Did the angels evolve?

[Marv]

What sayeth science?

[Dave Hostetler]

Not exactly, just applying the first rule of logic to God's creation.  It is what it is and it is not what it is not.  For instance, if someone says to you that truth is subjective, you can reply by saying, "Is that true, because I don't think it is?".  It's self-defeating.  This is also like "There is no truth", Is that true?  Subjective does not immediately mean false, but it can when improperly applied.  

Phil said:

What do you mean by subjective, 'not true'?

[Phil James]

Dave, still unsure what you mean by 'objective.'

Anyway, I don't see why the claim that all truth is subjective is self defeating. Why is it dismantled (and not demonstrated) by 'Is that true, because I don't think it is?

Never mind, I'm hijacking.

[Dave Hostetler]

check this out Phil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwNjx1WZ5lE

Phil said:

Dave, still unsure what you mean by 'objective.'

Anyway, I don't see why the claim that all truth is subjective is self defeating. Why is it dismantled (and not demonstrated) by 'Is that true, because I don't think it is?

Never mind, I'm hijacking.

[Damian]

"Veritas incommutabilis veritatis perspiciatis unde si scientiae humanae, utillius loci attingit ad Deum." - St. Augustine, Against the Academician 

(Truth is immutable, so if we encounter truth in human knowledge, to reach the place where it dwells is to draw near to God.)

Phil said:

Dave, still unsure what you mean by 'objective.'

Anyway, I don't see why the claim that all truth is subjective is self defeating. Why is it dismantled (and not demonstrated) by 'Is that true, because I don't think it is?

Never mind, I'm hijacking.

[Daniel]

Jason said:

There's a vast difference between the issues you raise.

You know as well as I that evolutionary theories have never gotten far away from their godless roots. They cannot, because the very idea of evolution is naturalistic change, and so TE actually is truly a God of the gaps idea. Theism and evolution are philosophically antithetical.

How is seeing God actively, to this day, being behind the variations we see a "god of the gaps argument" any more than YEC is?  The only difference is how DIRECTLY you believe God caused something.  Those that see the intricate complexity of the design of DNA and how it changes and such have a wonder and awe at the design and Designer that is every much as real as those who believe He did it all in an instant.  You seriously need to spend some time with some TEs and understand them and their point of view.  They probably have a GREATER appreciation of the Creator than someone who believes he can snap his fingers like a genie and just call things into existence because they see him capable of BOTH.

No, we can't dismiss alleged motives and broad stereotypes, unless you choose to stop brushing every creationist with the Ussher/Ham brush. It is not I who is stereotyping: I'm simply identifying the theo-philosophical roots of evolutionary thought. Those roots are bearing fruit today. They are part and parcel of the evolutionary theory.

I don't brush all creationists with that bush.  Just the ones that follow Ussher's timeline and Ham's fallacious stereotypes of the other side.  It is factually inaccurate, to put it as nicely as I know how, to say that evolutionary thought  has atheistic roots.  The idea that *everything* was created in the beginning and unfolded over time goes back all the way to Saint Augustine, and likely before.  And it was made based on their "literal" reading of Genesis.  The mere fact that the evidence shows that and atheists are more likely to accept than and embrace that than some Christians doesn't mean that atheism is, in ANY way, a motivating factor.  If you admit, as most YECs do, that a couple thousand species on the ark are the common ancestors for the million species we see today, 4,500 years later, and THAT isn't "atheistic", then is isn't any MORE atheistic to believe that it has been going on for a whole lot longer.  

There is no conflation of denial and challenges, either. That is not the point at all. Neither is your careless exegesis of the portion of Scripture that you bring up pertinent. The issue is creation ex nihilo by Divine fiat as taught in Scripture vs creation by evolutionary processes without God yet with His help.

I agree that  God said that He created everything.  TEs don't deny that, and I don't either.  Nor do they say it is "without God" and thereby "Godless" and therefore "anti-God".  That is nothing by PR from the YEC distortionists.  It's ad hominem and untrue.  The point is that the process of HOW that happened is not in Scripture.  It is process-neutral.  So it isn't a case of "careless exegesis" at all because IT ISN'T THERE.  Those that want to add it in there have the problem.  

Look, Jason.  You have your perspective and I have mine.  And I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong and I know it all.  But we can at least be HONEST about what the other side believes and why and stop repeating this mantra that God is on my side and everyone else is agreeing with the devil.  Sincere Godly men can disagree over what happened next after God said "let the earth bring forth living things" without questioning each other's spirituality or motives.  If you want to oppose atheistic and totally natural abiogenesis, I'm with you.  But to oppose biological evolution after the fact because of misconceptions doesn't do you or anyone else any good....particularly when YECs themselves believe that the common ancestors on the ark are responsible for what we see today.  Unless you think that process is outside of God's design and He's not ultimately responsible for "programming" it to happen, then belief in it prior to things getting wet doesn't reject Him either.

[Jason]

Daniel,

I'm tired of being accused of erecting and destroying straw men, and arguing with ad homs, when it is not true.

If you were to take the time to actually interact with what I say, instead of emoting and denying what I've demonstrated in the past, I'd continue the discussion. Seeing we're going over old ground, I'll let you have the discussion.

Believe what you wish, but do not call me dishonest. That is what you just did implicitly, and that is the worst ad hominem of this whole discussion. We've been here before, and it always seems to get to the point of being personal. I don't wish this to be another of those discussions. Say what you wish, and believe what you wish. Just remember that it is not irenic discussion to repeat your denials of the roots of evolutionary thought over and over, though you don't prove your point, and then turn and imply that the other person is dishonest, when he has in the past demonstrated his point.

I'll bow out now. The last word is yours.

Daniel said:

Jason said:

There's a vast difference between the issues you raise.

You know as well as I that evolutionary theories have never gotten far away from their godless roots. They cannot, because the very idea of evolution is naturalistic change, and so TE actually is truly a God of the gaps idea. Theism and evolution are philosophically antithetical.

How is seeing God actively, to this day, being behind the variations we see a "god of the gaps argument" any more than YEC is?  The only difference is how DIRECTLY you believe God caused something.  Those that see the intricate complexity of the design of DNA and how it changes and such have a wonder and awe at the design and Designer that is every much as real as those who believe He did it all in an instant.  You seriously need to spend some time with some TEs and understand them and their point of view.  They probably have a GREATER appreciation of the Creator than someone who believes he can snap his fingers like a genie and just call things into existence because they see him capable of BOTH.

No, we can't dismiss alleged motives and broad stereotypes, unless you choose to stop brushing every creationist with the Ussher/Ham brush. It is not I who is stereotyping: I'm simply identifying the theo-philosophical roots of evolutionary thought. Those roots are bearing fruit today. They are part and parcel of the evolutionary theory.

I don't brush all creationists with that bush.  Just the ones that follow Ussher's timeline and Ham's fallacious stereotypes of the other side.  It is factually inaccurate, to put it as nicely as I know how, to say that evolutionary thought  has atheistic roots.  The idea that *everything* was created in the beginning and unfolded over time goes back all the way to Saint Augustine, and likely before.  And it was made based on their "literal" reading of Genesis.  The mere fact that the evidence shows that and atheists are more likely to accept than and embrace that than some Christians doesn't mean that atheism is, in ANY way, a motivating factor.  If you admit, as most YECs do, that a couple thousand species on the ark are the common ancestors for the million species we see today, 4,500 years later, and THAT isn't "atheistic", then is isn't any MORE atheistic to believe that it has been going on for a whole lot longer.  

There is no conflation of denial and challenges, either. That is not the point at all. Neither is your careless exegesis of the portion of Scripture that you bring up pertinent. The issue is creation ex nihilo by Divine fiat as taught in Scripture vs creation by evolutionary processes without God yet with His help.

I agree that  God said that He created everything.  TEs don't deny that, and I don't either.  Nor do they say it is "without God" and thereby "Godless" and therefore "anti-God".  That is nothing by PR from the YEC distortionists.  It's ad hominem and untrue.  The point is that the process of HOW that happened is not in Scripture.  It is process-neutral.  So it isn't a case of "careless exegesis" at all because IT ISN'T THERE.  Those that want to add it in there have the problem.  

Look, Jason.  You have your perspective and I have mine.  And I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong and I know it all.  But we can at least be HONEST about what the other side believes and why and stop repeating this mantra that God is on my side and everyone else is agreeing with the devil.  Sincere Godly men can disagree over what happened next after God said "let the earth bring forth living things" without questioning each other's spirituality or motives.  If you want to oppose atheistic and totally natural abiogenesis, I'm with you.  But to oppose biological evolution after the fact because of misconceptions doesn't do you or anyone else any good....particularly when YECs themselves believe that the common ancestors on the ark are responsible for what we see today.  Unless you think that process is outside of God's design and He's not ultimately responsible for "programming" it to happen, then belief in it prior to things getting wet doesn't reject Him either.

[Daniel]

Jason, you believe statements like "evolutionary theories have never gotten far away from their godless roots" are true.  They are not.  They are demonstrably not.  So either you are lying about it, or misinformed about it.  I choose to believe the later.  As I pointed out, the idea that things unfolded from an initial creative act is a very, very old one.  And folks like Augustine believed it.  The fact that atheists believe it too doesn't make that the "godless root of it"....even if you conflate the study of evolution with the study of abiogenesis.  You seem to like and trust Scott.  Why don't you ask HIM about the "godless roots" of his "evolutionary theories".  For that matter, ask ANY of the YECs about the "godless roots" of their belief that a couple thousand common ancestors can produce a million different species over the course of 4,500 years.  And then consider for a minute if every idea that an atheist also believes is necessarily "godless".