• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 13,000 members today

    Register Log In

Theistic Evolution

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Member
Theistic evolution




  • Something to keep in mind before I start.
    • 2 Tim. 2:23-24 (NLT)



      Again I say, don't get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. [24] The Lord's servants must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone. They must be able to teach effectively and be patient with difficult people.
Evolution is a very controversial topic. I am mot writing this to spark controversy and argument. I just want to bring to light another view of creation and evolution. Theistic evolution is the belief that God created through the process of evolution. I am neither against nor for theistic evolution. I am open to any comments; I really hope that I do not become the difficult person that is mentioned in that verse. I just want to learn more about it, whether it is right or wrong to believe it. I really need your input on this.

At this point I am undecided.

What Theistic Evolution
Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. This is an atheistic belief. No God involved.

Theistic evolution or Evolutionary creationism is the belief that some or all of the beliefs in creation is compatible with some or all of the beliefs of evolution. This is a possible Christian belief. This belief involves God.

I will not elaborate in the topic, for it would be too long. I do not intend this to be an essay. If you want to learn more here are several links.

Links


(Note to Chad: I would like to apologize for not asking permission to post these links. I am simply too confuse about the issue and want some answers)


Link to the essay on the topic at theistic-ecolution.com Theistic Evolution Essay by Carl Drews

Link to an opposing site: answers in genesis, from world renowned teacher on the topic of creation: Brother Ken Ham 10 dangers of theistic evolution article by Werner Gitt.

Your comments would be greatly appreciated

Thank you,



Your brother,
 
Last edited:
Member
A response

yegoryeliz

I want to say upfrount that I have a Science Degree (Hons) and am a masters student so I am not talking out of my hat here.

As I see it Theistic Evolution is an attempt by Christians to not look foolish before the wise of the world.

now that last point is my own take on things but it lines up with Romans 12:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 1:17-25, Isaiah 29:19 is cool too.

Basically if you want to believe that Macro Evolution occured you need death before the sin of adam, what ever way you look at it. This is the sticking point (you also need to deal with the textual problem of day in Genesis 1 and 2).

Now I am no scholar of Hebrew so I will say only that as I understand it the word used in these passages is the word for 24 hour day, it is used in this context only, there are other time period word that could have been used, they were not.

The Science this I can claim 'expert' knowledge of, Evolution is Bunk, it doesn't work there are problems with the formation of proteins, the formation of the DNA helix, the generation of new information and that is just the biochemical issues.

There is also a chemcial objection the second Law of Thermodynamics states the total entropy of the universe is continually increasing, entropy is increasing disorder or increasing dispersion. Laws are tested and expermently proven bits of Science so trump theories. Evolutionary theory teaches that the building blocks of life combinaed to make more complicated biological chemicals and then on into true life. You see if you can figure out who failed Logic 101.

There are also issues with the time scale, Carbon 14 dating is junk so are alot of the other dating tools, basically it is a house of cards basied on a philisophical possition.

Darwin was influenced by the work of poets like milton (paridise lost) and the theisim of his day (david hume is from about the same time). This meant that Darwin didn't believe in a God of pain and suffering. So seeing this pain and suffering instead of reading job and realising there was a problem in the pulpet he chucked God out of his philosphical frame work and started again.

Darwin looked for a reason for pain and suffering other than sin entering the world and God curseing us with Death, Evolution was his answer (a very old idea the Greeks first thought it up around 400 BC). It is a conflicting philosiphy and religion not a serious Science.

Although there are lots of people who take it seriously because they need to be able to find a reason for the world existing apart from God. (more info see Cornelius hunter's excellent book Darwin's God 2001 Brazos Press.

Basically it comes down to do you trust God when He says "all Scripture is God-Breathed" 2- Tim 3:16, if you do don't worry about looking foolish in the eyes of the wise "For the foolishness of GOD is wiser than man's wisdom, 1 corth 1:25.

Peace

Theo
 
Last edited:
Member
Thanx a lot theo. ok i can now officially state that I am against Theistic evolution. i finished readind that essay that the guy posted on the topic. (link in original thread) at the begining it sounded quite convincing. but toward the end it figured out it was all wrong. and thanx 4 mentioning the fact that there was no death before sin. i totally forgot that fact. o and about the 2nd law of thermodinamics, i fogot about that too.

Thank you very much for your answer.

your humble brother,
yegor yelizavetskiy
 
Last edited:
Member
Just a point i would like to add.Part of the belief of evolution consists of the fact that over time our brains have evolved-implying that early man was rather dim.I remember reading an article a couple of years ago(the finer details forgotten)about a frozen man being discovered(russia i think)perfectly preserved.It turned the scientific world on its head because after dating the body(it was old)they could not believe the level of workmanship and sophistication that had gone into making his clothes,tools and weapons.In the same sense the same can be said of many examples in the bible.The design and construction of the pyramids and the temple to name but two showed an incredible level of skill and intelligence.

The point im trying to make is that God made man with an intelligent mind.The same level of intellect given to us was given to the early men of Gods creation.Never should we confuse technological advance with evolution.
 
Administrator
Staff Member
Amen sparky, very true! How sad to think that we for example we were once apes and evolvled into humans, or once "cavemen" who evolved into "business" people?

So we go from holding a club to holding a cell phone? :D LOL

Sorry, I could not resist.
 
Member
I have already clarified that I am against this theory, but i have several more questions.

the author of the essay, uses the argument that when God said "let the earth bring forth..." he commanded the earth to evolve and create life forms. we have mentioned that DNA cant just evolve like that because it violates scientific laws http://godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html. (not a link just a reference) His argument concerning that is if God willed it it would happen.

another argument the author uses, is that the bible is not alwayls litteral (in the case of revelation, and parts of the book of daniel) so therefore the reference to death in
Genesis 2:17* does not have a litteral meaning, because Adam adn Eve lived on after that. Eather the Bible was refering to a different death (spiritual death) or a different kind of day, 2 Peter 3:8 "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day". and Adam lived another 930 after he was kickes out of the Garden of Eden.

how do we prove that arguments wrong, can anyone help?



*for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
 
Member
I agree with you sparky. I mentioned in my opening thread that i was against this theory (heresy). I wasnt confusing technological advance with evolution. I just need some solid Proof against this theory. I am just doing reserch right now. I want to post on my site ( which is not complete yet) an essay that would disprove this theory.
 
Member
he he he!!!

yegoryeliz said:
Theistic evolution




  • Something to keep in mind before I start.
    • 2 Tim. 2:23-24 (NLT)



      Again I say, don't get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. [24] The Lord's servants must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone. They must be able to teach effectively and be patient with difficult people.
Evolution is a very controversial topic. I am mot writing this to spark controversy and argument. I just want to bring to light another view of creation and evolution. Theistic evolution is the belief that God created through the process of evolution. I am neither against nor for theistic evolution. I am open to any comments; I really hope that I do not become the difficult person that is mentioned in that verse. I just want to learn more about it, whether it is right or wrong to believe it. I really need your input on this.

At this point I am undecided.

What Theistic Evolution
Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. This is an atheistic belief. No God involved.

Theistic evolution or Evolutionary creationism is the belief that some or all of the beliefs in creation is compatible with some or all of the beliefs of evolution. This is a possible Christian belief. This belief involves God.

I will not elaborate in the topic, for it would be too long. I do not intend this to be an essay. If you want to learn more here are several links.

Links


(Note to Chad: I would like to apologize for not asking permission to post these links. I am simply too confuse about the issue and want some answers)


Link to the essay on the topic at theistic-ecolution.com http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html Essay by Carl Drews

Link to an opposing site: answers in genesis, from world renowned teacher on the topic of creation: Brother Ken Ham http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp article by Werner Gitt.

Your comments would be greatly appreciated

Thank you,



Your brother,

Yegor Yelizavetskiy.

the theory as i understand it as Evolution goes liek this...

" Nothin colided with Nothign and that Nothing became a Something "

LOL. if some oen can show me nothin in the first place then i woudl believe this.. LOL but as you cannot see nothing or ever feel Nothin well i found my first Flaw with that.

Love Simon!!!
 
Member
yegoryeliz said:
I have already clarified that I am against this theory, but i have several more questions.

the author of the essay, uses the argument that when God said "let the earth bring forth..." he commanded the earth to evolve and create life forms. we have mentioned that DNA cant just evolve like that because it violates scientific laws http://godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html. (not a link just a reference) His argument concerning that is if God willed it it would happen.

another argument the author uses, is that the bible is not alwayls litteral (in the case of revelation, and parts of the book of daniel) so therefore the reference to death in
Genesis 2:17* does not have a litteral meaning, because Adam adn Eve lived on after that. Eather the Bible was refering to a different death (spiritual death) or a different kind of day, 2 Peter 3:8 "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day". and Adam lived another 930 after he was kickes out of the Garden of Eden.

how do we prove that arguments wrong, can anyone help?



*for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

ok this one stumped me for a moment, I think this is because the whole argument isn't here. An argument has a presupossition (or a whole set of them). An Idea or ideas that the writer of the argument assumes to be true and doesn't deffend.

Now know that we do it as well, I believe in God - this is the underlying presuposition behind alot of what I think and argue.

This guy has another presupposistion, or rather he doesn't trust God to give a true witness of Him self, if God says that He gives true witness(see John 5:31-45 for Jesus comments on true witness).

Because of where the argument starts, it ends in the wrong place, so he (the writer) has to twist the plain words of the Scripture around until they line up with where he started. To confrunt this argument ask them why don't they believe what God says about himself. "my testimony is valid" John 8:14.

also think about howmany times Jesus trusts the OT, the 40 days in the wilderness, the contention about divorce. He knew the Scripture to be completly trustworthy because He knew the author

Theo
 
Member
YAY!!!

i'm so Xcited that some one agrees with me... he he he not often that that happens..

Love Simon!!!
 

Similar threads

Top