think he evolved from, a frog? </font>[/QUOTE]You brought up Nebraska Man. I don't need to help you support your assertions. I showed you that, contrary to your claims, that even the guy who made the mistake did not claim it was a human ancestor.

So let me try something here. Man shares a common ancestor with the other apes. But that does not mean that an particular fossil ape in necessarily a human ancestor. Let me give an analogy. My cousin and I have my grandfather as a common ancestor. My uncle, my cousin's father, is a direct ancestor of my cousin but not of me. I share the same common ancestor with my uncle that I do with my cousin.

 

I would ask that you do as Petrel suggested and give us all of these quotes again with at least a paragraph before and after each quote for context and without any editting of hte quote. YE sources are infamous for misrepresenting quotes in ways that dishonestly change the meaning from what the author intended.

This topic came up recently on this thread. You might want to read a few of the posts. They have some similar quotes as what you posted that have been exposed as dishonest quotes.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/4.html#000057
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/5.html#000060
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/6.html#000084

 

Lots of people believe that evolution is real and that there are also other real things besides evolution. So your premise is inaccurate.

Source for your idea that Darwin was looking for a system that didn't require God?

Evolution says nothing about Who set evolution going or Who sustains evolution through His Devine sustaining of all natural law

On the other hand, a true atheist has lots of human theology and philosophy to oppose . . .

If you are talking about the science of evolution, you know it isn't fair to say science ignores the supernatural, that is the rule by which the game of science is played. If you talk to a religious person who understands the reality of evolution about theology and philosophy and evolution, you will find a very different kind of discussion, including speculation as to how many others God has created along with us out there, and so forth.

Sheer curiosity question: Do you think there is life on other planets out there somewhere?

 

My only purpose in quoting evolutionists writings was to show that many do not believe there is a fossil record.

The reason I said "confirmed" evolutionists is all these writers continue to believe in evolution despite this admitted problem.

I did not edit these comments.

I do not think Theistic Evolutionists is an oxymoron because evolution IS a faith. It is a theory. It is not scientific fact. None of us can go back to the beginning to see how the world was created.

I have no problem admitting that I believe God's creation account in Genesis by faith.

But evolutionists insist evolution is scientific. They too should admit that it is a faith.