RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 2:48:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
The problem is that you can take a rock from a know age and test it and get a extremely long age.


Do you have any examples of properly applied and conducted tests producing wildly inaccurate dates?

-Dan.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 3:09:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
The problem is that you can take a rock from a know age and test it and get a extremely long age.


Do you have any examples of properly applied and conducted tests producing wildly inaccurate dates?

-Dan.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp


Since the halflife of the K-Ar process is greater than a billion years, the method is not properly applied to 'young' samples like the 200 year old lava in your cite.

The method also relies on the assumption that all of the radiogenic argon escapes the rock when it was last molten. Scientists continue to work at determining under what conditions this assumption is justified. Your citation talks about methods used in the 1960s. As early as then, scientists were figuring out when the method could not be properly applied.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 3:23:55 PM)

quote:

At least my interpretation is in good company, since it represents the scientific consensus on the issue, based on all the evidence and multiple lines of inquiry.

Yes, science by democratic vote is about one-half step above faith-based religion, es! At least with that you have the comfort of many other like-minded fanatics to justify your faith.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 4:49:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

At least my interpretation is in good company, since it represents the scientific consensus on the issue, based on all the evidence and multiple lines of inquiry.

Yes, science by democratic vote is about one-half step above faith-based religion, es! At least with that you have the comfort of many other like-minded fanatics to justify your faith.


You appear to misunderstand how science works. Science is not a democracy; it is a meritocracy. The theories that best fit the evidence win. Several parallel lines of investigation in different disciplines all point to an old earth. These reinforcing investigations have brought about the consensus view, shared by virtually all scientists of all faiths.



iluvatar -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 9:39:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
The problem is that you can take a rock from a know age and test it and get a extremely long age.


Do you have any examples of properly applied and conducted tests producing wildly inaccurate dates?

-Dan.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp


quote:

Since the halflife of the K-Ar process is greater than a billion years, the method is not properly applied to 'young' samples like the 200 year old lava in your cite.


Care to try again?

-Dan.



jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/28/2008 10:00:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
The problem is that you can take a rock from a know age and test it and get a extremely long age.


Do you have any examples of properly applied and conducted tests producing wildly inaccurate dates?

-Dan.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp


quote:

Since the halflife of the K-Ar process is greater than a billion years, the method is not properly applied to 'young' samples like the 200 year old lava in your cite.


Care to try again?

-Dan.

So I guess that you are saying that if the world was say only 6000 years old then the test would still show is as millions or even billions of years.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/28/2008 12:39:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

So I guess that you are saying that if the world was say only 6000 years old then the test would still show is as millions or even billions of years.


If the world were 6000 years old, this particular test would not be very good for determining that fact. It would be like measuring an ant's shoe size with a meter stick. You hold your meter stick up to the ant's foot and squint at the very end. Hmm... the ant's foot is not zero millimeters, so I guess it must be about 1 millimeter.
The K-Ar method apparently is used to measure things at least 100,000 years old - that's the smallest marking on its ruler.

If the world were 6000 years old, then radiocarbon dating would be a much better method for measuring this. The halflife of C14 is 5730 years, almost exactly the timespan we're trying to measure. So there should never be anything with (much) less than half of its expected radiocarbon in it.
But, of course, many objects produce radiocarbon ages much greater than 6000 years. For example, bristlecone pines can be accurately radiocarbon dated to 10000 years (so only about a quarter of their radiocarbon is left) with the accuracy confirmed by the tree rings. Or rather, the tree rings actually help to calibrate the radiocarbon dating method, so that we know it's accurate.

Again, how did we know the lava was only 200 years old? Radiocarbon dating was used on charred wood underneath the lava.



davelinde -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/28/2008 1:25:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

The problem, of course, is that it calls universal sin into question. It's almost impossible to account for universal sin with gradual human evolution unless there was an event that killed off all but two individuals and these two individuals somehow starting 'walking with God' and then broke the fellowship.

It's simply not theologically possible.




Yes - that's exactly my question. When I was young I heard a pastor teach that a literal interpretation of Genesis was possible OR that as we learn more science "facts" we can conclude that maybe God "used evolutionary processes to create" and that's really what Genesis meant. The bottom line was that good science and good theology were not in conflict, both MUST be true.

Well, I never thought too hard about it and always had this idea that maybe it was by fiat in a 24 hour day or maybe it was by evolutionary process with God as the driving force. It honestly was not that crucial to me. But then I had a reason to think it through and ran across the issue of original sin. In my opinion, that issue is enough to make the whole idea a non-starter. There needs to be a real Adam or there is no reason for a real Jesus.

Am I misunderstanding the view of a theistic evolutionist? Seems no one wants to touch this question yet? Maybe no one who has a good answer has seen it.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/28/2008 2:03:57 PM)

quote:

Am I misunderstanding the view of a theistic evolutionist? Seems no one wants to touch this question yet? Maybe no one who has a good answer has seen it
Oh davelinde, rest assured this "question" has been seen frequently and ignored consistently because it truly is the "kiss of death" for theistic evolution as any kind of sound doctrine. Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49 are indisputable references to the literal existence of the first man Adam and his subsequent ability to fall into original sin. Theistic evolution fails miserably to address what I consider one of the most significant points of essential Christian doctrine. There is no Savior without sin to be saved from!



TMeeks -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/28/2008 9:16:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davelinde

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

The problem, of course, is that it calls universal sin into question. It's almost impossible to account for universal sin with gradual human evolution unless there was an event that killed off all but two individuals and these two individuals somehow starting 'walking with God' and then broke the fellowship.

It's simply not theologically possible.




Yes - that's exactly my question. When I was young I heard a pastor teach that a literal interpretation of Genesis was possible OR that as we learn more science "facts" we can conclude that maybe God "used evolutionary processes to create" and that's really what Genesis meant. The bottom line was that good science and good theology were not in conflict, both MUST be true.

Well, I never thought too hard about it and always had this idea that maybe it was by fiat in a 24 hour day or maybe it was by evolutionary process with God as the driving force. It honestly was not that crucial to me. But then I had a reason to think it through and ran across the issue of original sin. In my opinion, that issue is enough to make the whole idea a non-starter. There needs to be a real Adam or there is no reason for a real Jesus.

Am I misunderstanding the view of a theistic evolutionist? Seems no one wants to touch this question yet? Maybe no one who has a good answer has seen it.

We should NEVER be complacent about seeking truth no matter if it's science or our theological understanding. It is ALWAYS possible that we may have missed something that God reveals to a new generation of theologians. A new discovery could bring new breakthroughs in understanding that challenge what we believe to be true.

It certainly doesn't seem possible at this point. But, we don't have the original documents. Fortunately, every time we have found earlier documents, they merely have confirmed the later documents that we did have. But, IF it is documented that an earlier version of Genesis is found or an earlier commentary is found that might shed a different light on what we now believe, we will have to be very careful to examine the new findings. For now, we can assume that the Words we have are exactly the Words that God gave to Moses. There is nothing so far that would lead us to believe anything else.

The link between the fall of Adam and Jesus Christ is SO strong that the potential for changing that relationship is, in my mind, absolutely non-existent. Both the Old and New Testaments are completely in sync on these points.



jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/11/2008 9:22:46 AM)

The problem with both c14 dating and tree ring counting is that they rely on an unknown verbal such as the amount of solar radiation (c14 dating) and amount of rain fall during a particular time period. (Tree ring counting) I have heard of some studies where during particularly lush or optimal growing conditions that a tree could produce two or even three rings.

Tree Rings

The point of my questions is why do Theistic evolutionists rely so much on the word of atheistic evolutionist and geologist? They have good reason to bend science to their world view and I bet that 99.9% of them do not believe in the Virgin birth or Resurrection of Christ so why take there word at face value. They have to believe that the world is old or admit that there is a God in heaven who will judge them.


TMeeks brings up a good point about Adam and Eve and original sin. I think that most atheist believe that if they get rid of original sin then they have killed God. That’s why we will see them stand side by side with theistic evolutionist and argue their points.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/11/2008 10:54:21 AM)

quote:

The point of my questions is why do Theistic evolutionists rely so much on the word of atheistic evolutionist and geologist? They have good reason to bend science to their world view and I bet that 99.9% of them do not believe in the Virgin birth or Resurrection of Christ so why take there word at face value. They have to believe that the world is old or admit that there is a God in heaven who will judge them.
Good points, Brian, but just a few clarifications, please. I assume "they" in your second sentence refers to atheistic scientists who "bend science to their world view" and not theistic evolutionists. I would say that theistic evolutionists bend their worldview to the so-called science of evolutionism, which as we've discussed many times is not real science at all, but blind religious faith!

I'm not sure that atheists must believe the world is old in order to disbelieve final Judgement as much as to justify their religious faith that man is god, since we have evolved into the highest accident of life. But, you're right in one way, Brian - that does relieve the atheist of their perceived accountability to any higher authority since we are all random products of nature according to their religion.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/11/2008 11:42:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

The point of my questions is why do Theistic evolutionists rely so much on the word of atheistic evolutionist and geologist?


Because theistic evolutionists and theistic geologists have come to the same conclusion. Science is not some huge atheist conspiracy. At least 40% of working scientists are theists.

quote:

I think that most atheist believe that if they get rid of original sin then they have killed God.


Atheists just don't believe any gods exist. There is no need to kill them.



jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/17/2008 10:08:04 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes



Because theistic evolutionists and theistic geologists have come to the same conclusion. Science is not some huge atheist conspiracy. At least 40% of working scientists are theists.

The article says scientist who believe in God so this number would have to include Creationist and ID’ers who don’t , to my knowledge, believe in evolution. So the percentage that believe in evolution and God at the same time is probably quite a bit smaller.

No one is saying anything against science just the few atheist abuse the findings by trying to bend them to their world view.

Do you know of any web sites that are made up of strictly theistic evolutionist? I don’t mean the sites that are made up of atheist that try to pander to the theistic evolutionist.


quote:

quote:

I think that most atheist believe that if they get rid of original sin then they have killed God.


Atheists just don't believe any gods exist. There is no need to kill them.


No they want to kill the Idea of God.

quote:

Good points, Brian, but just a few clarifications, please. I assume "they" in your second sentence refers to atheistic scientists who "bend science to their world view" and not theistic evolutionists. I would say that theistic evolutionists bend their worldview to the so-called science of evolutionism, which as we've discussed many times is not real science at all, but blind religious faith!

I agree.

quote:

I'm not sure that atheists must believe the world is old in order to disbelieve final Judgement as much as to justify their religious faith that man is god, since we have evolved into the highest accident of life.

Well they need a lot of time justify an incredibly complex world.



cybrjewls -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/18/2008 1:04:46 PM)

Greetings! God's plan is Living and Active and sharper than any double edged sword for He is actively involved with Us and His creation as it is written. Therefore, God can and does change things through Judgments (decisions) as written in the law and the prophets as things progress on earth. For it is written: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. For the Apostle Peter cast lots to determine who was to be added to the eleven apostles. Therefore, God is Sovereign over what scientists call probability and randomness as recorded in the Holy Scriptures of God.

1. Yes, it is easy to believe that God's plan for redemption was through The Holy Spirit in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

2. Yes, it is faith to believe in the resurrection of the risen Christ 3 days after suffering at Golgotha

3. The hypothesis of 'evolution' is basically that things change over time. By faith, some could understand that God is actively involved in creation as it is written in Genesis for In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And, it is written that God will create all things new in the paradise of the new heaven and the new earth after the Millennial rule of Christ Jesus.

Therefore, we know from Scripture admonishion that God will continue His creation in paradise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

I have some simple questions for anyone who believes in theistic evolution. This is not to put any one down but to help me understand how you view certain things.

Some of these questions follow the assumption that you interpret your Bible according to what science says.

1. Do you believe in the Virgin birth when science says that this is impossible?

This is a big one.
2. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ without scientific proof.
(I’m really curious about this one as I have heard that some churches getting rid of this teaching.)

3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons?

4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand?



Real_Solitude -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/18/2008 8:29:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica

1. Yes, it is easy to believe that God's plan for redemption was through The Holy Spirit in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

2. Yes, it is faith to believe in the resurrection of the risen Christ 3 days after suffering at Golgotha

3. The hypothesis of 'evolution' is basically that things change over time. By faith, some could understand that God is actively involved in creation as it is written in Genesis for In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And, it is written that God will create all things new in the paradise of the new heaven and the new earth after the Millennial rule of Christ Jesus.[/link]

Therefore, we know from Scripture admonishion that God will continue His creation in paradise.


I would like to ask you a few questions, prophetica.
Why is it easy to believe that God's plan for redemption was through the holy spirit in the virgin birth? Why would an omnipotent god need such things in order to redeem his creation? Why would a perfect god even need to redeem a creation? Was it necessary to use a virgin?
Basically, why is it easy to believe that something without flaw can create something that goes so awry as to need to correct it, and why is it easy to believe that natural laws were broken to achieve it?
What makes this any easier to believe than any of the other impossibilities of the thousands of other religions that have existed over the ages?

In the same vein, why is Jesus' resurrection easy to believe in? Why is it necessary to the story? What makes this miracle easier to believe than any of the miracles claimed by any other religion?

And yet despite believing in these physical impossibilities, why is it hard to believe in a scientific theory that has (with change) withstood more than one hundred and fifty years of strict scientific scrutiny? You easily accept the miracles proclaimed in the Bible, yet demean one of the most amazing scientific theories of all times by calling it a hypothesis. Why?

If you'll humor me, I want reasons, not just answers.



jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 7:20:51 AM)

And atheist say they don’t have a religion.

Notice the reverence that atheist hold toward a scientific hypothesis.

thanks for the help Real_solitude.

Prophetica, I sure there is a answer to the question in there somewhere but I just don't see it.

Real-solitude has a point, if you place so much faith in atheistic science then how can you believe in the resurrection when no atheist would even give it the time of day.

Don't believe me then see the post by Real_solitude.(who I'm assuming is an atheist.)



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 10:32:36 AM)

R_S is a humanist. Beyond that, only she and God know.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 12:59:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

The article says scientist who believe in God so this number would have to include Creationist and ID’ers who don’t , to my knowledge, believe in evolution. So the percentage that believe in evolution and God at the same time is probably quite a bit smaller.


The number of working scientists that reject evolution is pretty small, at most 5%.

quote:

Do you know of any web sites that are made up of strictly theistic evolutionist? I don’t mean the sites that are made up of atheist that try to pander to the theistic evolutionist.


Some of these links may be useful. Answers in Creation might be the closest thing to what you're looking for. It's an OEC site, but open to evolution.


quote:

quote:


Atheists just don't believe any gods exist. There is no need to kill them.


No they want to kill the Idea of God.


I don't. Besides, you can't kill an idea. Even ideas like phlogiston and luminiferous ether still exist, even if they don't refer to anything real.



Veritas -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 1:59:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

And atheist say they don’t have a religion.

The only reason atheists say they don't have a religion is that they don't have a religion.
quote:


Notice the reverence that atheist hold toward a scientific hypothesis.

Gravity, evolution, germ theory are not revered. They are supported by evidence. If evidence is discovered that falsifies any of these, they corresponding theory will have to be modified or rejected.

That's not reverence.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 5:43:17 PM)

quote:

If evidence is discovered that falsifies any of these, they corresponding theory will have to be modified or rejected.
Isn't it convenient that evolution cannot be falsified! In truth, it's not even a hypothesis, because a hypothesis could be tested.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 5:44:02 PM)

quote:

quote:

Because it doesn't exclude God.

-Dan.


Really! I think that the atheists who study evolution would disagree with you.


Really! I think that the theists who study evolution would disagree with you.

What's your point?



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 5:48:57 PM)

quote:

So, expand on this a little, Dan. Are all mutations random, or does God select certain ones to promote evolution? How much control does He exert on the environment to accomplish natural selection? Are we more evolved than the hominids which God first "imbued with spirit"?


the term "random" is a little misleading I think. It is random in the sense that it is not necessarily predictible. But it is not random because life is always going to "randomly" evolve to the end that most benfits it and allows for survival. So if you're asking where God comes in, well thats a vague question I don't think anyone can really answer. It's a theological question though...



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 5:54:19 PM)

quote:

4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand?


No one KNOWS, in the proper sense, that there is a God. I believe there is, but there is a distinction there.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:01:31 PM)

quote:

No one KNOWS, in the proper sense, that there is a God.
Oh, come on, Nothingman, the Law of Causality is as "proper" as it gets. Feel free to post any example of a resulting event not being caused by an event greater than the result. Thus, if you believe the universe is a real event, then only Creator God could have caused it. Case closed!



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI