Theistic evolutionism hits brick wall in Last day Events

[jasd]

>>I enjoy their blend of fact, fiction and conjecture.<<

Tah raise the very hairs on one’s arm, as does the mentioned ghost in the book of Job!

[jasd]

>>The problem for evolutionism in "Last Day Events" is that we are all told that in the last days such compelling "evidence" will be produced by Satan who will "yet account for all the miracles of Christ" and who will "cause fire to come down from heaven" and will as 2Thess 2 states provide "lying wonders" for all the world to see -- that as Ellen White says "we will have to disbelieve our own senses"<<

For this, among others, reason I decry the cry, “Intelligent Design” – as implying Gd and only Gd who ‘intelligently’ designs...

>>...that as Ellen White says ... to continue with a 28FB belief model unchanged.<<

Did she really say that?

>>However the basic montra of theistic evolutionists has been shown to be "change change change your beliefs with every hint of new evidence to the contrary - even if it is only imagined evidence because someday in the future real evidence to the contrary just might surface".<<

When was the 28th FB incorporated into the 27 FB? Can not that be construed as “change”? Change good, yes?

“...very much greater changes are likely to be introduced in the future, maybe at the 2010 General Conference planned to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, if the Lord delays His coming.”

>>Given that model - how in the world will an evolutionist bent toward downsizing-or-deleting doctrine with every imagined scenario that confronts doctrine - ever survive Last Day events???<<

Rather, yet, how can any of us?

[BobRyan]

Answer: They won't.

I thought it would take at least 24 hours to prove you were right.

My bad.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

>>

>>However the basic montra of theistic evolutionists has been shown to be "change change change your beliefs with every hint of new evidence to the contrary - even if it is only imagined evidence because someday in the future real evidence to the contrary just might surface".<<

When was the 28th FB incorporated into the 27 FB? Can not that be construed as “change”? Change good, yes?

Indeed they "added one" to the previously existing set.

Were you thinking that the impact of evolutionism is to leave the 28 as they are and then "add one"?

Check out the thread on "how evolutionism undermines some of the existing 28 FB"s.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

I think it comes down to a point I made on an earlier thread.

Mankind has discovered a few things about the Created.

They have overstepped themselves.

Now they are trying to tell the Creator He got it all wrong.

For me, it is a simple question:

How did God cope before this "science" of evolution came onto the scene to help Him figure out how He did it?

Why do we think we need a fallen man like "Darwin" to correct the Prophets.

Because if the prophets were wrong about Genesis, then they are wrong about Revelation.

If God could not show them the literal past, how can He show them the literal future?

Maybe it would have been easier if the Lord had checked with Darwin first, before He gave us the literal account of Genesis?

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I think it comes down to a point I made on an earlier thread.

Mankind has discovered a few things about the Created.

They have overstepped themselves.

Now they are trying to tell the Creator He got it all wrong.

For me, it is a simple question:

How did God cope before this "science" of evolution came onto the scene to help Him figure out how He did it?

Why do we think we need a fallen man like "Darwin" to correct the Prophets.

Because if the prophets were wrong about Genesis, then they are wrong about Revelation.

If God could not show them the literal past, how can He show them the literal future?

Maybe it would have been easier if the Lord had checked with Darwin first, before He gave us the literal account of Genesis?

Mark

Interesting point Mark.

And in the OP the question is raised about how a "doubt-the-Bible first" reflex would play out in the end-time-scenarios we have about disbelieving our own senses in the last days.

Quote:

Only those who have been diligent students of the Scriptures and who have received the love of the truth will be shielded from the powerful delusion that takes the world captive. By the Bible testimony these will detect the deceiver in his disguise. To all the testing time will come. By the sifting of temptation the genuine Christian will be revealed. Are the people of God now so firmly established upon His word that they would not yield to the evidence of their senses? Would they, in such a crisis, cling to the Bible and the Bible only? {Mar 160.6} {GC88 625.2} {GC 625.3}

curious about the implications there.

Tat is the issue Bob.

Science is set up as the "definer" because of intellectualism...

This "intellectualism" becomes a false god and breaks the first commandment.

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

Breaking the first commandment. That's exactly it.

"doubt-the-Bible-first"

The wisdom of the Greek was by reason of doubting everything first before anyone could arrive at the truth. The apostle Paul in the first of Romans stated that the wisdom of the Greek was only foolishness before God. How can anyone be certain that he has raised all possible doubts before he will believe? he can never be sure of that and therefore he could never be sure of anything. But all that the truth of God wants is that we believe it because it is the truth, because God says it and then He will give the understanding, and who can teach like Him!

sky