My stance; should I know about others?

[SaintConfused]

zoegirl,

Most importantly I dislike the term when it includes the idea that God just started everything and let it go.

This is why God's omnipresence and Jesus' 'Second Coming' are around, I guess. I don't understand why you dislike it though, it's not too far different
from the usual daily activity we put ourselves through. Letting something run itself can be dangerous, but this doesn't make us deserted completely.

Genesis clearly shows that God was in charge and planned and orchestrated creation.

I think that would depend on which 'creation' account we're focusing on.

I have no problem with common descent as it pertains to the relationship between organisms, I really have a problem with saying that it happens without God.

Well, even though there is a relationship issue when it comes too Creationism. We would have to demonstrate it happening 'with God' using some sort of evidence to support that hypothesis. We would need some matter or energy to identify the presence of God within or of the common ancestor. We don't know how to identify it though, definitely would be something that doesn't look from this universe or planet. The 1998 movie Sphere would sort of serve as an excellent example, however the sphere itself had switched visibility amongst the characters (one person defines it's in detail, the other can't see anything even though the camera in the room obvious shows the other person speaking but no sphere). The foreign spaceship itself would be valid enough, the data it has collected,the alien intelligence (ID?) speaking too them via the ship's computer's.
It's quiet convincing, however the only sample that would be collectible is the memory of the characters. Which leads me to the next movie 2004
The Final Cut, sousveillance via tech implants preserving memories. Covers exact dates, a recording timer (like a video camera, simply), and identifies certain people compatible with the brain taking in a lot of vital information from the senses. A memory, physical remains, something
would have to solidify 'with God' having some part with common descent other than the common descendant itself. Hovind brought up 'common designer' too someone, this would be acceptable however there is a line between organic complexity (which can reproduce) and inorganic production
(which doesn't reproduce). If you haven't already seen the movies, I recommend them so you'll have some experience as to what I'm trying to say here.
With God: God must be capable of reproduction.
Without God: Common Ancestor has near unfathomable features and genetic variety.~SC

[Cactus]

I would differ from other theistic evolution models in that many who use the term (I can think of Keith Miller and Francis COllins) who are theistic evolutionists and are more deist in God's involvement, that God was more uninvolved in the process.

Yes, I really do accept the bible as truth, well if you accept the bible as true. You really can't deny other possibilities, perhaps you can give them a chance and if you do not like them then you shouldn't stick your thumbs in the ears and go For me, I will listen to what you or anyone has to say and see if that convinces me that my position is strong or weak. However I know that in one respect my resolve is Adamant, that is that I will follow Christ, even if that path leads to death.

I am more convinced from scripture that God is intimately involved in creation events and planned everything, nothing was unknown and nothing was a surprise.

Yes, but evolution can still be used as a way of classifying the development of species with intimate and very subtle involvement or not.

What would help is that we need to find strange or very weird events leading to the extinction of one species and the divergence of another. In those Unique(miraculous?) events...I think we can find god. However, you may correct me if I am wrong.

[zoegirl]

I would differ from other theistic evolution models in that many who use the term (I can think of Keith Miller and Francis COllins) who are theistic evolutionists and are more deist in God's involvement, that God was more uninvolved in the process.

Yes, I really do accept the bible as truth, well if you accept the bible as true. You really can't deny other possibilities, perhaps you can give them a chance and if you do not like them then you shouldn't stick your thumbs in the ears and go

Um, but I haven't stuck my fingers in my ears. I have seriously thought about other possibilities. My only object to theistic evolution (or some of them) is that the more deist versions of the TE show a God that either 1) wasn't sure what would happen or 2) just let things go.

I think scripture shows a GOd that is intimately invovled in His own creation and so even if He used this process He was guiding it/conducting it. Simple as that. I am using scripture here in revealing HIs character as a personal God, an invovled God.

For me, I will listen to what you or anyone has to say and see if that convinces me that my position is strong or weak. However I know that in one respect my resolve is Adamant, that is that I will follow Christ, even if that path leads to death.

Amen!

I am more convinced from scripture that God is intimately involved in creation events and planned everything, nothing was unknown and nothing was a surprise.

Yes, but evolution can still be used as a way of classifying the development of species with intimate and very subtle involvement or not.

What would help is that we need to find strange or very weird events leading to the extinction of one species and the divergence of another. In those Unique(miraculous?) events...I think we can find god. However, you may correct me if I am wrong.

Hmm...no, don't disagree in theiry, I just think we would find it hard to given that we could never go back in time.

[SaintConfused]

I relegate evolution to the simple status of 'tool', however you would expect god's tool to be far more worth understanding than one made by human hands, god makes the rules of the universe not us!

Evolution doesn't claim that only we 'make' the rules of the universe. It wasn't 'made' by human hands, and it can still be understood as a 'tool'. A program would be more accurate, not something like a wrench or hammer. It's worth understanding, if we bring God into the equation or not. In the same way that it's worth tasting a new flavor of something even if you do or don't believe it's actually there. Evolution is the understanding of the program as it 'tests' organisms (either giving new attributes, making a whole species go extinct, amongst a few other things), not the attempt to reconcile 'who' made the program.

I say that evolution could not of started without god.

Evolution isn't a one man operation, a lot of factors come into play as we observe transitional remains and even our own origins throughout history.
When we step beyond the primary definition of Evolution, which is change, we are able to grasp in detail the other components of this process.
Scrutiny is the longest process before something becomes 'just a theory', it is a theory with factual basis & not a non-existent phenomena.
It could start with God, surely, but that would mean God reducing Himself too the levels of this universe (therefore, no longer 'God' as
an infinite, beyond biological, unfathomably complex mass of unidentifiable essence) and therefore under His own 'rules' of the universe.
We have no way to analyze such a thing though, even though I will admit it is admirable
and acceptable as a plausible but dangerous movement to be making from 'God' Himself.
That's like 'creating' the world's largest blender just to throw yourself in it, that's not sane and it's a real heart breaker.
You just don't do that kind of thing, including when you're stripped of Omnimax attributes by yourself (well, that's awkward to say the least).
It could, and with our limited capacity to understand fully, for all we do 'know' it has 'started' in the absence of God.

Just how the development of the PC could not of started without human beings.

A PC isn't organic,
it doesn't reproduce with other PCs,
it doesn't pass on genetic data to future generations,
it's not exactly a good example.
A PC doesn't desire a relationship with human beings, even though there is a dependence growing from the humans on the PCs.
There could be seen a role reversal here, PCs work in absolute 'yes' or 'no'
development, it's not flexible in the same way we are yet it has an advantage with that.
Whereas we construct the PCs, they 'design' a comfort 'zone' for our excessive feelings, thoughts, occupations,
and other things. It's quiet impressive, however I wouldn't drag myself into following ID so soon. That's just me though.

So I can immediately shoot down the thought that god just started it and left it to its own devices.

'its own devices' that support each other as principles for existence, of course.

It needs maintenance and it needs directing.

It's self-directing. Maintenance for what exactly except for the organisms that are applied too it? reproduction, mutations, natural
selection, survival fitness don't automatically 'turn off' or lose maintenance on animals or us just because we have joined the picture.

I feel that it was intentionally used to make us.

Evolution isn't the origination of living beings, it is the changing of them.
By saying 'us', you've got me concerned as if other primates ('them')
don't count as living or important too the environments they exist in.

By itself is there any advantage to creating a being that has such incredible self-destructive power?

Don't worry, evolution corrects these sorts of events it doesn't just let them freelance. Development, metamorphosis, gains and losses,
there's always those and a lot more, but 'creating' just doesn't seem to fit with the rest. Sort of like calling a light purple 'blue' and
then just placing it in with the dark shades of blue like it 'fits'. You would throw people off if this was a recipe meant to be all spices, and
you just added some sugar in whatever you've put together expecting everything to work out alright. There is the advantage of adaption
when facing the self-destructive properties, looking at how fast food works is a good example of this. It doesn't make promises, it just works
like it's supposed to. If you happen to binge eat, it is not the fault of 'evolution' that you're stressed but it would be a wonderful
personal achievement to grow beyond that stress and control what is and isn't consumed.

Evolution on its own, would be a big mess.

It is a big mess, but that doesn't make the mess unrealistic or a hoax at all.

nor was I around to watch evolution happen either.

Evolution still happens, even though it doesn't happen too humanity in general on a large scale over a short time frame.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... ecies.html
2007 article, speciation is evolving diversity Cactus.~SC

[Cactus]

It could start with God, surely, but that would mean God reducing Himself too the levels of this universe (therefore, no longer 'God' as
an infinite, beyond biological, unfathomably complex mass of unidentifiable essence) and therefore under His own 'rules' of the universe.

Aha...but god can bend/break the rules at any moment, if the rules are defined by god then they can easily be modified by god. Do you think god would "reduce" himself, god has already 'humbled' himself, who else would Jesus the Christ be? It is a simple matter of trustworthiness, in that I can trust all of what Jesus says to be true. We should help our neighbour! We should love one another!

I do not see how for example, switching on a light switch reduces a man to the level of a wall.(you know a 2d plane!) So how does god "interfering" with our universe put him down to a lower level? I am merely saying that evolution can happen and events that change the course of it could be the result's of god. Would humans be around if the dinosaurs didn't die off? I do not think so. Nor do I really know how it happened, chance or interference? I would not say that anything that happens did not happen for a reason, the universe isn't a big mess...it just seems like it to the untrained eye.

[SaintConfused]

Cactus,

god can bend/break the rules at any moment.

I'm not denying that. God is above and below the 'rules' at the same time.

if the rules are defined by god then they can easily be modified by god.

Aside from speculation, we can't be sure what defines the 'rules' other than the universe being an independent system.
What sort of modification are you speaking of?

Do you think god would 'reduce' himself?

I thought that already begun with the 'creation' of humanity, and as a secondary, Jesus (if you accept deifying a human as God Himself, I however don't). By reduction, I'm actually referring to a biological interaction of some sort (like encountering a unique new species that has attributes that
aren't usually found throughout Earth's ecosystems) - not a deliberate suicide run for 'salvation' or anything like that. No where can it be found in God's
law (The Torah) that pagan deities shall be worshiped, trinity-concepts are not excluded from this.

god has already 'humbled' himself.

too himself? right, I'd like to avoid paradoxes instead of arguing over them.

who else would Jesus the Christ be?

I don't understand you're question. 'Christ' is a title, not a name.
He's many things, but I'll keep them too myself.

I can trust all of what Jesus says to be true.

I'm not stopping you from trusting whatever Jesus says is true.

I do not see how for example, switching on a light switch reduces a man to the level of a wall.

Well that's a tricky one Cactus! However, we're discussing God here and not a common man. A more valid question (not saying yours won't do here, it just speaks of man and not God) would be: what did He sacrifice to reach the human level? I'd have to say omniscience, with the assumption that Jesus is God. This would make sense, because he said only 'The Father' knows when he will return.
Mark 13:26-27,32 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall
gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Mark 13:32 And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known - not even the
messengers who are in the heaven, not even the Son - except the Father.
I'm not saying switching a light switch will reduce a man too the same dimension of the wall
(both would be 3d actually, unless we take away 1, which would make it collapse on itself as well as the man).

So how does god 'interfering' with our universe put him down to a lower level?

I'm not speaking of God interfering with the universe, I'm saying God placing Himself under his own set 'rules' of the universe like any other organic sentience (lacking or having a 'perfect' evolved status). Descending requires an absence of something, whereas ascending requires the gathering of something. Natural Selection serves a wonderful example of God being under the 'rules' that He 'created' (the 'rules' guide Him instead of Himself), there is no need to change them just because He is interfering with a formerly independent system that was run by Himself (or still is) elsewhere. Losing omniscience also means knowing little or nothing of time itself. (like humans do, or other animals) The only thing Jesus was capable of foreseeing was the punishment for his actions (death) [seen throughout the Gospels, right?], it's not stated that he knew everything before his
birth, or beyond after his death. Putting Himself as a 'lower level', does not mean the 'rules' do not apply even while He's within the universe.
Fire is still warm, ice is still cold, rain is still wet, earth is still dry, etc. I'm not talking about a moving 'spirit' into the universe, I'm talking
about an actual manifestation that isn't human yet still bound to the 'rules' He placed for humanity and other species.

Evolution can happen and events that change the course of it could be the result's of god.

So you're saying God only reacts using the changes as an open window of opportunity to assist in the history of evolution? aside from what remains, we don't have an unusual substance floating around transitional forms and a certainty that is came directly from God and not something else. I'd like to hope the common ancestor has this (or something like it), with a sincere hope, I might be a skeptic but I'm not going to lie about such a thing.

Would humans be around if the dinosaurs didn't die off? I do not think so.

I'm not saying that, but I agree nonethe-less. Extinction and diversity of life is an interesting cycle, evolution still corrects itself independent of some foreign interaction though from all that we can tell from a scientific perspective. It's not 'Atheist' or 'Christian', just because it's an observation. Kind of like how idols aren't all 'pagan', Christianity has incorporated them for Jesus over several centuries.

Nor do I really know how it happened, chance or interference?

'it', as in the extinction of the dinosaurs or the arrival of humanity afterwords?

I would not say that anything that happens did not happen for a reason.

I'm not telling you it doesn't happen without a reason.

the universe isn't a big mess.

It's an 'organized mess', because there is some order, even though it's not an absolute.
Sort of like avoiding to place things 'properly', yet still knowing where they all are.
It's messy, but it's also organized by memory and other things.~SC

[SaintConfused]

csl,

So would both of you, and whoever else, say that evolution (as a tool) works on it's own, basically, but God directs it when he wants (or wanted) to create new species?

Working on it's own is self-direction, Speciation brings forth 'new species' out of already existing ones
(this is why common descend is a key point in evolution).
We have no way to validate God (or a 'designer') interacting though to provide 'new species'.
For example, by inheritance a young calf gains the rebellious nature of it's mother and
fights off predators to the best of it's ability (evolving a gradual turn-around with the ecosystem).
How do we determine God is directly or 'creating' this habit?
Well, if we take the Deist view and say God 'started it' and left it alone.
The calf's 'natural' evolution drives it to be rebellious because of God's absence
and lack of direction (The same way a child gets seriously upset without a mother or father figure).
Not because God is directing or 'creating' a 'new species' out of the circumstance.
Even though the calf would have to be capable of reproduction for a continuation of the evolved attitude
and possible physical traits being additional. Such as a more solid skin, and change of feeding habits, less hair, etc.
'Hell' is another depiction of the natural universe reacting in the absence of God,
suffering, torment, eternal punishment, loneliness, all that disturbing stuff.~SC

[Cactus]

What sort of modification are you speaking of?

It could be something really tiny and seemingly insignificant or it could be something major. However if some really subtle alteration to the world happens, how do we notice it?

I don't understand you're question. 'Christ' is a title, not a name.

Err..I said "the Christ", like...I used it as his title!

'it', as in the extinction of the dinosaurs or the arrival of humanity afterwords?

Now when I referred to a 'it' I was talking about the idea of evolution in general...! But certain specific events in the process are good places to look at for insight.

[Anonymiss]

My stance.

[dayage]

Saint,

Assuming I understood your points correctly:
God has taken on a biological form even before coming as Jesus. He came to visit Abraham. Genesis 18:1-2 says the LORD appeared as one of three men who came to Abraham. This is confirmed in Gen. 18:22-23. Here the men went toward Sodom (does not say how many) and Abraham was left speaking to the LORD. Then in Gen. 19:1 we see that it was two of the men that had left and they were angels. So, the LORD was the third.

The Trinity is found at least four times in Genesis:
1:1-2 (God created, God's Spirit was moving);
26-27 (Let US make man in OUR image, GOD made man in HIS own image);
3:22-23 (man has become like one of US, lest he...take from the tree of Life, therefore the LORD GOD sent him out);
11:6-9 (Come, let US go down and there confuse their language, So the LORD scattered them, there the LORD confused the language).

God creating the universe is backed by the singularity theorems. These show that the universe was created from a transcendent source. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf
Both the Bible and the Big Bang theory say that the laws of physics are constant and that the universe is expanding.

After the earth formed, it went through intense bombardment by comets and asteroids until about 3.85 Bya. This would have removed the oceans several times, i.e. no life. We have chemical evidence from rocks that are at least 3.8 Bya which show that life was abundant. In a geologic instant life appears and it was diverse and complex.

Molecular clocks (across species do not work). http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/387
These clocks require that animals diverged between 800 Mya and 1.2 Bya.
As I've said before this can be tested:
The fossil record shows no animals before about 570 Mya (with the possible exception of sponges, 635 Mya)
The fossil record shows the explosive origin of phyla at the Avilon (570 Mya) and the Cambrian (543 Mya) with no ancestors.
Prior to these explosions the oceans were far too salty; were low in phosphate, molybdenum and oxygen. The earth had gone through at least two snowbal earth events between 600 and 800 Mya. All of this means that the clocks are wrong.

These two explosions seem to fit the first part of creation day five "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures..."

Here is another paper showing the problems with molecular clocks. http://www.simonho.org/papers/tig06_ho.pdf

Here is one showing the problems of fossils vs genetics in trying to show human evolution.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae

Also, when the Triassic dinos went extinct, they were replaced by Jurassic dinos in less than 10,000 years. Seems a bit fast to me. God seems to refer to this type of thing going on during creation, in Psalm 104:29-30.

God is in His seventh day/sabbath rest now (Genesis 2:2 and Hebrews 4:1-11), so no new creations will take place until the New Heavens and New Earth are created.

[B. W.]

....God has taken on a biological form even before coming as Jesus. He came to visit Abraham. Genesis 18:1-2 says the LORD appeared as one of three men who came to Abraham. This is confirmed in Gen. 18:22-23. Here the men went toward Sodom (does not say how many) and Abraham was left speaking to the LORD. Then in Gen. 19:1 we see that it was two of the men that had left and they were angels. So, the LORD was the third.

The Trinity is found at least four times in Genesis:
1:1-2 (God created, God's Spirit was moving);
26-27 (Let US make man in OUR image, GOD made man in HIS own image);
3:22-23 (man has become like one of US, lest he...take from the tree of Life, therefore the LORD GOD sent him out);
11:6-9 (Come, let US go down and there confuse their language, So the LORD scattered them, there the LORD confused the language)...

Hi Dayage,

I'll be addressing these points in another thread - Old Testement concept of God soon. The three person appearing to Abraham were indeed a theophany of the Trinity! Bible does back this up despite what the critics say.

There are also more places in Genesis where Jesus the son is mentioned
-
-
-