|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 3/28/2008 5:57:57 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
Of course, rabbits have recently been determined to be around much longer than previously thought by evolutionists - but suprisingly, evolution remains unpreturbed.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 3/29/2008 5:04:52 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 346
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Credible enough?
Yes, but I was hoping for something more in-depth. Perhaps a book on how Evolutionary theory and its predictions have change over the past 150 years, or something like that. Know of anything like that?
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 3/29/2008 5:10:13 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7212
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, but I was hoping for something more in-depth. Perhaps a book on how Evolutionary theory and its predictions have change over the past 150 years, or something like that. Know of anything like that?
Well, there are a growing number of scientific papaers out there which deal with the issue; I could direct you to more if you like.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 3/29/2008 1:05:34 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 506
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Of course, rabbits have recently been determined to be around much longer than previously thought by evolutionists - but suprisingly, evolution remains unpreturbed.
This "mountain of scientific data" that's supposed to support evolution is getting harder and harder to find every day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 11:43:06 AM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 109
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
That is a good argument but the only issue I take with it is that the world you're describing is a deistic one, which isn't a feasible option for me (or for you, I assume). A world where God creates us as morally free agents that are able to do both good and evil I am ok with in itself. My problem is that the inconsistency becomes apparent when we simultaniously conceive of God as a relational and effective agent within that very world. Your decription only works with a God that is wholly unaffecting or interfering with the world, for if he does interfere(act, effect etc) then we are back to quare one regarding the POE.
Why would God's complete knowledge of the possible choices of moral agents and the possible effects of the world they live in prevent Him from being "a relational and effective agent within that very world"?
You described a world where God knew everything before hand and created the best possible world to allow morally free agents to act. Thus evil is a necessary one given the necessity of being free. I think that'd fine but only to the extent that we remain consistent with that basis for allowing evil (that we not infringe on free will). This, I think, in order to remain consistent to allowing morally free agents, is only consistent if we conceive of a God that does not act within the world, i.e., a deistic God. In this way we'd be left to our devises and whatever we do we are responsible for. We are morally free. The problem, I'm saying, is when we conceive of a "best possible world" AND a theistic God who is all-good and capable of any logic possible act, i.e., a God who could intervene at any point. If we have a "best possible world" AND an omni-love, omni-power God then we need to explain why unnecessary evil exists. The usual path the theist takes is to claim that unnecessary evil doesn't exist, which is what Dred is doing. I simply think that is wrong. I could argue it but I think its plain as daylight that the most despicable evil occurs regular ally that is completely unnecessary and that an All-Good agent would want to prevent and would prevent if that agent were capable, which God is.
Perhaps is easier to think of it on a local level. Think of a dying baby. No one is around but you and you are able to help it. If you ignore the baby while being able to help it, are you not morally culpable? Would you be infringing on someone's free will if you did?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 12:29:14 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Of course, rabbits have recently been determined to be around much longer than previously thought by evolutionists - but suprisingly, evolution remains unpreturbed.
This "mountain of scientific data" that's supposed to support evolution is getting harder and harder to find every day.
Oh? Cataracts a problem for you, LOL?
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 12:42:24 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: drmarkquote:
quote:
Man today is a sinner, whether Adam and Eve once "literally" existed or not.
Nope, man today is a sinner, precisely because Adam and Eve literally existed, literally disobeyed, literally were cursed, and literally broke fellowship with their Creator. All of this is literally recorded in Genesis!
AMEN!
"And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day... "
--- Genesis 3:8, KJV
Did omnipotent, omnipresent God walk on (presumably) two legs? Or, did his voice walk? Was God hot? Or, was his voice hot?
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 1:04:30 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3118
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did omnipotent, omnipresent God walk on (presumably) two legs? Or, did his voice walk? Was God hot? Or, was his voice hot? Give me a break, cow! Surely you don't think that your feeble attempt to discredit the historical narrative account of Genesis rises or falls on the occasional usage of pictorial language in the text? You're the one pretending to be the literalist here, if you do!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 3:24:14 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Did omnipotent, omnipresent God walk on (presumably) two legs? Or, did his voice walk? Was God hot? Or, was his voice hot? Give me a break, cow! Surely you don't think that your feeble attempt to discredit the historical narrative account of Genesis rises or falls on the occasional usage of pictorial language in the text? You're the one pretending to be the literalist here, if you do!
How convenient that this is "pictorial", not literal, LOL. So, none of the verse is literal, or part of it? The text is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 4:32:39 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3118
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
How convenient that this is "pictorial", not literal, LOL. So, none of the verse is literal, or part of it? The text is pretty straightforward and unambiguous. No convenience, no LOL, cow. The text says what the texts says. Obviously it's a word picture since we all know that God is a spirit Being without physical legs. This is your best response to six uses of evening/morning the 1st to 6th day and seven uses of bara and five uses of asah in Gen 1:1 - 2:4? The Genesis text, as you point out, is pretty straightforward and unambiguous, cow! Creation (not evolution) in six days (not eons) is the only reasonable reading of Scripture - unless you're claiming God walks on legs!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 5:58:31 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
How convenient that this is "pictorial", not literal, LOL. So, none of the verse is literal, or part of it? The text is pretty straightforward and unambiguous. No convenience, no LOL, cow. The text says what the texts says. Obviously it's a word picture since we all know that God is a spirit Being without physical legs. This is your best response to six uses of evening/morning the 1st to 6th day and seven uses of bara and five uses of asah in Gen 1:1 - 2:4? The Genesis text, as you point out, is pretty straightforward and unambiguous, cow! Creation (not evolution) in six days (not eons) is the only reasonable reading of Scripture - unless you're claiming God walks on legs!
The Bible says God (or His voice) walked. If we all "know" that God (nor His voice) walks, then the scripture presents a problem. As you have said many times, if we cannot trust scripture in one area, how can we trust it in others? Perhaps other parts of Genesis should be taken as "pictorial" rather than literal.
Seriously, in looking at Genesis as a picture, it becomes even more a beautiful and glorious description of God's Creation. Thank you, drmark, thank you.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 6:41:32 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 506
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
How convenient that this is "pictorial", not literal, LOL. So, none of the verse is literal, or part of it? The text is pretty straightforward and unambiguous. No convenience, no LOL, cow. The text says what the texts says. Obviously it's a word picture since we all know that God is a spirit Being without physical legs. This is your best response to six uses of evening/morning the 1st to 6th day and seven uses of bara and five uses of asah in Gen 1:1 - 2:4? The Genesis text, as you point out, is pretty straightforward and unambiguous, cow! Creation (not evolution) in six days (not eons) is the only reasonable reading of Scripture - unless you're claiming God walks on legs!
The Bible says God (or His voice) walked. If we all "know" that God (nor His voice) walks, then the scripture presents a problem. As you have said many times, if we cannot trust scripture in one area, how can we trust it in others? Perhaps other parts of Genesis should be taken as "pictorial" rather than literal.
Seriously, in looking at Genesis as a picture, it becomes even more a beautiful and glorious description of God's Creation. Thank you, drmark, thank you.
Of course it could just have easily been the pre-incarnate Christ, just like the guy that was in the furnace with Shad, Mesh, and Abed. That's usually how I pictured it. I see your points, though. You can reasonably conclude when something is figurative when it's talking about something like a God walking, or his "finger". Someone whose town was struck by a tornado might say that the finger of God went through the town while giving a narrative that is not figurative. I think you would need a reason to believe that something is figurative, though. I see no reason to read something figurative into the first chapter or the second.
< Message edited by DanJames -- 4/3/2008 6:51:45 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/3/2008 11:08:49 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3118
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I see no reason to read something figurative into the first chapter or the second. Of course you don't, Dan. You and I just read the text as it's intended to convey the historically accurate account of origins. On the other hand, the evolutionist has a vested interest in preserving the magisterial position of his beloved science over a book of mere theological assertions which in his mind have no relevance to the pursuit of naturalism. So he will pick and choose which passages to allegorize and which to trust as factual events of the past and call us literal fundamentalists. Frankly, I've had enough of this hypocritical inconsistency!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 2:11:36 AM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 109
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Ok, just a quick question...one the first day God created light and seperated it from the darkness. Then on the third day (or fourth, I forget), He created the celestial beings, the stars etc...If he created the sun midweek then how was there light?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 8:30:08 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1385
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
Ok, just a quick question...one the first day God created light and seperated it from the darkness. Then on the third day (or fourth, I forget), He created the celestial beings, the stars etc...If he created the sun midweek then how was there light?
Sun != Light.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 8:36:53 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3118
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Answers in Genesis has a fine search engine, Nothingman. I found THIS ARTICLE quite easily. I'm sure a bright fellow like you can deduce other reasonable explanations for sources of light before the sun was made.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 8:57:48 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Answers in Genesis has a fine search engine, Nothingman. I found THIS ARTICLE quite easily. I'm sure a bright fellow like you can deduce other reasonable explanations for sources of light before the sun was made.
Its amazing what rich imaginations the writers on that site have.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 9:56:46 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3118
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
I'm sorry your imagination pales in comparison, drj11. Actually, the scientists at AiG are a lot more interested in proper science and hermeneutics than rich imaginations. There's plenty of imaginary absurdity in evolutionary theory to satisfy even the most addicted fairy-tale aficionado!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 10:54:51 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I see no reason to read something figurative into the first chapter or the second. Of course you don't, Dan. You and I just read the text as it's intended to convey the historically accurate account of origins. On the other hand, the evolutionist has a vested interest in preserving the magisterial position of his beloved science over a book of mere theological assertions which in his mind have no relevance to the pursuit of naturalism. So he will pick and choose which passages to allegorize and which to trust as factual events of the past and call us literal fundamentalists. Frankly, I've had enough of this hypocritical inconsistency!
Don't go away mad. Tough to explain, isn't it. At least dan could consider the information without blowing a gasket over the idea that there are other reasoned viewpoints.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 11:04:03 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
How convenient that this is "pictorial", not literal, LOL. So, none of the verse is literal, or part of it? The text is pretty straightforward and unambiguous. No convenience, no LOL, cow. The text says what the texts says. Obviously it's a word picture since we all know that God is a spirit Being without physical legs. This is your best response to six uses of evening/morning the 1st to 6th day and seven uses of bara and five uses of asah in Gen 1:1 - 2:4? The Genesis text, as you point out, is pretty straightforward and unambiguous, cow! Creation (not evolution) in six days (not eons) is the only reasonable reading of Scripture - unless you're claiming God walks on legs!
The Bible says God (or His voice) walked. If we all "know" that God (nor His voice) walks, then the scripture presents a problem. As you have said many times, if we cannot trust scripture in one area, how can we trust it in others? Perhaps other parts of Genesis should be taken as "pictorial" rather than literal.
Seriously, in looking at Genesis as a picture, it becomes even more a beautiful and glorious description of God's Creation. Thank you, drmark, thank you.
Of course it could just have easily been the pre-incarnate Christ, just like the guy that was in the furnace with Shad, Mesh, and Abed. That's usually how I pictured it. I see your points, though. You can reasonably conclude when something is figurative when it's talking about something like a God walking, or his "finger". Someone whose town was struck by a tornado might say that the finger of God went through the town while giving a narrative that is not figurative. I think you would need a reason to believe that something is figurative, though. I see no reason to read something figurative into the first chapter or the second.
My reason for looking at it figuratively would be that a literal interpretation doesn't match the overwhelming scientific opinion about origins. But the passage clearly says it was God (or His voice). So even literalists have to make judgement calls about scripture in order to reconcile apparent inconsistencies. That's my main point.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 11:16:30 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 506
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Answers in Genesis has a fine search engine, Nothingman. I found THIS ARTICLE quite easily. I'm sure a bright fellow like you can deduce other reasonable explanations for sources of light before the sun was made.
Its amazing what rich imaginations the writers on that site have.
Yeah, I guess I better not work for AiG since every bit of credentials that I might have had, every accomplishment I've ever made, every test and demonstration I've ever performed will immediately be lost and I'll just become another lunatic that works for AiG who doesn't know what he's talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/4/2008 3:53:53 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 109
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Creation (not evolution) in six days (not eons) is the only reasonable reading of Scripture - unless you're claiming God walks on legs!
umm, he's claiming God doesn't, since he doesn't take the passage literally. It would be you who would take it literally...as with Genesis...
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Although I doubt you'd last long there because you might as a question about something.