What are the Strongest points of Theistic Evolution

[FearlessLlearsy]

Let us adress a couple of things there:

I don't believe God dictated verbally to Moses everything. Moses was a part of the process with his memories and vocabulary.

How do you know that? Is that your opinion? Then i respect it, although it may not be true. It could have been a revelation from God. What was Moses doing on Mt. Sinai for 40 days? Playing Black Ops Just throwing that out there

This is often called Verbal Plenary inspiration. Guided by the Spirit and preserved from error, bit still including and incorporating the personality and will of the person writing

My friend, let us be reminded that the (Holy Spirit/ Spirit) did not come until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Galilee.

[Canuckster1127]

1. I stated it was my opinion. It's that. If you wish to believe that God dictated everything then that's a legitimate opinion. It begs the question though as to why the Bible doesn't use the same vocabulary and style.

2. The Holy Spirit is God and was present at the creation of the world.

Gen 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

You're referring to Pentecost at which time the Spirit came to dwell permanently within men on the basis of the finished work of Christ.

2 Peter 1:20-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This makes clear that although the Spirit of God was not resident within people prior to Pentecost (the exception being Christ who was indwelt as a man in this manner at the time of His Baptism) the Spirit of God was still active and at work in the OT in many manners. This includes inspiration of Scripture.

[FearlessLlearsy]

Legitimate reasons. I was not saying it was my opinion that Moses received a revelation from God, i was throwing out the idea. From all i know, we will never be sure

[B. W.]

Interesting thoughts!

-
-
-

[Seraph]

Hey there guys, I was wanting to try and participate in on the discussion. I was wanting to ask you Serapah what your top reasons for believing darwinian evolution are. I've always have wanted to ask people who hold to evolution what their main reasons are, but since so many of them are the hateful atheist type, all I would get is a hateful God cursing rant with a few bits and pieces actual of evidence mixed in with it. Since you are a Christian and a theistic evolutionist you could be a very big help to me and others who really want to see what kind of evidence there is for evolution. So if it's ok, what evidence, convinces you the most, that evolution is true? A few things that stick out in my mind from what I've studied so far are things like junk dna, transitional fossils, and microevolution of things like finch beak and moth color changes that promote survival advantages. But if you don't mind, let me know what you think is the best evidence. So far, I think the evidence is iffy at best, a equally good case can be made for either a old earth creation or intelligent design model. But if you can show me a very good case that trumps these two models I may consider switching over. But anyway, thank you for your time and participation.

Hi DRDS,

While theistic evolution is the position I lean toward the most, I think old earth creationism is still a rational position to hold and a pretty feasible possibility. I definately don't have an agenda to try and convert people to a theistic evolutionary position, especially since it isn't really all that important regarding one's faith as a whole. But the main reasons I think evolution is probably true is that I think that sufficient evidence has been observed from fossils (after placing them on a timeline from the periods the date back to, based on the layers of rock they were preserved in) to suggest that most creatures on the planet gradually became more complex in later time periods built upon simpler designs from earlier periods (minus the common examples of "missing links", but I still think it's sufficent to where one can make an inference). Also, as time goes on for me, I feel more and more that in order to believe in instant spantaneous creation (even old earth creationism), one has to reject a ton of evidence, while cherry picking exceptions to the evidence and use it as the proof that spontaneous creationism is true. Like a lot have said though, theistic evolution is still basically a form of creationism, since I still believe that God designed us and other living things, but just think He did it in a less "hands on" way. I personally think that even if people's coming into being does have completely natual roots back to inorganic material from the early Earth, God was still the one that created matter and the physical laws that would've allowed man to come into existence. I think that even strictly natural evolution still requires input from God (unless the multiverse theory is true, but that's not a philosophy I subscribe to).

I wrote out a lot of reasons of why I believe evolution took place in my debate with jlay in this thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 0&start=15. Jlay also does a good job in the debate of criticizing a strictly evidentential way of looking at things and definately gave me a lot to think about.

[Maytan]

Also, as time goes on for me, I feel more and more that in order to believe in instant spantaneous creation (even old earth creationism), one has to reject a ton of evidence, while cherry picking exceptions to the evidence and use it as the proof that spontaneous creationism is true.

Would you mind providing some examples of this? I truly am curious.

[neo-x]

by FearlessLlearsy » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:07 am

neo-x wrote: But if death occurred only then, then it was just for humans and as a result of sin other wise I do not think that God made everything without death, including, animals, ocean creatures etc etc, because that would imbalance natural, no deaths and ever increasing numbers in other species would have forced a problem in the long run. It is a known scientific fact that there is a food chain, which means there is a balance between everything God created. So everything remains in order in balance, even our own planet has its own mechanism to replenish it self, refreshing it self. That to me is the astounding wonder of God's hands and how he made everything in its perfect balance.



Friend, we all should be reminded that God initially created all animals as vegetarians. Should we look at Scripture?
Genesis 1:29-30
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

I think you were overthinking it right? Is not it amazing how much sometimes we complicate our conclusions when the answer is staring at our faces? I just wanted to let you know, with God, ANYTHING can happen. Just a share of insight,

Hey guys sorry to reply late, anyways i have nothing to contradict the scripture, my humble understanding of it comes from two assumptions that what the bible says doesn't have to be a scientific principle as it summarizes a lot of things. Second what is not explained could be somehow rationalized as long as it doesn't contradict the message of the bible, this is what I think.

So, FearlessLlearsy, If God made all animals as vegetarians, there are some serious implications to this claim. If what Bart wrote about the language doesn't convince you, please can you explain then how the primary difference between carnivores and herbivores occur primarily in two areas.

1. first point The dental profile
have you noticed that the teeth of a T-rex, an alligator, a shark, a lion, a hyena differ from the goat, zebra, horse and a cow?
please see that if what you say is true than the only way the carnivores teeth became, as we see them today, would be through evolution. I would also say that while the teeth differ from species to species, the herbivore teeth have the basic same profile no matter what the species is. Now since all herbivores carry almost the same dental profile, my questions

1. Did god made all the predators we see today, living or fossilized, with herbivore teeth since they all were vegetarian in the start? because some teeth cant just eat grass I hope you can see that at least.

2. if the answer to the above question is yes than how come the teeth changed only of predators that we see today, why didn't the goat jumped on the other goat and ripped it apart. Also if you answer yes to the above question, you will indirectly support evolution since the carnivores teeth would have, in time started to change, but there are no transitional fossils to support this claim, as you say.

3. if the answer to the 1st question is no, and you say, God made all teeth as we see them, there is no evolution. Then why would God made the teeth of a lion, a shark, a T-rex to be perfect for hunting and ripping and shredding flesh, in the first place even if they were meant to eat grass, while the teeth of the horse and cow, are at best, for the sake of eating grass only? why would God grant canines to a lion and say, "you go on, I know it is hard but try to eat grass and leaves from it." grass and leaves would slip in between the canines because they are spaced apart, there is enough space in between those teeth to hold a spinal cord of a animal and break it.

also if you answer to the 1st question as NO, then it would beg the question why didn't all species went carnivores? since all were made as herbivores

second point, the claw and paw profile,

the claws aid hunting and injuring the prey, they maintain balance with silence. hoofs are different and almost all herbivores carry them

all the above arguments and questions to be repeated for this point too.
----

Do you really think that a T-rex or a lion or a shark was eating grass or vegetation when out of no where it realized Adam had sinned and so he jumped on the nearest lamb or seal to tear it to pieces?

I was not over thinking it, brother. Sometimes people just jump to the conclusion without thinking in detail and trying to answer every question, it is not about complicating things. And YES, I do believe anything is possible with God.

Please, I would appreciate a reasonable response to this, and I am interested in how would you answer these questions?
Thank you

[neo-x]

hey reactionary,

By the way, where did you get the idea that I would throw the entire science out of the window because of evolutionary fallacies?

Sorry, I didn't mean you, all I meant was that most people tend to do it with force, clinging to to what the Bible says as literal interpretation and even surpassing observed facts.

[DRDS]

Hey there guys, I was wanting to try and participate in on the discussion. I was wanting to ask you Serapah what your top reasons for believing darwinian evolution are. I've always have wanted to ask people who hold to evolution what their main reasons are, but since so many of them are the hateful atheist type, all I would get is a hateful God cursing rant with a few bits and pieces actual of evidence mixed in with it. Since you are a Christian and a theistic evolutionist you could be a very big help to me and others who really want to see what kind of evidence there is for evolution. So if it's ok, what evidence, convinces you the most, that evolution is true? A few things that stick out in my mind from what I've studied so far are things like junk dna, transitional fossils, and microevolution of things like finch beak and moth color changes that promote survival advantages. But if you don't mind, let me know what you think is the best evidence. So far, I think the evidence is iffy at best, a equally good case can be made for either a old earth creation or intelligent design model. But if you can show me a very good case that trumps these two models I may consider switching over. But anyway, thank you for your time and participation.

Hi DRDS,

While theistic evolution is the position I lean toward the most, I think old earth creationism is still a rational position to hold and a pretty feasible possibility. I definately don't have an agenda to try and convert people to a theistic evolutionary position, especially since it isn't really all that important regarding one's faith as a whole. But the main reasons I think evolution is probably true is that I think that sufficient evidence has been observed from fossils (after placing them on a timeline from the periods the date back to, based on the layers of rock they were preserved in) to suggest that most creatures on the planet gradually became more complex in later time periods built upon simpler designs from earlier periods (minus the common examples of "missing links", but I still think it's sufficent to where one can make an inference). Also, as time goes on for me, I feel more and more that in order to believe in instant spantaneous creation (even old earth creationism), one has to reject a ton of evidence, while cherry picking exceptions to the evidence and use it as the proof that spontaneous creationism is true. Like a lot have said though, theistic evolution is still basically a form of creationism, since I still believe that God designed us and other living things, but just think He did it in a less "hands on" way. I personally think that even if people's coming into being does have completely natual roots back to inorganic material from the early Earth, God was still the one that created matter and the physical laws that would've allowed man to come into existence. I think that even strictly natural evolution still requires input from God (unless the multiverse theory is true, but that's not a philosophy I subscribe to).

I wrote out a lot of reasons of why I believe evolution took place in my debate with jlay in this thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 0&start=15. Jlay also does a good job in the debate of criticizing a strictly evidentential way of looking at things and definately gave me a lot to think about.

Let's see I was going to quickly ask you about the multiverse. From what I've heard there is no hard evidence right now that supports it. And even if there was where did the first universe from the multiverse (or if the theorists hold to a universe generating machine or mechanism where did that come from)? From what you have studied about the multiverse what do the proponents say?

[DannyM]

Let's see I was going to quickly ask you about the multiverse. From what I've heard there is no hard evidence right now that supports it. And even if there was where did the first universe from the multiverse (or if the theorists hold to a universe generating machine or mechanism where did that come from)? From what you have studied about the multiverse what do the proponents say?

There is no evidence of other universes. This is not observational science.

[FearlessLlearsy]

2. if the answer to the above question is yes than how come the teeth changed only of predators that we see today, why didn't the goat jumped on the other goat and ripped it apart. Also if you answer yes to the above question, you will indirectly support evolution since the carnivores teeth would have, in time started to change, but there are no transitional fossils to support this claim, as you say.

3. if the answer to the 1st question is no, and you say, God made all teeth as we see them, there is no evolution. Then why would God made the teeth of a lion, a shark, a T-rex to be perfect for hunting and ripping and shredding flesh, in the first place even if they were meant to eat grass, while the teeth of the horse and cow, are at best, for the sake of eating grass only? why would God grant canines to a lion and say, "you go on, I know it is hard but try to eat grass and leaves from it." grass and leaves would slip in between the canines because they are spaced apart, there is enough space in between those teeth to hold a spinal cord of a animal and break it.

also if you answer to the 1st question as NO, then it would beg the question why didn't all species went carnivores? since all were made as herbivores

Thank you neo-x for your insightful post.
One minor problem is that yours questions are "complex questions" which means you leave me no space to give a legitimate answer. Basically, it would be a lose/lose situation either way right?... Mhm, very interesting I LOVE THAT
You could have added also, why would snakes be poisonous when they survive on plants and fruits only prior to the Fall of Man.
I MAY be wrong, but the only way to refute such argument is to claim that God knew from the very beginning the Fall of men and the concept of death. However, i fully acknowledge that your post clearly demonstrates scientific truth ( basically logic, lol)behind it.

[neo-x]

Thank you neo-x for your insightful post.
One minor problem is that yours questions are "complex questions" which means you leave me no space to give a legitimate answer. Basically, it would be a lose/lose situation either way right?... Mhm, very interesting I LOVE THAT
You could have added also, why would snakes be poisonous when they survive on plants and fruits only prior to the Fall of Man.
I MAY be wrong, but the only way to refute such argument is to claim that God knew from the very beginning the Fall of men and the concept of death. However, i fully acknowledge that your post clearly demonstrates scientific truth ( basically logic, lol)behind it.

Please, my intention was not to put you in a lose/lose situation, only that you see what kind of implications it would create, even if I remove my questions, both points still stand out, there is a primary difference in predators and prey, anybody for that matter if applied logic would end at the same conclusions. Any body could be wrong, the biblical verse about everyone being vegetarian to me is quite general because it doesn't tell me why there is a difference. I assume it must have been written in a context I do not know or understand yet

That being said, nobody is more right than other, I could be equally wrong. We all trying to brain storm, is just a good exercise for preaching and tackling the host of ungodly debates and questions that Christians and ministers face each day out in the field. So all is good. cheers

[FearlessLlearsy]

There should really be a thumbs up "smily" Board.

Anyways, "thumbs up" Neo,

[neo-x]

same to you Bro