The Watchmaker - story

[Inga]

There are no properly documented cases of the fossil record being incompatible with the theory of evolution.

[LifeHiscost]

teehe

So glad to see you back, Inga, and with so capable a response. However I've found it to take more than good logic to convince a person who ignores Scripture evidence of the Holy Word. That is, of course, unless they might be an earnest learner at the feet of Jesus, which is really concluding a contradiction in terms.

" You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me..." John 5:39 NASB

God Bless!!

[Bravus]

Lots of assertions there, Inga, but many of them are scientific assertions without either scientific or biblical evidence. There is, for example, a very clear, well explained and coherent mechanism for evolution, and there are real, specific and recent examples of evolution in action. Similarly, there are good, well explained examples of fossil formation in circumstances other than floods.

The example at the top of the page is instructive: Bevin brought the design similarities as evidence of evolution, you reinterpreted it as evidence of creation. I'm coming more and more to believe, with Shane, that that's all we have - perspectives and sets of 'lenses' through which we interpret the evidence. Under those conditions no evidence can be definitive. There is no evidence which will convince anyone, since it's all a matter of perspective. In that case, why bother continuing to bring evidence?

[Bravus]

Quote:

So glad to see you back, Inga, and with so capable a response. However I've found it to take more than good logic to convince a person who ignores Scripture evidence of the Holy Word. That is, of course, unless they might be an earnest learner at the feet of Jesus, which is really concluding a contradiction in terms.

I'm not arguing about evolution/creation any more: no point. But I will not ever allow this to pass without comment. This casual slander of others' faith is unbecoming to believers, and something everyone on this site is working hard to stop doing to each other. I hope you'll be willing to stop attacking the faith of those who disagree with you.

[Inga]

Lots of assertions there, Inga, but many of them are scientific assertions without either scientific or biblical evidence. There is, for example, a very clear, well explained and coherent mechanism for evolution, and there are real, specific and recent examples of evolution in action. Similarly, there are good, well explained examples of fossil formation in circumstances other than floods.

[Inga]

Thanks for the welcome back, LHC

Originally Posted By: Inga

teehe

So glad to see you back, Inga, and with so capable a response. However I've found it to take more than good logic to convince a person who ignores Scripture evidence of the Holy Word.

I believe it's fair to recognize that those who believe in a long chronology do not "ignore" Scripture evidence, but they interpret it differently. In that case, the appropriate response is to deal with the argument without questioning their faith. (That judgment is God's perogative alone.)

There is plenty of good evidence that allows belief in the historicity of Genesis for those who have a need for integrating science with Scripute -- and Bravus is one of those. And so am I.

If I gather correctly, the Origins forum was disbanded because it was too hostile for the few equipped to argue for the historicity of Genesis. I remember taking a peek at it & figuring I didn't have time to get involved. However, since I saw this & am currently already involved in a creation discussion on another list, I couldn't resist a reply ...

By the way, there's a good explanation for the white cliffs of Dover from a creationist perspective. But that's for another post. For anyone interested in truth (as opposed to defending a currently held view), such a discussion should have merit ...

[Bravus]

Wish I had more time to reply, and I might get back to it later. But very quickly:

1. If 'shared features means shared origin/DNA' (i.e. evolution) is a logical flaw, then 'shared features means shared designer' (i.e. special creation) is also a logical flaw: every car shares a host of similar features, but was not designed by Dr Porsche... they share those features due to the common history of cars and because they are well adapted to their environment.

2. There are a few modern fossils. Those who believe in a long life of the earth combine this fact with that belief, and recognise that with millions of years of life and billions of living things, it requires only a tiny, tiny proportion of them to be fossilised to account for all known fossils. If the assummption is that earth has a short history, then a flood is definitely required to account for the fossils. If the assumption is different, the fossils are satisfactorily accounted for.

3. We've kicked the micro/macro evolution thing around here before, and it's basically a distinction from the Creation Science camp that is not recognised by other biologists. We do know that there are examples of evolution at the species level occurring within living memory, but that such will be rare because evolution for anything with a longish lifespan requires huge amounts of time.

You've addressed two elements of evolution: natural selection and time. The third element, which adds to the DNA, is mutation. It's essential to evolution, and is observed.

Two final points:

1. I'm not an evolutionist, at least in the sense that evolution accounts for all of life - I believe God had a crucial creative role. So to the extent that I talk about evolution here I'm explaining, not advocating.

2. I don't think that you have given an entirely fair account of the history of the Origins forum (of which I was one of the originators). It died of disuse, rather than being closed down due to hostilities.

Thanks for the thoughtful way you've conducted this discussion - I really enjoyed reading your posts, and you've made substantive, strong points in a way that leaves the space open for discussion.

[Vera]

It died of disuse, rather than being closed down due to hostilities.

Darn. I missed it.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

So glad to see you back, Inga, and with so capable a response. However I've found it to take more than good logic to convince a person who ignores Scripture evidence of the Holy Word. That is, of course, unless they might be an earnest learner at the feet of Jesus, which is really concluding a contradiction in terms.

I'm not arguing about evolution/creation any more: no point. But I will not ever allow this to pass without comment. This casual slander of others' faith is unbecoming to believers, and something everyone on this site is working hard to stop doing to each other. I hope you'll be willing to stop attacking the faith of those who disagree with you.

It is a common tactic when one assumes an attack, to go on the offensive with an attack. The result is a holy war of different magnitudes that declares the correctness of the position without sacrificing a sense of personal righteousness.

The difference between a faith and a blind belief is that the former requires what has already been found to be true through the Word of God, can only be substantiated by that which is yet to be found true.

A pastor of skill in the original Hebrew languages, convinced me

that those of early Jewish ancestry had nothing in their discourses of God that included either/or in their conclusions, but instead would follow an and/and conversation. This facilitated immensely the arrival of undiscovered truth as the "new" truth always corroborated what was already known to be true and it wasn't found necessary to prove anything personally, something that very seldom happens in today's religious dialogues about the God Who always was, is , and is to come.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Hebrews 13:8 NASB

Regards!

[Bravus]

I don't think I went on the attack, but if it felt that way I apologise. What I read you saying is that those who believe differently about origins are not 'earnest learners at the feet of Jesus'. Re-reading what you wrote, I still think that is the most obvious interpretation. Did you mean something else?

Anyway, no attacks from me, but I *will* pop up and make a comment every time this slander is perpetrated... or even to question whether it has been, I guess.

PS I'm all about and/and or both/and approaches to understanding rather than either/or... which is why I object so strongly to the 'with us or with the terrorists' thinking that underlies '7 day creation in 4004 BC or Satanic' comments that get passed.

[Dr. Shane]

I think the Bible is relatively clear about what it teaches in regards to origins. I think the fact that it is the very first subject the Bible deals with also tells us of the importance God places on the issue.

I use the word "relatively" because there are a few minor discrepancies and a few passages open to interpretation. In general, life on earth, according to the Bible is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. That is relatively the same in comparison to other beliefs out there. Some passages, like the one that describes the creation of the stars, is open to interpretation.

As for me, if the evidence convinced me that life on Earth was millions of years old, I would look for truth in religion outside of Christianity. That is just me. If someone else wants to reinterpret the Bible so that it teaches something other than what its authors intended it to teach, they can certainly do that. If I am wrong, I will apologize on the way to heaven's glory, God willing we all go together.

[Bravus]

I know that those are your beliefs, and that you hold them passionately. I respect your beliefs and the grounds on which you've developed them. What I'm objecting to, and all I'm objecting to, is anyone saying 'those who do not share my beliefs are not {true/real/sincere} believers or Christians'. That kind of calling into question the Christianity of others is something that people here have generally agreed is unacceptable in debate... a 'nuclear option' if you like. I don't do it to anyone, and I appreciate the fact that Shane doesn't either. Anyone who does will hear from me... that's all.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

So glad to see you back, Inga, and with so capable a response. However I've found it to take more than good logic to convince a person who ignores Scripture evidence of the Holy Word. That is, of course, unless they might be an earnest learner at the feet of Jesus, which is really concluding a contradiction in terms.

But I will not ever allow this to pass without comment. This casual slander of others' faith is unbecoming to believers, and something everyone on this site is working hard to stop doing to each other. I hope you'll be willing to stop attacking the faith of those who disagree with you.

I came back to reread what was previously written to find if assumptions about insinuations and slander were correct.

Since the language did not specify particular individuals, the assumptions would have to have been made as a result of denying what one's own mind felt to be the intent, a common practice for someone who would feel disagreement with their personal opinions was tantamount to slander.

Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.

Just as I do not take charges against me seriously because I knew I was not insinuating anything about anyone, so I would assume anyone not agreeing with what was stated, would find the statement only a point of consideration. And if a person doesn't believe there are those who find no logic in any scriptural reasoning, then it would seem this scripture makes no sense to them either.

"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 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

Regards!

[Bravus]

I wasn't taking offense on my own behalf, but on behalf of those to whom the statement applies. I do, as you say, take it simply as a point of consideration as it applies to myself. But the goal is to make Club Adventist safe for everyone, and I continue to maintain that maligning others' faith does not make CA safe.

I know and acknowledge that text, but am aware that it can be used to defend the assertion that right triangles are happy. In other words, the fact that some of the things of God are nonsense to those who are natural does not mean that everything that is nonsense is of God.

[LifeHiscost]

maligning others' faith does not make CA safe.

[Stan]

I would agree with the thought that disparaging remarks about someone else's faith, religion or ministry is quite tacky and wrong..

[Stan]

I loved EGW statement that we should point out what is right, not what is wrong..

[D. Allan]

Quote:

What I'm objecting to, and all I'm objecting to, is anyone saying 'those who do not share my beliefs are not {true/real/sincere} believers or Christians'. That kind of calling into question the Christianity of others is something that people here have generally agreed is unacceptable in debate... a 'nuclear option' if you like. I don't do it to anyone, and I appreciate the fact that Shane doesn't either. Anyone who does will hear from me... that's all.

thank you, bravus. i really appreciate your defense of everyones' equal rights in these types of matters, (for lack of a apt noun).

[Dr. Shane]

I believe there are sincere believers in all religions that will be in heaven and we have no way to judge others' standing in God's sight. In that respect, I cannot say that a Budhist, a Mormon, a Jew or Hindu believer will not be in heaven. I had a Jewish lady once ask me that if as a Christian, I believed Jews would go to heaven. I told her that God judges us by the light we have been shown. I told her that although someone may have shared Christ with her in the past, God may have said to Himself, "That was the worse sharing of Christ I ever saw, I am not holding her accountable for that." But if she was convicted in her heart that Christ was the Son of God but decided to remain a Jew anyway, that I did believe she would be held accountable.

I view theistic evolutionists like I view Catholics, Episcopals or Orthodox Christians. They believe the Bible is inspired but use sources outside of the Bible to interpret it. I reject that Adventists do that with Ellen White, although I know many disagree with me - and they have the right to. Can a person be a theistic evolutionist and be a Christian? Of course they can! Just like Catholics and Episcopals can be Christians.

I could be wrong. All of Protestantism could be wrong. Sola Scriptura could be wrong. Regardless if I am wrong or not, it doesn't change what Protestantism teaches and it doesn't change what Sola Scriptura teaches. Theistic evolution is not compatible with the teachings of Sola Scriptura which we inherited from the Protestant Reformation.

[D. Allan]

I believe there are sincere believers in all religions that will be in heaven and we have no way to judge others' standing in God's sight. In that respect, I cannot say that a Budhist, a Mormon, a Jew or Hindu believer will not be in heaven. I had a Jewish lady once ask me that if as a Christian, I believed Jews would go to heaven. I told her that God judges us by the light we have been shown. I told her that although someone may have shared Christ with her in the past, God may have said to Himself, "That was the worse sharing of Christ I ever saw, I am not holding her accountable for that." But if she was convicted in her heart that Christ was the Son of God but decided to remain a Jew anyway, that I did believe she would be held accountable. emphasis added

I appreciate that statement. We all, I believe, are convicted in our hearts concerning our differing beliefs. Therefore we have to, in order to be sincere, live by them and stick by them, until they change. It seems we, in a way, have little control or no choice about what our convictions might be. And therefore we need to give one another the 'benefit of the doubt' to use a imprecise cliché. And I belive you are doing that and are to be commended for it.