A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[CrowCross]

So you would hold to theistic Evolution, with God as creating life forms and then used the evolutionary process? So not holding to classic Darwinism form of evoluition?

I would imagine some would...I wouldn't want to claim @John Bauer is one of them as I surely don't want to misrepresent him. But, if the fits.....
What does the bible say
Despite the beliefs of some of the Theo-Evos here God didn't use evolutionism to create the plants, animals or mankind.
The bible doesn't speak in the terms of evolutionism...it speaks in terms of the truth. Adam was created from the dust then Eve from Adams rib. That is not evolution.
It is the the first man Adam who became a living being. Evolution disagrees with that.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Evolution disagrees with that.
The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. Evolution disagrees with that.
Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Evolution disagrees with that.
From one man He made every nation of men. Evolution disagrees with that.
I am afraid, however, that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning. Evolution disagrees with that.

For some strange reason these people think it's OK to severely distort the message of Genesis by mixing it with the lie of the century. The T.o E. .....In an attempt to snuggle up they say, the bible agrees with evolutionism. They say...Please don't dislike me anymore. Accept my synchronism. Look I can blend christianity into evolutions.

The T.o.E. is a lie straight from the pit of hell with one of its purposes to disrupt the account of how Adam and Eve fell....never, never, never presenting an alternative account that remotely squares with the rest of scripture....Saying mankind fell all at once or God choose two from an existing population to fall is a great distortion of the truth.

This post will be continued here as it's drifting away from the OP. Please respond at the link provided.

 

[CrowCross]

You are taking questions about evolution and you don't seem to realize that it is sitting on a modern conventional U'ism base: it's presuppositions are that there is no God who can act interventively and affect 'nature.' That God cannot communicate with humans in their language and explain things. In my view he can also set a Big Bang in motion, (the 'spreading out' of Job, Psalms, Isaiah) but that event is not Creation Week, for various mechanical and textual reason.

Do you see the problem now? Presuppositions are by nature things that we don't realize we have until pointed out by later looks or by other people reacting to what we are saying.

Yes, God is God ...all knowing, all present and all powerful...and can do what ever He wants....BUT...the bible says God didn't use the Big Bang.
The order of creation presented in Genesis clearly shows that.
The universe was spread out AFTER the creation of earth...plants...

 

[JesusFan]

I would imagine some would...I wouldn't want to claim @John Bauer is one of them as I surely don't want to misrepresent him. But, if the fits.....
What does the bible say
Despite the beliefs of some of the Theo-Evos here God didn't use evolutionism to create the plants, animals or mankind.
The bible doesn't speak in the terms of evolutionism...it speaks in terms of the truth. Adam was created from the dust then Eve from Adams rib. That is not evolution.
It is the the first man Adam who became a living being. Evolution disagrees with that.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Evolution disagrees with that.
The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. Evolution disagrees with that.
Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Evolution disagrees with that.
From one man He made every nation of men. Evolution disagrees with that.
I am afraid, however, that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning. Evolution disagrees with that.

For some strange reason these people think it's OK to severely distort the message of Genesis by mixing it with the lie of the century. The T.o E. .....In an attempt to snuggle up they say, the bible agrees with evolutionism. They say...Please don't dislike me anymore. Accept my synchronism. Look I can blend christianity into evolutions.

The T.o.E. is a lie straight from the pit of hell with one of its purposes to disrupt the account of how Adam and Eve fell....never, never, never presenting an alternative account that remotely squares with the rest of scripture....Saying mankind fell all at once or God choose two from an existing population to fall is a great distortion of the truth.

This post will be continued here as it's drifting away from the OP. Please respond at the link provided.

Thesitic evolution appears to be when Christians trying to force fed evolution as being truth into the bible, and try to accommodate naturalistic views regarding life and creation with the Bible. Just a very hard mixture to attempt to do

 

[CrowCross]

Thesitic evolution appears to be when Christians trying to force fed evolution as being truth into the bible, and try to accommodate naturalistic views regarding life and creation with the Bible. Just a very hard mixture to attempt to do

It opens up a very slippery slope.

 

[JesusFan]

It opens up a very slippery slope.

As they would have to say death existed for a very long time, but bible states no death until the Fall

 

[CrowCross]

As they would have to say death existed for a very long time, but bible states no death until the Fall

I've heard some theo-evos say the fall never hapened. Man just evolved into it at the moment the "monkeys" evolved to the point they could be classified as humans.

 

[Carbon]

As they would have to say death existed for a very long time, but bible states no death until the Fall

The bible ia speaking about human death after the fall.

 

[prism]

I've heard some theo-evos say the fall never hapened. Man just evolved into it at the moment the "monkeys" evolved to the point they could be classified as humans.

I wonder which Theo they pal'd around with?

 

[prism]

The bible ia speaking about human death after the fall.

It's interesting that the first physical death after the Fall was that of an animal...
Genesis 3:21 KJV
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

 

[EarlyActs]

The topic relates to evolution not U'ism etc.

To be clear, by ‘the topic’ , are you referring back to 1 Corinthians 1-2? Evolution in that passage?

 

[EarlyActs]

You've got the wrong person, check post# 75

Thanks

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe you are preaching to the choir.

Re Day 1 light, the choir says it is an imaginary temporary light God made or
It is shekina glory or
It is Christ.

Re the spreading out
The choir says the spreading out of the universe cannot be before Day 1 which is also what 1:1 refers to. It cannot be the BB bc then material existed before it.

These things are what I hear from the choir.

 

[prism]

To be clear, by ‘the topic’ , are you referring back to 1 Corinthians 1-2? Evolution in that passage?

More like Gen 3/ Rom 5:12. "Where did death come from? I know where the 'theory of evolution' came from.

 

[prism]

Re Day 1 light, the choir says it is an imaginary temporary light God made or
It is shekina glory or
It is Christ.

Re the spreading out
The choir says the spreading out of the universe cannot be before Day 1 which is also what 1:1 refers to. It cannot be the BB bc then material existed before it.

These things are what I hear from the choir.

I don't hold to a BB theory.
Yes, Shekinah is Christ.

 

[John Bauer]

The DNA that a creature is born with dictates what species that it shall be, as no way a dog can transform into a cat.

Agreed.

Are you under the misapprehension that evolution asserts that a dog can transform into a cat? Because it doesn't.

So you would hold to theistic evolution, with God as creating lifeforms and then used the evolutionary process? So not holding to classic Darwinism form of evoluition?

I'm not an evolutionist, not even a theistic one. I am a creationist—specifically, an evolutionary creationist.

And, yes, I believe God sustains and governs his creation with ordinary providence, which refers to God's continuous upholding of the existence and natural order of the universe. We see this in reproductive processes that give us new babies, evolutionary processes that give us different species, meteorological processes that give us changing weather, and so on.

And because crucial terms and concepts are being egregiously misrepresented in this thread, I have no idea what "classic Darwinism" is supposed to be and cannot answer your question. If you are referring to evolution as described by Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne or Victor Stenger, then I emphatically reject that view as incoherent nonsense. (It might help to keep in mind that I am a Van Tilian presuppositionalist.)

Thesitic evolution appears to be when Christians trying to force fed evolution as being truth into the bible, and try to accommodate naturalistic views regarding life and creation with the Bible. Just a very hard mixture to attempt to do

Theistic evolutionists who do that sort of thing must answer the numerous problems identified by you and others which adhere to that approach.

None of those problems apply to me, however, because I don't try cramming evolution into Genesis.

 

[Paul]

Where did death come from?

According to scripture death entered the world in regard to man through sin. (adam and eve)

If the head of the body of Christ is using this scripture for a legal ruling in regard to divorce then He is certifing it as truth.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

 

[JesusFan]

Agreed.

Are you under the misapprehension that evolution asserts that a dog can transform into a cat? Because it doesn't.



I'm not an evolutionist, not even a theistic one. I am a creationist—specifically, an evolutionary creationist.

And, yes, I believe God sustains and governs his creation with ordinary providence, which refers to God's continuous upholding of the existence and natural order of the universe. We see this in reproductive processes that give us new babies, evolutionary processes that give us different species, meteorological processes that give us changing weather, and so on.

And because crucial terms and concepts are being egregiously misrepresented in this thread, I have no idea what "classic Darwinism" is supposed to be and cannot answer your question. If you are referring to evolution as described by Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne or Victor Stenger, then I emphatically reject that view as incoherent nonsense. (It might help to keep in mind that I am a Van Tilian presuppositionalist.)



Theistic evolutionists who do that sort of thing must answer the numerous problems identified by you and others which adhere to that approach.

None of those problems apply to me, however, because I don't try cramming evolution into Genesis.

So you do not hold to species changing to another species, would you see God as creating the very universe directly, and creating life upon Earth Himself, or using evolutionary process?

 

[JesusFan]

Agreed.

Are you under the misapprehension that evolution asserts that a dog can transform into a cat? Because it doesn't.



I'm not an evolutionist, not even a theistic one. I am a creationist—specifically, an evolutionary creationist.

And, yes, I believe God sustains and governs his creation with ordinary providence, which refers to God's continuous upholding of the existence and natural order of the universe. We see this in reproductive processes that give us new babies, evolutionary processes that give us different species, meteorological processes that give us changing weather, and so on.

And because crucial terms and concepts are being egregiously misrepresented in this thread, I have no idea what "classic Darwinism" is supposed to be and cannot answer your question. If you are referring to evolution as described by Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne or Victor Stenger, then I emphatically reject that view as incoherent nonsense. (It might help to keep in mind that I am a Van Tilian presuppositionalist.)



Theistic evolutionists who do that sort of thing must answer the numerous problems identified by you and others which adhere to that approach.

None of those problems apply to me, however, because I don't try cramming evolution into Genesis.

Darwinism evolution indeed asserts that species can and have changed over time, but there is no fossil record of transitional changing, which even Darwin admitted would be a really big flaw in his theory, anmd also holds to humans came from common primate ancestor to the great apes

 

[CrowCross]

So you do not hold to species changing to another species, would you see God as creating the very universe directly, and creating life upon Earth Himself, or using evolutionary process?

A species can change into another "species" within the original created kind. We see this with the animals that left Noahs Ark.
However...a species can't change into an animal that is now considered as a menber of a different taxonimical rank of "Family" like evolutionism demands.

 

[JesusFan]

A species can change into another "species" within the original created kind. We see this with the animals that left Noahs Ark.
However...a species can't change into an animal that is now considered as a menber of a different taxonimical rank of "Family" like evolutionism demands.

I do accept changes within say dog family, but not a dog giving birth to a cat, as I see that Noah had a female dog and male dog who in them had the Dna for all various kinds of Dogs, based upon where the would migrate to, for north needed thicker fur, etc