Posted by
Message
FightnBobLafollette
Wisconsin Fan
Member since Oct 2017
5932 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

to understand why people continue to believe that the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs are millions of years old. Not one person has provided solid proof of this. Its all theories. We've been lied to for a very long time about evolution and its time that people wake up and realize it.



If all it is all theories where is your proof that is a lie?

And your source that the earth isn’t s billions of years old is? The Bible?

Lol


WildManGoose
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2005
983 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
[quote]"When you really stop and take one step back and consider how enormously complex the body is, there's no possibility it could be an accident."

There aren't any accidents in evolution. For someone who was an "evolutionist" he sure has a bad grasp on evolution. Not to mention, 260 million years is a very long time for development.

I'd like to know his thoughts on dinosaurs.


Bass Tiger
Missouri Fan
Member since Oct 2014
12106 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
If you’re an atheist or agnostic and you’re impressed with Hitchens, Krauss, Dawkins, etc. beliefs about origins of life, then you need to listen to Dr James Tour. Dr Tour destroys the notion, with “science” that the most basic single cell life form came from some random chain of events.

Dr Tour is a highly recognized organic chemist, nanotechnology genius, and a Christian but he doesn’t use faith to debunk every origin of life claim by main stream science. As a matter of fact he has an ongoing challenge to anyone to prove theycan take non organic material, turn that material into the building blocks of life...carbohydrates, lipids, protein, nucleic acid.

To save anyone who accepts his challenge some time he will give them the most basic organic material and a sterile lab with a controlled environment. So far no one has publicly accepted the challenge and no one has come forth with proof they can create life.

But we’re supposed to believe nothing created everything......
I don’t believe anyone will deliver on his challenge to produce life from scratch....it will only prove it took an intelligence to produce the life in a lab. Lol!

Dr James Tour discusses origins of life.
This post was edited on 7/11 at 5:35 pm


FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

come on now. you know there are plenty of biblical scholars who fall in the theistic evolution camp. including billy graham. i'm pretty sure he's not misreading scripture
People bring their own biases to the scriptures. It happens all the time and its happened since Moses. This is no different. Instead of letting scripture interpret scripture, people interpret scripture by their own experiences. A lot of good and godly men have taken on bad theology because of this mistake.

quote:

not applicable. they weren't aware of darwinism. scripture allows for more than one position on the matter
They were aware of other philosophies and the Bible doesn't allow for those other philosophies because there are contradictions between the Bible and those philosophies. "Theistic evolution" is no different in that regard. Scripture as a whole does not allow for such a view of evolution.

quote:

this has occurred. in spades
Not from the Bible. The evidence presented is extra-biblical and taken from an anti-God perspective. Theistic evolution is a middle ground meant to bridge the gap between what we "know" about evolution and what the Bible says. It's not something you would even consider if you read the Bible without trying to insert evolutionary theory into it.

quote:

the bible doesn't only "provide" one position on this matter
Yes, it does. There is no way you can read the Bible by itself and come to conclusion of theistic evolution without first assuming theistic evolution (or some variation of evolution).

quote:

did not have any evidence of darwinism. not applicable.
You miss the point. You make it seem like this molecules-to-man evolution concept hasn't ever been considered prior to Darwin and his direct antecedents. There were philosophers purporting these sorts of thoughts long before Darwin even if the details weren't fleshed out.

But in a way, you are proving my point. Theologians for nearly 2,000 years (and Jewish scholars prior to that) didn't even consider "evolution" as a Biblical option because they hadn't heard about Darwinian evolution. This tells me that the Bible doesn't even suggest such a thing and that you have to twist the scriptures to even make such an option viable. A plain reading of scripture doesn't present the reader with that notion.

quote:

again, not relevant. there's a huge gap between postulating about the heliocentric model and actually observing it, a la galileo. ditto evolution and darwinism.
Funny you should use the term "observe" when talking about this. Evolutionary theory of origins cannot be observed or falsified so it's technically not even scientific.

quote:

please tell me you're not calling billy graham a heretic.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Read this part again: "The underlying presupposition is that God's word is the fundamental basis for interpreting truth and reality, not that truth and reality as we perceive it interpret God's word."

I was saying that Christians always have to start with the Bible for understanding truth. Theistic evolution actually starts with extra-biblical philosophy (it's not science) and attempts to reconcile the Bible with that.

quote:

i am aware of all of them and this situation is not the same
Read my response in the previous section: Christians always have to assume the Bible is true and start with the Bible, not start with the truth of some other philosophy and then try to make the Bible fit it. If the Bible is true, there will be no need to try to make it "fit". The evolutionary theory of origins is not even scientific, yet so many Christians are willing to abandon the clear teaching of scripture because they don't want to seem unscientific or foolish in the eyes of the world.

quote:

that's not what is happening. genesis allows for more than one interpretation on anthropogenic origins. one of those options matches what we know from physical history. it's a reasonable position to maintain.
A couple of things. First, Genesis does not provide an account that clearly supports a theistic evolution stance. Even in the narrative of the giving of the 10 commandments, the 4th commandment references God creating the world in 6 days and resting on the 7th as a model for us. That doesn't really make sense if creation wasn't a literal 6 days. Plus, Moses was the author of both of those accounts. There's no indication that they were meant to be understood differently than what they were.

Secondly, we don't "know" that we have evolved from star dust over billions of years since the big bang. That is assumed based on naturalistic, materialistic presuppositions that guide the interpretation of the evidence we do have. That theory is simply assumed based on non-biblical assumptions. You have to start with unbiblical assumptions to then try to make the Bible fit the narrative by twisting the scriptures.

quote:

this is not at all an implication of theistic evolution.
It most certainly is. Romans 5, for instance, talks about Adam dying and Jesus dying and equating them. You have to equivocate the meaning of death in terms of physical and spiritual in order to make the passage not mean physical death coming into the world through Adam's sin. Evolution requires death to have occurred prior to sin coming in to the world. Jesus conquering death as the second Adam doesn't make as much sense if death didn't actually come into the world through Adam. Spiritual death will always exist by means of punishment in Hell, so clearly that's not what the text means.

Also, Jesus is compared to Adam many times. If Adam is mythologized, it makes little sense to compare Jesus to a myth.

Sin also doesn't really come into the world through Adam if Adam is symbolic of mankind. The Bible says there was no sin before Adam disobeyed God. If evolution is true, there wasn't an Adam who became the representative for mankind as Jesus is our representative by faith now. We have no representative, meaning original sin didn't happen and we aren't under it. There are a lot of theological problems with this theory.

quote:

also not happening
Uh, yes, they are.

quote:

this is a false dilemma regarding theistic evolution
No it's not a false dilemma. Why does the Bible need to be twisted in the first place if it isn't being made to fit the man-made theory of evolutionary origins? Man has become the authority and is attempting to change the meaning of the Bible to fit that authority.

quote:

false. it harmonizes and there is nothing theologically or hermeneutically unsound about that
There is nothing to harmonize, but you just proved my point. You have to make the Bible say something it doesn't in order to fit what other men are saying is true. The Bible isn't the authority in that case, but men.

quote:

also false. again, billy graham explained this.
Graham said it makes no difference if the Biblical narrative were factually true or if we evolved and God put a spirit into man. He didn't address how sin could enter the world if there were violations of God's moral law prior to Adam being "created" (evolved and a spirit put into him?) Graham simply didn't want to turn people off from the scriptures so he tried to find a middle ground between the popular narrative of evolutionary origins and the Biblical account of creation. If you have more information on his specific beliefs about these issues, please point me in the right way, because he seems to have no thought this issue through.




Fun Bunch
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since May 2008
63671 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
“Evolutionist” lol


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
CelticDog
LSU Fan
Member since Apr 2015
27967 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

either it’s demonstrably nonsense scientifically, or god is a being who seems undeserving of reverence.





1. There is no such thing as God the father.
Its a myth.
2. Yes. Nonsense. It stood for years when there was no science. Then there were burnings at the stake to stop discussing observations.

now faith is the only defense.



Gaspergou202
LSU Fan
Metairie, LA
Member since Jun 2016
9054 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

1. There is no such thing as God the father. Its a myth. 2. Yes. Nonsense. It stood for years when there was no science. Then there were burnings at the stake to stop discussing observations. now faith is the only defense.

Explain creation without faith. You cannot.

Not believing in a Creator as a creation takes a leap of faith more ridiculous than belief in God the Creator.

Science is only man’s attempt to find out how He did it.

So I believe in God and I THINK he intelligently designed me and used the process of evolution to partially accomplish it. In the beginning God said let there be a Big Bang and it was good!


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

“It’s really complicated to it couldn’t be an accident”

Isn’t a compelling case
i don't know about the op but, people like francis collins and tipler have made a really strong argument that the complexity we see in life is basically impossible to have happened without design.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

And your source that the earth isn’t s billions of years old is? The Bible?

Lol
why isn't the bible a reliable resource?


bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

There aren't any accidents in evolution
there most certainly are. they're called mutations, usually caused by radiation. the causes are not endemic to earth's natural environment. iow, from outside the system. those factors cause changes that otherwise would not have happened if earth's natural selection were left to it's own forces.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors
Advertisement
FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

There is no such thing as God the father. Its a myth.
That's some mighty fine faith you got there. I think it may overshadow my own.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
FightnBobLafollette
Wisconsin Fan
Member since Oct 2017
5932 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

why isn't the bible a reliable resource?


For the age of the earth?

If you can’t figure that out there is no point in going further.
This post was edited on 7/12 at 4:40 pm


FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

For the age of the earth?

If you can’t figire that out there is no point in going further.
There are some logical conclusions that can be drawn about the age of the earth and the origins of mankind from the Bible.


bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

he has an ongoing challenge to anyone to prove theycan take non organic material, turn that material into the building blocks of life...carbohydrates, lipids, protein, nucleic acid
dembski has used this approach too. he points out that when people try to recreate abiogenesis, they're actually making the case for id

quote:

nothing created everything
creatio ex nihilo. ex nihilo, nihil fit.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
FightnBobLafollette
Wisconsin Fan
Member since Oct 2017
5932 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

There are some logical conclusions that can be drawn about the age of the earth and the origins of mankind from the Bible.


Sure. Lol


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
01
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Washington, D.C.
Member since Nov 2009
41948 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

YEC is pretty exclusive to some evangelical denominations or churches, currently.


Most of which are 100 years old or younger.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

There is no such thing as God the father.


quote:

Its a myth
prove it. "but but you can't prove a negative."

quote:

It stood for years when there was no science
and seems to be still standing.

quote:

Then there were burnings at the stake to stop discussing observations
wrong.

quote:

now faith is the only defense
it's like you're not even reading this thread. let me guess, you think the current scientists and philosophers who are christians are compartmentalizing.

geez. so pathetic. it's amazing what some people think about religion


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

people interpret scripture by their own experiences
again, theistic evolutionists are not doing this.

quote:

bad theology
you have said this multiple times but the only 2 reasons you have offered for it were mistaken

quote:

They were aware of other philosophies
i addressed this already. there is a huge gap between what Aristarchus postulated and what galileo observed. ditto Xenophanes and darwin. totally, totally different.

quote:

the Bible doesn't allow for those other philosophies
the creation narrative absolutely does. it allows for day-age, gap, yec, theistic evolution.

quote:

there are contradictions between the Bible and those philosophies
there is no contradiction between theistic evolution and the bible. again, these biblical scholars are just as hermeneutically skilled as anyone.

quote:

Scripture as a whole does not allow for such a view of evolution
i'm just inviting you to consider that you are wrong on the matter. plenty of biblical scholars are coexisting on the creation narrative. it's not a hill anyone should be dying on.

quote:

The evidence presented is extra-biblical
which poses no hermeneutical problem

quote:

taken from an anti-God perspective
this is absolutely not true

quote:

Theistic evolution is a middle ground meant to bridge the gap between what we "know" about evolution and what the Bible says
it's interesting that you describe something that is sound and reasonable in derogatory terms

quote:

It's not something you would even consider if you read the Bible without trying to insert evolutionary theory into it
only because the physical evidence wouldn't be present. the narrative is not a scientifically granular treatise on human origins which means our perspective can evolve.

quote:

Yes, it does
again, i'm inviting you to consider you are wrong. plenty of godly thinkers fall into that camp. they are fully aware of the text and the traditional interpretations.

quote:

There is no way you can read the Bible by itself and come to conclusion of theistic evolution without first assuming theistic evolution (or some variation of evolution)
this is false. no such a priori assumption is necessary.

quote:

molecules-to-man evolution
you're saying God can't accomplish this in the context of his providential will for creation?

quote:

hasn't ever been considered prior to Darwin
you are unnecessarily stuck on this idea. i've responded to it at length

quote:

This tells me that the Bible doesn't even suggest such a thing
an unnecessary conclusion. people had a faith relationship with God prior to Jesus' time on earth but their faith was no less rational or justified.

quote:

twist the scriptures
you are asserting this without any sort of forensic/exegetical analysis.

quote:

A plain reading of scripture
again, this is an inflammatory and provocative statement. that kind of language is not hermeneutically/exegetically sound and has caused many unnecessary divisions. there isn't one, definitive position on the matter, many great thinkers have landed in different camps and have all coexisted on the subject.

quote:

Evolutionary theory of origins cannot be observed or falsified
not entirely true. evolution is a rock solid fact. universal common descent is not. theistic evolution harmonizes with the former, is not dependent on the latter.

quote:

Theistic evolution actually starts with extra-biblical philosophy
just so we're clear, what you are saying is patently mistaken.

quote:

so many Christians are willing to abandon the clear teaching of scripture
it makes me sad you actually believe this. again, this is provocative language that is not helpful or necessary

quote:

they don't want to seem unscientific or foolish in the eyes of the world.
now you're trying to read people's minds

quote:

First, Genesis does not provide an account that clearly supports a theistic evolution stance
debatable

quote:

the 4th commandment references God creating the world in 6 days and resting on the 7th as a model for us. That doesn't really make sense if creation wasn't a literal 6 days
this is an exegetically myopic stance. you are unnecessarily defining ??? (yom) as a 24 hour period. this is not etymologically sound. if you have taken exegesis, then you are familiar with an academic word study of ancient hebrew. checking the usual sources, strong's/bdb/holladay, that word does not always mean a 24 hour period. that is why any oec advocates (day-age, gap, theistic evolution) are on solid hermeneutical ground with their interpretation of the creation narrative

quote:

we don't "know" that we have evolved from star dust over billions of years since the big bang
theistic evolution does not necessarily make this extrapolation

quote:

Romans 5, for instance, talks about Adam dying
we've already covered this ground. many christians do not believe paul was only referring to physical death. we can start to laboriously cover the commentaries if you wish, or you can just believe that i wouldn't assert that if it weren't true.

quote:

equivocate the meaning of death
nope. again, an exegetical word study does not support what you are saying.

quote:

Evolution requires death to have occurred prior to sin coming in to the world
even this is not entirely true. you could merely make this application for any "humans" that existed before the biblical adam.

quote:

so clearly that's not what the text means
again, this is provocative language. plenty of biblical scholars are every bit as aware of ancient hebrew as you are and do not agree with what you are saying. the problem with your characterization is that it implies they are exercising a spiritual defect that might even be eroding/preventing their salvation. as a brother in christ, i am informing you that is not something we should be leveling at each other. this is not a christological controversy.

quote:

If Adam is mythologized
i have tried to correct this but you remain recalcitrant. i referred you to the billy graham quote on the matter. theistic evolutionists do not assume adam is metaphorical. there can be a literal adam amongst the development of hominids. to say that can't be is to limit what God can do with creation

quote:

If evolution is true, there wasn't an Adam who became the representative for mankind
this is only true if you mischaracterize theistic evolution

quote:

Uh, yes, they are
this is not a scholarly refutation. i have explained specifically how their position is consistent with scripture. i have rebutted your assertions which require mischaracterizing the position you are opposing. they have not at any point diminished God's authority or Jesus' christology.

quote:

No it's not a false dilemma
it most certainly is. you said it's either God's word or human experience. you did not include the option that they are harmonizing both, which is hermeneutically sound. you left out an option which explains why it's a false dilemma

quote:

There is nothing to harmonize
why would you say this? it harmonizes scripture with what we know from physical history

quote:

He didn't address how sin could enter the world if there were violations of God's moral law prior to Adam being "created"
i have addressed this and i cited graham in response to your assertion that adam has to be metaphorical. that is not true.

quote:

Graham simply didn't want
it is not helpful for you to read minds

quote:

he seems to have no thought this issue through
his statement on the matter is pretty clear


bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

If you can’t figure that out there is no point in going further
so you're just full of crap. that's all you had to say

let me know when you have a substantive, scholarly, mature reply


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

again, theistic evolutionists are not doing this.
Yes, they are. There's no reasonable way to come to a theistic evolution conclusion from the Bible alone. It has to be a conclusion arrived at by interpreting the Bible in light of something else, like naturalistic views of origins. It's an attempt to make the Bible fit evolutionary theory, which is why no one in church history would have suggested such a thing prior to Darwin, because it isn't a natural conclusion from the text.

quote:

you have said this multiple times but the only 2 reasons you have offered for it were mistaken
Nope. It's bad theology plain and simple, and it starts with bad hermeneutics.

quote:

i addressed this already. there is a huge gap between what Aristarchus postulated and what galileo observed. ditto Xenophanes and darwin. totally, totally different.
You missed my point entirely. It doesn't matter what the specifics were as there were already philosophies in place that attempted to make sense of the world from a naturalistic perspective, as evolutionary theory attempts to do. Christians could have tried to interpret the Bible in such ways in the past as Christians are trying to do today through "theistic evolution".

quote:

the creation narrative absolutely does. it allows for day-age, gap, yec, theistic evolution.
It doesn't when you read the Bible as a whole, which is what I've been trying to point out to you.

quote:

there is no contradiction between theistic evolution and the bible. again, these biblical scholars are just as hermeneutically skilled as anyone.
There are several contradictions and I've noted several already. You have to come to completely different interpretative conclusions about the Bible than has occurred for 2,000 years (and longer) solely because of external, naturalistic influences. It's essentially saying no one really understood the Bible at all because they didn't know about evolution. It's ridiculous on its face.

quote:

i'm just inviting you to consider that you are wrong on the matter. plenty of biblical scholars are coexisting on the creation narrative. it's not a hill anyone should be dying on.
I've thought through the matter and I've concluded that the Bible is not wrong on the matter (it doesn't ultimately matter what I think about it as God's truth isn't dependent on my opinion). And it most certainly is a hill to die on if it nullifies key truths about God and man that water down the need for the Gospel.

quote:

which poses no hermeneutical problem
Yes, it does. As I just stated, it creates a big problem in that it assumes that no one in the history of the Church understood the Bible until Darwin and a bunch of anti-theists started coming up with naturalistic ways to account for the world without God, and Christians felt the need to start re-interpreting the Bible in light of that. This hermeneutic affects a lot more than the first few chapters of Genesis.

quote:

this is absolutely not true
It absolutely is. Can you show me where "theistic evolution" was suggested as a plausible interpretation of the scriptures prior to Darwin? Why would anyone even begin to believe such a thing if not for the felt need to reconcile an anti-God perspective of origins with the Bible?

quote:

it's interesting that you describe something that is sound and reasonable in derogatory terms
I don't find it interesting at all. I will describe this theory in derogatory terms because I believe it to be a false "doctrine" that can lead to the questioning of the scriptures as a whole and can even destroy the basis for the Gospel. This isn't as much of a non-issue as you are making it out to be.

quote:

only because the physical evidence wouldn't be present. the narrative is not a scientifically granular treatise on human origins which means our perspective can evolve.
So you admit that this is an interpretation of the Bible that relies entirely on external (extra-biblical) evidences to understand God's truth? That no one from Moses through almost the entire Church age knew the truth and had a wrong view of origins? That's a pretty lofty claim.

quote:

again, i'm inviting you to consider you are wrong. plenty of godly thinkers fall into that camp. they are fully aware of the text and the traditional interpretations.
And again, I've considered it and reject it entirely. There are a lot of godly thinkers that are wrong about a lot of things because they are led to conclusions based on things other than the scriptures. It's the difference between eisegesis and exegesis.

quote:

this is false. no such a priori assumption is necessary
Of course it is. How else would you assume theistic evolution is true unless you already believed evolutionary theory was true and then tried to square that with the Bible? The proof is what you keep using to defend the theory: that no one considered it until the "evidence" came along. I'm saying that unless you already believed the "evidence" for evolutionary theory you wouldn't naturally come to the conclusion of theistic evolution. It's just not there in the text to make that conclusion by itself.

quote:

you're saying God can't accomplish this in the context of his providential will for creation?
Not in the way that He's said He's accomplished it, no. While God can do anything He wants, He has told us what He has done, and there's no way to get theistic evolution as the means for how He did what He did from the text without forcing externalities into it.

quote:

you are unnecessarily stuck on this idea. i've responded to it at length
It's a necessary point to stress. You're saying that ever Jew and Christian was ignorant of the truth of our origins until we started trying to reconcile Darwin's theories with the Bible.

quote:

an unnecessary conclusion. people had a faith relationship with God prior to Jesus' time on earth but their faith was no less rational or justified.
A necessary conclusion. Show me where a person can get theistic evolution from the plain reading of the scriptures without first assuming evolutionary theory? And their "faith relationship" was based on God's promises, including and especially His promises of a messiah. Jesus fulfilled the promises of God, including the promise made before Adam and Eve where God said the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head.

quote:

you are asserting this without any sort of forensic/exegetical analysis
I've already provided this. The scriptures say a lot of things about our origins and the creation of the world, not just in the first few chapters of Genesis, and there isn't any room for theistic evolution without first assuming evolutionary theory. Therefore, you have to twist the plain meaning of the scriptures to fit external evidences.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 7next pagelast page

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram