Did the angels evolve?

[Marv]

What sayeth science?

[Daniel]

Marv said:

That being said, "TE" ought to be pejorative, even if it isn't.

That is why creationists the world over who believe that a million plus species evolved from changed and descended from a common ancestor and believe in a Theistic cause for that refuse to accept the label when it is suggested.  

[Phil James]

Comment edited

Dave said: Your God?  That sounds like idolatry.

No; its simply embracing the unbelievable promise made by God that he "would be our God, and we would be his people."

Typical uncharitable crap I expect from Johnny Mac admirers. Is there such a thing as a winsome Calvinistic Baptist?

[Otsukafan]

What Dan hears when creationists post

What creationists hear when Dan post...

[Jason]

Daniel,

1. I'm not using Darwinist as a pejorative label. It's an euphemism for evolutionist, which word (evolutionist) sounds odd to me.

2. There is indeed a difference between micro and macro evolution. All you have to do is google and you'll see that Darwinists evolutionists use the terms.

Daniel said:

You are still dealing with straw men, Jason.  The perjoritive label of "Darwinsists" and stereotype that the all "reject God" just isn't helpful.  Simply put, the fact that those that reject God would gravitate to the proposal that has the least amount of direct involvement by Him doesn't mean that "Darwinism" is a religion.  As I said before, the YEC model itself accepts gradual change over time from a common ancestor.  But that doesn't "reject God".  So how does it suddenly "reject God" to believe that it has been going on since the very beginning or "reject God" to believe that the beginning was a whole lot longer ago than 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC?  So, speaking of presumptions, we should examine the presumed motives behind why some people believe that they do.

Jason said:

As I've stated before, Darwinism is philosophically driven.

That means that they don't view things any more objectively than the rest of us.

Then there's that blasted issue of Christians mixing it up with Darwinists and thinking that all is well. Yet Scripture does call for us to not walk in the counsel of those who reject God, and it calls us to separate ourselves from the philosophies of the world, and the claims of that which calls itself knowledge, yet is false.

Sigh...

Wait, that brings us back to presuppositions!!!! Ah, well, I'm told that is a fallacious dead horse; but he surely does rise again quite often.

[Dave Hostetler]

Thanks for taking out your expletive from your original post.  Kinda hard to to say someone is not winsome while you are swearing at them.  Look, my experience has been that when two people who claim Christ are speaking and one says something like "my god would never... " it is a red flag.  By stating it I am simply bringing it to the attention of the person it's being said to.  Trying to point fingers and saying that I am being unsympathetic is disingenuous.  I'm tired of the mamby pamby pussy footing that Christians do.  We are told to call each other to the mat.  1 Corinthians 5  You want to make me feel bad about bringing to Daniel's attention something that I have observed to be true over and over... sorry bub, you're barking up the wrong tree.  I did not once judge him, but I will call my brothers out, as I would hope the would do for me when they see me doing things that should be called into question.

By the way, I'm not a Baptist ;)

Phil said:

Comment edited

Dave said: Your God?  That sounds like idolatry.

No; its simply embracing the unbelievable promise made by God that he "would be our God, and we would be his people."

Typical uncharitable crap I expect from Johnny Mac admirers. Is there such a thing as a winsome Calvinistic Baptist?

[Scott]

There is one way to be right. There are multiple ways to be wrong.

 

How does one fly to Brussels from Memphis?

 

1) Fly Delta via Atlanta and then on to Brussels.

2) Fly United via Washington DC and then on to Brussels.

 

How does one get 8 apples?

 

1) Take the 2 in your fridge and buy 6 more.

2) Take the 2 in your fridge, ask for 2 from your neighbour and buy 4 more.

 

But this is neither here nor there, since the OP hasn't established much of anything about the evils of TE thought, if anything at all.

[Damian]

Hi Scott,

Who are you quoting here?  I looked quickly and couldn't find the context to which you are responding.  Having said that (not understanding the context) a brief point.

What you have demonstrated is that there are multiple ways to achieve an outcome.  That's not the same thing as "right-ness", truth, etc.

ScottL said:

There is one way to be right. There are multiple ways to be wrong.

 

How does one fly to Brussels from Memphis?

 

1) Fly Delta via Atlanta and then on to Brussels.

2) Fly United via Washington DC and then on to Brussels.

 

How does one get 8 apples?

 

1) Take the 2 in your fridge and buy 6 more.

2) Take the 2 in your fridge, ask for 2 from your neighbour and buy 4 more.

 

But this is neither here nor there, since the OP hasn't established much of anything about the evils of TE thought, if anything at all.

[Phil James]

Dave, I Corinthians 5? Seriously?

Daniel expresses his faith in our God-employing biblical language, and your mind goes to a passage about incest?

What kind of presumptive suspicion finds that laudable? That pretty much sums up what I find objectionable.

There are other ways to lean into relationships with other believers- even the ones who disagree with us.

My concern wasn't for you, it was for Daniel's feelings.

 

[Dave Hostetler]

Come on Phil, are you really telling me that you didn't understand that I was pointing out that Paul says we are to keep each other in check?  The chapter isn't about incest, that was simply used as an example in the beginning of the chapter.

Daniel, If I hurt your feelings I apologize in front of the whole group here and God.  

Phil said:

Dave, I Corinthians 5? Seriously?

Daniel expresses his faith in our God-employing biblical language, and your mind goes to a passage about incest?

What kind of presumptive suspicion finds that laudable? That pretty much sums up what I find objectionable.

There are other ways to lean into relationships with other believers- even the ones who disagree with us.

My concern wasn't for you, it was for Daniel's feelings.

 

[Otsukafan]

Do you ever worry that we look like a bunch of trekkies arguing to the outside world when they see a subject like this?

[Jason]

I'm concerned that we look like a few people who wish to uphold the revelation of God in Scripture instead of compromising with an atheistic, theo-philosophically driven ideology that calls itself science.

I'm concerned that I be faithful.

I'm concerned that others who struggle to accept the reality of that revelation be aware of the folly of their worldview that leads them to practically deny portions of Scripture while giving lip service to the authority of Scripture.

I have a feeling that Marv started the post for the same reasons. (By the way, Marv and I differ on the age of the earth, I think. This isn't even about the age of the earth and YEC. This is about TE vs creation.)

Otsukafan said:

Do you ever worry that we look like a bunch of trekkies arguing to the outside world when they see a subject like this?

[Jax Agnesson]

I love trekkies!

Otsukafan said:

Do you ever worry that we look like a bunch of trekkies arguing to the outside world when they see a subject like this?