tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post6493126780326278770..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: My Semester with an Evolution-NaziPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger151125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73496698855984165232010-06-30T10:54:36.406-07:002010-06-30T10:54:36.406-07:00Aaron - I agree - that would pretty much sum up my...Aaron - I agree - that would pretty much sum up my convictions on this "critical" point of theology.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89590324500093289302010-06-30T08:19:30.018-07:002010-06-30T08:19:30.018-07:00“or 24-million year) days."”
Yeah, and you c...“or 24-million year) days."”<br /><br />Yeah, and you could name it “roundsquares.com”Ron (aka RealityCheck)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03274921909241630662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28868020485297279382010-06-30T07:18:05.672-07:002010-06-30T07:18:05.672-07:00Or you could just draw a picture of a fence and yo...Or you could just draw a picture of a fence and you standing on it.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22551201294283751312010-06-30T06:21:22.494-07:002010-06-30T06:21:22.494-07:00I should probably write a webpage entitled "W...I should probably write a webpage entitled "Why I'm dogmatic on everything else in the Bible, but undecided about 24-hour (or 24-million year) days."Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11383610259880999942010-06-29T21:58:32.358-07:002010-06-29T21:58:32.358-07:00I stopped reading the debate a while back so excus...I stopped reading the debate a while back so excuse me if this is now off the mark a bit (or if I’m now talking to myself) but I know at one point there was some discussion about “day” from Gods perspective or mans. Snooping around I ran into this article on the Creation Ministries International website entitled, “Why is CMI so dogmatic on 24-hour creation days?”. The article is a response to a person taking issue with CMI’s 24-hour stance. It starts off with a section entitled, “The days were ‘God’s days’ not ‘man’s day’s”. It then goes on to address many of the things that have been brought up in the last week or so on the different blogs that have addressed this issue. I think it’s convincing but to each there own.<br /><br />http://creation.com/why-is-cmi-so-dogmatic-on-24-hour-creation-daysRon (aka RealityCheck)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03274921909241630662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64384535923112023882010-06-29T17:01:43.631-07:002010-06-29T17:01:43.631-07:00I think the biggest issue here is one that people ...I think the biggest issue here is one that people keep bringing up, that of interpretation.<br />Now, as far as I can tell, the evidence for Microevolution is strong, but no creationist disputes that. I'm not learned enough to elaborate on macroevolution, But I do know for a fact that abiogenesis is bunk, mostly because of the enviornment used to determine the results.<br />The main issue I have here is that Theistic Evolution tries to find an origin story that squares with Scripture and it's version of science, which is...Impossible.<br />Genesis is a historical narrative, regardless of whether people believe in the story or not. It's written in the exact same style as other books of history(Exodus, etc) and no where does the style indicate that it's intended as an allegorical/poetic/metaphorical creation fable. Kind of funny, the most obvious fact(Genesis is written as history) is the most deflected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86825441037240663922010-06-29T16:58:56.878-07:002010-06-29T16:58:56.878-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23532839802796935632010-06-29T10:05:07.758-07:002010-06-29T10:05:07.758-07:00Death and disease before sin? I don't think so...Death and disease before sin? I don't think so. Is not the earth itself groaning as a consequence of sin?<br /><br />I don't think a fella could go wrong with the Word of God as the source of his beliefs and to start his thinking from it. It works for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90069124185608611952010-06-29T09:09:47.321-07:002010-06-29T09:09:47.321-07:00If I see bear tracks in the woods, I can be reason...<i>If I see bear tracks in the woods, I can be reasonably sure there is a bear in there somewhere (even if I can't see him). That may be faith but it's based on solid evidence</i>.<br /><br />First, that a bear is in the woods is a <i>conclusion</i>. Sure, it's based on man's understanding and experience which means that under normal circumstances the conclusion is probably the correct one. However, it's still a conclusion which could be wrong. You could test your conclusion 500 times and on the 501st, you could still be wrong, especially if God told you ahead of time that He put the tracks there.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11515782696214720632010-06-29T08:44:23.536-07:002010-06-29T08:44:23.536-07:00Steve,
Perhaps not, but we dare not accept anythi...Steve,<br /><br />Perhaps not, but we dare not accept anything that contradicts our understanding of Scripture as truth, unless we first re-examine Scripture and assure ourselves that we are indeed, understanding Scripture right.<br /><br />What I'm seeing is a tendency to first set aside our understanding of Scripture in the light of scientific "discovery" rather than first setting aside an apparent discovery in the light of Scripture.<br /><br />The common ancestor bit being a prime example.<br />There simply is no way to get from Scripture that we are descended from anything but man. And so we must set aside, or reinterpret any data, that suggests a common ancestor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27956172236102097612010-06-29T08:42:58.033-07:002010-06-29T08:42:58.033-07:00SteveGentry,
You say "Truth is truth, no mat...SteveGentry,<br /><br />You say "Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from." What are you calling truth? Let's not blur the lines hear. The truth is that genes of different species look similar. Yet, you seem to be implying from these facts that the truth is man and apes have the same ancestor. This does not follow. There are plenty of species that physically look similar, yet their genetic code is nothing of the sort.<br /><br />The Bible says man was created from the dust of the ground. Dust does not mean the elements found in apes (or a common ancestor as you propose). The Hebrew word here <i>afar</i> is not ambiguous, it clearly means "dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish". And you cannot claim that dust contextually here could mean the elements of a common acenstor. If so, it would make Gen. 3:19 state "And to a common ancestor you shall return" instead of what it really says "And to dust you shall return." <br /><br />Yet you claim science proves man was descended from a common ape-like ancestor. These are two opposing statements. The law of contradiction states that "contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true". Both cannot be true. So which is it, from the dust or from a common ancestor? If from a common ancestor, you deny the plain truth of the Scriptures.mikebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06947509425403456046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77878910603299306772010-06-29T08:13:54.099-07:002010-06-29T08:13:54.099-07:00mikeb asked: SteveGentry, are you saying you have ...<i>mikeb asked: SteveGentry, are you saying you have more faith in scientific evidence than faith in Biblical evidence?</i><br /><br />No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that when science uncovers truth it isn't necessary to throw it away because it doesn't line up with our favorite interpretation of Scripture. Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39181977125771087082010-06-29T08:05:21.943-07:002010-06-29T08:05:21.943-07:00donsands wrote: I would have thought Biologos woul...<i>donsands wrote: I would have thought Biologos would have a problem with this, since it's not far removed from Adam and Eve really. We have Noah and his wife as our first parents after the flood, and his three sons as well.</i><br /><br />I don't want to become the defacto spokesperson for BioLogos, but here is an article that addresses the <a href="http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood/" rel="nofollow">Genesis Flood.</a>Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73290146381596241342010-06-29T07:51:06.623-07:002010-06-29T07:51:06.623-07:00SteveGentry, are you saying you have more faith in...SteveGentry, are you saying you have more faith in scientific evidence than faith in Biblical evidence? <br /><br />We all have faith in something. But it's our underlying presuppositions that cause us to interpret evidence.mikebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06947509425403456046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61762648502935489072010-06-29T07:48:15.575-07:002010-06-29T07:48:15.575-07:00Argh. I had a significant typo--leaving out the be...Argh. I had a significant typo--leaving out the beginning of a sentence. So I'm reposting:<br /><br />I have a comment on the earlier discussion of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.<br><br>Garrett said,<br>"<i>second law of thermodynamics: this is no problem for evolution since it applies only to closed systems and earth gets plenty of energy from the sun.</i>"<br><br>Then Escovado replied,<br>"<i>An open system requires an energy conversion mechanism to direct the energy towards useful work.</i>"<br>and later,<br>"<i>Sorry, Garrett, the 2nd law is one of the fundamental laws of physics and it is not going away no matter how many magic wands you want to wave.</i>"<br><br>The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't actually say anything about energy conversion mechanisms. <b>As far as the 2nd Law goes</b>, Garrett's response was both accurate and adequate.<br><br>It's not <i>wrong</i> to say that a "mechanism" is required for local entropy to decrease, but it's not particularly meaningful, either. (One such mechanism is a black rock sitting in a pool of water. The sunlight will heat the rock more than the water, so you'll end up with a local increase in entropy.) A "mechanism" is just "a process, technique, or system for achieving a result"--a mechanism is always required, for everything. (In Newton's 1st Law, you need a mechanism to apply a force.) <br><br>It's like saying that a person needs a "method" in order to achieve something. It's tautological. (By definition, a method or mechanism is a way to achieve something.)<br><br>That doesn't mean that abiogenesis or evolution get a free pass here, intellectually. The rock-in-water is a very simple mechanism, and it's only going to achieve simple results. It's not going to offer an explanation for abiogenesis or evolution. "How would natural processes achieve the required results?" is the right question.<br><br>But when you bring up "an energy conversion mechanism to direct the energy towards useful work", you're not talking about a restriction placed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. And the 2nd Law doesn't tell us about how complex of a mechanism is needed; it doesn't tell us that naturally-occurring mechanisms would be inadequate.<br><br>The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics isn't "going away"; it simply doesn't state the restriction that you're applying.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77604336986417412462010-06-29T07:38:58.919-07:002010-06-29T07:38:58.919-07:00Mark Hansen wrote: Steve Gentry said: "And, b...<i>Mark Hansen wrote: Steve Gentry said: "And, by the way, just because something hasn't been discovered yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."<br /><br />Very true. But what is usually expressed by that sort of statement is not science, but faith. You may ground it in science's track record, or the trajectory of discovery or some such, but if you believe in it before it is "discovered", it's still faith.</i><br /><br />Perhaps, but all faith is not equal. If I see bear tracks in the woods, I can be reasonably sure there is a bear in there somewhere (even if I can't see him). That may be faith but it's based on solid evidence.<br /><br />The evidence for a common ancestor is fairly strong. See <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-synteny/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-pseudogenes/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36582110903854512802010-06-29T07:35:17.425-07:002010-06-29T07:35:17.425-07:00"This seems a little off topic but I don'..."This seems a little off topic but I don't have a problem with the account of Noah."<br /><br />My point is that from these 8 humans, we have all the other humans whoever lived. The billions and billions of people all go back to Noah as our father.<br /><br />I would have thought Biologos would have a problem with this, since it's not far removed from Adam and Eve really. We have Noah and his wife as our first parents after the flood, and his three sons as well.<br /><br />I thought it corrolated with Adam and Eve.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88966348100539577612010-06-29T07:21:49.088-07:002010-06-29T07:21:49.088-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72611346154492906412010-06-29T07:21:08.672-07:002010-06-29T07:21:08.672-07:00'"In the 2d verse of the first chapter of...'"In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion."'<br />-C.H. Spurgeon, 1855<br /><br />You can ponder how that squares with your interpretation of Romans 8. You don't have to post that, though, because frankly I'm not all that interested in hearing your same interpretation of Romans 8 for the fifth time. We aren't getting anywhere here.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24168112764432521772010-06-29T07:17:30.549-07:002010-06-29T07:17:30.549-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9566372358368177362010-06-29T07:06:57.293-07:002010-06-29T07:06:57.293-07:00donsands said: And Stephen, if we leave Adam and E...<i>donsands said: And Stephen, if we leave Adam and Eve, and go on to Noah and his fam, where do you stand upon these Scrptures?</i><br /><br />This seems a little off topic but I don't have a problem with the account of Noah.Steve Gentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03641751408024300010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48153223025428700142010-06-29T06:54:50.039-07:002010-06-29T06:54:50.039-07:00strategem, Still waiting on your reference to Spur...strategem, Still waiting on your reference to Spurgeon's interpretation on Romans 8. You're assuming Spurgeon worked backwards into Romans 8 based on one old earth leaning quote you've read. Maybe he did, but I'd like to see it in writing. In a debate, it's good to back up your statements with proof. The only sermon I could find on this text, Spurgeon actually said "Creation glows with a thousand beauties, even in its present fallen condition...this is not the world which God pronounced to be "very good. "The curse has fallen on it since the fall, and thorns and thistles it bringeth forth, not from its soil alone, but from all that comes of it."<br />http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0788.htm<br /><br />It appears he did not hold to the thought of subhuman death and decay being a "very good" world. Also, OE's usually say there were always thorns and thistles before the fall. Appears that Spurgeon takes the thorns and thistles as being a result <i>of</i> the Fall.<br /><br />Ktisis in Romans 8:19-22 is subhuman creation. Check a few Greek lexicons (maybe the Pyro team can comment here). Then compare that to other Greek words for creation. Then put it in context with what Paul is saying.<br /><br />You're argument is changing. Earlier you said "Creation yearns to be free of being in subjection to sinful Man", implying that you agreed "creation" here meant subhuman creation. Now you are saying I inserted "subhuman" into the text. Which is your view?mikebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06947509425403456046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31540950344487840572010-06-29T06:31:15.075-07:002010-06-29T06:31:15.075-07:00mikeb:
You are inserting "subhuman" into...mikeb:<br />You are inserting "subhuman" into the text, and "decay" as meaning subhuman life didn't naturally expire the way God set things up originally. I don't accept those premises, which are necessary for your interpretation to require that I accept your conclusion. We won't resolve that difference of opinion.<br /> As far as Spurgeon, go back a read his quotes on life going on for millions of years previous to Man showing up, setting up the world as a suitable habitation for man. That view is incompatible with your interpretation of Romans 8. IOW, your interpretation of Romans 8 is not universally held.<br /> BTW, by making that statement so definitively, Spurgeon was obviously a lot surer about OEC theory than I am. I'm not so sure of OE (or, YE) at all. I am sure the Earth and universe were created by God, though.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6061944022630221202010-06-29T06:23:40.888-07:002010-06-29T06:23:40.888-07:00Daryl
I agree with your input on Romans 8 being th...Daryl<br />I agree with your input on Romans 8 being that God is the One who subjected Creation to futility, it wasn't Man directly.<br />The question in my mind was whether the death of plants, animals, and bugs was part of that curse, or was simply part of his design for the ecosystem He created. The curse pronounced by God dealt exclusively with difficulties He pronounced upon Mankind as a result of Man's disobedience. The rest of it that people have filled in the blanks on is, in my estimation, speculation and therefore fair game for dispute.<br />When it comes right down to it, there is even a difference between animals dying and animals killing each other (ref: lion laying down with the lamb). So there is a lot we don't know about the world as it was, pre-Fall, and as it will be, post-Christ's return.<br />Just so you know, in general I find the Bible to be very very clear, with only two exceptions: the Creation week, and the book of the Revelation. Everyone claims to have it all figured out in regard to these two items, but since few of their interpretations match it tells me that we know a lot less than these teachers would like us to think they know. I know I don't know what they mean very clearly. As far as Creation week, I reject most of what science has to say about the beginning (Big Bang, evolution, etc) as being unsupportable and driven by a desire to cut God out of the picture.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3629996844486042602010-06-29T06:22:27.198-07:002010-06-29T06:22:27.198-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.com