God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I am a Christ-follower, first and foremost. And I believe He is the ultimate Creator of all things.

Yet you limit His creation, and are denying him the Glory of his omnipresent acts of creation, instead you elevate the laws of nature to the level of God, Which as I said before are for us, not for Him.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

This passage tells us he does directly interact and shows his omnipotence

Let's look at the passage:

Quote

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. (Matthew 10:29-30)

This passage clearly speak to omniscience. It does not indicate that God must directly act upon nature to achieve outcomes like the growth of a hair.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Creation is a supernatural miracle which you deny

Once again, you have made a false statement. I obviously do not deny creation, I simply do not believe it occurred in the same way you do. Bringing the universe into existence is indeed a miracle.

 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? (Matt. 6:30) 

As you can see the denial of this fact is akin to lacking in faith. Again, the laws of nature are there for us, Not for Him.

The context makes it obvious that it is fear of the future that shows a lack of faith, not the opinion that God works through His natural laws.

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I Believe God does create every being whether single cellular or multicellular. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? (Matt. 6:30) 

But does this involve God acting through the natural processes He created, or does every blade of grass growing require divine action?

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Find me one verse that speaks of "Spiritual death". This is the Lie the serpent used on Eve, "you shall surely not die"

Are you denying that there is spiritual death?

Genesis 2:17 reads "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Adam and Eve did not physically die that day. In what sense would you say they died that day?

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Berating creationist's thinking is unbecoming of someone who calls themselves a theist.

How did I berate anyone's thinking? If I made an obviously false statement, would you refrain from pointing it because you would be "berating" me? I somehow doubt it.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

There is a different Spirit with you, a Hatred for creationism and anyone who believes in a YEC account as written in the Word of God. 

And... another false statement. I do not hate young earth creationism nor do I hate anyone who believes it. I have close family members that I love dearly that have young earth creationist beliefs. Why do you not care about all the false statements you make?

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

5 hours ago, dhchristian said:

You fully accept he could, But you deny he did... More contradictions. I DO not know how you live with all of these contradictions. 

I could have mowed the lawn this afternoon, but I didn't. Is that a contradiction?

In My opinion, this is a Blasphemous statement. Perhaps you do not see this? You are saying God is omnipotent, but he is not today, because he does not feel like it. 

No, not blasphemous. Do you think God could have created humans with three arms? Does the observation that He didn't mean you do not believe His omnipotence? This is a silly argument.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

You constantly do, by calling what I am showing you as Juvenile.

I asked - a single time - if you were a juvenile. Does that make it something I "constantly do"? It was a serious question to which I received no reply.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

There is an intellectual hubris to your responses that you are not aware of

Should I pretend that our opinions on science carry equal weight? I was blessed enough to have the opportunity to spend years intently learning about God's creation. I don't expect everyone else to have had the same opportunities.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I am treating you no differently than you are me, so that you can see what it is you are doing.

I will not tell you lies about what you personally believe. But sure, if you want to tell yourself that to feel better about your argumentation style, go for it. Just don't whine about being bullied.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Used the comparison of the number of Bytes of information that Is involved in a 1% evolutionary change in the DNA to occur, this is simple math, I got the figures on the web from independent sources so there may be some variation in the numbers, but I think we can say that complexity of a one percent change in the Genome is astounding just simply based on the scale and complexity of our DNA. It not as simple as 10oo or a hundred evolutionary steps Like Behe suggests Using Biochem, But on the amount of Billions because there is no such thing as Junk DNA.

What you don't have is any data suggesting that simple genomic evolution cannot account for that 1% discrepancy you say it can't.

Are you aware that Behe accepts universal common ancestry of all living organisms? My opinions are VERY similar to Behe's.

There are two major points regarding your final statement. First, I explained why the 80% "functional" claim regarding DNA was an overestimate. Second, even if that figure were accurate, that would leave 20% of 3 billion base pairs of DNA (that's 600 million base pairs) that are non-functional. Six hundred million is a lot more than "no such thing".

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Yet you limit His creation, and are denying him the Glory of his omnipresent acts of creation

And yet again, this claim is false. Repeating it does not make it any more true.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Apparently the Discovery Institute thinks so.   Behe says he's a theistic evolutionist, but he thinks God has to tinker with things occasionally  to get them right.   Theistic evolution merely means a person thinks God is the cause of observed evolution.    So a lot of different opinions.    Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton seems pretty close to deism in his book, Nature's Destiny.  Most of us think God is always intimately involved with every particle of the universe, every moment, so that's not typical.

Creationism is more like deism, particularly when creationists align with ID.    "Design" is a common theme among deists.   Not all creationists are inclined to deism, but a lot of YE creationist are.

20 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Creationism is not Deism... definitionally, your claim is absurd. 

Creationism is not necessarily deism.   As I pointed out, creationists who lean toward "design" tend to be deists.

20 hours ago, dhchristian said:

You see, a person that believes in creationism, and denies evolution Believes in a theistic God By definition.

You have it backwards.   Theistic evolutionists are theistic by definition.    Creationists who are not IDers are mostly theists as well.   Some IDers are also theists, although it's hard to see how they deal with the contradictions.

20 hours ago, dhchristian said:

1 ID is a scientific framework that is counter to the evolutionary model.

ID is a religious doctrine.  It is scientific in the sense that the church of Christian Science is scientific.   Which is to say, not at all.   The Wedge Document, exposed at the Dover Trial, settled that claim.

20 hours ago, dhchristian said:

2 ID is not specifically Christian, as the Designer it invokes can be any deity one wishes to use, thus it is universal to all but atheists who deny a designer.

ID isn't Christian at all, espousing a mere "designer" rather than an omnipotent Creator.  Some Christians accept ID, but most of us who follow Christ, see that as an error.

20 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Creationism is specific to the Judeo Christian scriptures. It is by definition Theistic, because the Scriptures speak of a Theistic God.

Could you give an example of a "atheistic God?"    Seems to me it would be logically absurd to have a God who didn't believe in Himself.

20 hours ago, dhchristian said:

All creationists, however, are IDers in the sense that they believe in a creator God, who designed all things.

No.   I know many creationists who see God as an omnipotent being Who has no need to figure out anything.    Design is what limited creatures do.   God creates.

 

 

 

.

[The Barbarian]

Creationists aren't a single group, but include all sorts, including Jewish and Muslim believers. Some behave badly, but most of them are decent people, who deserve our respect. Sometimes we forget this. So let me mention:

 

Things I like about creationists.

 

1. They believe that there are things that are right and things that are wrong, and try to adhere to what's right and avoid what's wrong.

2. They love God, even those who aren't Christian.

3. They believe in helping those who are in need

4. Those who are Christian are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and those who are not Christian, seek to serve Him also.

5. Truth matters to them as it does to other believers; if we don't agree on what is true, we should remain humble enough to admit we could be wrong, and most of us on all sides of this issue realize it.

[The Barbarian]

12 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Yet you limit His creation, and are denying him the Glory of his omnipresent acts of creation, instead you elevate the laws of nature to the level of God, Which as I said before are for us, not for Him.

No, He limited His creation.   The fact that He can do anything, does not compel  Him to do everything.    That He created a lawful and consistent universe in which we could live, is proof of His love for us, not evidence of any limitations on His power.   I have every confidence that He did things in the best way possible.

 

[dhchristian]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Creationism is not necessarily deism.   As I pointed out, creationists who lean toward "design" tend to be deists.

You got s your definitions all mixed up. Biblical Creationism = Theism there is no such thing as a biblical creationism that is Deistic, Deism is nonbiblical creationism. It is the product of the teachings of men.

You need to get your definitions right.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

23 hours ago, dhchristian said:

You see, a person that believes in creationism, and denies evolution Believes in a theistic God By definition.

You have it backwards.   Theistic evolutionists are theistic by definition.    Creationists who are not IDers are mostly theists as well.   Some IDers are also theists, although it's hard to see how they deal with the contradictions.

No, You have it backwards and absurd. theistic evolution is nothing more than Deism in disguise as theism. Biblical creationists cannot nor never will be either evolutionists, nor Deists, because Scripture is neither deistic nor evolutionist. Biblical creationism is the only truly scriptural position out there. (emphasis on the period.)

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

23 hours ago, dhchristian said:

1 ID is a scientific framework that is counter to the evolutionary model.

ID is a religious doctrine.  It is scientific in the sense that the church of Christian Science is scientific.   Which is to say, not at all.   The Wedge Document, exposed at the Dover Trial, settled that claim.

I Stand by my claim, despite the best efforts to discredit ID as anti science as most atheists like to do. It is a viable scientific model that actually predicted the findings of project ENCODE, that Junk DNA is not actually Junk and has a function. The materialist evolutionists failed to predict these findings.

I Am not familiar with the Wedge document or the Dover trial. Please post Links.

As a Scientific framework, ID is not Christian nor is it theistic, but is all encompassing of any group who proclaims a Creator as opposed to  the materialistic evolution of all things and biogenesis. The Only Group that does not fit the ID scientific model is the atheist. Even theistic evolutionists are part of the ID framework, if they choose to be, because they accept a designer at certain stages acted in creation. In Berating ID, you are berating your own viewpoint which is ID by definition. Which means you are either an Atheist or a dimwit?

I Know you do not like to be associated with them but this is just definitionally what theistic evolution is.

I Am a Biblical creationist, and a Theist. As such I can accept some of the findings of ID, without berating them all together. I can also disagree with their findings as well. It is the alternative model to the materialism of evolution and the biogenesis it promotes. Both you and One opinion are on record here as stating you do not agree with the biogenesis of the Atheistic evolutionist cam, which means you agree with the ID model of biogenesis. Am I not right?

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

ID isn't Christian at all, espousing a mere "designer" rather than an omnipotent Creator.  Some Christians accept ID, but most of us who follow Christ, see that as an error.

I Have just shown you how you are either an IDer, or an atheistic evolutionist.... which are you in regards to biogenesis? There is no middle ground or compromise here.

I agree ID is not Christian, and it never made that claim, and the neutral designer claim opens the door to Muslim and Hindu and other creation views to use this framework to do science.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

On 12/29/2019 at 1:16 PM, dhchristian said:

Creationism is specific to the Judeo Christian scriptures. It is by definition Theistic, because the Scriptures speak of a Theistic God.

Could you give an example of a "atheistic God?"    Seems to me it would be logically absurd to have a God who didn't believe in Himself.

This is why your claim is absurd, You just debunked yourself and the original claim you mad as being absurd. You wrote: " Creationism is more like deism", Which is an Oxymoron, Biblical creationism can never be Deistic not even in degrees, because at the very foundation of Biblical creationism is theism. I am surprised a college educated person cannot comprehend this. Let me explain this better for you.

There are no degrees in theism, One can only be a full theist, that is to say God is ever present, ever Knowing and ever working in his creation.... (Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent)

There can be degrees in Deism. One can be a full blown Deist, Like the clockmaker, or a Partial Deist like the TE people like yourself are, As soon as you say that God stops being omnipresent, and omniscient, and omnipotent in one aspect of creation and he has left that to nature, you have crossed the line from theism to deism. I Know this is harsh, but this is definitionally true. God knows and participates in and is present and doing everything at all times. Nothing is done apart from Him, these are hard concepts for the mind to grasp, but this is what theism believes by faith, not by sight, anything less is Deism.

Now perhaps you are beginning to see the philosophical differences between a theist and Deist, You will now understand that the natural laws which God made were for us, and not for Him. He is Above His creation, not subservient to it. We are Subservient to those laws as part of his creation. They are there for us. Nature exists now in a fallen order because of One Man's sin, But God intervened in that bringing redemption, By which we become a new creation in Christ, But even still we are subservient to that fallen Nature, and groan inwardly in travail awaiting the redemption of our bodies, and the restoration of all things To the time when all things are made new.

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, He limited His creation.   The fact that He can do anything, does not compel  Him to do everything.    That He created a lawful and consistent universe in which we could live, is proof of His love for us, not evidence of any limitations on His power.   I have every confidence that He did things in the best way possible.

Do You see now how and why I deem this view as deistic? As soon as you take that one little step, you cross the line from theism to Deism. 

[dhchristian]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

But does this involve God acting through the natural processes He created, or does every blade of grass growing require divine action?

Read my above comment to Barbarian as it was applicable to this comment as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Creationism is not necessarily deism.   As I pointed out, creationists who lean toward "design" tend to be deists.

6 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You got s your definitions all mixed up.

Nope.   By definition, theistic evolution is theistic.   But "design" is the doctrine of deism.   

These authors exhibited a similarly wide variety of opinions when it came to matters of natural theology. Some believed in the immortality of the soul, posthumous punishment for the wicked, and posthumous rewards for the virtuous; others did not; some were undecided. After Newton published his discoveries, some regarded God as a watch-maker; a distant Creator and First Mover who wound up the universe, set it in motion, and then stepped away; it was pointless to pray to such a God who surely wasn't listening. Others felt a closer connection to God and believed that God heard and responded to their prayers. Those who believed in a watch-maker God rejected the possibility of miracles— after having established natural laws and set the great cosmos in motion, God didn't need to keep tinkering with his creation. Others accepted the possibility of miracles; God after all was all-powerful and could do anything at all, including temporarily bypassing his own natural laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

ID is an attempt to graft belief onto science, a sort of compromise between materialism and deism.

The deists were also animated by a variety of different motives (which at least partially explains the diversity of their concerns and conclusions). This was the age of the Scientific Revolution; some were animated by a new-found respect for science ("natural philosophy") accompanied by a repugnance for superstition, irrationality, and nonsense. Some were saddened and repulsed by the savage religious wars that had been ravaging Europe for decades; their goal was to find a way to stop the fighting. Others were pushing back against the crushing political power possessed by the organized Churches in their respective countries, churches that forbade them from thinking freely, censored them if they tried to publish their thoughts, and (if they could be caught) punished them when they succeeded in publishing.

ibid

There are many creationists who are no less theistic than theistic evolutionists.   But "intelligent design" leads directly to deism.

12 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Creationism is specific to the Judeo Christian scriptures. It is by definition Theistic, because the Scriptures speak of a Theistic God.

Could you give an example of a "atheistic God?"    Seems to me it would be logically absurd to have a God who didn't believe in Himself.

12 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

This is why your claim is absurd, You just debunked yourself and the original claim you mad as being absurd.

It's your invention, not mine.   And it's logically absurd as you surely see now.

14 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Stand by my claim, despite the best efforts to discredit ID as anti science as most atheists like to do. It is a viable scientific model that actually predicted the findings of project ENCODE, that Junk DNA is not actually Junk and has a function. The materialist evolutionists failed to predict these findings.

Actually, as you learned,  ENCODE merely borrowed research from much earlier work.   When I was an undergraduate, in the early 70s, there were papers in the literature, discussing the functions of non-coding DNA ("non-coding DNA" is what biologist formally call what creationists call "junk DNA")    If the people writing those reports were typical of scientists, most of them would have been theists.   So you've been badly misled here.

17 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Am not familiar with the Wedge document or the Dover trial. Please post Links.

It was where ID's claim to be science was thoroughly debunked.   

Wedge Document:

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document

The Wedge Document was meant for internal use only, and was accidentally sent out to a printer along with material meant to be copied.    Someone recognized what it was, and from there, it was all over the internet.   Huge embarrassment.

A slate of creationists won control of the Dover School Board,and attempted to impose ID in science classrooms.    The resulting trial produced more embarrassments.    The book Of Pandas and People, presented as an "ID textbook", turned out to have been written by a creationist, as a creationist textbook, but was "converted" by changing every mention of "creationist" with "ID proponent."    Turns out, the first edition of the textbook had a typo that mixed the two terms together, nailing attempted deception.

https://ncse.ngo/cdesign-proponentsists

To complete what ID inventor Philip Johnson called "a train wreck" for intelligent design, Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe admitted under oath that  ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science:

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Hypothesis or theory?

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told/#ixzz69chdIRai

The last two decades have not been kind to ID.

32 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

As a Scientific framework, ID is not Christian nor is it theistic, but is all encompassing of any group who proclaims a Creator as opposed to  the materialistic evolution of all things and biogenesis. 

No, it doesn't fit Christian theology of an omnipotent God Who creates all things with no limitations.

33 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The Only Group that does not fit the ID scientific model is the atheist.

True.  Remember, it's a religious doctrine, so no atheists.   Muslims, Moonies (one of them is a fellow of the Discovery Institute) and who knows what else.   But no atheists.   So far.

35 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

As soon as you say that God stops being omnipresent, and omniscient, and omnipotent in one aspect of creation and he has left that to nature, you have crossed the line from theism to deism.

You've just described ID.    In fact, that's one way that ID is different than most Christian forms of creationism and theistic evolution.

(i) that the laws of nature and boundary conditions governing our universe guarantee the emergence and persistence of familiar and anthropomorphic life (a subthesis I will call the fitness subthesis--FS),
(ii) that the laws of nature and boundary conditions governing our universe guarantee the failure to emerge and persist of any form of life radically different from familiar and anthropomorphic life (a subthesis I will call the uniqueness subthesis--US), and
(iii) that the laws of nature and boundary conditions governing our universe are ideally suited for the emergence and persistence of familiar and anthropomorphic life; that is, that every property of the laws of nature contributes optimally to the emergence and persistence of familiar and anthropomorphic life (a subthesis I will call the perfection subthesis--PS)

Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

38 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Even theistic evolutionists are part of the ID framework, if they choose to be, because they accept a designer at certain stages acted in creation.

No, that's wrong.  Theists believe in an omnipotent Creator, not some ("possibly a space alien") designer, according to ID advocates.   God doesn't have to figure out anything.    Once you remove that perfection from God, and insist that He must "design", you have left theism, and become a deist.

Do you suppose that when He tells us that the earth brought forth living things, He was not the One who made the Earth, and maintains it and its processes to do exactly that?    If you don't understand that, then it's clear why you have theism and deism reversed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

d

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

ID is an attempt to graft belief onto science, a sort of compromise between materialism and deism.

I Agree, I am not defending ID theologically in the least, I am saying that scientifically it is viable. So Long as it remains in the bounds of the relationship between man and nature it is viable, as soon as it incorporates God of any kind into it becomes heretical. the underlying assumption remains that there is an intelligent creator, and by its nature ID is deistic, which I agree with you on, and must remain so. Theistic evolution may have the name theistic in it but it is equally as deistic as ID maybe to lesser degree, which has been my point here all along. Mixing theism, and evolution is an oxymoron, a contradiction in concepts. You either are a theist, Or you are a form of Deist or an atheist. I am trying to get you two to understand this distinction. 

 

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And it's logically absurd as you surely see now.

I Agree, your claim was logically absurd, and I saw that from the get go, Now you finally agree with that. 

 

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, as you learned,  ENCODE merely borrowed research from much earlier work.   When I was an undergraduate, in the early 70s, there were papers in the literature, discussing the functions of non-coding DNA ("non-coding DNA" is what biologist formally call what creationists call "junk DNA")    If the people writing those reports were typical of scientists, most of them would have been theists.   So you've been badly misled here.

ENCODE was a project done by numerous scientists around the World over the course of years compiled in 2012. I am just reporting what I read in the journal Nature and numerous other articles including the Words of Larry Moran an atheist who came up with the term Junk DNA and promoted the concept. I Did my due diligence on that topic, and you and One opinion are spouting the atheist talking points in response exactly as the articles I have read has been the case.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It was where ID's claim to be science was thoroughly debunked.   

Wedge Document:

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

I Would agree with the two bullet points here, as a Christian. Materialism is destructive morally, culturally and politically, and the Result of this Rationale in the 20th century is the murder and genocide of more people than at anytime in Human History, because God has been left out of the discussion. Eugenics, Abortion, forced sterilization, genocide, Lesser races and species, are all the fruit of a materialistic approach in the scientific community. You are defending all these things..... Interesting that the Lawyers name was Rothschild.....

Materialism has no moral compass, and in fact science has drifted off into Post modernism where truth is irrelevant, Because it has lost its concept of Truth.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's wrong.  Theists believe in an omnipotent Creator, not some ("possibly a space alien") designer, according to ID advocates.   God doesn't have to figure out anything.    Once you remove that perfection from God, and insist that He must "design", you have left theism, and become a deist.

Do you suppose that when He tells us that the earth brought forth living things, He was not the One who made the Earth, and maintains it and its processes to do exactly that?    If you don't understand that, then it's clear why you have theism and deism reversed.

I agree, and am not condoning a designer, As I said, I am a Biblical creationist. A full theist. I do not believe in Macro evolution, but do believe in micro evolution and adaptation, this is not a compromise of the Word of God as written. I Believe materialism is Evil, and is the source of evil in our history, and those who ignore History are doomed to repeat it, Even now it is the materialist mindset that justifies the murder of millions of unborn innocents because they do not see conception as a miracle of God, and they defying God in doing so and justifying this evil, I could go on here, but I am sure you are all these Moral Malaise that are the direct result of Social Darwinism and Godless Science. I cannot condone any of this, and the culprit is clear here.

I am surprised you made this comment, as you sound like a theist, But I know you are not, because of your statement to the contrary above... Here I will requote it for you below.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The fact that He can do anything, does not compel  Him to do everything. 

This statement contradicts what you just said, But obviously you live with and accept this contradiction, my faith does not allow this, because it pushes my beliefs into the realm of Deism. I Believe that God is ever present (omnipresent), All Knowing (Omniscient) and at work in every action in His creation (Omnipotent). As soon as you allow for compromise you make God subservient to His Creation, that His Natural Laws guide how he acts. I see all of life, and all of matter, and all of creation as Miraculous. You will not convince me otherwise, Like I have said, I thought as you did one time, I no longer do, because I cannot live with those contradictions and the double think it entails.

   

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

ID is an attempt to graft belief onto science, a sort of compromise between materialism and deism.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I Agree, I am not defending ID theologically in the least, I am saying that scientifically it is viable.

If it was viable, scientists would use it, regardless of who objected.   But it doesn't do anything.    And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Theistic evolution may have the name theistic in it but it is equally as deistic as ID maybe to lesser degree

By definition, theism is not deism.   There are deistic evolutionists, but most of us are theists, not deists.  

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Materialism is destructive morally, culturally and politically, and the Result of this Rationale in the 20th century is the murder and genocide of more people than at anytime in Human History, because God has been left out of the discussion.

In Russia, yes.  In Germany, no.    The SS had belt buckles with "Gott mit Uns" ("God is on our side") and Martin Luther was a hero to the Nazis.   Their theology was a corrupted version of Protestantism (which is not an indictment of Protestantism; many Protestants stood against it, and some died for that), but many, many German pastors signed on to it.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Eugenics, Abortion, forced sterilization, genocide, Lesser races and species, are all the fruit of a materialistic approach in the scientific community.

No.   For example, Darwin thought that even letting the weak among us die was an "overwhelming evil" and Creationists like Tinkle (co-founder of the Institute for Creation research were enthusiastic eugenics supporters.   The Nazi racial theories were exposed as fake science by Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett.     Eugenics was the ID of its time.   We can discuss this in some detail, if you like.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

and in fact science has drifted off into Post modernism where truth is irrelevant, Because it has lost its concept of Truth.

Look up "Sokol Hoax" to learn about how scientists think of post-modernists.    It's a hilarious story about the pretentiousness and vacuity of post-modernism.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I do not believe in Macro evolution, but do believe in micro evolution and adaptation, this is not a compromise of the Word of God as written.

Actually, even YE creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, and families of organisms develop from old ones.   In some cases, it extends to orders.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I am surprised you made this comment, as you sound like a theist, But I know you are not, because of your statement to the contrary above... Here I will requote it for you below.

(Barbarian observes)

The fact that He can do anything, does not compel  Him to do everything. 

I don't see how a theist would say anything else.    God could do many, many things that He has never done, and likely will never do.   Even some deists would admit that much.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

This statement contradicts what you just said

Don't see how.   Logically, if God does everything He could do, then He is not omnipotent, if He hasn't done everything.   

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Believe that God is ever present (omnipresent), All Knowing (Omniscient) and at work in every action in His creation (Omnipotent).

I think you've misunderstood.   God can do anything, but that doesn't mean that He must do everything He could do.    He can, of course, create things that do His will, such as nature, by which He does almost everything in this world.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

As soon as you allow for compromise you make God subservient to His Creation, that His Natural Laws guide how he acts.

I just pointed out that He is not subservient to his Creation.    It is subservient to Him.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I see all of life, and all of matter, and all of creation as Miraculous.

St. Augustine mentioned this, whereby we are amazed at Jesus walking on water, but not at a baby being born into the world.    Nature is a miracle.   But the workings of that miraculously-made entity turns out to be knowable by men, using their senses and reason without involving the supernatural.    Which is a mystery in itself, but worth pondering over for a bit.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

You will not convince me otherwise, Like I have said, I thought as you did one time, I no longer do, because I cannot live with those contradictions and the double think it entails.

If you thought that way, then one of us has. 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by The Barbarian