<OCF: I do? >

<YouRang: That's what I inferred from your comment. But let's see: Do you think someone can accept an interpretation that agrees with mainstream science, for honest reasons that are not self serving? >

And then I will gladly retract my comment.

<Do you want a chance to restate that? It's impossible = it's a miracle doesn't sound right.>

I'll clarify. It's impossible from a scientific standpoint (which is why I mentioned the conservation of mass law). An action that violates natural laws is supernatural, i.e. a miracle.

It wasn't really meant to be a definition of pride, but rather a manifestation of pride that seems relevant to the context of this discussion.

<And I want to make sure I understand what you've said: do you accept the miracles described in the Bible as having really happened? (I think you may be saying yes, but I'm not sure.)>

13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

“No one can serve two masters.

He will either hate one and love the other,

or be devoted to one and despise the other.

You cannot serve God and mammon.

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life,

what you will eat or drink,

or about your body, what you will wear.

Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?

Look at the birds in the sky;

they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns,

yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

Are not you more important than they?

Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span?

Why are you anxious about clothes?

Learn from the way the wild flowers grow.

They do not work or spin.

But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor

was clothed like one of them.

If God so clothes the grass of the field,

which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow,

will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?

So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’

or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’

All these things the pagans seek.

Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.

But seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness,

and all these things will be given you besides.

Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself.

I object to someone saying no, Christ didn't do any of those things the Bible says He did--but don't you dare say I'm not a Christian! That attitude is pretty easy to find these days, especially in the seminaries.

A liar is someone who KNOWS that what he's saying isn't true. Anyone can be wrong without being a liar.

But if we read Romans Chapter 1 carefully, I think we must note that Paul says that those who deny God are "without excuse." They perversely choose not to see God in His creation.

Which brings us back to pride, which is the motive for their choice.

Now as I see it, we have reached a point where we can agree to disagree--about the age of the earth, at least. I can't find in Scripture anything that allows the doctrine of Evolution to be true; but you can. Frankly, I don't know how you do it. If you can explain that, I'm listening.

Agreed, although I wouldn't go so far to say that anyone today *knows* that the miracles occurred.

< I have never called you a liar and I don't intend to; I really think I haven't called anybody here a liar. >

You misunderstand. I was not accusing you, I was clarifying my earlier comment to <OhioChessFan>, when I said I would not call a scientist (or anyone else) a liar just because he/she said that miracles are impossible.

<A liar is someone who KNOWS that what he's saying isn't true. Anyone can be wrong without being a liar.>

Of course, although again I would use the word "believes" instead of "knows". I might say something that is true, but if I believed it was false when I said it, I'm still lying. :-)

<But if we read Romans Chapter 1 carefully, I think we must note that Paul says that those who deny God are "without excuse." They perversely choose not to see God in His creation.

Which brings us back to pride, which is the motive for their choice.>

Okay, but that carries no weight with a scientist who doesn't accept the Bible as authoritative.

<Now as I see it, we have reached a point where we can agree to disagree--about the age of the earth, at least.>

I guess our disagreement is that I'm convinced that the earth is old, and you're not sure?

<I can't find in Scripture anything that allows the doctrine of Evolution to be true; but you can. Frankly, I don't know how you do it. If you can explain that, I'm listening.

I don't see this as a hill to die on, but I am interested in your reasoning.>

Obviously, if you have doubts about the old earth idea, you are unlikely to be open to evolution. But if one does accept "old earth", and therefore accepts that Geness can be interpreted in a manner consistent with "old earth", then what scripturally prohibits evolution?

I'm happy that you've rendered a judgment that someone might accept the theories established by science and still (albeit barely) be a Christian.

<YouRang> What Darwinists and the Neil deGrasse Tyson crowd have made of Darwinism and evolution--that is, a shield and buckler for aggressive atheism--is what disqualifies it as Christian thought. You don't find that many theistic evolutionists around.

If you want evolution to square with the Bible, then you have to divorce it from Godlessness: that is, the assumption that God does not exist.

I think you have a clear ad hominem fallacy there. You are making an irrelevant association between a scientific theory and your dislike for some athiests who hold it. Or are you really saying that evolution might be true if only athiests didn't use it to argue against the existence of God?

IMO, all that matters is whether evolution is true. I don't see how a thought can be disqualified as a "Christian thought" if that thought is true. And if evolution is true and athiests use evolution to argue against the Bible, then we have one of two possibilities:

(1) The evolutionists are right and the Bible is truly discredited, or

(2) Christians who argue that the Bible prohibits evolution are wrong, and *they* are thus the ones responsible for discrediting the Bible, and shame on them.

Years ago, it *was* Christians who falsely discredited the Bible by insisting that heliocentric ideas were anti-Bible. Today, I think their torch is being carried by the young-earther's and the anti-evolutionists.

<If you want evolution to square with the Bible, then you have to divorce it from Godlessness: that is, the assumption that God does not exist.>

“Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

For as you judge, so will you be judged,

and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye,

but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

How can you say to your brother,

‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’

while the wooden beam is in your eye?

You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first;

then you will see clearly

Now, can bad people say things that are true? I suppose they can, if only by accident. But at the same time, I am convinced that evolution is not true, not even close to truth. And I say that as a former believer in it.

The odds of going from microbes to Mozart by pure chance are so close to zero as to be zero.

If evolution is a universal biological force, then why have so many organisms--probably a majority of them--shown no appearance of change over time?

We do not have to accept evolution as being real, or anything more than a lot of nineteenth century humbug that is way past its sell-by date.

I have been bothered by this claim and have now figured out how to express the problem. A scientist who affirmed a miracle was "impossible" would be in effect saying "No truth exists that can exist outside the field of science." That is the same as saying "No truth exists if it is only affirmed by logic or historical evidence or eyewitness testimony." I would have no problem at all saying such a person is intellectually dishonest.>

Well, to my view that's fascinatingly illogical.

First, you equate the statement that <miracles are impossible> with <no truth exists that can exist outside the field of science>, which is plainly absurd. There are truths that are outside the field of natural science, and yet are not miracles (example: "truth" is spelled t-r-u-t-h).

Then you further equate that with <no truth exists if it is only affirmed by logic or historical evidence or eyewitness testimony>, which is laughably absurd. There are truths affirmed only by logic, history, or eyewitnesses testimony, and yet they are not miracles either (example: King David had a son named Solomon).

Finally, from these two absurdities, you conclude another: that the scientist who says miracles (i.e. events that violate natural laws) are impossible" is <intellectually dishonest>. In fact, this scientist has arrived at a perfectly rational conclusion based on the empirical data observed and studied over many centuries.

Every day, those natural laws prove to be unfailingly unbreakable. Each time you click a key on your keyboard and see the letter appear on your screen, several natural laws are faithfully and reliably at work. Every day, people get on planes and trains, confidently betting their lives that the natural laws on which they operate will not be violated.

Accepting that the natural laws cannot be violated is precisely what an intellectually honest person would conclude. But apparently you have no problem accusing that person of being a liar.

~~~

I'm going out on a limb here I know, but I would guess that you were taught the Bible stories since you were a young child, and like most young children, you trustingly accepted the ideas of miracles uncritically. That makes it easier for you to accept those ideas today, even though you are a mature adult.

Just look at the argument you are making! You are attempting to discredit the theory of evolution -- not based on the merits of evolution itself, but on the merits of those (i.e. "anti-Bible Darwinists") who believe evolution. That is *exactly* the ad hominem fallacy.

<The odds of going from microbes to Mozart by pure chance are so close to zero as to be zero.>

Your comment is mathematically equivalent to saying that "a number is so large that it's indistinguishable from infinity", which is obviously absurd. Zero is a special number that is importantly distinct from any other number, no matter how small.

Besides, the theistic evolutionist isn't arguing that it all happened by "chance" -- at least not from God's perspective.

<If evolution is a universal biological force, then why have so many organisms--probably a majority of them--shown no appearance of change over time?>

Your claim about organisms is a bit too broad to swallow. What organisms? What time?

But aside from that, I think you may have a misunderstanding about evolution theory. My understanding is that evolution is not some "force" that is constantly pushing things to change. It is a process by which things adapt to change. If there is no environmental change to create "pressure" for a population of organisms to adapt, then there is no need for that population of organisms to evolve.

<We do not have to accept evolution as being real, or anything more than a lot of nineteenth century humbug that is way past its sell-by date.>

Of course we don't *have* to accept it. But it has become the prevailing scientific theory of biology, so hopefully we have better reasons for rejecting it than mere bald assertions.

<Again, show me one verse, one phrase, of Scripture that supports evolution.>

I don't know that there are any verses that I would say *support* evolution. Then again, I am not the one thinking that the Bible was ever intended to be a foundation for science. In fact, the Bible is quite clear that there are many things that are way beyond our comprehension, and I have no problem including the creation of the universe and the life within it to be among those things.

But when we last left this subject, I had asked you this:

And you're the same person who just accused me of being fascinatingly illogical? Please cite a series of credible witnesses to leprechauns. Please name those people who died in their refusal to deny the existence of leprechauns.