[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[Lewis]

It's Time To Retire 'Theistic Evolution'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfar...me-to-retire-theistic-evolution/#e57d1781f7cd

 

[Cygnus]

I might add...
It's Time To Retire 'Theistic Evolution'

View attachment 8526

 

[Barbarian]

“Think about it. If you are a believer, it is already implied that you see all biological and physical processes as created and held in existence by God. You do not need “theistic” in front of biological terms. Who speaks of theistic reproduction? Or theistic gestation, theistic meiosis, or theistic menstruation? Plus, to qualify a biological process as ‘theistic’ implies that the opposite is possible, that God may not be involved in creating certain laws of nature.”

Amen to that. I never cared for the term, either. For precisely the reasons outlined above. If you are a Christian, it should be obvious that nature is entirely the work of God. And the argument that God is not capable of making a world that would produce all of this wonderful stuff, seems to me to be borderline blasphemous.

 

[Mike S]

“Think about it. If you are a believer, it is already implied that you see all biological and physical processes as created and held in existence by God. You do not need “theistic” in front of biological terms. Who speaks of theistic reproduction? Or theistic gestation, theistic meiosis, or theistic menstruation? Plus, to qualify a biological process as ‘theistic’ implies that the opposite is possible, that God may not be involved in creating certain laws of nature.”

Amen to that. I never cared for the term, either. For precisely the reasons outlined above. If you are a Christian, it should be obvious that nature is entirely the work of God. And the argument that God is not capable of making a world that would produce all of this wonderful stuff, seems to me to be borderline blasphemous.

I agree, but, wouldn't include the blasphemous

 

[Barbarian]

I know there are Christians who believe that God is not omnipotent. But I can't understand that thinking. We're talking about the Creator.

 

[Cygnus]

“Think about it. If you are a believer, it is already implied that you see all biological and physical processes as created and held in existence by God. You do not need “theistic” in front of biological terms. Who speaks of theistic reproduction? Or theistic gestation, theistic meiosis, or theistic menstruation? Plus, to qualify a biological process as ‘theistic’ implies that the opposite is possible, that God may not be involved in creating certain laws of nature.”

Amen to that. I never cared for the term, either. For precisely the reasons outlined above. If you are a Christian, it should be obvious that nature is entirely the work of God. And the argument that God is not capable of making a world that would produce all of this wonderful stuff, seems to me to be borderline blasphemous.

What I see as blasphemous is someone ascribing a process of creation to God that God said He didn't use.

 

[Barbarian]

What I see as blasphemous is someone ascribing a pprocess of creation to God that God said He didn't use.

Mike has a point. YE creationism is wrong, but it isn't necessarily blasphemous. God doesn't really care if you accept the way He created things. It's just not a salvation issue.

 

[Cygnus]

I know there are Christians who believe that God is not omnipotent. But I can't understand that thinking. We're talking about the Creator.

Considering God is omnipotent....I see no reason as to why God couldn't create in six literal days. Just like He said He did.

 

[Cygnus]

Mike has a point. YE creationism is wrong, but it isn't necessarily blasphemous. God doesn't really care if you accept the way He created things. It's just not a salvation issue.

Believing Jesus walked on water or didn't walk on water also isn't a salvation issue. The biblical truth is that Jesus did walk on water. God did form Adam first then Eve from Adams rib...which is also a biblical truth.

The problem with old earth creation...AKA, Theo-evoism is that it can't explain the fall in a way that is consistent with the bible.

 

[Barbarian]

Considering God is omnipotent....I see no reason as to why God couldn't create in six literal days. Just like He said He did.

He didn't say six literal days. Obviously, Genesis isn't a literal history; early Christians noted that trying to force a literal interpretation on it, would lead to logical absurdities. And of course God never said that it was a literal history.

 

[Barbarian]

Believing Jesus walked on water or didn't walk on water also isn't a salvation issue.

But of course, we have the Gospels which are written as a history, unlike Genesis.

The problem with old earth creation...AKA, Theo-evoism is that it can't explain the fall in a way that is consistent with the bible.

Evolution is completely consistent with there being an original pair of humans, who disobeyed God and caused the fall.

 

[Cygnus]

He didn't say six literal days. Obviously, Genesis isn't a literal history; early Christians noted that trying to force a literal interpretation on it, would lead to logical absurdities. And of course God never said that it was a literal history.

The bible presents Genesis as literal historical history.
Adam is presented as a literal historical first man.

 

[Barbarian]

The bible presents Genesis as literal historical history.

I know you want to believe it. But the Bible itself makes it clear that it is not.

 

[Cygnus]

Evolution is completely consistent with there being an original pair of humans, who disobeyed God and caused the fall.

What happened to the other cousins, brothers, sisters, parents of this assumed original pair? How did sin and death spread to all men when they were on the earth? Certainly they would have progeny still uneffected by your original pair of humans.

To add to that evolutionism has man and women evolving together.....the bible teaches Adam was formed first then Eve from Adams rib which is not consistent with evolutionism.

 

[Cygnus]

I know you want to believe it. But the Bible itself makes it clear that it is not.

Of course I don't want to believe it....considering Paul presented Genesis as literal history when he wrote to Timothy...."13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

 

[turnorburn]

evolution promotes humanism atheism and communism it actually fuels their argument against Gods word..

 

[Barbarian]

What happened to the other cousins, brothers, sisters, parents of this assumed original pair?

God doesn't say. Why would you think it matters?

How did sin and death spread to all men when they were on the earth?

Not necessarily to all humans; just the descendants of Adam and Eve, who are the ancestors of all surviving humans.

To add to that evolutionism has man and women evolving together.....

Hard to say what "evolutionism" says. It's your invention, so it could be anything. Evolutionary theory doesn't work like that.

 

[Barbarian]

evolution promotes humanism atheism and communism it actually fuels their argument against Gods word..

Probably a somewhat calmer and more reasoned post would be more convincing. Try to gather some facts that support your position, and present those.

Or have you already tried that?

 

[Corn Pop]

If fossils are millions of years old you would expect to see something in the process of evolution. A multi million year old scollop fossil still looks like a scollop, and a bird still looks like a bird.

 

[Corn Pop]

I thought science was suppose to be fact. Im trying to do some research but all so called credible science sites all contradict each other I cant even get a start. Lol. One says 2 million another 2.3 million and another 2.6 million.

What is it?. I thought science was based on fact.