The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Do keep up honey.

... I was keeping up ... and passing you out honey bunny!!!:):D

doctoremma wrote: »

We've got past the CCR5 receptor and we're onto genetic rearrangements within the immunoglobulin genes, where random insertion of bases leads to novel proteins which fight pathogens. Although CSI is a made-up word, you could be correct in your assertion that the CCR5 scenario is a "loss of info" as it is indeed a deletion variant. This is not the case with the Ig genes, where DNA sequence is added and new function created.

You can't claim that both result in the same thing ("loss of CSI") when they are completely opposite genetic events, both resulting in a beneficial and (coincidentally) similar outcome.

You are correct that they are different. The CCR5 loss is a loss of CSI while the genetic rearrangement within the immunoglobulin genes is an Intelligently Designed process analagous to an intelligently created encription process that is continuously underway in order to 'stay ahead' of attacks by disease causing micro-organisms ... and it is thus an expression of CSI ... and not a loss!!

doctoremma wrote: »

However, I find it particularly telling that you make this mixup (providing you are not blatantly ignoring the Ig discussion because you have no reply). It suggests that information about gene/changes/mutations enters your head and doesn't get processed properly. You didn't immediately peg that me talking about addition to a DNA sequence was completely inconsistent with the CCR5 change, which gives me an excellent clue about your baseline knowledge of these things.

I dealt with the Ig here (in red) "... and this prevents a body 'enemy' attaching itself and attacking the organism ... just like (the information in) a letter can be rendered useless to an enemy by either encription (using intelligent design) or by random insertion of letters (using random processes).

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, argue for the existence of god all you want - that is your right to attempt to do so - but you're never going to be effective at it from a biological point of view.

... the biosphere is God's most amazing and most important Creation!!!
... and it allows maths to be appled to prove his existence!!!

... so I don't see Creation Science conceding this field of scientific endeavour to the Atheists any time soon!!!:eek::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
A loss of wings is always the disability of being flightless

doctoremma
But also the ability to remain grounded in strong wings.

Context is everything, you see*

*Although you probably don't.

... context is irrelevant to any loss of ability.

A loss of wings is always a loss of flight ability, irrespective of context.

Could I gently point out that both winged and a non-winged insects have the ability to remain grounded in strong winds.
It is just that winged insects are more likely not to be on the ground when the wind 'strikes'!!!!:D:)

Sea Sharp

J C wrote: »

The Americans and the British are offshoots of the 'western leg' of the Old Roman Empire ...

I can recall hearing that before. A lot of people, myself included, will have trouble associating the United States of America with the Roman empire but I'll not dwell on that. The statue prophecy doesn't have enough specific information to be able to spot a dodgy interpretation and any such argument will never be resolved as one's imagination is the limit.

J C wrote: »

and the Umayyad Caliphate were 'bit players' in the whole thing.

They were as historically significant as a lot of the other empires and posed a noteworthy threat to the Roman Empire. If the king of the North vs the king of the South prophecy descries the run-ins of the main world powers of the last 2,000 years then this prophecy will describe the Umayyad Caliphate.

I want to divert this discussion from the statue because that's the easiest of the three Daniel prophecies that I've mentioned to interpret without contradicting one's self

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... context is irrelevant to any loss of ability.

A loss of wings is always a loss of flight ability, irrespective of context.

Could I gently point out that both winged and a non-winged insects have the ability to remain grounded in strong winds.
It is just that winged insects are more likely not to be on the ground when the wind 'strikes'!!!!:D:)

A loss of wings will lead to the loss of the ability to fly but also lead to the gain of ability to remain stably grounded. Why is the ability to fly the default from which other abilities are measured? Why not use the ability to remain grounded as the marker? It's swings and roundabouts, JC - there is no logical reason to use flight as the marker unless you have the concept of a perfect fly in mind. And Wicknight has gone to great lengths to explain why this is nonsensical in evolutionary terms.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't lose something you never had.

Under your definition of disability we are all disabled because we cannot fly, or breath under water :rolleyes:

...yes all Humans are indeed disabled in regard to the ability to fly and breathe under water ... in view of the fact that we don't possess and express the CSI for such abilities !!!:D:)

However, because we are made in the Image and Likeness of God we can use our God-given Intelligence to overcome these disabilities by inventing and using aircraft and diving gear, for example!!!:D

J C

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I can recall hearing that before. A lot of people, myself included, will have trouble associating the United States of America with the Roman empire but I'll not dwell on that. The statue prophecy doesn't have enough specific information to be able to spot a dodgy interpretation and any such argument will never be resolved as one's imagination is the limit.

... American Law is derived from British Common Law, which is in turn derived from Roman Law via the Knights Templar.

The Pax Romana is often compared (with good reason) to the Pax Ameicana.
The Capitol in Washington is the seat of the US Government and it takes its name from the Capitoline Hill which was the seat of Roman Government. Both Rome and the US had/have Senates ... and amphi-theatres/sports stadia ... and world-dominant armies ... and world-reserve currencies ... they dominate(d) world trade and commerce!!!
They had/have a non-hereditary Emperor/President !!!

Take my word for it ... they have a common root ... and they are run (mostly) by a common people!!!

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

They were as historically significant as a lot of the other empires and posed a noteworthy threat to the Roman Empire. If the king of the North vs the king of the South prophecy descries the run-ins of the main world powers of the last 2,000 years then this prophecy will describe the Umayyad Caliphate.

I want to divert this discussion from the statue because that's the easiest of the three Daniel prophecies that I've mentioned to interpret without contradicting one's self

That is OK.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

yThe CCR5 loss is a loss of CSI while the genetic rearrangement within the immunoglobulin genes is an Intelligently Designed feature analagous to an intelligently created encription process that is continuously underway in order to 'stay ahead' of attacks by disease causing micro-organisms ... and it is thus an expression of CSI ... and not a loss!!

I dealt with the Ig here (in red) "... and this prevents a body 'enemy' attaching itself and attacking the organism ... just like a letter can be rendered useless to an enemy by either encription (using intelligent design) or by random insertion of letters (using random processes).

This is nonsense. Not in the "I don't buy your argument so I'm going to dismiss it" sense. Rather in the "You are talking gibberish" sense. And you don't appear to know what "encryption" is.

To suggest that the capacity of DNA to take up random nucleotides, which I thought we had clarified a hundred pages back was a completely natural process obeying the laws of chemistry and physics, is somehow intelligently directed is just utter rubbish. In fact, you admit that it is a random process.

So, the gene gains random (undirected, natural process) bases of DNA and is able to generate a novel protein which has a function in the immune system - this cannot under any definition that you have given, count as "loss of CSI".

You are also back to defining the potential for change as the basis of intelligence, which is utter rubbish. "Expression of CSI"??????? CSI is a function of the physical DNA, not descriptive of the capacity for something to sometimes randomly do something that looks a bit clever. This genetic rearrangement needs absolutely no intelligent input whatsoever. The capacity for the gene(s) to rearrange and make new proteins is firmly grounded in chemistry and physics. Just like boiling a kettle full of water, something you don't claim exhibits CSI.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

A loss of wings will lead to the loss of the ability to fly but also lead to the gain of ability to remain stably grounded. Why is the ability to fly the default from which other abilities are measured? Why not use the ability to remain grounded as the marker? It's swings and roundabouts, JC - there is no logical reason to use flight as the marker unless you have the concept of a perfect fly in mind. And Wicknight has gone to great lengths to explain why this is nonsensical in evolutionary terms.

You are correct that a loss of wings will lead to the loss of the ability to fly but you are incorrect that this also leads to the gain of ability to remain stably grounded ... as such an ability is already possessed by both grounded and flying insects!!!:D:eek:

... it is just that the flying insects don't use their ability to remain stably grounded too often!!!

I'm not using flight as a marker ... as I recall, you were the one calling a Fly a Fly because they can Fly ... and saying that they weren't really flies when they lost their wings!!!!
...and I pointed out that they remain Flies ... even without their wings!!!!

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

This is nonsense. Not in the "I don't buy your argument so I'm going to dismiss it" sense. Rather in the "You are talking gibberish" sense. And you don't appear to know what "encryption" is.

To suggest that the capacity of DNA to take up random nucleotides, which I thought we had clarified a hundred pages back was a completely natural process obeying the laws of chemistry and physics, is somehow intelligently directed is just utter rubbish. In fact, you admit that it is a random process.

So, the gene gains random (undirected, natural process) bases of DNA and is able to generate a novel protein which has a function in the immune system - this cannot under any definition that you have given, count as "loss of CSI".

You are also back to defining the potential for change as the basis of intelligence, which is utter rubbish. "Expression of CSI"??????? CSI is a function of the physical DNA, not descriptive of the capacity for something to sometimes randomly do something that looks a bit clever. This genetic rearrangement needs absolutely no intelligent input whatsoever. The capacity for the gene(s) to rearrange and make new proteins is firmly grounded in chemistry and physics. Just like boiling a kettle full of water, something you don't claim exhibits CSI.

Emma... the same sophisticated CSI-rich DNA that allows your beautiful female physiognomy to be expressed ... and all of the other amazing God-given attributes that you possess ... is the same CSI-rich DNA that allows your immune system to also express itself in countering foreign body challenges to your bodily integrity !!!:D:eek::)

Sea Sharp

“Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. 3Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

5“The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his powera will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her fatherb and the one who supported her.

7“One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country. 10His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

11“Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped.

14“In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plansc will not succeed or help him. 18Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

20“His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

21“He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

25“With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26Those who eat from the king’s provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

29“At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30Ships of the western coastlandsd will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

31“His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

33“Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

The King Who Exalts Himself

36“The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.e

40“At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45He will pitch his royal tents between the seas atf the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

So, what's the interpretation? Does the 'Kingdom' and kings of both north and south Kings change over time to reflect the conflicting world powers up to this day?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...yes all Humans are indeed disabled in regard to the ability to fly and breathe under water ... in view of the fact that we don't possess and express the CSI for such abilities !!!:D:)

However, because we are made in the Image and Likeness of God we can use our God-given Intelligence to overcome these disabilities by inventing and using aircraft and diving gear, for example!!!:D

That was my point. Like I said to Wolfsbane, Creationists like yourself are forced by your religious doctrine to view "disabled" people in a much more negative light than the rest of us, but don't assume the rest of us share that position.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...yes all Humans are indeed disabled in regard to the ability to fly and breathe under water ... in view of the fact that we don't possess and express the CSI for such abilities !!!

However, because we are made in the Image and Likeness of God we can use our God-given Intelligence to overcome these disabilities by inventing and using aircraft and diving gear, for example!!!


Wicknight
That was my point. Like I said to Wolfsbane, Creationists like yourself are forced by your religious doctrine to view "disabled" people in a much more negative light than the rest of us, but don't assume the rest of us share that position.

... I don't view the fact that I am not able to breathe under water or fly (without paying a tenner to Michael O'Leary) 'in a negative light' ... and Saved Christians don't have a negative view about any other lack of ability in Humans ... because we view each Human as made in the Image and Likeness of God from the moment of conception we therefore view all Humans as deserving of the utmost respect.
Equally, because of the Fall, we also view all Humans (including ourselves) as imperfect ... so, unlike Atheists, we don't view the imperfections of others in a negative light, while ignoring our own!!!!
... the infamous example of talking about the splinter in your brothers eye, while ignoring the plank in your own, is never far from our consideration!!!!:eek:

Atheists don't believe that Humans are really any different to other animals and they therefore don't believe that abortion, for example, is murder ... and one of their main reasons for this belief is because these Human Beings (foetuses) lack the ability for independent existence i.e. they have the disability that they are unable to survive outside the womb, even though they have a perfect ability to survive within it.

In this case the Atheist views the disability of these Human Beings in such a 'negative light' that they deem it is OK to kill them ... which is actually a form of inter-generational eugenics ...
... so don't sanctimoniously lecture me on respect for Human dignity when Atheists view Humans as little more than animals ... and have a set of ethics that reflects this belief.

J C

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

So, what's the interpretation? Does the 'Kingdom' and kings of both north and south Kings change over time to reflect the conflicting world powers up to this day?

... all this information relates to the Anti-Christ and the End Times ... and it will only be needed (and become clear) then.
This fact is confirmed in the following verses:-

Da 12:8 I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, "O my lord, what shall be the issue of these things?"
9 He said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ok but could you answer the question please?

Can I take that as a no then?

J C

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

That's a safe answer. From my own memory all hell breaks loose and common sense breaks down when one tries to apply Daniel prophecies to post Roman empire times.

... I hope that this wasn't a prophecy on your part!!!

... your queries were dealt with in a calm unemotional manner that hopefully makes sense to you.:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ok but could you answer the question please?

Can I take that as a no then?

... you cerainly cannot!!!

... I have already answered your question here :-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64942337&postcount=21813

... and I confirmed that the loss of the CCR5 receptor by damage to the genome would be a loss of CSI irrespective of the agent involved.:):p

... and speaking of unanswered questions ... where are those peskey Theistic Evolutionists hiding?

... any chance you would answer my questions on Thesitic Evolution ?
... here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64945842&postcount=21823

... or are there no Theistic Evolutionists left on the Thread ... and ye have all become Creationists or something???

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... I have already answered your question here :-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64942337&postcount=21813

... and I confirmed that the loss of the CCR5 receptor by damage to the genome would be a loss of CSI irrespective of the agent involved.:):p

ah, you editted the post and I didn't spot it. Could you give me an example of something that you would accept as evidence of an increase in CSI? It looks to me you've defined every change that it's possible for DNA to undergo as either a loss or an expression of previously existing CSI.......

The absolute minimum you would accept please. There's no point asking for something like the spontaneous production of a massively complicated organ in a single step

J C wrote: »

... and speaking of unanswered questions ... where are those peskey Theistic Evolutionists hiding?

... any chance you would answer my questions on Thesitic Evolution ?
... here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64945842&postcount=21823

I'm not sure if that question is directed at me but I'll give it a shot. I think they look at god's involvement in evolution the way they look at miracles like terminally ill people getting better. God's influence isn't immediately obvious in that he didn't actually appear in the room and wave a magic wand but people still say that god was involved. Accepting evolution does mean you have to develop a more sophisticated view of the bible but not accepting it means that you have to develop a more "sophisticated" view of reality in that you have to be able to deny dozens of science's most strongly supported theories, not just evolution by a long way. You can be scientifically competent, honest and a creationist but not all at the same time

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ah, you editted the post and I didn't spot it. Could you give me an example of something that you would accept as evidence of an increase in CSI? It looks to me you've defined every change that it's possible for DNA to undergo as either a loss or an expression of previously existing CSI.......

The absolute minimum you would accept please. There's no point asking for something like the spontaneous production of a massively complicated organ in a single step

... a complex new functional organ in a number of steps would be an example of increasing CSI ... should be possible with short-generation organisms like Fruit Flies (if Materialistic Evolution exists) ... but has never been observed!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure if that question is directed at me but I'll give it a shot. I think they look at god's involvement in evolution the way they look at miracles like terminally ill people getting better. God's influence isn't immediately obvious in that he didn't actually appear in the room and wave a magic wand but people still say that god was involved. Accepting evolution does mean you have to develop a more sophisticated view of the bible but not accepting it means that you have to develop a more "sophisticated" view of reality in that you have to be able to deny dozens of science's most strongly supported theories, not just evolution by a long way. You can be scientifically competent, honest and a creationist but not all at the same time

... are you are the appointed spokesperson for the Theistic Evolutionists on the thread?

... anyway, what is the 'more sophisticated view' of the Bible that Theisitic Evolutionists supposedly have?
... could you start with Genesis 1?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly. Pick any one you like from here

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

My fav is the "induction of multicellularity", ie a single celled organism evolved into a multi celled one, even going so far as to evolve the ability to make a primitive skin around itself.

After this happened the biologists not only had to say a new species evolved but it was in fact a new genus,

"They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."

You can't really get a bigger observable evolution than that.

I await your inevitable dismissal (but but Wicknight, it was still green!! :rolleyes:)



Hey, that's not a Chlorella vulgaris! In fact that isn't even a Chlorella, since Chlorella are single celled and this is multi-celled

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm after. I'll do some investigation and get back to you.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Certainly. Pick any one you like from here

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...-evidence.html

My fav is the "induction of multicellularity", ie a single celled organism evolved into a multi celled one, even going so far as to evolve the ability to make a primitive skin around itself.

... all examples of rapid speciation/divergence ... using existing genetic diversity / CSI!!!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... a complex new functional organ in a number of steps would be an example of increasing CSI ... should be possible with short-generation organisms like Fruit Flies (if Materialistic Evolution exists) ... but has never been observed!!!

We've shown you many examples of new abilities developing in organisms, even one that resulted in the classification of a new genus, but you said that they were all examples of expression of previously existing CSI. If a new organ developed would you not just say the same thing? What's the difference between a new organ and a new ability?

J C wrote: »

... are you are the appointed spokesperson for the Theistic Evolutionists on the thread?

I didn't realise I had to be appointed. Where did you get your appointment to speak for creationism on the thread? Did god appoint you?

J C wrote: »

... anyway, what is the 'more sophisticated view' of the Bible that Theisitic Evolutionists supposedly have?
... could you start with Genesis 1?

The more sophisticated view is a non-literal one that takes account of the historical context when the bible was written. An example would be the idea that the story of Eve eating the Apple is a figurative description meant to explain original sin to the early Jews who wouldn't have understood the actual mechanism employed by god. I really don't know a whole lot about theistic evolution though so a christian could go into more detail on the actual biblical interpretations

Sam Vimes

Also Wicknight gave the example of an organism that changed from single celled to multi celled an developed a primitive skin. Skin is an organ..............

J C

J C wrote: »

... OK, as the Theistic Evolutionists seem to have 'lost their tongues' I will start with the basic types of Theistic Evolution (courtesy of Creation Worldview Ministries):-
There are many forms of theistic evolutionism. However, while there are many slightly different versions, they all basically fit into three groups.

The first group is the true deist who says that God may be deduced to exist because the obvious design seen in nature proves there is Designer God. The deist, however, believes that God started it all and then went home to read the newspaper and he has not been back since. This position states that God created the universe, the initial single celled life and He then gave it the intrinsic ability to evolve upward on its own until finally reaching the current state of man's existence. So, here we have God at the beginning only.

The second group contains those theists who believe that God used evolutionary processes over a long period of time in order to achieve the current creation. This group states that God used a screwdriver here, a wrench there and a hammer whenever it was needed and did this over millions and billions of supposed years. So, here we have God throughout the process.

The third group consists of those who are perfectly willing to accept that everything in the universe is self existent and evolved entirely on its own until one day God came walking through the universe and said, “Gee, this would make a perfect place for humans made in My image.” God then created man and woman and placed them into an evolved universe. This placates the person who is willing to accept evolution in total; with the exception that humans are a unique creation of God and man did not evolve from a common primate ancestor. So, here we have God at the end.

So what is wrong with accepting any of these positions or the variants of them?

First, if any of these positions were true then God is not omniscient. He is not smart enough to do things right, whole and complete from the start. He lacks knowledge. He has to experiment over time in order to figure out how to accomplish the task. In this view God is a small god and He is not all knowing.

Second, if any of these positions were true then God is not omnipotent. He is not strong enough to do things right, whole and complete from the start. He is incapable of bringing all things into existence at one time. In this view God is a small god and He is not all powerful.

Third, if either the first or third of these groups were correct then God is not omnipresent. He is not present to do things right, whole and complete. In this view God is distant, cannot be fully known and only reveals Himself at certain times. In this view God is a small god and He cannot be relied upon to be there when you need Him.

Fourth, if any of these positions were true then the death of nephesh organisms occurred before human sin. Nephesh is the Hebrew word meaning life, soul and blood. It refers to consciousness. The soul is the intellect, emotion and will. Soul is what makes a body animate. The Bible states in Genesis that plants, protozoa and insects do not have nephesh while cats, dogs, cattle and humans do have nephesh . The death of plants, protozoa and insects prior to human sin is not a problem. The death of nephesh organisms prior to human sin is an overwhelming hurdle!

This point simply cannot be overstated!

“The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [soul, nephesh ].” Genesis 2:7 NAS

“And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'?” Matt. 19:4-5 NAS [ They were there at the time of the creation; they did not come along later. ]

“Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned - for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, . . . For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. . . . For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.” Romans 5: 12-17 NAS

“For since by a man [Adam] came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:21-22 NAS

If death of nephesh beings occurred before sin, then death is common, and the death of one man on a cross is meaningless. It is only because death came into the universe as a consequence of human sin that the death of the One sinless man on a Cross may expunge our sins and give us eternal life!

Fifth, if any of these theistic evolutionary positions were true then God is a liar. He is capricious, unrighteous and He cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. All versions of theistic evolution require that God brought the physical universe into existence slowly and gradually over millions and billions of supposed years. In contrast to their view, the Scripture clearly tells us that God created the universe, and all the physical things in it, recently in only six literal 24 hour days as recorded in Genesis Chapter One.

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” Exodus 20:8-11 NAS

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't realise I had to be appointed. Where did you get your appointment to speak for creationism on the thread? Did god appoint you?

your 'appointment' was a rhetorical question!!!
... and yes, as a Saved Christian I am 'appointed' by God to speak on all matters on His behalf.:)

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The more sophisticated view is a non-literal one that takes account of the historical context when the bible was written. An example would be the idea that the story of Eve eating the Apple is a figurative description meant to explain original sin to the early Jews who wouldn't have understood the actual mechanism employed by god. I really don't know a whole lot about theistic evolution though so a christian could go into more detail on the actual biblical interpretations

... fair enough ... I appreciate your efforts ... so where are the Theistic Evolutionists? ... and could they please address the previous Post.

Has it come to this ... that the only one willing to defend Theistic Evolution is an Atheist?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

Atheists don't believe that Humans are really any different to other animals and they therefore don't believe that abortion, for example, is murder ...

A staggering claim.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

A staggering claim.

... what do Atheists believe on these issues?

... specifically do you think that abortion is murder?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

So what is wrong with accepting any of these positions or the variants of them?

First, if any of these positions were true then God is not omniscient. He is not smart enough to do things right, whole and complete from the start. He lacks knowledge. He has to experiment over time in order to figure out how to accomplish the task. In this view God is a small god and He is not all knowing.

Second, if any of these positions were true then God is not omnipotent. He is not strong enough to do things right, whole and complete from the start. He is incapable of bringing all things into existence at one time. In this view God is a small god and He is not all powerful.

Third, if either the first or third of these groups were correct then God is not omnipresent. He is not present to do things right, whole and complete. In this view God is distant, cannot be fully known and only reveals Himself at certain times. In this view God is a small god and He cannot be relied upon to be there when you need Him.

Fourth, if any of these positions were true then the death of nephesh organisms occurred before human sin. Nephesh is the Hebrew word meaning life, soul and blood. It refers to consciousness. The soul is the intellect, emotion and will. Soul is what makes a body animate. The Bible states in Genesis that plants, protozoa and insects do not have nephesh while cats, dogs, cattle and humans do have nephesh . The death of plants, protozoa and insects prior to human sin is not a problem. The death of nephesh organisms prior to human sin is an overwhelming hurdle!

This point simply cannot be overstated!

“The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [soul, nephesh ].” Genesis 2:7 NAS

“And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'?” Matt. 19:4-5 NAS [ They were there at the time of the creation; they did not come along later. ]

“Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned - for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, . . . For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. . . . For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.” Romans 5: 12-17 NAS

“For since by a man [Adam] came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:21-22 NAS

If death of nephesh beings occurred before sin, then death is common, and the death of one man on a cross is meaningless. It is only because death came into the universe as a consequence of human sin that the death of the One sinless man on a Cross may expunge our sins and give us eternal life!

Fifth, if any of these theistic evolutionary positions were true then God is a liar. He is capricious, unrighteous and He cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. All versions of theistic evolution require that God brought the physical universe into existence slowly and gradually over millions and billions of supposed years. In contrast to their view, the Scripture clearly tells us that God created the universe, and all the physical things in it, recently in only six literal 24 hour days as recorded in Genesis Chapter One.

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” Exodus 20:8-11 NAS

You talk about god "doing it right" but who's to say what the "right" way to create a universe with life is? You talk about god not being able to do it a certain way but who's to say he didn't choose to do it this way? If we're getting into the idea that god should do everything in a way that we consider optimal then I've got a good few suggestions for him, a lack of earthquakes for example and maybe a cure for cancer

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... what do Atheists believe on these issues?

Atheists differ, some think abortion is acceptable and some don't, just like christians

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You talk about god "doing it right" but who's to say what the "right" way to create a universe with life is? You talk about god not being able to do it a certain way but who's to say he didn't choose to do it this way? If we're getting into the idea that god should do everything in a way that we consider optimal then I've got a good few suggestions for him, a lack of earthquakes for example and maybe a cure for cancer

God did Create everything 'good' ... so there was no evil ... and no earthquakes or disease in His perfect Creation.

All these evils have come about as a result of the (voluntary) entry of sin into the Universe by one Man (Adam) ... when he decided that he could be 'as God' ... on the prompting of Eve and Satan ... by imbibing knowledge from the occult 'tree' /system of knowledge of good and evil.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheists differ, some think abortion is acceptable and some don't, just like christians

... and do you believe that abortion is murder?