Finally Picked a creation stance.

[Silvertusk]

Think after years of contemplation - I am seriously leaning towards theistic evolution as my creation stance - especially after reading Denis Alexanders's book - Creation of Evolution - do we have to choose.

I just find it very very comforting to know that there is no threat to my faith from evolution - and really evolution is neutral in the debate and it is only the new-athiests that have hijacked it as a tool to promote their natualistic beliefs.

Silvertusk.

[Byblos]

Think after years of contemplation - I am seriously leaning towards theistic evolution as my creation stance - especially after reading Denis Alexanders's book - Creation of Evolution - do we have to choose.

I just find it very very comforting to know that there is no threat to my faith from evolution - and really evolution is neutral in the debate and it is only the new-athiests that have hijacked it as a tool to promote their natualistic beliefs.

Silvertusk.

Although I still waver between TE and PC, I do lean more towards TE so glad to hear that Silver.

[RickD]

Think after years of contemplation - I am seriously leaning towards theistic evolution as my creation stance - especially after reading Denis Alexanders's book - Creation of Evolution - do we have to choose.

I just find it very very comforting to know that there is no threat to my faith from evolution - and really evolution is neutral in the debate and it is only the new-athiests that have hijacked it as a tool to promote their natualistic beliefs.

Silvertusk.

Although I still waver between TE and PC, I do lean more towards TE so glad to hear that Silver.

Byblos, you need to pick one compromising creation stance and stick to it. There's no "dual compromising" allowed.

Sincerely,
Kenneth Hamster(President and Founder of HamstersinGenesis)

[jlay]

I don't mean this as offense to anyone, but I've seen a trend over the last two years on this forum with members almost wanting to embrace TE. And it seems to be motivated by neutralizing the "threat" of having their faith undermined. Well, Silver said it verbatum. I am saddened to hear these type of statements and I doubt my concerns will be rightly understood, as I feel like I am seeing this from a new perspective. After years of this, I find the whole issue a false dichotomy. A discussion that has made the Bible something it is not. Whether Ross or Ham or anywhere in between, I see Satan laughing in the corner at the whole debate. So, pardon me if I don't rejoice in your comfort.

[Byblos]

I don't mean this as offense to anyone, but I've seen a trend over the last two years on this forum with members almost wanting to embrace TE. And it seems to be motivated by neutralizing the "threat" of having their faith undermined. Well, Silver said it verbatum. I am saddened to hear these type of statements and I doubt my concerns will be rightly understood, as I feel like I am seeing this from a new perspective. After years of this, I find the whole issue a false dichotomy. A discussion that has made the Bible something it is not. Whether Ross or Ham or anywhere in between, I see Satan laughing in the corner at the whole debate. So, pardon me if I don't rejoice in your comfort.

Or you can see it as we do, from the perspective that theology and science are separate and distinct that just happen to harmonize rather than contradict. It is that which brings comfort, not the erroneous assumption that one drives the other.

[RickD]

Hi Silvertusk.

I encourage you to give this a look from Reasons.org
http://www.reasons.org/perspectives-on- ... -evolution
Whatever creation stance you ultimately choose, seeing opposing views really helped me decide on my view.

[jlay]

Byblos, I certainly understand that, as I've wrestled those positions for a good part of my Christian adult life. And the problem as I see it (and it's simply my opinion) is that what you state is actually the problem. It presumes to resolve contradictions, and harmonize the Bible to the natural world. (what I would call man's wisdom.) I understand that. Oddly this is exactly the same driving force behind Ham whether you want to admit it or not. Just two ends to the same stick. I could even say something very similar if ST had said, 'I've finally resolved to be a literal 6 day, 6,000 year creationist.' Either way, some authority outside the scripture is pressuring.

[Seraph]

Cool to hear Silvertusk. Maybe we could discuss aspects of theistic evolution sometime.

Jlay you almost make it sound like it's a virtue to stay inside of a bubble that rejects/ignores all knowledge/thoeries/otherwise outside of the Bible.

[RickD]

jlay wrote:
It presumes to resolve contradictions, and harmonize the Bible to the natural world. (what I would call man's wisdom.)

I don't see why this is a bad thing. The bible is inspired by God, and creation was created by God. There can be no contradictions between nature and the bible. The only contradictions are with man's interpretations of scripture, and man's interpretations of the evidence of nature. Trying to reconcile the two can only further show that God is the author of both scripture, and nature.

[jlay]

jlay wrote:
It presumes to resolve contradictions, and harmonize the Bible to the natural world. (what I would call man's wisdom.)

I don't see why this is a bad thing. The bible is inspired by God, and creation was created by God. There can be no contradictions between nature and the bible. The only contradictions are with man's interpretations of scripture, and man's interpretations of the evidence of nature. Trying to reconcile the two can only further show that God is the author of both scripture, and nature.

Of course there can be no contradictions between nature and nature's God. That isn't the issue. What ST is saying is that TE is important because it makes him feel safe. It begs the question, because it presumes evolution (Darwinism) is correct, and the Bible needs to be brought in line with such. I would contend that for some trying to reconcile these things has lead them away from the faith. TE is rejecting the special creation of man. It makes much of the OT an allegory.

Jlay you almost make it sound like it's a virtue to stay inside of a bubble that rejects/ignores all knowledge/thoeries/otherwise outside of the Bible.

No sir. I had a feeling I'd be getting these kind of responses. ST is in fact climbing inside the bubble of TE because it eases his mind that his faith might be in conflict with what the world believes regarding man's origins. You guys can pat him on the back all you want. I say shame on you.

[Byblos]

This topic is always a contentious one so everyone please take a deep breath and think on what you're posting and the manner in which it is stated.

Of course there can be no contradictions between nature and nature's God. That isn't the issue. What ST is saying is that TE is important because it makes him feel safe. It begs the question, because it presumes evolution (Darwinism) is correct, and the Bible needs to be brought in line with such. I would contend that for some trying to reconcile these things has lead them away from the faith. TE is rejecting the special creation of man. It makes much of the OT an allegory.

I didn't read that (underlined) at all from Silver's post. What I took from it is exactly what I stated, which is that if TE is true it poses no threat whatsoever to our theology because we see no conflict between it and scripture. Can you say the same?

[theophilus]

I just find it very very comforting to know that there is no threat to my faith from evolution - and really evolution is neutral in the debate and it is only the new-athiests that have hijacked it as a tool to promote their natualistic beliefs.

What kind of evolution are you talking about? The word has more than one meaning and whether evolution contradicts the Bible depends on which meaning you are using.

We see a process called natural selection through which different varieties of organism develop from the same ancestors by adapting to different environments. Two obvious examples of this are the different breeds of dogs and the different races of humans. This kind of evolution is called microevolution and doesn't contradict the Bible in any way. God didn't create every species that exists today but only created a few kinds, each of which contained enough genetic information so that all the species we see today would descend from them. This kind of evolution selects from genetic information that already exists; it doesn't produce any new information and so couldn't occur if all life descended from some simple single celled organism.

The other kind of evolution is called macroevolution. It is the belief that the simplest form of life developed gradually from inorganic matter and all the different forms of life we see today came from this source. In order for this to happen life would have to acquire genetic information that their ancestors didn't possess and there is no evidence that this is possible.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the difference between these two kinds of evolution:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

There is a logical fallacy called equivocation which consists of using a word which has two different meanings without distinguishing between them. Proponents of macroevolution of commit this fallacy. For example, they can point to evidence that proves the truth of microevolution and claim that it proves macroevolution is true. You can learn more about this fallacy here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... uivocation

Here is another interesting article about this subject:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -wholphins

[Seraph]

I didnt get that from Silver's post either. Also, I hardly think that feeling safe is motivation behind my or other TE's reasons for accepting evolution. Is it so hard to believe that we might just find evolution of species to be well supported and credible, as well as not believing it has contradiction with scripture?

[Silvertusk]

Will reply to these post in a bit.


Just putting my little one to bed.

[Silvertusk]

I don't mean this as offense to anyone, but I've seen a trend over the last two years on this forum with members almost wanting to embrace TE. And it seems to be motivated by neutralizing the "threat" of having their faith undermined. Well, Silver said it verbatum. I am saddened to hear these type of statements and I doubt my concerns will be rightly understood, as I feel like I am seeing this from a new perspective. After years of this, I find the whole issue a false dichotomy. A discussion that has made the Bible something it is not. Whether Ross or Ham or anywhere in between, I see Satan laughing in the corner at the whole debate. So, pardon me if I don't rejoice in your comfort.

Ok. I am writing this in love and respect. Sorry Jlay but you must be seeing things then - You are obviously talking from a YEC stance and I respect that. What I am saying is that now through the research I have done I see no conflict with evolution and Genesis because of the interpretation of the Bible that I am following. Am I not allowed to have my interpretation of the Bible - You have your literal interpretation.... The interpretation I am following does not in anyway change the theological stance of the message of God nor dampens its impact. The Bible is a handbook for salvation not for science or creation. satan is not in fact laughing because he has lost my soul forever through the saving power of Christ. And now my faith is even stronger because I no longer feel threaten by the theological implications that new atheists stamp on evolution - because they are simply wrong.