Mutations do not produce real change

[~candice~]

If you accept evolution you automatically cannot take God's word seriously therefore you are not a real Christian. Not many people come out and say it like that, but that is basically the message Worthy sends out, usually with the caveat that new believers will have lots of incorrect beliefs (like evolution) and they will be weeded out over time.

I for one have never said that. I have defended the notion that people can be both evolutionists and theists at the same time. I think I am on the outer with that view though. Have you read my soapbox debate with Shiloh?

Also, in all the craziness of this thread, you may have missed an earlier question I had for you, about how you reconcile God using a evolution as a creation tool, when evolution requires death. How do you marry those two ideas up? It's a genuine question and (if I recall correctly) the central thrust that Viole uses to show the inconsistancy of the theistic-evolutionist stance.

Thanks

Candice

[~candice~]

I for one have never said that. I have defended the notion that people can be both evolutionists and theists at the same time. I think I am on the outer with that view though. Have you read my soapbox debate with Shiloh?

Also, in all the craziness of this thread, you may have missed an earlier question I had for you, about how you reconcile God using a evolution as a creation tool, when evolution requires death. How do you marry those two ideas up? It's a genuine question and (if I recall correctly) the central thrust that Viole uses to show the inconsistancy of the theistic-evolutionist stance.

Thanks

Candice

Hi Candice. I think there is a bit of irony in your question being that God required death in the sacrifice of Christ. The question I would ask is, is death in and of itself a wicked or evil event? I'm not sure that it is. Of course we all want to live and we avoid death, but if we didn't have it we'd be in big trouble.

Well... there is a world of difference between supposed animal death prior to the fall, required for the process of evolution... and the sacrifice of an innocent, holy, immortal eternal loving God. Prior to the fall (and even afterwards) there is no indication of animals having a soul. So I see a huge difference between animal death and Christ's death. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend TE here, I'm just addressing your point. Perhaps you should be asking D-9 this question .

[~candice~]

Hey D-9 I have a question for you, you've probably answered it before, and maybe I even asked the question but I have forgotten or not heard how you reconcile an issue with evolution and the Christian faith.

The bible says death is a result of the fall (OK, I think you understand that to be spiritual death not physical death). But still, evolution requires the death of many many individuals over millions of years. How does a process dependent on death gel with your understanding of a loving personal God?

Hi Candice,

Yes, I see the death from sin as spiritual death, not physical death. I think physical death is the natural progression of life; our bodies aren't designed to live forever - because of the way DNA replicates, it shortens every time, we are doomed to die a physical death. Even when we were an embryo our cells underwent apoptosis, cell death, in order to have certain features like freely moving fingers. In order to live we have symbiotic relationships with bacteria, mainly in our digestive track, and they die all the time. My point is that only certain types of death seem to warrant an answer. The death of bacteria or microorganisms doesn't seem to be a concern, and that is all there was for nearly 90% of life's history on Earth. I think that is an interesting observation, and I've gotten hints from other Christians, creationists, about how insects are seen as lower lifeforms where they are merely biological machines, not fully alive from lack of [a highly developed cerebral cortex] and lack of "blood" or a "soul". Not sure how prevalent that thinking is or was in Judeo-Christian circles, but I think there is enough there to have interesting conversations of what counts as "life" and "death" as one creationist put it, (paraphrasing) 'the Bible was written before modern science so it doesn't draw upon concepts of life and death from a scientific setting, but from a [biblical] setting.'

So I do think in order to have a full understanding of this issue, no matter where you stand, you need to define life and death. Heck, even in science there is gray area on what constitutes life. That said, I do think it is odd for death to accompany a loving God, and I think this is an issue for both creationists and evolutionists in different ways. Ultimately, at least for me personally, I think that there is something critical to God's plan about the mortal experience. I do think there is another facet, namely the perception of "death". Normally we associate death with evil, the wadges of sin is death. But if physical death is simply the natural progression of life, than physical death is just another step in our journey of existence, neither good or evil.

Well that's certainly an interesting position, thanks for clarifying. I need to run to work, but just quickly... I wonder what this implies about Christ when He took up His human body? Was Christ's human body destined by naturalistic processes to die anyway??? If death is not evil, just natural, then was Christ's sacrifice really a sacrifice, or just jumping ahead in time to something that was inevitable anyway? More when I get back...

[nebula]

MorningGlory is a creationist, basically everyone who is a full member is a creationist. If you accept evolution you automatically cannot take God's word seriously therefore you are not a real Christian. Not many people come out and say it like that, but that is basically the message Worthy sends out, usually with the caveat that new believers will have lots of incorrect beliefs (like evolution) and they will be weeded out over time.

This is not accurate D-9.

I am not a "6-day Creationist."

Your status hinges on your confession of faith in Jesus and His salvation and Lordship over your life.

[~candice~]

You say that status hinges on a confession of faith, yet that confession of faith must be supported by your doctrine and paradigmatic approach to things like the Bible and how the universe works so that it is aligned closely with that of those who run Worthy. If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of members on Worthy are very conservative theologically, and if your theology isn't conservative you better watch out.

I have no issue calling TE'ers saved, or Christians, or brother, etc. I just think that in order to take that stance, they have to have a very different appreciation for the Bible than most of us here do.

For example, they have to be willing to dispense with the idea that Genesis is a literal history of mankind. That is not a small difference, because applying that same understanding to say Genesis 12 would have a profound impact on your understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.

They also are willing to dispense the idea of a literal worldwide flood, which is referenced in the Newer Covenant writings.

They have to rationalise death differently to what "Creationists" (by your definition) understand God's plan for death.

I've got NO issue calling you brother, but I really think it would be naive to pretend that evolution as a means of creation doesn't come packaged with some theology / views of the bible that are radically different from those of "Creationists".

I think that is why we see TE'ers usually paired with liberal theology and Creationists paired with conservative theology, because your understanding of the creation events is largely determined by the style of literature you are willing to assign to Genesis.

As for watch out, what do you mean? I'm not following.

God bless

Candice

[MorningGlory]

Maybe you could provide credible sources of your statements? How do you know these points are scientifically sound? Do you work in this field?

I don't work in the field, but I paid attention during biology class in high school. Assuming you're from the United States, I think you can easily find the answers to your own questions by flipping through a high school or college textbook.

I'm quite sure I could but I asked YOU for the sources of your statements. I don't have time to look up your sources. If you don't work in the scientic field, how do you know your statements are true?

[Guest yod]

The overall message that I've gotten from Worthy is that it is nearly impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution, because by accepting evolution you must reject at least parts of God's Word and therefore you're not a true believer.

I reject evolution on many levels but the scientific evidence is the first.

Throw a fish on the beach every day for a billion years and it's not going to grow legs and turn into a monkey. It's going to die and rot (if it doesn't get eaten)

One species can not turn into another species. Science proves this to be fact.

[j102]

HAS ANYONE HEARD OR READ A BOOK CALLED "ADAM AND EVOLUTION" BY MICHAEL PITMAN" ?

I REALLY ENJOYED IT SO FAR, AS HE APPROCHES EVOLUTION IN A PURELY SCIENTIFIC MANNER AND SHOWS HOW IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND HE DOES THIS WITHOUT BRINGING UP RELIGION ITSELF. HIS BOOK HAS BEEN OUT OF PRINT FOR A WHILE AND I WAS LUCKY TO FIND IT AT A USED BOOK STORE.

[~candice~]

This designation of essential and non essential doctrine is an interesting one, something I've thought about quite a lot in the past.

I think there is salvational doctrine, but that is very minimal. The struggle I have is to put bounds on what it means to "believe in Christ". Three words but so rich. We know what believe means, a very strong faith and trust that manifests itself in actions. The real question is whether people believe in CHRIST. When the bible says to believe in CHRIST, does it include in that the divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, His bodily death and resurrection, etc etc etc? I have settled for an understanding that it refers to the biblical Christ as He is described, but that we all see dimly, and that probably only the Lord knows if we have drifted so far from the correct intended meaning of the person of Christ to not be putting faith in Him anymore, but in someone else. I find the death, resurrection, and divinity of Christ to absolutely highest on my list of "essentials" for this reason.

But, as for non salvational doctrine, that is non essential... hmm well I'm a bit confuzzled. I have a love for the Word, and I want to get it all right! We are told to "study to show ourselves approved" and also that "no prophecy is of private interpretation". This tells me I ought to seek out the right meaning from the text, and that I really have no liberty to designate something as trivial or to play semantics til the Word says what I want it to say. So I guess I don't really believe in non essential doctrine.

There are things I know we see particularly poorly, some areas of eschatology for example, and I rarely break fellowship over doctrine, unless it is strongly anti-semitic or part of the prosperity gospel, but to be brutally honest, I would break fellowship over hugely differing views of the type of literature that the bible is (I mean... is Genesis literal, for example). I'm not saying they aren't brothers and sisters, but their views are so diametrically different from mine that I see no benefit in clashing heads and trying to learn together.

That's a bit of a waffle, and going far off topic (sorry Nebula) but I do find the direction this conversation is going to be particularly interesting. D-9 I'll keep up with you in another thread if you wish.

[Valoran]

I reject evolution on many levels but the scientific evidence is the first.

Throw a fish on the beach every day for a billion years and it's not going to grow legs and turn into a monkey. It's going to die and rot (if it doesn't get eaten)

One species can not turn into another species. Science proves this to be fact.

What makes you think that evolution is triggered by throwing fishes onto beaches, or that fishes are supposed to evolve into monkeys?

Given that speciation (the process of one species evolving into another) has been directly observed numerous times with different species, what makes you think that science proves that "one species can not turn into another species"?

I'm quite sure I could but I asked YOU for the sources of your statements. I don't have time to look up your sources. If you don't work in the scientic field, how do you know your statements are true?

Why are you trying to discuss evolution when you apparently don't even understand the relationship between the genotype and phenotype of organisms? ***Edited to remove the personal attack ***

Edited February 3, 2012 by OneLight
Attacking the person and not he subject is not allowed