Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I notice you can't offer factual rebuttals to any of the things I've shown you.   That's a very telling point.

See above.   Everything you claimed was adequately rebutted.   If you think I missed something, I'd be pleased to show you again.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Your references didn't not include an facts. 

Dr. Wise listed dozens of facts.  And linked you to the papers in which the data was available.  

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Here it is again:  post the evidence, note the link, that Wise  or any  other evolutionist offer to prove what they say.

Dr. Wise is a YE creationist.  He's just honest enough to admit the facts.   And he linked dozens of papers backing up his facts:

Gingerich, P. D., 1994. The whales of Tethys. Natural History, 103(4):86– 88.

Gould, S. J., 1994. Hooking leviathan by its past. Natural History,103(5):9–15

Zimmer, C., 1995. Back to the sea. Discover, 16(l):82–84

Zimmer, C., 1995. Coming onto the land. Discover, 16(6): 118–127

Wise, K. P., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus and the fossil record. CENTech. J., 8(2): 160–165

Wise, K. P., 1990. Baraminology: A young-earth creation biosystematic method. In:Proceedings of the Second International Conference onCreationism, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks (eds), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 345–360

Wise, K. P., 1991. Practical baraminology. CEN Tech. J., 6(2): 122–137

Wise, K. P., 1992. Creation polycladism: A young-earth creation theory of biogenesis. In:Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities CreationConference, Twin-Cities Creation Science Association, Genesis Institute, and Northwestern College, Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 204–210.

Wise, K. P., 1994. Origin of life's major groups. In:The CreationHypothesis, J. P. Moreland (ed.), InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, pp. 211–234

Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L. and Wise, K. P., 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history. In:Proceedings of the Third InternationalConference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 609–621.

Stewart, W. N. and Rothwell, G. W., 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolutionof Plants, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England, pp. 114-115.

Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Natureof History, Norton, New York, pp. 321–323

Carroll, R. L., 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Freeman, New York, p. 467

Carroll, ibid, p. 473.

Hopson, J. A., 1994. Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals. In:Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Porthero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 190–219.

Ostrom, J. H., 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. In:MajorFeatures of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 160–177.

Thomson, K. S., 1994. The origin of the tetrapods. In:Major Featuresof Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 85–107.

Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R., 1994. The origin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368:507–514.

No point in you denying all of this.  Instead of denying the reality, find a way to accommodate it in your belief system.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/18/2020 at 7:54 PM, omega2xx said:

Thanks for confirming that you have no scientific understanding of mutations.  All they do  is alter a trait the offspring would have gotten without the mutation.  If a mutation affects the skin pigment, The color of the skin is changed, but the species is not.

You still don't get what's going on with speciation.  It's a change in allele frequencies in a population that makes that population reproductively isolated from other populations.   Mutation change the genome of a new individual, relative to its parents, and this changes the allele frequencies in the population genome.   This is why creationist groups generally admit the fact of speciation.   It's directly observed to happen.

 

 

[omega2xx]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

See above.   Everything you claimed was adequately rebutted.   If you think I missed something, I'd be pleased to show you again.

Dr. Wise listed dozens of facts.  And linked you to the papers in which the data was available.  

Dr. Wise is a YE creationist.  He's just honest enough to admit the facts.   And he linked dozens of papers backing up his facts:

Gingerich, P. D., 1994. The whales of Tethys. Natural History, 103(4):86– 88.

Gould, S. J., 1994. Hooking leviathan by its past. Natural History,103(5):9–15

Zimmer, C., 1995. Back to the sea. Discover, 16(l):82–84

Zimmer, C., 1995. Coming onto the land. Discover, 16(6): 118–127

Wise, K. P., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus and the fossil record. CENTech. J., 8(2): 160–165

Wise, K. P., 1990. Baraminology: A young-earth creation biosystematic method. In:Proceedings of the Second International Conference onCreationism, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks (eds), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 345–360

Wise, K. P., 1991. Practical baraminology. CEN Tech. J., 6(2): 122–137

Wise, K. P., 1992. Creation polycladism: A young-earth creation theory of biogenesis. In:Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities CreationConference, Twin-Cities Creation Science Association, Genesis Institute, and Northwestern College, Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 204–210.

Wise, K. P., 1994. Origin of life's major groups. In:The CreationHypothesis, J. P. Moreland (ed.), InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, pp. 211–234

Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L. and Wise, K. P., 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history. In:Proceedings of the Third InternationalConference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 609–621.

Stewart, W. N. and Rothwell, G. W., 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolutionof Plants, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England, pp. 114-115.

Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Natureof History, Norton, New York, pp. 321–323

Carroll, R. L., 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Freeman, New York, p. 467

Carroll, ibid, p. 473.

Hopson, J. A., 1994. Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals. In:Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Porthero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 190–219.

Ostrom, J. H., 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. In:MajorFeatures of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 160–177.

Thomson, K. S., 1994. The origin of the tetrapods. In:Major Featuresof Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 85–107.

Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R., 1994. The origin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368:507–514.

No point in you denying all of this.  Instead of denying the reality, find a way to accommodate it in your belief system.

Thanks for confirming  I am  right. You are not willing to take 10 minuets to post some actual facts instead of just listing what others say are facts.    You say  Wise listed dozens of papers backing up his facts, but are unwilling to take less time to list some of hem than it took you to  post this message..  The truth is he has no facts and you don't understands evidence well enough  see he  has none.  Now those who might be following this discussion know what I know---you would if you could but YOU CAN'T.

Since you mentioned Gringich and whale evolution I will offer you another challenge---How can a land animal with no gene for fins and a blowhole produce a sea animal with those traits.  I  have read what Gringich says and it  is completely false.  He had to make up things with no evidence because if evolution can,t connect land life to sea life, evolution is exposed for the scientific fraud it is.

You like to label Wise as a YE believer but don't even understand the age of the earth makes no difference to proven genetic truths,   How sad and pathetic  that evolution has had to invent false ideas  to try and make its case.

Thanks again for proving me right---you can't post any evidence to support your unscientific and unBiblical case.

 

[omega2xx]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You still don't get what's going on with speciation.  It's a change in allele frequencies in a population that makes that population reproductively isolated from other populations.   Mutation change the genome of a new individual, relative to its parents, and this changes the allele frequencies in the population genome.   This is why creationist groups generally admit the fact of speciation.   It's directly observed to happen.

YAWN

 

 

[Behold]

On 3/2/2020 at 2:52 PM, one.opinion said:

Perhaps you could explain further. I assumed you mean it is not tenable on theological grounds (but share your thoughts on science too, if you wish). Why do you believe Genesis 1-3 could not be interpreted in a more figurative fashion?

Because Colossians explains that when Jesus was the Word, as the Pre-Incarnate Christ,  God used words to speak forth all of creation.   Colossians goes on to specifically state that all things that you now see and all things that you can't see, were created by God Thru Jesus the Pre- Incarnate Word.   Colossians explains that its by the power of God, Thru Christ, that everything is being "kept going" that was originally CREATED,..... is the simple version.

Later, in John, it specifically states that "Jesus as a man, ,  was in the world, and the world was MADE Thru HIM".

Even later in John, you find The Apostle Thomas, kneeling before the RISEN CHRIST saying to Him...."My Lord and my GOD"......and Jesus didn't correct Him.    As why would GOD correct him?

Notice carefully that word "THRU".    So, the world made THRU HIM< according to JOHN's Gospel,.... is the exact literal description, semantics, verbiage, and TRUTH regarding  how God created it all = originally.

God did not evolve it, He Created it ALL THRU Jesus, the Pre-Incarnate word.

So, Here you have Genesis and then 4000 Yrs later, the same EXACT Truth is explained in DETAIL in the NT.    

This is how a born again person compares "scripture with scripture" to "rightly divided the word", to get the LIGHT.

Unbelievers can't do this, they can't see it, grasp it, or believe it.

All they can do is pretend its not true, and often show up on forums to try to be a  TROLL  regarding this very fact.

 

[dhchristian]

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14)

[one.opinion]

On 3/23/2020 at 4:44 PM, Behold said:

So, Here you have Genesis and then 4000 Yrs later, the same EXACT Truth is explained in DETAIL in the NT.

Yes, Jesus Christ is clearly indicated as Creator in the NT. How would you argue that the NT supports a 144-hour creation period? I see nothing in the NT that specifically affirms this view.

[Behold]

22 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, Jesus Christ is clearly indicated as Creator in the NT. How would you argue that the NT supports a 144-hour creation period? I see nothing in the NT that specifically affirms this view.

There is in Genesis, literal  scripture that SAYS that God created in "6 days".

"6 days" is not a mistranslation, or a transliteration.  Its in the Jewish Torah, its it the original Hebrew, its Taught by Jewish Religious Leadership for 4000 + yrs=  that its Literal, and not symbolic or allegorical.

So, that's not debatable, unless you just refuse to accept the Bible as written, and prefer to exercise your opinion about it, as your right.   And that is fine by me.

Believe what tho wilt, fella.  But dont blame God for your POV once you meet Him and face His, if you are not born again.   (dont be that person).

If you want to take the other verse i gave you and consider it....., "" a Thousand years is as one DAY, with God", then you can look at "6 days" according to THAT biblical perspective, but, Theologically thats not right, .... however, unless you are a Hebrew and Greek Scholar and  Translator who has studied bible manuscript evidence all your life, then all you currently have as your frame of reference are some verses you can choose to accept at face value, or not.

Help yourself, there.   Have at it.

One thing tho........Denying that these words as scripture are found literally in the Bible, however, is Trolling.  As to only exist on a Christian Forum to deny the very words that are written in a bible, can be nothing more or less, then TROLLING.

One more thing....

If God created it all in 6 days or in 6000 yrs, He still created it all "after its KIND"......And "KIND" means its an established fully formed TYPE that was not birthed or evolved.....= "Kind" is a fully developed and created entity.  So, Genesis refutes and denies that God evolved anything over 6 days or 6 thousand years related to making the universe, Man, the world, the water, the plants, and the animals.

If however....... since and because of the Fall of Adam, the  "curse" came to damage and control  some changes concerning what was created originally "after its KIND"< then God didnt cause that, and God didnt Evolve that.... That is just a fact of the curse that came to this world and this universe because of Adam's Fall.   Same as sickness begain and our need of Christ to redeem us from both THAT curse and the curse of the Law came into play,  after the Fall of Adam.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Behold

[one.opinion]

50 minutes ago, Behold said:

Believe what tho wilt, fella.  But dont blame God for your POV once you meet Him and face His, if you are not born again.   (dont be that person).

I have more important things to do than argue online with a brother in Christ, but I am one of His followers and am joyfully looking forward to the day when I will be with Him. There are things I will be confronted with before His judgement seat that I would rather not face, but following the evidence He has made available to a reasonable conclusion is not something I will be ashamed of.

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

but I am one of His followers

Not if your stand is on theistic evolution .... evolution cannot be forced upon the Scripture as written and thus you must pervert the Word of God to do so... and seeing how The Word of God is The creative, Living, written Word of God (Jesus) you are not following that, even if you claim you are, as we have your witness in this...