Theistic evolution Trojan horsed into Churches as a direct result of them caving into the fraud called evolution!Yes. That's one of the many problem's with theistic evolutionary views. The idea that the Hebrew wording for literal days versus something one can subjectively inject eons and other massively expanded periods of time...no. They create far more problems with that view than answer questions. The disease, suffering and death issue alone is problematic for Ross and gang.
I recall Ross claiming that, before the fall and introduction of sin into the world, animals and the two humans on earth caused cells to die in the vegetation they ate, so therefore the "death" introduction is a faulty one.
What's at fault, however, is how Ross and gang define life. Cells are not 'alive'. When they expand their definition of 'life' to include the function of bio-mechanical machines like functioning cells, that's a problem...especially for someone like Ross who is NOT a biologist, chemist, or anything else he pretends to be an expert within.
To go one step further, his finding biologists and chemists to agree and endorse his thoughts in his books is not at all remarkable. Many a scientist has sold his soul to the evolutionary bias in creation. I can find 'scholars' with all kinds of letters attached to their names who would endorse a belief in the earth being flat, and they are out there. I work with an Engineer who believes the earth is flat, and that rockets going up into space is nothing more than a huge snow-job upon all us commoners....
Anyway, I can appreciate your take on all this, YF, and agree.
MM
Doctrine of Miraculous Creation
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
Theistic evolution Trojan horsed into Churches as a direct result of them caving into the fraud called evolution!
It is interesting...
At the time of Darwin's Origin of Species, it was heralded by many as the vindication of scripture.
Consider physical scientists were trying to figure out whether the Universe had an age, or was eternal.
Astronomers were proposing that new stars were created from old stars in just the right proportions to keep things going (steady state theory).
They were also arguing how long the sun would last.
Einstein inserted the cosmological constant in his equations to allow for adjustment as more observations were taken so the equation would allow for an eternal universe. He later called this his biggest mistake, since it stopped him from predicting the expansion of the universe.
Against all this, Evolution was the first physical science that unmistakably pointed to a beginning (and thus verifying creation).
I find the cosmology of the universe much more interesting in daily meditation than the biological details of evolution, but for both sciences, the difference between an young earth (and universe) vs an old earth is fundamental, but no one seems to see astronomy as very controversial.
At the time of Darwin's Origin of Species, it was heralded by many as the vindication of scripture.
Consider physical scientists were trying to figure out whether the Universe had an age, or was eternal.
Astronomers were proposing that new stars were created from old stars in just the right proportions to keep things going (steady state theory).
They were also arguing how long the sun would last.
Einstein inserted the cosmological constant in his equations to allow for adjustment as more observations were taken so the equation would allow for an eternal universe. He later called this his biggest mistake, since it stopped him from predicting the expansion of the universe.
Against all this, Evolution was the first physical science that unmistakably pointed to a beginning (and thus verifying creation).
I find the cosmology of the universe much more interesting in daily meditation than the biological details of evolution, but for both sciences, the difference between an young earth (and universe) vs an old earth is fundamental, but no one seems to see astronomy as very controversial.
Don't you think posts such as these violate the spirit of this forum, if not its rules?
It's like "If you do not believe what I do, it proves you do not believe in an inspired Bible". This might be applied at any point of contention
Discussions of evidences and viewpoints are fine, and what this forum is all about.
Given that there are many that follow Christ and come to a contrasting conclusion, dismissing them out of hand means less about whether they are correct than your willingness to discuss the issues.
I obviously have different conclusions, but to say that I do not believe in an inspired scripture is very mistaken. Nor, do I mean to impugn the Christianity of any one here. I have fellowshipped in brotherhood with many that do not believe as I do, and am grateful to the Lord for those relationships.
Evolutionary cosmology and evolutionary biology can never hope to show to us how the universe ever brought about life and intellect from random processes. Perhaps we can both agree with that statement. The naturalistic foundations of evolutionary cosmology and evolutionary biology renders those of that stripe in those fields to be utterly flawed to believe they are in an actual field of genuine science because of the fundamental flaws in their bias, which denies mathematical probabilities that stand in glaring contrast to the naturalistic approach.
Creationists knew before evolutionary dreamers that the universe had a beginning. Moses wrote about it long before evolutionary pseudo-science ever came into being. I'm so thankful for the Bible.
MM
oops
One can be saved and still hold to theistic evolution, but the trutyh still remains that none held to that until really Darwinism theory came unto the scene, and if one holds to a literal and historical account of genesis, evolution just cannot be supported biblical basis.
I refer to macro version as being fake, as there is evidence for species adapting, but none to support species changing!
And man is shown to be a direct and special creation of God, in very image of God, not as evolution purports us as being!
Just to hilight a point:Evolutionary cosmology and evolutionary biology can never hope to show to us how the universe ever brought about life and intellect from random processes. Perhaps we can both agree with that statement. The naturalistic foundations of evolutionary cosmology and evolutionary biology renders those of that stripe in those fields to be utterly flawed to believe they are in an actual field of genuine science because of the fundamental flaws in their bias, which denies mathematical probabilities that stand in glaring contrast to the naturalistic approach.
Creationists knew before evolutionary dreamers that the universe had a beginning. Moses wrote about it long before evolutionary pseudo-science ever came into being. I'm so thankful for the Bible.
MM
Old Earth Creationists ARE creationist.
It is not an alternative to miraculous creation any more than believing in farms and agriculture means God doesn't provide our food.
For myself, I am constantly in awe with creation and the creator, who did not just get set things up, but is personaly involved in guiding moment be moment.
Yes. I do understand what you're saying. However, what's puzzling is why anyone would think the Lord would applly the mechanism of evolutionary change to bring about all that is in life. When the Lord said in Genesis, "It is good..." and yet said that in the presence of disease, suffering and death evidenced in the fossil record, that seems inconsistent for anyone to believe in long ages of evolutionary change utilized by Divine means.
MM
in Vegas terms...........Evolution as the means of life as we know it is like rolling Snake Eyes 165 times in a row.
Very true!
Agreed.
Only DNA reproduces DNA. Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
Like YEC, Old Earth Creationists hold that various aspects of living things were created by special supernatural intervention. Unlike Young Earth Creationists, however, Old Earth Creationists accept the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the universe.
So you're saying there IS a chance! LOL.
So you're saying there IS a chance! LOL.
It is going to be one of those question I find out when I get to heaven.
That and why did Moses take those 2 mosquitoes.
So, how disregarding the point about what is really met by random, how big a probability must if be to be within the powers of God?
Sola scriptura is not taught in the scriptures. It was originally adopted to address theological heresies built on a given person's views rather than on evidence, whether scriptural or physical. It is really a heuristic, meaning that it increases the chance of quality deductions (within its subject), but neither guarantees correctness nor unerring in finding truth.
In ancient times this meant combating such ideas as Manicheism (which led Augustine astray until he started questioning its teachings). In more recent times, it could be reasonably be useful in combating such out and out heresies as the David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
But scientific investigation is not based upon anyone’s views as much as it is upon observations and deductions that can at least in principle be independently found. To be sure, there are those that are skilled in this work and are considered experts and authoritative, but each of them are subject to sometimes intense scrutiny.
To be clear on my view of scriptures:
I accept and affirm the divine source of scripture. I accept that as originally set down, it is inerrant.
I believe that the keeping scriptures true has been providentially guarded by God. – providentially guarded is not as strong as inerrantly. There are competing primary documents, and textual criticism is a necessary area of concern. Textual criticism is not my area of expertise, I rely on others.
I believe that careful translators have been providentially guided by the Spirit (also not inerrantly). I also believe some ideas in original text do not translate well into other languages. I also believe that some translators are too ready to be up to date modern in their renderings.
I believe that readers, interpreters, commenters, theologians, and preachers are just as fallible as anyone else, and that while do not mean to impeach their motives and many are guided by God’s spirit, many are misguided by their own limitations.
In ancient times this meant combating such ideas as Manicheism (which led Augustine astray until he started questioning its teachings). In more recent times, it could be reasonably be useful in combating such out and out heresies as the David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
But scientific investigation is not based upon anyone’s views as much as it is upon observations and deductions that can at least in principle be independently found. To be sure, there are those that are skilled in this work and are considered experts and authoritative, but each of them are subject to sometimes intense scrutiny.
To be clear on my view of scriptures:
I accept and affirm the divine source of scripture. I accept that as originally set down, it is inerrant.
I believe that the keeping scriptures true has been providentially guarded by God. – providentially guarded is not as strong as inerrantly. There are competing primary documents, and textual criticism is a necessary area of concern. Textual criticism is not my area of expertise, I rely on others.
I believe that careful translators have been providentially guided by the Spirit (also not inerrantly). I also believe some ideas in original text do not translate well into other languages. I also believe that some translators are too ready to be up to date modern in their renderings.
I believe that readers, interpreters, commenters, theologians, and preachers are just as fallible as anyone else, and that while do not mean to impeach their motives and many are guided by God’s spirit, many are misguided by their own limitations.
Darwin said that the fossil record did not support his theory and if the future didn't show any more evidence then his theory would not stand. There is no solid evidence to support evolution neither natural nor God directed that I have ever heard. I am referring to macro evolution where one species becomes an entirely different species. If you know of any such support for evolution please let us know where to find it. It is my opinion that DNA ended the case for evolution. They (scientists) have manipulated DNA in frogs and while they were able to cause mutations the creature was still a frog and did not live long enough to be able to reproduce and pass on the genetic code of it's mutation. We do agree that God is all powerful and can do whatever He wants within His creation, for while we are limited by the laws of physics He is not.
I give up......how many?
So you're saying there IS a chance! LOL.
There is a chance that I will be pretty some day. 1 in about 10 Million! Maybe 100 million!
Hello Major;
Years ago my former pastor and I were carrying heavy equipment and he joked, "Bob, we're getting old." I responded, "yes, Pastor, but we're still beautiful."
lol!