toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[eameece]

The plants were created before the sun and the stars. If the time that elapsed from the creation of plants was greater than a week (in today's time scale) before sunlight was converting water and carbon dioxide into glucose then all the created plants would die. That puts an upper limit on a day's length at a week in today's time scale.

Only the third day!

And God said nothing about creating CO or glucose. For all you know, God could have kept the plants working without them.

If you're going to use science to prove non-science, then you have to accept all the other evidence of science. That evidence says, the Sun came into being before the earth, and the earth before the plants, and the plants some billions of years ago.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Who wrote the Bible?

The Spirit of God through many different men.

Who created "men" in the image of God?

God

You ignore facts.

What facts, i see your opinion, nothing more.

You are extremely arrogant in saying one has to be a christian to have God's Spirit.

John 1:12-13 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Ephesians 1:13

You are extremely arrogant in saying you have God's Spirit, and other christians and non-christians do not.

Christ says it. John 14:6

Who gave you authority to claim God's Spirit for yourself and deny it to others?

God gave me the authority to claim the Spirit of God through Christ by this : Romans 10:9-10

You give me too much power by saying i can deny it to others, if its denied to others its because they refuse it.

You folks are the bane of this country. So is Romney, except it is spelled Bain.

Thats irrelevant to this conversation. Was that suppose to bother me in some way that you think that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

In other words, you created what i think instead of listening to me tell you what i think.

Oh, just how is that exactly? lain:

There is no common consensus on this issue. Method, timeline, age, etc.. are all several theories, no consensus, there isn't even agreement among scientists.

There may be differences amidst the details but the global scientific common consensus is that the earth is billions of years old. If you can't accept that much you're in fantasy land.

I have taken college chemistry, biology, microbiology, human anatomy and physiology. And all of it matters none to whether or not I trust God vs trusting men.

Well good for you, though it doesn't answer my question. What understanding do you have regarding the science of which you're arguing against? I didn't ask you anything about 'trust'.

You said that I believe science is an enemy to God, i never said that, thats a common regurgitation hurled at those who do not believe evolution.

Well how do you see the abundance of scientific evidence which dispels a young earth? I don't actually recall stating that you believe science is an enemy to God either. I recall stating that to believe such would be ignorant in regards to science itself.

My point again (since it doesnt seem you are reading what im saying) was for those who believe in the immaculate conception, and other parts of the bible. If this isnt clear this time, let me know.

So you posted those verses in response to me for others to respond to? I wasn't debating the immaculate conception or other parts of the bible with you at all at that point, or even since :AMR:

I even asked if you believe those things and you haven't responded.

Where? I recall you asking me if I was 'just an evolutionist', I don't recall you asking me if I believed in the immaculate conception or not.

I dont know what you believe, you wont answer me when i ask those things and i even told you who my post was for.

You've not asked me those things, and even if you had I'd have suggested a separate thread as it's not on topic.

If you think that genesis 1 is a parable, then you dont know what a parable is.

Had I said it was you'd have had a point. It turns out I didn't. Allegory however isn't limited solely to parables though is it?

Nothing arrogant about a fact. Unless one is a christian, they do not understand the things of the Spirit. One has to have God's Spirit to understand it.

Oh there's nothing arrogant about a fact, that's for sure. There is however all manner of arrogance about a lofty perception that others don't 'get' things because they don't have a certain 'label'.

Thats like saying a doctor who specializes in brain surgery is arrogant if they say a fireman isnt qualified to do brain surgery.

Rather it's like equating a neurosurgeon with a doctor to begin with. They're both entirely different professions even if healing informs the core of both.

 

[voltaire]

Only the third day!

And God said nothing about creating CO or glucose. For all you know, God could have kept the plants working without them.

If you're going to use science to prove non-science, then you have to accept all the other evidence of science. That evidence says, the Sun came into being before the earth, and the earth before the plants, and the plants some billions of years ago.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your logic is impossible to follow. The issue was the length of a day. You say that a day could be millions or billions of years. Angel said it was not necessarily 24 hours. We are trying to get a handle on what God meant when he used the word "day" in the first chapter of genesis. The millions of years interpretation is impossible. God said the plants were created on one day and the sun was created the next day. That is plain as day, and hard to read it any other way. The question now is how long could a day possibly be with those conditions? There is no reason to invoke the non natural when the bible doesn't explicitly say so. God could have kept the plants working without the sun, but the bible doesn't say he did. If he did such a thing, it would have been written down. Only the miraculous creative acts were written down, and sustaining plants without sunlight was not written down. I am strictly debating biblical interpretation and not using science to support my position. I am using a tool of interpretation. That tool is that you cannot invoke a miracle when non is written down. When you have to have a miracle occur for your interpretation to be valid, then you interpretation is invalid. The fact is that the sun was created a day later than the plants. Plants cannot survive for long without sunlight without miraculous intervention. We cannot invoke miraculous intervention because none is mentioned. Therefore, the time between the creation of plants and the creation of the sun was extremely small and certainly not millions of years.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why? What evidence will it be? :idunno:

Uh, it'll be evidence that such articles have appeared in plenty other publications as you posited. That's what I was asking for.....:AMR:

 

[voltaire]

And God said nothing about creating CO or glucose--eameece.

God didn't say anything about DNA either, but it is a reality. God created the plants. We know they produce glucose by using sunlight and water and carbon dioxide, therefore we know God created glucose and water and sunlight.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Oh, just how is that exactly? lain:

I don't know where you get that I hate science since i've spent considerable amounts of my time in science classes in college and ive never stated any such thing here or anywhere else for you to draw that conclusion from, so you tell me how it is that you would gather that in the limited conversations we've had.

Asking me how something is that you said when it has no basis in facts would be expecting me to be a mind reader like you would it not?

There may be differences amidst the details but the global scientific common consensus is that the earth is billions of years old. If you can't accept that much you're in fantasy land.

I guess the A's and B's I earned in several college science classes were a fantasy too then. There are no common consensuses as a whole in any area of evolution theory.

Well good for you, though it doesn't answer my question. What understanding do you have regarding the science of which you're arguing against? I didn't ask you anything about 'trust'.

And you keep disconnecting with what ive said over and over now, all those classes are irrelevant to whether one trusts God or appeals to the authority of man.


As to the rest of your post, its all irrelevant to what i was addressing, what you missed and didn't understand, because it only applies to a specific context that you don't get.

I see in all your rhetoric, you still haven't answered what i keep asking you about what you believe, because unless i know what you believe, i cannot tell you the relevance for you because the verses i posted that you tried to refute for some reason when you didnt get them - is speaking to one who says they believe the bible.

So do you or don't you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't know where you get that I hate science since i've spent considerable amounts of my time in science classes in college and ive never stated any such thing here or anywhere else for you to draw that conclusion from, so you tell me how it is that you would gather that in the limited conversations we've had.

Where have I said 'you hate science'? Please show me because I certainly don't recall saying it. lain:

Asking me how something is that you said when it has no basis in facts would be expecting me to be a mind reader like you would it not?

Your ^ has no basis in fact unless you can quote me on it? Good luck.

I guess the A's and B's I earned in several college science classes were a fantasy too then. There are no common consensuses as a whole in any area of evolution theory.

Only if you're making them up which I've no reason or desire to accuse you of. Still doesn't negate the fact that old earth/evolution is common consensus amongst the global scientific community else explain how it isn't?

And you keep disconnecting with what ive said over and over now, all those classes are irrelevant to whether one trusts God or appeals to the authority of man.

What exactly do you mean by "appeals to the authority of man"? A theistic evolutionist can trust God just as much as you do correct?

As to the rest of your post, its all irrelevant to what i was addressing, what you missed and didn't understand, because it only applies to a specific context that you don't get.

Oh, well do please tell me what this 'specific context' comprised of along with what I 'failed to understand', else excuse me if I write this off as lame condescending garbage. lain:

I see in all your rhetoric, you still haven't answered what i keep asking you about what you believe, because unless i know what you believe, i cannot tell you the relevance for you because the verses i posted that you tried to refute for some reason when you didnt get them - is speaking to one who says they believe the bible.

As explained before, you have not repeatedly asked me what I believe and it's disingenuous to claim that you have. Furthermore I didn't try to refute the verses you posted at all if you look back but rather the relevance they had in regards to evolution from a theistic perspective. If you want to keep trying to play the patronizing card then up to you, but it'll also only reflect on you as well. lain:

So do you or don't you?

Define "believing the bible".

 

[Stripe]

The Bible said nothing about the earth rotating, so you have no right to claim it does.

:chuckle:

You're a fruit loop. :kook:

Uh, it'll be evidence that such articles have appeared in plenty other publications as you posited. That's what I was asking for.....:AMR:

Well let's just pretend I provided some links. What evidence is that?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Where have I said 'you hate science'? Please show me because I certainly don't recall saying it. lain:

here:

You seem to look at scientific knowledge, progress and advancement as 'foolishness'? Science isn't an enemy to God.

Your ^ has no basis in fact unless you can quote me on it? Good luck.

I did

Only if you're making them up which I've no reason or desire to accuse you of. Still doesn't negate the fact that old earth/evolution is common consensus amongst the global scientific community else explain how it isn't?

The only common consensus among the scientific community when it comes to evolution theory is that they believe in it, what they believe about it, varies all over the place. So no, there is no common consensus about it other than that is how they want it to be so they keep trying to force fit things into it being that way while they even argue about it amongst themselves.

I am not here to argue the finer points of evolution theory.

What exactly do you mean by "appeals to the authority of man"? A theistic evolutionist can trust God just as much as you do correct?

Just like eve trusted satans word over Gods.

I would certainly like to know by what criteria they use to determine how the immaculate conception is factual (when we both know science disclaims that a virgin can be with child without having had sex.) Yet creation is not factual because science says so.

Ive said this over and over now too but you want to keep changing the subject.

The point is why believe one and not the other and if you believe one and not the other, then you are double minded or don't believe either .

Oh, well do please tell me what this 'specific context' comprised of along with what I 'failed to understand', else excuse me if I write this off as lame condescending garbage. lain:

.

No need to continue with you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well let's just pretend I provided some links. What evidence is that?

Uh, it'll be evidence that such articles have appeared in plenty other publications as you posited. That's what I was asking for....:AMR:

I'm beginning to think all you can do is pretend to provide these links....

lain:

 

[Stripe]

Uh, it'll be evidence that such articles have appeared in plenty other publications as you posited. That's what I was asking for....:AMRI'm beginning to think all you can do is pretend to provide these links....

Oh. So of no relevance then.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Back to the topic, To those of you who are christians, and believe in theistic evolution, do you believe the immaculate conception, if so why - since science says the virgin cannot get pregnant without sperm. ?

Second - if you do believe in the immaculate conception, why would you believe evolution theory because science says so, when they don't even agree on it, and God says otherwise?

Why is one possible but not the other when both defy modern scientific theory?

Lastly if you still believe the virgin birth but don't believe in literal creation like it says in the bible, what criteria do you use to determine what parts of the bible are truth and what parts aren't?

 

[Arthur Brain]

here:

That was a question in regards to the topic at hand, not a statement. It would have been as well for you to address it.

I did

No, you didn't.

The only common consensus among the scientific community when it comes to evolution theory is that they believe in it, what they believe about it, varies all over the place. So no, there is no common consensus about it other than that is how they want it to be so they keep trying to force fit things into it being that way while they even argue about it amongst themselves.

What do you mean "how they want it to be"? What basis do you have to venture that? Why would the science community want evolution to exist if there wasn't enough compelling evidence for it to withstand scrutiny? Please explain what the differing variations are and what the science community in general is trying to "force" into the theory itself. You do realize that even a strongly established model is subject to ongoing modification which doesn't negate the original theory itself right?

I am not here to argue the finer points of evolution theory.

Well that's probably just as well....

Just like eve trusted satans word over Gods.

I would certainly like to know by what criteria they use to determine how the immaculate conception is factual (when we both know science disclaims that a virgin can be with child without having had sex.) Yet creation is not factual because science says so.

So your argument effectively revolves around the notion that to have faith in one event means another event also has to be taken and read absolutely literally as well then?

Ive said this over and over now too but you want to keep changing the subject.

The point is why believe one and not the other and if you believe one and not the other, then you are double minded or don't believe either

.

Rather I've just been trying to debate on the subject. Why not bring in the miracles performed as well if that's your aim? The supernatural is not the realm of science.

No need to continue with you.

Oh, you mean apart from addressing me until this point then?

If you don't like being called on condescension and arrogantly presuming what others 'understand' then don't do it. Easy enough.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh. So of no relevance then.

Provide them and there'll be something to address....

lain:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Oh, you mean apart from addressing me until this point then?

If you don't like being called on condescension and arrogantly presuming what others 'understand' then don't do it. Easy enough.

:e4e:

Arrogance? Moi?

You said

excuse me if I write this off as lame condescending garbage

What would be any reason to be concerned about your thoughts after that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Back to the topic, To those of you who are christians, and believe in theistic evolution, do you believe the immaculate conception, if so why - since science says the virgin cannot get pregnant without sperm. ?

Second - if you do believe in the immaculate conception, why would you believe evolution theory because science says so, when they don't even agree on it, and God says otherwise?

Why is one possible but not the other when both defy modern scientific theory?

Lastly if you still believe the virgin birth but don't believe in literal creation like it says in the bible, what criteria do you use to determine what parts of the bible are truth and what parts aren't?

Science doesn't deal in supernatural phenomena. You might just as well argue that the parting of the red sea/turning water into wine should make every Christian a 'creationist' by that reasoning. What's more you even state that a day isn't necessarily translated as 24 hours so what actually is your problem with theistic evolution?

Btw, making out that the global science community is somehow all at odds with itself regarding evolution is hardly genuine either...

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arrogance? Moi?

Yes. When you proclaim that others lack understanding be it a verse or an argument, without any support for that position it's arrogance. You had no support besides subjective opinion. That doesn't count, especially when it was erroneous to start with.

You said
What would be any reason to be concerned about your thoughts after that?

As above. I don't go around telling folk 'they don't understand' as argument and make unfounded presumptions in turn. I've not done it with you and I'll sure call those out who do it with me. If you're offended by that then....

Ho hum really.

:e4e:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes. When you proclaim that others lack understanding be it a verse or an argument, without any support for that position it's arrogance. You had no support besides subjective opinion. That doesn't count, especially when it was erroneous to start with.



As above. I don't go around telling folk 'they don't understand' as argument and make unfounded presumptions in turn. I've not done it with you and I'll sure call those out who do it with me. If you're offended by that then....

Ho hum really.

:e4e:

You really dont like the topic do you, anything to obscure the points made on it.

You dont understand what i posted, its that simple. You wont state what you believe no matter how many times you are asked, so it doesnt apply to you. Ive stated who my post is for, you fit it or you dont.

You can answer it or you cant, its really that simple.

I also qualified my thoughts with relevant scripture. Ask yourself why you didnt understand it. There is nothing you could do that would offend btw , so if thats your goal, too bad for you.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Back to the topic, To those of you who are christians, and believe in theistic evolution, do you believe the immaculate conception, if so why - since science says the virgin cannot get pregnant without sperm. ?

Second - if you do believe in the immaculate conception, why would you believe evolution theory because science says so, when they don't even agree on it, and God says otherwise?

Why is one possible but not the other when both defy modern scientific theory?

Lastly if you still believe the virgin birth but don't believe in literal creation like it says in the bible, what criteria do you use to determine what parts of the bible are truth and what parts aren't?

Anyone willing to give these a shot that is a christian and believes in theistic evolution?