OEC and TE: Which is Theologically Superior?

[Constantine]

After I had decided that YEC was untenable I then had to choose between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Both were compatible with my views on Genesis so I decided on TE based of course on science but also alot on theology. I believe that TE solves some theological problems that OEC cannot. For instance:

If God is all knowing and perfect why would he go through the trouble of repeatedly creating millions of species that he knew would go extinct? Why bother with 500 million years of creating and destroying life when the entire purpose was to get to humanity?

If God is all good how could he create things that can only cause suffering and death? The ebola virus has no redeeming qualities. It simply kills and causes pain. The same can be said for any pathogenic virus or parasites like the tape worm and tick. Why would God create such creatures if he didn't want us or his creation to suffer?

Why would God get it wrong so many times? There are many evolutionary dead-enders. What was their purpose? Why would God create the DoDo bird?

Old Earth Creationism also makes God a hyper-interventionalist. He would be constantly creating new species all the time in every habitat on earth for half a billion years. This seems like an awful waste and quite a silly thing for an omnipotent God to do.

Ok, this last point is kind of silly but it still always bugged me. When God created life, did it just "poof" into existence? I could never visualise that. Again this point is superflurious but it has always bothered me.

Theistic evolution answers the imperfection problem. Because God is letting nature run according to the laws He gave it; evolution (with all its trials and errors) is simply the process God created to bring about humanity.

The "nasty things" problem is solved because things like the venom of a rattle snake and the AIDS virus are the result of natural free will and NOT the direct creation of an all loving God.

This thread is not intended to get into the scientific side of this debate but instead focus on the theological side. Although YEC's are free to comment, the reason for this thread is for OEC's and TE's to discuss these issues and is not about YEC.

[George Murphy]

After I had decided that YEC was untenable I then had to choose between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Both were compatible with my views on Genesis so I decided on TE based of course on science but also alot on theology. I believe that TE solves some theological problems that OEC cannot. For instance:

If God is all knowing and perfect why would he go through the trouble of repeatedly creating millions of species that he knew would go extinct? Why bother with 500 million years of creating and destroying life when the entire purpose was to get to humanity?

If God is all good how could he create things that can only cause suffering and death? The ebola virus has no redeeming qualities. It simply kills and causes pain. The same can be said for any pathogenic virus or parasites like the tape worm and tick. Why would God create such creatures if he didn't want us or his creation to suffer?

Why would God get it wrong so many times? There are many evolutionary dead-enders. What was their purpose? Why would God create the DoDo bird?

Old Earth Creationism also makes God a hyper-interventionalist. He would be constantly creating new species all the time in every habitat on earth for half a billion years. This seems like an awful waste and quite a silly thing for an omnipotent God to do.

Ok, this last point is kind of silly but it still always bugged me. When God created life, did it just "poof" into existence? I could never visualise that. Again this point is superflurious but it has always bothered me.

Theistic evolution answers the imperfection problem. Because God is letting nature run according to the laws He gave it; evolution (with all its trials and errors) is simply the process God created to bring about humanity.

The "nasty things" problem is solved because things like the venom of a rattle snake and the AIDS virus are the result of natural free will and NOT the direct creation of an all loving God.

This thread is not intended to get into the scientific side of this debate but instead focus on the theological side. Although YEC's are free to comment, the reason for this thread is for OEC's and TE's to discuss these issues and is not about YEC.This is OK as far as it goes, but its basic problem is common to many discussions of creation: No connection is made between the God who is said to be the creator and the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ. The Christian doctrine of creation is not simply a theistic claim that some God created the world, but that the creator is the one who raised Jesus from the dead, and that the agent of creation and the one for whom the world was created is the one who hung on the cross. If we begin there, we get deeper insights into some of the issues you've mentioned here.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

This is OK as far as it goes, but its basic problem is common to many discussions of creation: No connection is made between the God who is said to be the creator and the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ. The Christian doctrine of creation is not simply a theistic claim that some God created the world, but that the creator is the one who raised Jesus from the dead, and that the agent of creation and the one for whom the world was created is the one who hung on the cross. If we begin there, we get deeper insights into some of the issues you've mentioned here.

Shalom,
George


Of course, george you are 100% correct, on about half of what you said.

We ought first examine the idea of Trinity as our definition for God, begin with a denotation, and exact statement of what God is in this bible begore we examine the Theistic Evolutionary inyerpretation of Genesis.

You are wrong in denying that statring "In the beginning, Elohim"... is the wrong place to begin.

El, the ancient term for Creator God is used in the Hebrew plural form of Elohim. We learn that God's actual name is the Great Tetraammation, YHVH. The hint that this word in Hebrew is a verb participle meaning, "I am what I am becoming"... supports the idea of evolution itself.

The implication is that the entire creation is a birthing process not too unlike our own. The convoluted development of a fetus which undergoes manyre-human stages, such as gills and such is what I refer to in this comment.

We see that God's name implies that He, himself, is manifesting.

Consequental to this observation, and reading Genesis 1:1-2 with such an interpretation in mind, straightens the path of all that follows in Genesis from cover to cover.

God is a manifesting Trinity, just as you suggest, but we must apply this understanding, this definition, immediate to the reading of Genesis in order for the very first chapters to be rational, non-metaphysical, and to understood as metaphor for the actual science of this advanced Information Age.

Illustration:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning (the transcient) God, (The Absolute Power beyond Universe), created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit, (the pantheistic Natural Laws), of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Cut to the finish, as you suggest, the Trinity:

Theism refers to God, the Father, as transcendent, meaning that God goes beyond, exceeds, is above and beyond the material universe.

This is compatible with the idea of God, the Father, existing prior to the Big Bang, existing as the Absolute First Cause.

Mathematically, we might identify this theistic understanding of God with Absolute Energy. This energy, transformable into matter, in accord with Einstien's famous equation, suggest that this same transcendent God, the Father, YHVH, exists also in a Pantheistic Spirit of God, the spirit which "moves across the face of the deep" in Genesis 2.

Pantheism defines God, the Holy Spirit, as the transcendent reality of which the material universe and man are only manifestations. This suggests that our Father in heaven is theistic in his nature prior to, during, and ongoing thereafter, in the energy-to-matter transformation.

This seems to deny God's personality, in terms which regard personalities as a psychic attribute in man. But, the existence of Natural Laws in this universe, this transcendent reality, God in spirit, is his person, His personality.

The Natural Laws, the "nature" of God, of the Universe, is an indication of personification, in order and organization, equal to the recognition of man's thoughts prior to human deeds.

"Personality," in this sense, exists in the form of Natural Laws by which we may know and communicate with the transcendental materialism of God. This aspect of pantheism in YHVH is expressed in the tendency to identify God with nature.

To these two definitions within the concept of the trinity of God, we must add the concept of the Immanent God.

The immanent God refers to the indwelling of God, God remaining within, inherent, as a mental act taking place within the mind of the subject. We might liken this to Conscience. This is the image in which man was created according to Genesis 1:26-7.

The Trinity of this Theistic God, the Father, pre-existing the material universe, yet transforming into the Pantheistic Holy Spirit which is incorporated into that universe, a universe that includes man, is compounded with the kingdom of the Immanent God within man, himself, homoiousios Conscience, the son of God, the pantheistic Universe, Christ perfected.

[George Murphy]

Of course, george you are 100% correct, on about half of what you said.

We ought first examine the idea of Trinity as our definition for God, begin with a denotation, and exact statement of what God is in this bible begore we examine the Theistic Evolutionary inyerpretation of Genesis.

You are wrong in denying that statring "In the beginning, Elohim"... is the wrong place to begin.

El, the ancient term for Creator God is used in the Hebrew plural form of Elohim. We learn that God's actual name is the Great Tetraammation, YHVH. The hint that this word in Hebrew is a verb participle meaning, "I am what I am becoming"... supports the idea of evolution itself.

The implication is that the entire creation is a birthing process not too unlike our own. The convoluted development of a fetus which undergoes manyre-human stages, such as gills and such is what I refer to in this comment.

We see that God's name implies that He, himself, is manifesting.

Consequental to this observation, and reading Genesis 1:1-2 with such an interpretation in mind, straightens the path of all that follows in Genesis from cover to cover.

God is a manifesting Trinity, just as you suggest, but we must apply this understanding, this definition, immediate to the reading of Genesis in order for the very first chapters to be rational, non-metaphysical, and to understood as metaphor for the actual science of this advanced Information Age.

Illustration:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning (the transcient) God, (The Absolute Power beyond Universe), created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit, (the pantheistic Natural Laws), of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Cut to the finish, as you suggest, the Trinity:

Theism refers to God, the Father, as transcendent, meaning that God goes beyond, exceeds, is above and beyond the material universe.

This is compatible with the idea of God, the Father, existing prior to the Big Bang, existing as the Absolute First Cause.

Mathematically, we might identify this theistic understanding of God with Absolute Energy. This energy, transformable into matter, in accord with Einstien's famous equation, suggest that this same transcendent God, the Father, YHVH, exists also in a Pantheistic Spirit of God, the spirit which "moves across the face of the deep" in Genesis 2.

Pantheism defines God, the Holy Spirit, as the transcendent reality of which the material universe and man are only manifestations. This suggests that our Father in heaven is theistic in his nature prior to, during, and ongoing thereafter, in the energy-to-matter transformation.

This seems to deny God's personality, in terms which regard personalities as a psychic attribute in man. But, the existence of Natural Laws in this universe, this transcendent reality, God in spirit, is his person, His personality.

The Natural Laws, the "nature" of God, of the Universe, is an indication of personification, in order and organization, equal to the recognition of man's thoughts prior to human deeds.

"Personality," in this sense, exists in the form of Natural Laws by which we may know and communicate with the transcendental materialism of God. This aspect of pantheism in YHVH is expressed in the tendency to identify God with nature.

To these two definitions within the concept of the trinity of God, we must add the concept of the Immanent God.

The immanent God refers to the indwelling of God, God remaining within, inherent, as a mental act taking place within the mind of the subject. We might liken this to Conscience. This is the image in which man was created according to Genesis 1:26-7.

The Trinity of this Theistic God, the Father, pre-existing the material universe, yet transforming into the Pantheistic Holy Spirit which is incorporated into that universe, a universe that includes man, is compounded with the kingdom of the Immanent God within man, himself, homoiousios Conscience, the son of God, the pantheistic Universe, Christ perfected."Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

Constantine:

After I had decided that YEC was untenable I then had to choose between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution.

KOFHY:

I believe that in embracing TE you have made a wise decision. The complicated metaphysics that follow any other intial perspective soon requires a "priesthood" of advisprs who, like "salesmen" fof the kingdom of heaven as they promote the idea, offer ways around one dilemma after another.

Please spread the word from the roof tops so other Orthodox Christians can enjoy your insight.

I was very impressed with the ancient quote in your signature. It gives honor to our fathers past, inrecognition that they,too, realized the contradiction in interpreting the Hebrew word as 24 hour "days."

They, too, knew that "yom," the Hebrew has connotation of "a duration of time," ie; 7 "days" = 7 Geological Eras of time.

[rmwilliamsjr]

in a conservative denomination(like PCA or OPC) OEC is acceptable TE is not.

[lucaspa]

Theistic evolution answers the imperfection problem. Because God is letting nature run according to the laws He gave it; evolution (with all its trials and errors) is simply the process God created to bring about humanity.Very good. You left out a reason, altho you obliquely referred to it when you discussed "harmful" things like AIDS and Ebola.

The reason 19th century creationists abandoned OEC and special creation so fast and accepted evolution -- faster than science -- is the bad, sadistic, and stupid designs in nature. The Argument from Design that has God individually making each species works only if you look at just a few designs. When you look at all the designs, you end up having to conclude that God is stupid, sadistic, and suffereing from Alzheimer's! Since God is none of these, Christians immediately abandoned special creation (what you call OEC) for TE because evolution by natural selection got God out of that very bad corner that OEC puts Him into.

Here are some other reasons Christians accepted TE so rapidly:

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

"The last few years have witnessed the gradual acceptance by Christians of the great scientific generalisation of our age, which is briefly if somewhat vaguely described as the Theory of Evolution. ... It is an advance in our theological thinking; a definite increase of insight; a fresher and fuller appreciation of those 'many ways' in which 'God fulfills Himself'. JR Ilingsworth, Lex Mundi, 12th edition,

[lucaspa]

in a conservative denomination(like PCA or OPC) OEC is acceptable TE is not.PCA is a Biblical literalist denomination. Of course TE is not acceptable. PCA is worshipping their interpretation of the Bible, not God.

[lucaspa]

This is OK as far as it goes, but its basic problem is common to many discussions of creation: No connection is made between the God who is said to be the creator and the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ. The Christian doctrine of creation is not simply a theistic claim that some God created the world, but that the creator is the one who raised Jesus from the dead, and that the agent of creation and the one for whom the world was created is the one who hung on the cross. If we begin there, we get deeper insights into some of the issues you've mentioned here.

Shalom,
GeorgeUh, how does TE separate the two? I know both ID and YEC separate the God of creation from the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ.

All the theological statements you are concerned about come from the "theistic" or faith side of TE. The evolution side is the how God created. Unlike YEC, OEC, and ID, TE was never meant as a method of "proving" God. The others rely on god-of-the-gaps theology. TE realizes that such theology is really, really bad theology.

[Constantine]

I was very impressed with the ancient quote in your signature.

Thank you for noticing, it was written by the great Father of the Church Origen.

You brought up alot of very good points that I was less articulate on and you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately no OEC's have shown up yet. Hopefully we will hear from them soon.

[Lion]

constantine
After I had decided that YEC was untenable I then had to choose between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Both were compatible with my views on Genesis so I decided on TE based of course on science but also alot on theology. I believe that TE solves some theological problems that OEC cannot. For instance:

If God is all knowing and perfect why would he go through the trouble of repeatedly creating millions of species that he knew would go extinct? Why bother with 500 million years of creating and destroying life when the entire purpose was to get to humanity?

If God is all good how could he create things that can only cause suffering and death? The ebola virus has no redeeming qualities. It simply kills and causes pain. The same can be said for any pathogenic virus or parasites like the tape worm and tick. Why would God create such creatures if he didn't want us or his creation to suffer?

Why would God get it wrong so many times? There are many evolutionary dead-enders. What was their purpose? Why would God create the DoDo bird?

Old Earth Creationism also makes God a hyper-interventionalist. He would be constantly creating new species all the time in every habitat on earth for half a billion years. This seems like an awful waste and quite a silly thing for an omnipotent God to do.

Ok, this last point is kind of silly but it still always bugged me. When God created life, did it just "poof" into existence? I could never visualise that. Again this point is superflurious but it has always bothered me.

Theistic evolution answers the imperfection problem. Because God is letting nature run according to the laws He gave it; evolution (with all its trials and errors) is simply the process God created to bring about humanity.

The "nasty things" problem is solved because things like the venom of a rattle snake and the AIDS virus are the result of natural free will and NOT the direct creation of an all loving God.

This thread is not intended to get into the scientific side of this debate but instead focus on the theological side. Although YEC's are free to comment, the reason for this thread is for OEC's and TE's to discuss these issues and is not about YEC.
--------------------------
Constantine, you must have a misunderstanding about the process God used in creation. I don’t know why you chose to think God took three days to start the process of creation before he made the sun makes the process impossible. That’s what God said. Humans were not made until day six. God revealed that to our first parents, and I have to take Him at His word.

God does not make mistakes,but man does. God did not intend man or animals to die, but death came to all creation because of sin. You are right, evolution presupposes millions of years of death. You are confusing the remains of the creatures that were destroyed in the flood. Men have tried to figure out how old they are by using radioactive dating instead of understanding the bones for what they really are, a leftover from the flood. The flood destroyed all animal life except what was in the ark. The carcasses drifted into heaps and were covered by drifting sand. The chemical action turned the bones into hydroxyapatite which is like stone.

When we deny the story of the flood we leave ourselves open to all kinds of false theories. Satan doesn’t want the truth to be known that he caused the wickedness of man that resulted in the flood.

[kofh2u]

in a conservative denomination(like PCA or OPC) OEC is acceptable TE is not.


Hmmmm....
Really?

The Truth is unacceptable because the tradition of understanding an irrationality of ideas "invented" to interpret Genesis must be maintained?

[lucaspa]

Constantine, you must have a misunderstanding about the process God used in creation. I don’t know why you chose to think God took three days to start the process of creation before he made the sun makes the process impossible. That’s what God said.Excuse me, but are you saying God dictated Genesis 1? Or are you saying God took pen and papyrus and wrote it out?

God does not make mistakes,but man does. God did not intend man or animals to die, but death came to all creation because of sin.Excuse me, but can you point to the verses in Genesis 3 that say this? There are some very explicit punishments to Adam and Eve for their disobedience: death in all creation is not one of them. What you have here is a man-made theory. As you said, man makes mistakes.

You are confusing the remains of the creatures that were destroyed in the flood. I told you in another thread. There was no world-wide Flood that laid down the fossils. There are features in God's Creation that simply can't be there if the Flood were true. Since true statements can't have false consequences, the statements of a world-wide Flood that caused all geology can't be true. Christians figured this out by 1831.

The chemical action turned the bones into hydroxyapatite which is like stone.Lion, the mineral in living bone is hydroxyapetite! And it is stone. Your bones are 60% hydroxyapetite and are stone. Look, if you are repeating what some professional creationist told you, then this should tell you that your source is unreliable and committing false witness. If you are stating this on your own, then I'm afraid you are in deep trouble for violating the 9th Commandment.

When we deny the story of the flood we leave ourselves open to all kinds of false theories. Satan doesn’t want the truth to be known that he caused the wickedness of man that resulted in the flood.When you promote false witness like saying there was world-wide Flood that caused all the fossils, you are doing Satan's work. Not only are you spreading lies, but you are urging your fellows to deny God in His Creation. Please stop. For your own sake if not for the sake of others.

God doesn't go away if He created by evolution rather than your man-made theory of a world-wide Flood.

[kofh2u]

Constantine:
Thank you

KOFHY: My pleasure to neet a rational orthodox Christian, really.

The OEC can live with the ancient rocks that date the periods of the Seven Geological Eras.
I believe they have problems down the line in interpreting Creation as a non-evolving process.

They can argue that macroevolution is hard to prove, meaning it still needs more concrete evidence.

But, they get in deep with the hypothesis that God used "Spontaneous Generation."

Spontanois generation was the Middle Age concept that understood living things to just suddenly appear. Remember?

Flies appearing from nowhere, until we had microscopes and discovered eggs, etc.?

Noah's Ark, interpreted literally, has wroth a multitude of ridicule, especially in recent books.

The evolution of Modern Homo sapiens, in a sudden population burst, exploded exactly 40,000 "days and nights" of years ago, is toooo on target to be ignored. This first coincidental evidence soon is enhanced with other verses in scripture. Verses NOBODY has EVER explained intelligently and rationally, until TE is considered:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus in the evolutionary line leading to Christ), saw the daughters of men, (Lamechian Homo antecessors how would pass into the lake of firey brimstone fossilized extinction), that they were fair; and they took them wives ( in hybriding) of all which they chose.

Gen. 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit, (my pantheistic nature) shall not always strive with (lower forms of) man, for that, (more than just a mental reflection of myself), he also is flesh (and must adapt to my Reality): yet, (Neanderthal Man), his days shall be an hundred and twenty (thousand) years.

[Lion]

lucaspa asked
Excuse me, but are you saying God dictated Genesis 1? Or are you saying God took pen and papyrus and wrote it out?

-----------------------
No. I did not say that. But God must have told Adam and Eve how they were created.
---------------------------
Lucaspa quote
I told you in another thread. There was no world-wide Flood that laid down the fossils. There are features in God's Creation that simply can't be there if the Flood were true. Since true statements can't have false consequences, the statements of a world-wide Flood that caused all geology can't be true. Christians figured this out by 1831.
-----------------
The story of the flood has been denied by many people. That doesn’t make it any less true because somebody says it isn’t.
-------------------------
Lion, the mineral in living bone is hydroxyapetite! And it is stone. Your bones are 60% hydroxyapetite and are stone. Look, if you are repeating what some professional creationist told you, then this should tell you that your source is unreliable and committing false witness. If you are stating this on your own, then I'm afraid you are in deep trouble for violating the 9th Commandment.
--------------
I evidently misunderstood my source. I shouldn’t have done that. My mistake.
------------
Lucaspa
When you promote false witness like saying there was world-wide Flood that caused all the fossils, you are doing Satan's work. Not only are you spreading lies, but you are urging your fellows to deny God in His Creation. Please stop. For your own sake if not for the sake of others.
---------------
Just becase you deny the word of God doesn’t make it true, either. There is plenty of evidence that there was a worldwide flood, but Satan doesn’t like it and you and others of your persuasion are spreading false theories and calling it truth. Ninth comandment again?

That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 pet 3:2-7

Notice this. You are willingly ignorant of, meaning that you don’t want to know about or believe that there was a flood that destroyed the earth. The word of God said there was a flood. Instead, you have subsitited the theory of evolution that does away with creation by God.

There are two opposing forces in the world, God and Satan. Adam and Eve abdicated to Satan and Satan has brought in the theory of evolution, saying there is no God or at least an absentee God who doesn’t work in the world any more. This leaves Satan to control men’s minds and they invent evil. You cannot deny that there is evil in the world. Men have revived the devilish actions of the dark ages. How else can you explain the deranged actions of the suicide bombers that kill and maim innocent men, women and children?

[kofh2u]

lucaspa asked
Excuse me, but are you saying God dictated Genesis 1? Or are you saying God took pen and papyrus and wrote it out?

-----------------------
No. I did not say that. But God must have told Adam and Eve how they were created.
---------------------------
Lucaspa quote
I told you in another thread. There was no world-wide Flood that laid down the fossils. There are features in God's Creation that simply can't be there if the Flood were true. Since true statements can't have false consequences, the statements of a world-wide Flood that caused all geology can't be true. Christians figured this out by 1831.
-----------------
The story of the flood has been denied by many people. That doesn’t make it any less true because somebody says it isn’t.
-------------------------
Lion, the mineral in living bone is hydroxyapetite! And it is stone. Your bones are 60% hydroxyapetite and are stone. Look, if you are repeating what some professional creationist told you, then this should tell you that your source is unreliable and committing false witness. If you are stating this on your own, then I'm afraid you are in deep trouble for violating the 9th Commandment.
--------------
I evidently misunderstood my source. I shouldn’t have done that. My mistake.
------------
Lucaspa
When you promote false witness like saying there was world-wide Flood that caused all the fossils, you are doing Satan's work. Not only are you spreading lies, but you are urging your fellows to deny God in His Creation. Please stop. For your own sake if not for the sake of others.
---------------
Just becase you deny the word of God doesn’t make it true, either. There is plenty of evidence that there was a worldwide flood, but Satan doesn’t like it and you and others of your persuasion are spreading false theories and calling it truth. Ninth comandment again?

That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 pet 3:2-7

Notice this. You are willingly ignorant of, meaning that you don’t want to know about or believe that there was a flood that destroyed the earth. The word of God said there was a flood. Instead, you have subsitited the theory of evolution that does away with creation by God.

There are two opposing forces in the world, God and Satan. Adam and Eve abdicated to Satan and Satan has brought in the theory of evolution, saying there is no God or at least an absentee God who doesn’t work in the world any more. This leaves Satan to control men’s minds and they invent evil. You cannot deny that there is evil in the world. Men have revived the devilish actions of the dark ages. How else can you explain the deranged actions of the suicide bombers that kill and maim innocent men, women and children?


It isn't that its false what God said, the creation tok place in 7 days, that we modern homos are linked to just one man, Noah, who survived a world size flood.

Its true.

They semsntics, they way people explained it in ancient times was different.

Mankind has gone thru several paradigms of undrstanding himself, his world, his past, his roots to other forefathers. The Stone Age gave way to a Bronze Age, then and Iron Age. Men thought in ways quite different, and scrioture has had to speak in eve y age, or it would have been discarded as irrelevant. Scripture is amazing in that it correctly anticipated all ages, in its literary construction. It is a "living" word that served the Mythopaeic paradigm of the Agricultural Age, yet was ready in a metaphysical form to grow into an Age of Reason which asked Why? The Age of Enlightenment expected much more than the tradition past on to us. Now, we want logical and empirical support for what scripture has always said is true.

Today, the 7 Geological Eras see the metaphysics of the middle ages passing from 24 hour "dats" to long million year durations, seven hevertheless.

The tales once easily taken as metaphysical literal understandings now can ONLY be metaphorical expressions written to get this far, to have reached us. W can understand flood of Modern Homo sapiens beginning with our population explosion 40, 000 years ago. We can understand that we replaced all lower forms of man, killing them and out competing them. We can recognize that our species talks, hence the ark of our mind has carry over, endured the "flood" and named all the animals in our world.

Ark
The Phylum of Animals:
1) Anthropoda
2) Porifera
3) Sporozoa; Subphylum: Mastigora, Ciliphora
4) Sarcodina
5) Echinodermata
6) Coelenterata
7) Bryozoa
8) plathyhelminthes; Subphylum: Chaetognatha, Phoronida, Ctenophora,
Mesozoa, Rhynchocoela, aschelminthes, Acanthocephala, Pggonophora
9) Chordata
10) Annelida
11) Mollusca
12) Brachipoda

[shunyadragon]

After I had decided that YEC was untenable I then had to choose between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Both were compatible with my views on Genesis so I decided on TE based of course on science but also alot on theology. I believe that TE solves some theological problems that OEC cannot. For instance:

If God is all knowing and perfect why would he go through the trouble of repeatedly creating millions of species that he knew would go extinct? Why bother with 500 million years of creating and destroying life when the entire purpose was to get to humanity?

If God is all good how could he create things that can only cause suffering and death? The ebola virus has no redeeming qualities. It simply kills and causes pain. The same can be said for any pathogenic virus or parasites like the tape worm and tick. Why would God create such creatures if he didn't want us or his creation to suffer?

Why would God get it wrong so many times? There are many evolutionary dead-enders. What was their purpose? Why would God create the DoDo bird?

Old Earth Creationism also makes God a hyper-interventionalist. He would be constantly creating new species all the time in every habitat on earth for half a billion years. This seems like an awful waste and quite a silly thing for an omnipotent God to do.

Ok, this last point is kind of silly but it still always bugged me. When God created life, did it just "poof" into existence? I could never visualise that. Again this point is superflurious but it has always bothered me.

Theistic evolution answers the imperfection problem. Because God is letting nature run according to the laws He gave it; evolution (with all its trials and errors) is simply the process God created to bring about humanity.

The "nasty things" problem is solved because things like the venom of a rattle snake and the AIDS virus are the result of natural free will and NOT the direct creation of an all loving God.

This thread is not intended to get into the scientific side of this debate but instead focus on the theological side. Although YEC's are free to comment, the reason for this thread is for OEC's and TE's to discuss these issues and is not about YEC.
My objections to what I have read of OEC is that, eventhough they have basically, in some way, accepted the scientific worldview on the history of existence and evolution, they believe that the natural course of events could not produce the desired results unless God stepped in and periodically tweak and adjust things so they would have the desired effect. A great deal of wasted effort is devoted to trying to prove things could not have happened naturally. It soulds like some OEC proponents propose that God made a defective clock that cannot function on its own and God must step in periodically and fix it.

[lucaspa]

The OEC can live with the ancient rocks that date the periods of the Seven Geological Eras. How does OEC relate the history of life in those rocks with the order of creation in Genesis 1?

They can argue that macroevolution is hard to prove, meaning it still needs more concrete evidence.Let's see. Macroevolution --speciation -- has been observed in real time. In the fossil record there are series of individuals linking one species to another to another across higher taxa to the level of class. Not to mention that life today would not look like it does unless macroevoltion took place. What more "concrete evidence" do you require?

But, they get in deep with the hypothesis that God used "Spontaneous Generation."

Spontanois generation was the Middle Age concept that understood living things to just suddenly appear. Remember?

Flies appearing from nowhere, until we had microscopes and discovered eggs, etc.?Spontaneous generation had complete, multicelled organisms appearing from dead material. Those flies didn't appear "from nowhere", remember, but rotting meat! No rotting meat, no flies.

The evolution of Modern Homo sapiens, in a sudden population burst, exploded exactly 40,000 "days and nights" of years ago, is toooo on target to be ignored.modern H. Sapiens dates back further than that. What's more, we have several transitional individuals linking H. sapiens with H. erectus. Where did you get the idea that H. sapiens either evolved or had a sudden population burst 40,000 years ago? Citation, please.

Verses NOBODY has EVER explained intelligently and rationally, until TE is considered:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus in the evolutionary line leading to Christ), saw the daughters of men, (Lamechian Homo antecessors how would pass into the lake of firey brimstone fossilized extinction), that they were fair; and they took them wives ( in hybriding) of all which they chose.SAY WHAT???? You think this is TE? Not on your life!
1. We are not sure that H. antessori is a separate species.
2. If so, it is a separate species and did not interbreed with H. sapiens.

Gen. 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit, (my pantheistic nature) shall not always strive with (lower forms of) man, for that, (more than just a mental reflection of myself), he also is flesh (and must adapt to my Reality): yet, (Neanderthal Man), his days shall be an hundred and twenty (thousand) years.Oh my. Destroying both scripture and science. A twofer. "pantheistic nature"? There goes monotheism. Genesis 6:3 is telling us how lifespan got limited. Besides, you "forgot" that "sons of God" are "heavenly beings", not human.

[George Murphy]

Uh, how does TE separate the two? I know both ID and YEC separate the God of creation from the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ.

All the theological statements you are concerned about come from the "theistic" or faith side of TE. The evolution side is the how God created. Unlike YEC, OEC, and ID, TE was never meant as a method of "proving" God. The others rely on god-of-the-gaps theology. TE realizes that such theology is really, really bad theology.I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not arguing against TE (though the term is less than ideal). & I don't think that most TEs intend to separate the Creator from Christ, but in fact many of them (& the original post) simply don't say anything about Christ in their discussions of evolution. This means that some of the distinctive features of the Creator (& some that are IMO crucial for an adequate understanding of evolution) are left out of the discussion.

& I certainly do not think of scientific evidence - concerning evolution or anything else - as a way of "proving" God. I am leery of any claims for a "natural knowledge of God" or natural theology that are independent of revelation (or "special revelation" if you will).

For more detail on my view see the initial post of the "Deep Theistic Evolution" thread in this forum.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

How does OEC relate the history of life in those rocks with the order of creation in Genesis 1?

Let's see. Macroevolution --speciation -- has been observed in real time. In the fossil record there are series of individuals linking one species to another to another across higher taxa to the level of class. Not to mention that life today would not look like it does unless macroevoltion took place. What more "concrete evidence" do you require?

Spontaneous generation had complete, multicelled organisms appearing from dead material. Those flies didn't appear "from nowhere", remember, but rotting meat! No rotting meat, no flies.

modern H. Sapiens dates back further than that. What's more, we have several transitional individuals linking H. sapiens with H. erectus. Where did you get the idea that H. sapiens either evolved or had a sudden population burst 40,000 years ago? Citation, please.

SAY WHAT???? You think this is TE? Not on your life!
1. We are not sure that H. antessori is a separate species.
2. If so, it is a separate species and did not interbreed with H. sapiens.

Oh my. Destroying both scripture and science. A twofer. "pantheistic nature"? There goes monotheism. Genesis 6:3 is telling us how lifespan got limited. Besides, you "forgot" that "sons of God" are "heavenly beings", not human.


1) First to be clear, I accept evolution as basically correct.

2) Second, I do not believe we have enough evidence, nor have we uncovered all the humanoid links in our ancestors, so as to correctly enumerate the analogy to ultimately be factually described in Genesis 4-6.
But, as the footnotes to the bracketed commentary states elsewhere, the line from Adam to Modern Homo is what Genesis is describing.
In the future we will/shall have all the actual names. This previously posted bracketed quote, Gen 6, is a "for instance," one sketched out at this time for emple.
We do, presently, have enough information about our line of ascent to see that Genesis is an analogy.

3) Third, the Trinity is expressed by the monotheism of God as a Theist God concept in the "Father." This element of the Trinity, the theistic God, the Father, indeed, transcends the creation, is prior to the Big Bang. And, in a form of pantheistic God, the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, "moves across the face of the deep."
We KNOW God in the pantheism of knowing His creation:

Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the) world, the invisible things of him, (in pantheistic expression), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood (pantheistically), by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made (and observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his (theistic), eternal, (transcendent) power and Godhead (in Trinity); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse:

4) Last, the essence of Theistic Evolution is found in the conotation of the very words, Theistic God... evolving in the immanent God of Christ.

Our Theistic Father is becoming, He, who transcends the material universe, (who is the Absolute Mover and the primal energy which transformed into this pantheistic expression of Creation) is YHVH, "I am what I become."
He is manifesting in the Immanent God of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose kingdom is within, immanent.

[lucaspa]

2) Second, I do not believe we have enough evidence, nor have we uncovered all the humanoid links in our ancestors,We haven't uncovered all the links, but we do have transitional individuals linking H. sapiens to H. erectus, H. erectus to H. habilis, and H. habilis to A. afarensis. A partial list I have compiled from my amateur reading of the literature is at the end of the post. By transitional individual I mean an individual with features either between 2 species or a mosaic of features of two adjoining species.

But, as the footnotes to the bracketed commentary states elsewhere, the line from Adam to Modern Homo is what Genesis is describing.Where did you get the idea from the text of Genesis that Adam is any other species than H. sapiens?

We do, presently, have enough information about our line of ascent to see that Genesis is an analogy.I disagree. See end of post. Making an argument from lack of knowledge (ignorance) is always very dangerous. For one thing, it is very probable that the knowledge is simply unknown to you, not unknown.

3) Third, the Trinity is expressed by the monotheism of God as a Theist God concept in the "Father." This element of the Trinity, the theistic God, the Father, indeed, transcends the creation, is prior to the Big Bang. And, in a form of pantheistic God, the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, "moves across the face of the deep." There is no separate God. Trinity is 3 faces of the same God. So, if one aspect is pantheistic, then all is pantheistic.

Now, I need to know how you are using the term "pantheistic". Merriam-Webster defines "pantheism" as:
"1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)"

You don't mean 2, so you must mean 1. But Christianity specifically forbids us to identify God with anything in the physical universe.

Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the world, the invisible things of him, (in pantheistic expression), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood (pantheistically), by the things that are made (and observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his (theistic), eternal, (transcendent) power and Godhead (in Trinity); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse:Paul here is stating Natural Theology. That is, you can unambiguously "prove" the existence of God by looking at nature. Human knowledge in Paul's time was such that this was an accurate statement for Paul. But it is no longer accurate. You can't get proof of theism by looking at nature. Paul was using the Argument from Design. But recent discoveries have shown that what Paul thought had to be directly made (designed) by God are due to secondary causes. The atheist can say these secondary causes act on their own.

BTW, by accepting evolution by natural selection, you are accepting the major data and argument that destroyed the Argument from Design.

4) Last, the essence of Theistic Evolution is found in the conotation of the very words, Theistic God... evolving in the immanent God of Christ.People or individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve. So your statement is a misuse of evolution. TE is found in accepting Butler as being correct:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Our Theistic Father is becoming, He, who transcends the material universe, (who is the Absolute Mover and the primal energy which transformed into this pantheistic expression of Creation) is YHVH, "I am what I become." That's not what is reported in Exodus. You are mangling scripture. Yahweh is "I am what I am."

Now, for some data:
Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.
Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.
Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611_030611_earliesthuman.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_bones-background.shtml
actual paper: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/nature01669_r.html
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc

[lucaspa]

1) First to be clear, I accept evolution as basically correct.

2) Second, I do not believe we have enough evidence, nor have we uncovered all the humanoid links in our ancestors, so as to correctly enumerate the analogy to ultimately be factually described in Genesis 4-6.
But, as the footnotes to the bracketed commentary states elsewhere, the line from Adam to Modern Homo is what Genesis is describing. Adam is modern Homo sapiens! Where in the text do you get the idea that he is not?

We do, presently, have enough information about our line of ascent to see that Genesis is an analogy. This contradicts your 2) above. You say Genesis 4-6 is "factually". Now it is "analogy"? Please make up you mind.

3) Third, the Trinity is expressed by the monotheism of God as a Theist God concept in the "Father." This element of the Trinity, the theistic God, the Father, indeed, transcends the creation, is prior to the Big Bang. And, in a form of pantheistic God, the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, "moves across the face of the deep."
We KNOW God in the pantheism of knowing His creation:Let's make sure we are using the same meaning of words. Pantheism is:
"1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods "

Standard Christian doctrine, as you noted in Romans 1:20, does not have God being equated with the forces of nature. Instead, according to Paul, we can determine God exists by looking at nature. Paul is wrong. Well, at the time he wrote he was correct, because there was no answer to the Argument from Design, but now there is. Natural theology won't work anymore.

Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the) world, the invisible things of him, (in pantheistic expression), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood (pantheistically), by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made (and observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his (theistic), eternal, (transcendent) power and Godhead (in Trinity); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse:It's fun to see you mangle scripture. Dangerous to you, but fun to watch. Let's take out the brackets and rearrange:
"His eternal power and Godhead are clearly seen by the things that are made." IOW, God's existence can clearly be seen in nature. Please stop mangling what the authors were trying to say.