A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[Arial]

Yes, all creatures are the result of evolutionary processes, just as all humans are the result of reproductive processes and all weather is the result of meteorological processes.

I agree with this at least in the way in which I am understanding it. Which is: Those processes are just as much God as was creation. It is his perfect knowledge, action, purpose, wisdom, and even judgment (Rom 8, his subjecting creation to futility), He still utterly controls it and always for his purpose and glory. For example, he directs the storms, and they belong to him. Science is just us discovering the inner workings of is perfection in design.

 

[prism]

Prism, it seems that there is no rentention of a previous post when talking to you.

That's fine you don't have to talk with me, as a matter of fact you jumped into the conversation back on post#75. It was your choice.
I didn't force you.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, all creatures are the result of evolutionary processes, just as all humans are the result of reproductive processes and all weather is the result of meteorological processes. While evolution has continued since the time of Adam, it did not begin then. Evolution began over three billion years prior to Adam.

This kinda sounds like Bio-Logos tripe.

Evolution means "change" for the most part. What happen is when one who has faith in evolutionism tries to sweeten up the definition they often pick and choose which form of evolution best fits their disposition and inserts it. In do so they often substitute macro-evolution for micro-evolution.
I gave an example of micro-evolution and the created kind in this post.
....anyway, as you said...."all creatures are the result of evolutionary processes".....that is true, but not macro-evolutionism which speaks of descent with modification from a lesser ancestor.

Evolution didn't begin over 3 billion years ago...and is considered as a fallacy. Unproven till this day.

For the record, I emphatically reject that view. Evolution does not map onto Genesis.

Then just what "map" are you using?

You seem to skate around the issues...using terms with meanings only you seem to know. Substituting macro for micro and from what I have "gleaned" from your post denying Adam was made form the dust then Eve from Adams rib...then fell in the garden giving us our sin nature and need for the Lord and savior Christ Jesus.

 

[EarlyActs]

That's fine you don't have to talk with me, as a matter of fact you jumped into the conversation back on post#75. It was your choice.
I didn't force you.

It's fine not to track a question and answer something else? I doesn't matter to me what you answer, except when I can tell a question is not understood, as the old rabbinic story goes (about asking a question 3 ways, to be sure of a question).

 

[prism]

It's fine not to track a question and answer something else? I doesn't matter to me what you answer, except when I can tell a question is not understood, as the old rabbinic story goes (about asking a question 3 ways, to be sure of a question).

I guess metaphors don't mix with the six days of creation?

 

[John Bauer]

I agree with this at least in the way in which I am understanding it. Which is: Those processes are just as much God as was creation. It is his perfect knowledge, action, purpose, wisdom, and even judgment (Rom 8, his subjecting creation to futility), He still utterly controls it and always for his purpose and glory. For example, he directs the storms, and they belong to him. Science is just us discovering the inner workings of is perfection in design.

Bingo!

 

[EarlyActs]

I guess metaphors don't mix with the six days of creation?

Can you show any other feature where the passage departs from the ordinary meaning it conveys? Perhaps on the verb chosen for the Spirit, which is brooding as a hen does over its eggs? But even then, has the ordinary meaning--a mostly physical/mechanical explanation for what exists locally--been left? At least we are told there is a Spirit, whereas about the 'owr' the general light, there is no mention of Christ, nor even that it comes off of God; it is simply and truly there, and that supports an earlier 'spreading out.'

 

[prism]

Can you show any other feature where the passage departs from the ordinary meaning it conveys?

The first few verses of Genesis conveys understanding to us through His Word. That is light in a sense.