Tolken Posted June 2, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 Fresno Joe - And Why Is He (A Sly Hungry Wolf) Your Friend I see that unless one is in absolute agreement with a particular view/interpretation of Genesis then obviously their faith is suspect. Also, Robert and Mary were two of the most gracious, kind, caring people that I have ever met, and it was a pleasure to exchange ideas on "our various views of life", and in fact their Christian worldview did change. Beyond that you may make your own conclusions in any way you see fit .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted June 2, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 Shiloh357 - What Cobalt and I previously criticized was your original attempt to link mediate creation to evolution. I corrected your use of mediate creation, actually. I didn't concede any points to you. You wrote - "There is no clear statement about a mediate creation or any processes." I will accept that this is not what you meant, though the "or" separates the two levels of "mediate" I referred to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Shiloh357 - What Cobalt and I previously criticized was your original attempt to link mediate creation to evolution. I corrected your use of mediate creation, actually. I didn't concede any points to you. You wrote - "There is no clear statement about a mediate creation or any processes." I will accept that this is not what you meant, though the "or" separates the two levels of "mediate" I referred to. Yes I did say that. But that was when it was apparent that you were using mediate creation to support your previous claim that evolution was biblical. It turns out that mediate creation simply means to create from a substance. That doesn't support the notion that evolution is biblical. You have tried to back peddle away from your previous assertion that evolution as God's method of creation is biblical because when you were challenged on that claim you originally cited the "process" of mediate creation as support for evolution in post #149 of the other thread. The problem is that "mediate" creation does not refer to any kind of process, per se. It simply refers to creation from an existing substance. You tried pinning that to evolution and now it appears that you are back peddling away from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted June 2, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 Shiloh357 - The problem is that "mediate" creation does refer to any kind of process, per se. It simply refers to creation from an existing substance. You tried pinning that to evolution and now it appears that you are back peddling away from that. No, not back peddling at all. We agree that mediate creation is biblical at one level, and I'm suggesting that "Let the land produce..." is also mediate creation, though at another level. Mediate refers to an "intermediary agent", at one level to "matter"/dust/earth as material, but as implied with the various "Let the land/water produce/bring forth..." at another level by process. Again, the bible does not say Let there be living creatures. There is nothing that negates either scripture or that God is the creator of all. Further, we do not disconnect God from the natural processes we see all around us today. I do not see how God instituting the “laws of nature” at creation in any way diminishes either Him or His creation. Your problem is with the term evolution ...so let’s discard that and use God ordained processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Shiloh357 - The problem is that "mediate" creation does refer to any kind of process, per se. It simply refers to creation from an existing substance. You tried pinning that to evolution and now it appears that you are back peddling away from that. No, not back peddling at all. We agree that mediate creation is biblical at one level, and I'm suggesting that "Let the land produce..." is also mediate creation, though at another level. Mediate refers to an "intermediary agent", at one level to "matter"/dust/earth as material, but as implied with the various "Let the land/water produce/bring forth..." at another level by process. Again, the bible does not say Let there be living creatures. There is nothing that negates either scripture or that God is the creator of all. Further, we do not disconnect God from the natural processes we see all around us today. I do not see how God instituting the “laws of nature” at creation in any way diminishes either Him or His creation. Your problem is with the term evolution ...so let’s discard that and use God ordained processes. Do you believe that the theory of Evolution as presented by mainstream science is biblical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted June 2, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2014 The Bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth. It means, that God made from the dirt. He took dirt and from it he made a man and then breathed life into that man. God made man perfect. There was no need for evolution. Yeah. I'll jump in here. You imply that evolution entails the transition from an imperfect state to a perfect state. Yet you admit that God made man from dirt. Was the dirt perfect? Or was it imperfect, since it wasn't man? No, Evolution doesn't entail that and I implied no such thing. I said that Evolution isn't in play with reference to the creation of man (it wasn't in play at all in any part of creation, really). this is exactly what you said: I didn't say that if evolution is true that man can't be in God's image. Again, that is something you assigning to me. My point is that God made Adam as a perfect man, a perfect human being as a special creation from the dirt and He made him in His image. My point is that an all-knowing God who makes everything perfectly doesn't need to use a process like evolution. The obvious implication is that using an evolutionary process would threaten the perfection of God: that is, either God makes everything perfectly via perfect material, or creates through a series of imperfect stages. I do not assign things to you. I read what you right, and then try to figure out what you are trying to say. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The Bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth. It means, that God made from the dirt. He took dirt and from it he made a man and then breathed life into that man. God made man perfect. There was no need for evolution. Yeah. I'll jump in here. You imply that evolution entails the transition from an imperfect state to a perfect state. Yet you admit that God made man from dirt. Was the dirt perfect? Or was it imperfect, since it wasn't man? No, Evolution doesn't entail that and I implied no such thing. I said that Evolution isn't in play with reference to the creation of man (it wasn't in play at all in any part of creation, really). this is exactly what you said: I didn't say that if evolution is true that man can't be in God's image. Again, that is something you assigning to me. My point is that God made Adam as a perfect man, a perfect human being as a special creation from the dirt and He made him in His image. My point is that an all-knowing God who makes everything perfectly doesn't need to use a process like evolution. The obvious implication is that using an evolutionary process would threaten the perfection of God: that is, either God makes everything perfectly via perfect material, or creates through a series of imperfect stages. I do not assign things to you. I read what you right, and then try to figure out what you are trying to say. clb The theory of evolution is contrary to an all-knowing all-powerful God who would not have any use for Evolution. When He can create perfect creatures, He would not need such a clumsy process. I am not saying that it would threaten the perfection of God. I am saying that it is contrary to how God is presented in the Bible. In my response you assigned to me something I didn't say, namely that evolution implies a transition from imperfect to perfect. You did ask me if I was implying that. You stated that I was implying it as matter of fact. So yes you were assigning something to me even if you can't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted June 2, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 Shiloh357 - Do you believe that the theory of Evolution as presented by mainstream science is biblical? We've done this and you know that I have qualified the use of the term...obviously at the very heart of it I could not accept abiogenesis. At the most basic level I am merely suggesting that scripture implies processes, why would there be an aversion to the natural processes we see today. No sense in furthering the argument regarding the definition of the term, I will just leave it at God ordained processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Shiloh357 - Do you believe that the theory of Evolution as presented by mainstream science is biblical? We've done this and you know that I have qualified the use of the term...obviously at the very heart of it I could not accept abiogenesis. At the most basic level I am merely suggesting that scripture implies processes, why would there be an aversion to the natural processes we see today. No sense in furthering the argument regarding the definition of the term, I will just leave it at God ordained processes. I am not asking you about abiogenesis. I am asking if you believe that over millions of years animals have evolved over time from one species to another? All you seem to be able to give is the typical, liberal, vague responses. Do you believe the Bible is inerrant in everything it says? Is the Bible 1005 accurate, or do you see it as containing errors, contradictions, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted June 3, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 3, 2014 Shiloh357 - All you seem to be able to give is the typical, liberal, vague responses. My last response was - "We agree that mediate creation is biblical at one level, and I'm suggesting that "Let the land produce..." is also mediate creation, though at another level. Mediate refers to an "intermediary agent", at one level to "matter"/dust/earth as material, but as implied with the various "Let the land/water produce/bring forth..." at another level by process. Again, the bible does not say Let there be living creatures. There is nothing that negates either scripture or that God is the creator of all. Further, we do not disconnect God from the natural processes we see all around us today. I do not see how God instituting the “laws of nature” at creation in any way diminishes either Him or His creation. Your problem is with the term evolution ...so let’s discard that and use God ordained processes." If you are unable to address the points I've made based solely on God's word then so be it, but I have no intention of playing your diversion games. Actually, it is often true that those that indulge in ad hominem criticism ought to be aware that the same can be applied to them though perhaps in a different direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts