Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'
Associated Baptist Press ^ | January 13, 2011 | Bob Allen

Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."

Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."

The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.

Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."

Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.

"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"

In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.

After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."

"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."

Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.

Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."

"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: asa; baptist; biologos; creation; darwinism; edwardbdavis; evochristianity; evolution; gagdadbob; mohler; onecosmos; southernbaptist; teddavis; theisticevolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 1,701-1,733 next last
To: angryoldfatman; kosta50; stormer

Wrong.

I can understand your point of view, but consider this:

If Newton were a mass-murderer, would that background have made his laws on motion invalid?

You’re wrong about evolution depending on the survival of the “fittest”. Survival depends on lot more aspects than mere fitness. Couple that with the Principle of Reciprocity (the Golden / Silver Rule, if you will), and you have no scientific reason for genocide. Healthy societies cannot exist without this rule being operational, so where does the question of genocide even arise?

I asked you that question in my earlier comment about morality based on the religion you’ve adopted. Why is there no answer? What did David’s child die for?


401 posted on 01/18/2011 7:52:37 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
I'm glad you like it! And thank you for sharing your view of time, dear LomanBill.
402 posted on 01/18/2011 7:52:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
If there is no change, that’s forever.

If there's no time, there's no such thing as forever. The clock doesn't tick, not once, not twice, not forever. Forever is a nonsense word outside of time.

403 posted on 01/18/2011 8:00:21 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Sorry html error. S/B:

If there is no change, that’s forever.

If there's no time, there's no such thing as forever. The clock doesn't tick, not once, not twice, not forever. Forever is a nonsense word outside of time.

404 posted on 01/18/2011 8:02:34 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

If the clock (time) doesn’t tick, there is no change, either. Everything is static. That is the consequence of removing time.


405 posted on 01/18/2011 8:11:54 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
, there is no change, either.

Correct. That's part of the whole argument, including First Cause. The First Cause is outside time, uncaused and unchanging. It's all interrelated. The argument is that only something with these properties can create time and the chain of causality. Else you end up with infinite regresses and other logical problems.

406 posted on 01/18/2011 8:17:10 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

If something is unchanging, how can it suddenly create something that changes? The act of creation itself is a change from the prior situation.


407 posted on 01/18/2011 8:24:02 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

>>Got a reference for that claim?

Pick any reference that explains potential energy and entropy.

The potential energy of a frozen molecule of H20 is higher on top of Mt. Everest than the same molecule in liquid state in the Indian Ocean; and if net potential energy is higher, then entropy is lower.

If you were correct, and the entropy of elevated snow and ice was higher than that of liquid water at a lower elevation, then hydroelectric generation wouldn’t work as it does at the Hoover Dam - where the majority of the water flowing through the dam and turning the turbines in the spring is melted snow and ice.

Again, simple observation makes it self-evident that you are not correct.


408 posted on 01/18/2011 8:30:51 PM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; James C. Bennett
I believe your problem is that you are trying to perceive potential energy as a stand-alone property. It is not; potential energy is a delta.

Potential energy must always be calculated or stated with respect to some "ground" reference. In the water column I mentioned, the measured pressure was between the "head" (height) of the column and its "bottom" -- with such variables as the height of the column, G, density, etc. left unstated.

And, of course, potential is not confined to gravitational effects. In order to operate, even good old Ohm's Law ("E = IR") requires an (often unstated) "ground potential" to provide a reference for the electromotive (potential) force, "E".

I have to chuckle when I think of the Potential -to- Kinetic conversions on my Fuji-san" trek. I just realized that I had been unconsciously using as my "ground", Station 7(?) -- which we had climbed past early the night before on our climb to be at the summit for sunrise [spectacular!]. Why? It was at that station where we reached the bottom of our exhilarating "flying" descent down the (~45 degree) cinder slope -- and dumped the cinders from our (by then well-worn) boots -- before returning to the trail for the rest of the plod down to the bus station.

(My potential energy at the summit was obviously less WRT Station 7 than it was WRT the bus station -- but the former "delta " was certainly the most fun!

"Proper" "ash-slide" descent technique entails leaning back onto your "Fuji-stick" (climbing stick) and using it as stabilizer, tiller, and brake as you "skate" long "seven-league boot" steps under the (dramatically obvious) influence of gravity. As a measure of some of the expended energy, my Fuji-stick" was nearly six inches shorter when we reached Station 7 (as measured against a new one)! '-)

I "leave as an exercise for the student" the calculation of my potential energy between the summit of Fuji-san and our home on the Kanto Plain -- slightly above sea level... '-)

~~~~~~~~~~~

All this discussion of transfers and expenditures of energy brings to mind the old Japanese saying,

"He who fails to climb Fuji-san in his lifetime is a fool."

"He who climbs it twice is twice a fool..."

~~~~~~~~~~~

'-)

409 posted on 01/18/2011 8:37:23 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino; balch3; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
I'm one of those "old school Texas [B]aptists" -- and we agree. These "inerrancy types" love to castigate as "liberal" those who do not agree with the "inerrancy" of their particular (mis) interpretation (in particular, of Genesis).

As one who is comfortable with (and thrilled by) both the Genesis account and with ever-improving cosmological and genetic understanding. I guess my self-label would be, "Liberated". :-)

It's amazng how truly liberating it is to escape from having to "prove" that you have the "only" answer to things like Creation!!!

Man (particularly Mohler) is not the measure of God!


410 posted on 01/18/2011 9:14:59 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

I agree, and though most people characterize Baptists as some odd backwards narrow minded throwbacks, the Texas Baptist world i knew back then was a wondrous thing.

It was one man or woman, equipped with a Bible, and the mind God gave them. Nobody stood between the individual, and their God. They were able to read and interpret the scripture within sane reason.

There were no tin pot dictators in the seminaries or the churches, there were no official catechisms and fatwas. I felt like it was as close to the early churches as you could come in this day and age.

The saddest thing ever is for someone to equate “conservatives” trying to take over the Baptist faith, as being political conservatives. Inside the struggle for the church, liberal and conservative do not translate into modern political conservatism and liberalism.

One final thought, there have always been Baptists out there who believed in the 4000 year old earth, etc. The church gave them freedom to believe that if their study told them so. As long as they loved Jesus and accepted his death for their sins. But now, this sad move insists that everyone follow the inerrancy dogma.


411 posted on 01/18/2011 9:46:43 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; DesertRhino; balch3; betty boop
I'm in that "old school Texas Baptist" camp, too. In fact I'm a "bakery shop kid."

There is certainly a lineage of Baptists who value the label "Baptist" and would trace their history back to the origin of the doctrine of believer's baptism around 1600.

But Baptists are "local rule" and many of them very independent indeed in every respect, so much so they consider themselves to be non-denominational. These would relate much more closely to the home church or the spontaneous assembly of Christians in whatever number and where-ever.

Indeed, I suspect in the Dallas/Ft Worth area many of the "non-denominational" churches actually just dropped the word "baptist" from their church names.

The latter group couldn't care less about the rise of the formal doctrine of the believer's baptism. To them, the rise of the assembly is the point and the succession is Spiritual not physical.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

The latter group of Baptists would relate to my testimony as I relate to theirs.

Waaay back in the 50’s, when I was in elementary school, several of us kids would meet after school in the local bakery shop while they were cleaning up. The owners would give us drinks and left-over goodies. We’d bring our Bibles, read and just talk about Jesus.

My older sister – now in heaven – was always the ring leader.

It so happened that an old retired Baptist preacher heard about the bakery shop kids and came by to meet us. He was moved by what he saw and he used his life’s savings to build a tiny little church up the street.

Naturally all the kids got the rest of their families to join them in meeting in the new church – and before you knew it we were all baptized Southern Baptist. The church grew and split and had missionary churches of it own.

If it had been someone from another Christian “label” who found the bakery shop kids, built the church and baptized us, I’d probably be wearing a different label today. LOLOL!

As it is my "letter" has always been in a Baptist church, though that point is meaningless to me because at the root, I will always be that bakery shop kid – a Christian, plain and simple.

I attend Mass more often than any Protestant service in the area because our elderly Catholic cousin is in a wheelchair and needs help. Truly, there are many doctrines in the Catholic belief which grate against my spirit, e.g. closed communion, but if God led me to become Catholic, I would.

But since I am a bakery shop kid at the root, the priest (a very nice man) can be grateful I am not. LOLOL!

Truly, man is not the measure of God.


412 posted on 01/18/2011 9:56:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: angryoldfatman
you bash someone's faith in an unproven cosmological origin hypothesis with your faith in another unproven cosmological hypothesis

What is my faith in another unproven hypothesis? If you are going to say something, then be specific.

There's actually more evidence for the former than the latter.

Such as?


413 posted on 01/18/2011 10:02:30 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: bvw; MHGinTN; metmom; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Folks, you can't imagine how much I've enjoyed your little "insiders' byplay" re bvw's "reward! I literally sat here laughing out loud as I read through it. Kudos!!

However, MHGinTN, I'm gonna have to label you "one of them thar Modernist fellers".

When I was a kid in Sunday School, I had to lick my stars to get 'em to stick! LOL!!

~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for a nice moment of "virtual fellowship"! :-)

414 posted on 01/18/2011 10:06:01 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

LOLOL!


415 posted on 01/18/2011 10:14:52 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; TXnMA; betty boop; James C. Bennett; MarkBsnr; MHGinTN
On your first issue concerning what constitutes "fact" I once again offer my testimony:

Your testimony, AG, is not a proof.

On your second issue concerning the beginning of space/time and multi-verse theory, I once again offer these insights:

AG, my question was how does your source know the Big Bag was the "beginning"? How does he know the Big Bag is not something that has repeated itself forever and, more importantly, how do you know what pre-existed the Big Bang? That's all.

And finally, concerning your sidebar with xzins, I say here as I have said on many threads before that Paradise/Eden and Adamic man, like the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple and the Holy Mountain, are not strictly physical

My sidebar with xzins was simply an expansion of the point I made earlier, namely that your presentations was essentially Gnostic. I also took issue with your translation of Gen 2:17 and showed you that  your translation (and erroneous conclusion based on it) is not the translation (and conclusion) of those who know ancient Hebrew.

416 posted on 01/18/2011 10:21:39 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett; D-fendr
Therefore, the First Cause argument comes up short

Correct. The paradox is that the god-of-gaps crowd claims God doesn't change yet God intercedes. Logic tells us that God wasn't always creating...

417 posted on 01/18/2011 10:43:05 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett; bvw
You do know that synesthesia is not an ordinary condition, right? It’s a problem with the brain wrongly interpreting signals that it receives from various parts of the body

bvw is making a straw man, while avoiding the question I asked him several times: what does Wisdom look like? I have yet to get the answer which study was done specifically on this subject. And now he is reaching for neurological disorders to "prove" he is right.

418 posted on 01/18/2011 10:50:29 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; xzins; TXnMA; betty boop; James C. Bennett; MarkBsnr; MHGinTN
On your first point, my testimony is not a proof. It is a statement of fact: God is not a hypothesis, He lives, His Name is I AM and I've known Him for a half century and counting.

I would not "prove" God at your request for the same reason I would not prove my brother had you suggested that he is a hypothesis or pink unicorn.

On your second point, the number of prior universes in a physical cosmology (if any) is irrelevant because:

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both space and time are required for physical causality, e.g. a Big Bang.

All such physical cosmologies accomplish is to move the goalpost back to a prior universe relying on the pre-existence of, but never explaining the origin of, real space, real time and real physical causality.

In sum, God whose Name is I AM or YHwH (He IS) often translated to "The Lord" cannot be denied.

Or as Physicist once put it (avoiding the obvious theological reference as scientists are wont to do) "existence exists."

On your third point, the "muwth muwth" of Genesis 2:17 is a Hebraism, an intensifying infinite absolute.


419 posted on 01/18/2011 11:01:25 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
The just will rule over the insolent.

Amen!

420 posted on 01/19/2011 2:32:01 AM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Talking about a "god of the gaps"! HG Wells covered the topic with his novella "In the Country of the Blind."

That story is a more realistic take on the ancient aphorism that a even a one-eyed man would be King in the Country of the Blind. As HG Wells showed in his original 1904 version, that is decidedly not so. "Sight" in the Country of the Blind can be quite a neurological disorder.

What the blind can't comprehend at all is what sight is and why it might be helpful. In a long-established Country of the Blind "sight" is insane hokum.

421 posted on 01/19/2011 5:23:13 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"If you were correct, and the entropy of elevated snow and ice was higher than that of liquid water at a lower elevation, then hydroelectric generation wouldn’t work as it does at the Hoover Dam - where the majority of the water flowing through the dam and turning the turbines in the spring is melted snow and ice."

Dear Mr. Bill. I never said that the entropy of snow and ice on Mt Everest was higher than water at sea level. Why do you misrepresent me so?

"Again, simple observation makes it self-evident that you are not correct."

Again Mr. Bill. I never said that ice and snow on Mt. Everest had higher entropy than water at sea level. Why do you misrepresent me so?

422 posted on 01/19/2011 6:05:52 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Why would there have to be “hundreds, or maybe thousands” of different species in the lineage between modern man and our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees?

How many hundreds or thousands of different species do you think are needed to explain a 2% genetic difference and 6% genomic difference in DNA between a human and chimpanzee?

And why would a process (going from a swimming water breather to a walking air breather) that is evident in the lifetime of an individual of a species be a transformation so elaborate that it might need thousands of different species to explain it?

423 posted on 01/19/2011 6:34:58 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Unless a clone, every individual member of a species, is a ‘transitional species’. If this were not true, evolution wouldn’t happen.


424 posted on 01/19/2011 7:09:16 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Indeed.

I remember that after finding an Australopithocine some one million years ‘younger’ than Lucy and company that had about the same brain size - some twit remarked that one million years and they didn't become any “more” human.

Well the job of an Autralopithocine was not to evolve into a human, it was to be the best ol’ Australopithocine he or she could be! They were not “wasting time” for a million years without their brains getting larger.

In other words they were a “transitional” species, but their ‘job’ wasn't to ‘transform’ into a human being - that was perhaps the ultimate plan - but it wasn't THEIR plan.

425 posted on 01/19/2011 7:40:43 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Your semantic game is what it is - there's no need to misrepresent it. 
"fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; "
---The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
---Thomas Jefferson, 1786
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html
Same ol' same ol'.
 
Luckily, for American Individual Citizens - the Law says that dogmatic tyrants, folks of your ilk, don't get become the Pharaoh's Inquisitor or burn "heretics" like me for recognizing the self-evident Truth that the dirt beneath our feet is slightly older than 6000 years.
 
 
Does your game - that drives a wedge between Faith and Science in the minds of the fleeced, lead individuals into accepting the gift of reconciliation with their Creator?  NO, it does not; just the opposite in fact, Mr. Pharisee.
 
 
"ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE"
 
Deal with it.

426 posted on 01/19/2011 7:52:28 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"Your semantic game is what it is - there's no need to misrepresent it."

I knew you couldn't support your statement, "If you were correct, and the entropy of elevated snow and ice was higher than that of liquid water at a lower elevation, then hydroelectric generation wouldn’t work as it does at the Hoover Dam - where the majority of the water flowing through the dam and turning the turbines in the spring is melted snow and ice."

Pretending you don't need to is a nice try. Not.

"fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; " ---The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom ---Thomas Jefferson, 1786 http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

Funny that the implication is that this doesn't apply to you simply because you posted it. Look in the mirror, Mr. Bill. This is exactly what you do.

"Luckily, for American Individual Citizens - the Law says that dogmatic tyrants, folks of your ilk, don't get become the Pharaoh's Inquisitor or burn "heretics" like me for recognizing the self-evident Truth that the dirt beneath our feet is slightly older than 6000 years."

LOL! Now I'm of the 'dogmatic tyrant' ilk, eh Mr. Bill. And, oh my, you used the 'ilk' word. How powerful (not). Even better, you get to say that the law says I don't get to 'burn heretics like you'. Can you say paranoia, Mr. Bill?

What was that you posted about "setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible"? Keep taking Mr. Bill. You only get better. LOL!

And you think it's 'self-evident' that the dirt is older than 6,000 years? Really? Does dirt have a date-stamp on it Mr. Bill? If it's so 'self-evident', why do we need scientists to tell us that we should believe that? If it's 'self-evident', shouldn't it really be self-evident? Or is this a new usage for the term 'self-evident'.

"Does your game - that drives a wedge between Faith and Science in the minds of the fleeced, lead individuals into accepting the gift of reconciliation with their Creator? NO, it does not; just the opposite in fact, Mr. Pharisee."

Ooh, more projection and name-calling from Mr. Bill. What a surprise.

"Deal with it."

Deal with name-calling and projection over facts and arguments? Keep talking Mr. Bill. You're doing a fine job.

427 posted on 01/19/2011 8:32:10 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
[you think it's 'self-evident' that the dirt is older than 6,000 years? Really?]
 
Yep.  Most reasonable folks do nowadays.
 
We pretty much figured out that whole "The Sun is Apollo and a flaming chariot" thing is Bovine excrement too.
 
No Fleece for YOU!

428 posted on 01/19/2011 8:37:49 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"Yep. Most reasonable folks do nowadays."

Ah... so, by definition, *most* 'reasonable' folk think it is 'self-evident' that dirt is older than 6,000 years. Tell me, Mr. Bill. Just how do *most* 'reasonable' folk know this? What about the rest of the 'reasonable' folk that don't think it is self-evident that dirt is older than 6,000 years? After all, they are 'reasonable' too, by your own admission.

"We pretty much figured out that whole "The Sun is Apollo and a flaming chariot" thing is Bovine excrement too."

Congrats.

"No Fleece for YOU!"

Darn.

429 posted on 01/19/2011 8:52:37 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Isn't it interesting the lengths to which an intelligent human will go in order to assume a gap which is not there? If one merely denies in their heart that the spirit exists at all, then a phrase such as 'you shall surely die' (in dying you will die) can be dismissed with any of several seemingly good explanations.

However, if one starts with the axiom that the spirit, the soul, and the body exist and because they exist they have spatio-temporal limits (because without space things do not exist and without time events do not occur), attention is immediately focused upon how God has woven these together in such a way that an individual functions under the influence of the soul and the spirit ... if one is diligently seeking to know God and His wondrous creation.

As God defined Himself Alpha and Omega, He established/set the absolute limits of creation to be between His essence ... no thing except God has, can or will exist beyond Alpha and Omega. By starting with that as axiomatic, the Bible hints that no thing is beyond the reach of humanity's intellect, given enough time to explore the 'limits wells' in which all things exist. In discovering the complexities, we do not eliminate the hand of the Creator; on the contrary, we affirm His Creativeness all the more! He Creates, His Spirit sustains, and He deigned to become flesh and dwell among us and now has the Body to dwell in Time and Space alongside His creation ... in any spatio-temporal realm He chooses.

It is an easy task to deny clear data in order to make a faux where/when for fanciful conjectures. But Science, being one of the most powerful inventions of humankind, if practiced honestly sweeps away deceit and views that which is, while not eschewing that which might be. The more humankind discovers about The Creation, the more we ought realize the complexities beg a Creator of such devise. As Paul put it, we are without excuse to believe in God, since we have His universe always with us, with our sensing.

Returning to the notion that body, soul, AND spirit exist for each of us, I am left to believe a where/when of limits exists for each of these aspects I possess. God need not prove Himself to us, He has Created us and the universe in which we have consciousness. And He has left us clues that we have and will continue to have a level of consciousness IN His universe even after the body ceases to function. We ARE alive in a temporal sense greater than the linear track of present sensing by the body's physiology connected to the behavior mechanism we call soul.

Genesis 2:17 instructs that a level of 'being alive' was lost in Adam's willful disobedience (in dying at spirit level, you shall surely die at soul level, for the spirit is the immediate source of life of the soul, as the soul is the immediate source of life for the body; and just incase you eat of the tree of life and live forever in your 'dead-spirit' state, the fruit of immortal physical life shall be with held from you now ... paraphrasing Genesis).

We tend to think of dimension Time as a linear thing, segmented into pieces of present. But the universe exists in the volume of dimension Time, thus the 'death-bound' spirit exists in a volume which places that 'thing' in an eternal juxtaposition with the temporally limited physical body via the functioning soul. I would wander off into description of the planar temporal state of the soul, as related to the volumetric temporal spirit and the linear temporal body, but I suspect there is enough 'modernist' speculation in the above for Kosta and others to ridicule to their heart's content.

But all the ridicule will not change God's "muwth muwth" of Genesis 2:17.

430 posted on 01/19/2011 9:20:44 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

[how do *most* ‘reasonable’ folk know this?]

Well, Mr. Pharisee, for one thing, by reasonably observing the information made available by the annual effects of the weather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

And the larger periodic cyclical changes that are evidenced therein - which coincidentally agree with orbital observations and predictions....

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm


431 posted on 01/19/2011 9:23:00 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
"Well, Mr. Pharisee, for one thing, by reasonably observing the information made available by the annual effects of the weather."

Sorry Mr. Bill. Ice core layers are assumed to be annual. Since no one was there to actually observe this, it is pure conjecture. Nothing more.

"And the larger periodic cyclical changes that are evidenced therein - which coincidentally agree with orbital observations and predictions...."

Obviously, these cyclical changes are assumed by projecting observations backward into unobservable, assumed time frames. This runs into the same problem that 'dark' matter and energy does. It isn't observable and, therefore, isn't scientific.

The idea of long-ages and evolution is an ancient pagan one that the church fathers (and I) argue against. IMO, arguing for the truth of ancient pagan ideas may please Ba'al, but not your Lord and Savior.

432 posted on 01/19/2011 9:53:26 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
If something is unchanging, how can it suddenly create something that changes?

One of the reasons I like the First Cause argument is that there are fewer problems with it than without it. E.g. Assume something that changes is the origin of time and change and you have a self-contradictory statement.

But to your question, one answer to how something that is unchanging can create change and time is "by just existing".. "by it's existence."

And, "suddenly" is another word that depends on time - so it doesn't apply. After time exists, then you can have "sudden," until then, no.

433 posted on 01/19/2011 9:56:08 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; James C. Bennett
The paradox is that the god-of-gaps crowd

While some, notably Acquinas, call the First Cause God, it is neither required nor inherent in the argument (actually, this fact is used against it as an argument for the existence of God.)

434 posted on 01/19/2011 10:44:16 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Your question becomes: how many genes in 2% of the genome, and how many evolutionary steps would it take to transition that many genes? How many discrete species in between? (And that 2% figure is currently the object of great skepticism, so it could be much higher.)

What are the genes involved (those genes that would undergo mutational change resulting in evolution of phenotype)?

These questions represent only the beginning of a vast number of questions, none of which seem to be considered seriously by evolutionists.

To answer your last question, these things are necessarily elaborate because species-specific changes in phenotype correspond with vast differences in genotype.


435 posted on 01/19/2011 10:46:04 AM PST by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals (liberals) because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
I believe your problem is that you are trying to perceive potential energy as a stand-alone property. It is not; potential energy is a delta.

I believe you've nailed it. Many thanks, grasshopper...

436 posted on 01/19/2011 10:46:14 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; betty boop; xzins
Returning to the notion that body, soul, AND spirit exist for each of us, I am left to believe a where/when of limits exists for each of these aspects I possess. God need not prove Himself to us, He has Created us and the universe in which we have consciousness. And He has left us clues that we have and will continue to have a level of consciousness IN His universe even after the body ceases to function. We ARE alive in a temporal sense greater than the linear track of present sensing by the body's physiology connected to the behavior mechanism we call soul.

Indeed. betty boop gave me a book which explores the misguiding path of philosophy circa Descartes which ultimately resulted in science relying on a mechanistic universe and the recent realization of that derailing due to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And to that I would add Information Theory, Rosen et al. The book's title is "Cosmos and Transcendence" and I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in what happened.

Genesis 2:17 instructs that a level of 'being alive' was lost in Adam's willful disobedience (in dying at spirit level, you shall surely die at soul level, for the spirit is the immediate source of life of the soul, as the soul is the immediate source of life for the body; and just incase you eat of the tree of life and live forever in your 'dead-spirit' state, the fruit of immortal physical life shall be with held from you now ... paraphrasing Genesis).

We tend to think of dimension Time as a linear thing, segmented into pieces of present. But the universe exists in the volume of dimension Time, thus the 'death-bound' spirit exists in a volume which places that 'thing' in an eternal juxtaposition with the temporally limited physical body via the functioning soul.

So very true!

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for all your insights!

437 posted on 01/19/2011 10:54:34 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; TXnMA; betty boop; James C. Bennett; MarkBsnr; MHGinTN
On your first point, my testimony is not a proof. It is a statement of fact

God is not a fact, but something some people believe in. Facts are provable. Otherwise they are not facts.

I would not "prove" God at your request for the same reason

If you could prove the existence of God then you would be the first human to do so. So, don;t hold back!

I would not prove my brother had you suggested that he is a hypothesis or pink unicorn.

If you insisted that a pink unicorn is your brother I would it is a hypothesis, and an unlikely one (a) no one has ever seen a unicorn and (b) unicorns are something human minds postulated, and (c) if they did exist, unicorns (as described by human fancy) are ontologically unrelated to humans. The same reasons apply to any deity. Therefore, your argument is sophism.  

On your second point, the number of prior universes in a physical cosmology (if any) is irrelevant because:  In the absence of space, things cannot exist. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. Both space and time are required for physical causality, e.g. a Big Bang.

How do you know time and space did not exist eternally but God did?

All such physical cosmologies accomplish is to move the goalpost back to a prior universe relying on the pre-existence of, but never explaining the origin of, real space, real time and real physical causality.

How do you explain the origin of God? You don't! You assume he existed eternally. If you can assume that A existed eternally, why not B and C?

In sum, God whose Name is I AM or YHwH (He IS) often translated to "The Lord" cannot be denied.

More sophism. No one denies a name that can be found in a book. However, a name doesn't prove the subject named exists. Your belief or testimony of your belief does not constitute an objective proof.

Or as Physicist once put it (avoiding the obvious theological reference as scientists are wont to do) "existence exists."

In other words, the world exists. That's true. That which exists is. A rock, a gecko, a galaxy...where does "theological" come into this? 

On your third point, the "muwth muwth" of Genesis 2:17 is a Hebraism, an intensifying infinite absolute.

Your own link proves you wrong, AG. I intentionally abstained from using similar links in order not to drive the point too harshly. If you go back to your "muwth muwth" (which is not what the text reads, but rather muwth tamuwth*), you explained as the death of the body and the soul.

(*Your source—let me guess: Blue Letter Bible?—gives the root words, not how they appear in the text; diversify your sources before jumping to conclusions..)

Nothing of the sort does the Genesis 2:17 mean. It merely stresses that Adam will die, and it does so in a typical Jewish linguistic style known as Hebraism, which is characterized by a doublet, or repetition, of the verb in order to stress (or intensify) the point being made.

There are no two deaths, one for the soul and one for the body, as you implied when you wrote ("death death") for Adam, but one, as promised by God. 

The argument that Adam will die on the day when he eats the fruit did not mean the same, earth day, but a 1,000-year day is also a stretch since Adam's "earthly clock" didn't start ticking supposedly until he would have sinned, and the Bible says he died before he was 1,000 years old.

What Gen 2:17 says is that when Adam eats the fruit he will become mortal. That's all. Not dead in soul and body, not dead a millennium henceforth, just that he will be subject to death. Plain and simple.

438 posted on 01/19/2011 11:21:23 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Since 'eternal' is a temporal expression, why do you use it in your argument? ... The term 'ex nihilo' should be taken to mean 'without reliance upon' and we are offering to you that dimensions like Time and Space would be something your notion of god would need in order to create. You are arguing in a circular fashion, assuming that which is the actual essence of the debate, that before Time and before Space, is I AM, and I AM does not need pre-existing conditions, God authors the conditions, God authors the information which then uses the conditions to create.

When you jump into a circle, in effect stating 'before ex-nihilo', your perspective cannot come to any other conclusion than what you've built into it by starting from a false premise.

439 posted on 01/19/2011 11:43:12 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: bvw; James C. Bennett
"Sight" in the Country of the Blind can be quite a neurological disorder.

You are still avoiding to answer the simple question I asked you. Perhaps a humble admission that you misspoke when you implied that we can see "Wisdom" could end this charade of yours.

Seeing colors or images with musical notes is not a disadvantage, but it's not necessarily an advantage either. For someone like Beethoven it means is that he was able to "visualize" music, a physical phenomenon whose existence is factually provable, the way bats can "see" using sound rather than light.

It's doesn't prove we can see "Wisdom"—for, unlike the colors or the sound (which are part of the electromagnetic spectrum), a physical reality which can be demonstrated—"wisdom" is a quality, a descriptive  term, and your attempts to make it into something visible, or physically demonstrable is sophism.

So, since you made the statement, either answer my simple question directly, or just cease posting on the subject. I will take the latter as an admission that you misspoke and leave it at that.

440 posted on 01/19/2011 11:53:02 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
One of the reasons I like the First Cause argument is that there are fewer problems with it than without it

Is God eternally creating or did he, in his eternity, not always create? If you believe the latter, which is the First Cause argument, then the we have the paradox that an unchanging God would have had to change in order to begin creating!

On the other hand, if the ever-changing universe existed forever, then nothing had to change for the universe to exist and repeat itself eternally.

441 posted on 01/19/2011 12:10:55 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

ping


442 posted on 01/19/2011 12:11:20 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; D-fendr

Exactly.

It is easier to grasp the fundamental truth that change implies time than it is to assign arbitrary starting points that mark dramatic change, and then say that the processes that lead to it were independent of change (time).


443 posted on 01/19/2011 12:16:44 PM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
"The argument that Adam will die on the day when he eats the fruit did not mean the same, earth day ..."

Prove your exegesis or admit you are on the same foundation that you are seeking to disabuse. You might draw a clue from what Jesus said regarding the young man who pled he had to wait to follow Jesus until his father died ...

444 posted on 01/19/2011 12:23:16 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Since 'eternal' is a temporal expression

You need to open a dictonary and learn the meaning of words. There is nothing temporal in the term eternal. Fror Dicitonar. com:

e·ter·nal

–adjective
1.
without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2.
perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3.
enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4.
Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
–noun
5.
something that is eternal.
6.
the Eternal, God.

445 posted on 01/19/2011 12:25:19 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Invictus
William Ernest Henley, 1875

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Are you not the master of your own soul? We captains also in the armada of humanity see wisdom from our positions on the deck of life. You do too, surely.

Can I tell you what you see, or think? Of course! But what of it? For in the end YOU are the master of that ship.

You know the word "quality" enough to use it grammatically, but that very grammar as used says you are unable to admit what "quality" means if it means not which you wish to see it mean.

Do you see a memory? Is that seeing?

Do you see what can only be imagined? Is that seeing?

What is seeing, how do you see something 3-d?

Is there a cone for purple in the retina?

446 posted on 01/19/2011 12:26:36 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Prove your exegesis or admit you are on the same foundation that you are seeking to disabuse.

Simply put: Adam lived on the day after he ate the fruit.

447 posted on 01/19/2011 12:28:58 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

And besides you would do well to read the Wells’ story. You can skip the long introduction and go right to the climber’s fall off the mountain, and continue thereon to discover he, in order to live at Peace in the Country of the Blind, came to the point where he had agreed to and was ready to have his eyes removed. In the Country of the Blind eyes that see are an affliction, and make a man to be at odds with all others.

Of course, Wells’ story was fiction.


448 posted on 01/19/2011 12:32:00 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

You used the term in a temporal sense trying to juxtapose the universe with ‘eteranally existing dimensions time and space, as if these come ‘before’ (a temporal term) the god you wish to disabuse as creator of time and space. You are clever, but not as clever as you presume to be. Again, you assume the assertion that god is not eternal, then assume that space and time are eternal, then you try to draw a conclusion that god cannot create ex nihilo because soemthing must pre-exist the creation of this universe. Your whirling dervish act is amusing, but rather transparent. Have a nice day


449 posted on 01/19/2011 12:34:30 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Is God eternally creating or did he, in his eternity, not always create?

I think we run into the same problem here as before when using eternal to mean "neverending" instead of "outside time."

The argument for the cause of time being outside time means words such as "always" are nonsensical. If there is no time, there's no notions such as always or the contrary "for a limited period of time."

On the other hand, if the ever-changing universe existed forever

It surprises me to see you refer to this theory since the current scientific evidence is against it. This was the view prior. The debate now is over a closed versus open universe, with the current - not to be confused with firmly proven - view that it is open; the end state therefore being something akin to a Big Freeze.

450 posted on 01/19/2011 12:34:53 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 1,701-1,733 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson