For everyone, but especially for Theistic Evolutionists

[lilpixieofterror]

********************************************************

I'm trying to be extra nice to you (I have this thing against being mean to 'pixies').
However, you make it difficult. Frankly, you just don't know what you are talking
about and I haven't the time nor desire to educate you.

Jorge

Translation: "I can't prove my assertions, but I know I am right!"

Thus Jorge admits defeat...

[lilpixieofterror]

Look, Jorge. Problem is: there are a few things which do not seem to match up with a 6000 year old earth/universe, such as reality. And if we find such errors, would it not be logical to assume there are more, or perhaps your interpretation (because those fancy terms like hermeneutics are still the studies of interpretations) is wrong.

Not only that, but Jorge get's his ideas from outside of scripture or does the Bible teach hermeneutics / exegesis, knowledge of the languages?

[Jorge]

How is natural selection a loaded term? I can understand people might get confused over speciation, but natural selection?

Okay, let me put it like this: do you believe all vertebrates had a common ancestor is part of Evolution or evolution?

************************************************************

No question about it : what you ask is EVOLUTION, not 'evolution'.

"All vertebrates had a common ancestor" is part of a religious
belief system - Evolutionism / Evolution. This is why I will always capitalize.
It is a religious system that has been made to sound like science through
the 'bait-and-switch' tactic and many Christians have been duped into
accepting it as legitimate, bona fide science.

Jorge

[Jorge]

But, for instance, the Earth being 6000 years old is hardly the same as 2 + 3 = 5 now is it?

************************************************

I never said it was. You're changing subjects. Go back to the post, read again and stay on topic.

Jorge

[Alleged_Alec]

************************************************************

No question about it : what you ask is EVOLUTION, not 'evolution'.

"All vertebrates had a common ancestor" is part of a religious
belief system - Evolutionism / Evolution. This is why I will always capitalize.
It is a religious system that has been made to sound like science through
the 'bait-and-switch' tactic and many Christians have been duped into
accepting it as legitimate, bona fide science.

Jorge

Why is it a religious belief system? It has hard science behind it. Calling this a religious belief system is one of the tactics used by ICR and their ilk to bring down a science.

I'm going to with a famous quote: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Evolution has a lot of it; where is the evidence against it/for YECism?

[rogue06]

******************************************************************

Using sound hermeneutics / exegesis, knowledge of the languages involved and
applying an honest consistent analysis, the result is circa 6,000 years - period!

Like how you take a psalm dealing with the Creation (and has for millenia been even called "The Creation Psalm") and try to yank verses out of it and insist that it is about the Flood rather than creation?

Or ignoring Paul's admonition to "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies" (1 Timothy 1:4), which he reiterated in Titus 3:9 when he said we should "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." YECs base their estimates by doing what Paul told us to avoid.

You have to go OUTSIDE of Scripture to come up with your goo-to-zoo-to-you
and its billions of years.

We had to "go OUTSIDE of Scripture" to determine that the Earth isn't immobile with the Sun moving around it. We had to "go OUTSIDE of Scripture" to determine that the firmament is an expanse rather than a solid structure. We had to "go OUTSIDE of Scripture" to determine that people lived at the antipodes.

And as the 1982 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, responsible for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, unequivocally stated: “In some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for propting correction of faulty interpretations.”

The great nineteenth-century champion of inerrancy, Charles Hodge, put the matter even more bluntly by insisting that "in common with the whole Church, that this infallible Bible must be interpreted by science" – a proposal that he considered "all but self-evident.”

Try to stay with me :
I / we stay WITHIN Scripture ... you et al. go OUTSIDE of Scripture.

The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb is not Scripture

Now, here's a tough (rhetorical) question based on the above fact :
Which of us do you think is DISTORTING Scripture?

In your mind only non-YEC's can "distort" the Bible. You have directly stated this so I understand that you will never perceive the plank in your own eye while continuing to self-righteously lecture others about the speck in the eyes of other people.

So easy, a caveman can do it ...........

Jorge

So then what's your excuse?

[Jorge]

So, where am I making a mistake?

The mistake is that as a Materialist (Atheist) you absolutely cannot separate
evolution from Evolution ---specifically, the evolution of life from the Evolution
(origin) of life. Obviously, life cannot evolve unless first there is life, agreed?
Therefore, since you are an Atheist, then you must have life arising via
purely natural, unguided processes, right? That means that some form of
abiogenesis had to occur -- raw chemicals had to self-organize in some way
so as to make life emerge from a chemical soup. That is Evolution, get it?

You know, I don't think you could call it a debate any more if I can replace the names in your post and it would've been a post by the other side. That said: in what way are they distorting, theological arguments notwithstanding?

Not sure what you mean here ... see below if it helps, if not then rephrase / ask again.

And why is your version of what's in the bible better than that of others?

Do you realize that a comprehensive answer to that question would require a VAST amount
of time? I can't just say, "Because it is!". I can't just say, "Because their interpretation is wrong."
I would have to explain WHY this is the case and that takes us into hermeneutics / exegesis,
languages, philosophy, theology, history and other related disciplines.

Let me just say this : their interpretation is wrong and most of them know this. One clue that
their interpretation is wrong is this : they have to inject into Scripture many notions that are
nowhere to be found in Scripture. Why do they have to this? Because it's the only way that
they can 'prop-up' their story ... to create a semblance of consistency, however artificial that
consistency may be. Here's an example :

If man did evolve from lower life forms (as Theistic Evolutionists hold) then this means that
"man" was once a furry creature, scurrying around the primeval forests. This also means
that there was once a proto-human (also know as "cave men"). But, as per Scripture, sin
had not yet been committed by man - they know this. How do they get around this dilemma?

Easy! These proto-humans had no souls and therefore could not sin!!! See how easy?
So these people have conjured soul-less proto-humans out of thin air just so that they can
retain their belief in Evolution without "letting go" of the Bible (God's Word). This amounts
to distorting the Bible. They know this but have painted themselves into a corner - they
have to come up with stuff like this, stuff that is nowhere found in the Bible.

You've heard of William Dembski, I presume. He had an even more ingenious 'solution'. His
idea was to concoct this thing : "retroactive sin". Basically, the idea is that God is omniscient
and therefore knew that man would sin and so Mr. Cave Man was paying the consequences
of Adam's sin (this was far in the future), those consequences being pain, suffering and death.

See, that problem -- pain, suffering and death -- is a HUGE problem for these people and
their billions of years in light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They cannot reconcile the two
UNLESS they distort God's Word via the introduction of wild hypotheses such as soul-less
proto-humans and retroactive sin.

In a tiny nutshell, that is why I KNOW that my version is correct while these people are
wandering in a la-la-land of their own creation. Dawkins' characterization of them as
"deluded" is spot-on. Hey, even an Atheist can get some things right.

Jorge

[Alleged_Alec]

The mistake is that as a Materialist (Atheist) you absolutely cannot separate
evolution from Evolution ---specifically, the evolution of life from the Evolution
(origin) of life. Obviously, life cannot evolve unless first there is life, agreed?
Therefore, since you are an Atheist, then you must have life arising via
purely natural, unguided processes, right? That means that some form of
abiogenesis had to occur -- raw chemicals had to self-organize in some way
so as to make life emerge from a chemical soup. That is Evolution, get it?

Except that I don't have to. I can see the origin of life on earth separately from the speciation that happen after that. I can say with nigh total certainty that the second happened. I like the RNA-world theory which would explain the first bit, but there's no conclusive evidence for it.

Not sure what you mean here ... see below if it helps, if not then rephrase / ask again.

The first part there was a general remark about those phrases being used by both creationists and "evolutionists".

SNIP

In a tiny nutshell, that is why I KNOW that my version is correct while these people are
wandering in a la-la-land of their own creation. Dawkins' characterization of them as
"deluded" is spot-on. Hey, even an Atheist can get some things right.

Jorge

So indeed. If you take the bible literally, your interpretation is indeed better. But correct me if I'm wrong, but Theological Evolution is basically the "God-of-the-gaps" principle. We know how all those different life forms came to be (evolution through natural selection), but did we get the first lifeform to begin with? That could've been God.
But I'll give you this: if you're going for biblical literalism, that one is probably the most internally consistent one. I'm rather unconvinced on its consistency with the rest of reality, I'm afraid.

[rogue06]

So indeed. If you take the bible literally, your interpretation is indeed better. But correct me if I'm wrong, but Theological Evolution is basically the "God-of-the-gaps" principle. We know how all those different life forms came to be (evolution through natural selection), but did we get the first lifeform to begin with? That could've been God.
But I'll give you this: if you're going for biblical literalism, that one is probably the most internally consistent one. I'm rather unconvinced on its consistency with the rest of reality, I'm afraid.

The God of the Gaps argument essentially proposes that a gap in scientific knowledge is evidence for the existence of God. IOW, any phenomena human knowledge has not yet been able to explain is said to be the result of God's direct action. That is not what Theistic Evolutionists believe. Instead, we believe that evolution is simply a tool or if you prefer a natural process that God established. The closest thing you see to a true God of the Gaps argument being presented is the irreducible complexity claim put forth by proponents of I.D. (though I guess it would technically be a Designer of the Gaps)

[phank]

The God of the Gaps argument essentially proposes that a gap in scientific knowledge is evidence for the existence of God. IOW, any phenomena human knowledge has not yet been able to explain is said to be the result of God's direct action. That is not what Theistic Evolutionists believe. Instead, we believe that evolution is simply a tool or if you prefer a natural process that God established. The closest thing you see to a true God of the Gaps argument being presented is the irreducible complexity claim put forth by proponents of I.D. (though I guess it would technically be a Designer of the Gaps)

I have a question for you, as a theistic evolutionist. Do you think it's possible for science to be in theological error? Granted, science is in scientific error fairly frequently, but the mechanisms of science make it self-correcting fairly quickly. But is it possible in principle for science to be in theological error?

[Jorge]

Look, Jorge. Problem is: there are a few things which do not seem to match up with a
6000 year old earth/universe, such as reality. And if we find such errors, would it not
be logical to assume there are more, or perhaps your interpretation (because those
fancy terms like hermeneutics are still the studies of interpretations) is wrong.

**********************************************************************************************************

"Reality" ............. requires definition. Your definition has your worldview embedded into it.

"Errors with a 6KY universe"? ....... Nope! It's a matter of interpretation of the observations.

I see no "errors". I do have unanswered questions (as you and everyone else has) but this
does mean that it is in "error".

Jorge

[phank]

**********************************************************************************************************


"Errors with a 6KY universe"? ....... Nope! It's a matter of interpretation of the observations.

I see no "errors". I do have unanswered questions (as you and everyone else has) but this
does mean that it is in "error".

Jorge

[Jorge]

Why is it a religious belief system? It has hard science behind it. Calling this a religious belief system is one of the tactics used by ICR and their ilk to bring down a science.

I'm going to with a famous quote: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Evolution has a lot of it; where is the evidence against it/for YECism?

**********************************************************************************

Once again (as in an earlier post) you are asking things that, to answer adequately, require
an immense amount of material (to wit: hundreds of books have been written on this subject
and none of them address nor answer all of the issues that are involved). BRIEFLY ...

Evolution (with a capital E) is a religious system because it makes claims that are beyond the
reach of any of the natural sciences and are therefore neither testable or demonstrable.

If I asked you to demonstrate the hypothesis that sodium and chlorine combine to make table
salt, you could do that. If I asked you to demonstrate the claim that everything in the
universe came&comes solely and completely from natural laws operating on mass-energy,
that would be mission impossible - it cannot be done, not now and not in a zillion years.
Materialism is a belief system - it can only be a belief system. People choose to believe it
because they choose to reject the alternative - Theism. It's that simple - the rest are details.

Jorge

[Jorge]

********************************************************************************

That cartoon - which I've seen scores of times - is precisely that, a CARTOON.

But it does contain an element of truth. Everyone, and I do mean everyone,
has a starting foundation. This foundation is known by many names: a 'belief
system' or a 'worldview' are a few.

Materialists / Atheists begin with the "FACT" that mass-energy is the source
of EVERYTHING. With that "fact" in hand, they then proceed to interpret all
things while wearing those spectacles ... very religious, very unscientific.

Get a clue, phank.

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

Once again (as in an earlier post) you are asking things that, to answer adequately, require
an immense amount of material (to wit: hundreds of books have been written on this subject
and none of them address nor answer all of the issues that are involved). BRIEFLY ...

And yet every time you are asked to present this data, you don't present it. You just rant and rave about how TE's are 'comprmising Christians' and yet, can never explain how or why (beyond your assertions that is). So are you going to answer my questions and arguments now or will you dodge them again, just to repeat your same refuted assertions, elsewhere?

Evolution (with a capital E) is a religious system because it makes claims that are beyond the
reach of any of the natural sciences and are therefore neither testable or demonstrable.

I can agree with the idea that some atheist do treat evolution as a religious system, but just because some do, doesn't mean it is.

If I asked you to demonstrate the hypothesis that sodium and chlorine combine to make table
salt, you could do that. If I asked you to demonstrate the claim that everything in the
universe came&comes solely and completely from natural laws operating on mass-energy,
that would be mission impossible - it cannot be done, not now and not in a zillion years.
Materialism is a belief system - it can only be a belief system. People choose to believe it
because they choose to reject the alternative - Theism. It's that simple - the rest are details.

And materialism has what to do with TE or is your either/or mentality getting in the way of your logic again?