Introducing Chad from Middle Ground

Beg your pardon but you are the one who did that. Right here:

“Allows any position regarding origins of early non-Adamic “sons of God” (e.g. Evolutionary creation, Instantaneous creation, etc.)”

Nope but GAE is on my list. I literally just heard about it last week.

And no I think the dinosaurs were either related to Tannyn, which makes them ok for pre-fall predation, or out of scope in Genesis 1. You would agree that Genesis is phenomenological. Authorial intent would likely exclude creatures that Israelites knew nothing of. Perhaps the non-predatory “land animals” were the more agricultural animals that could be brought to Adam in Genesis 2.

1 Like

Thanks! I do enjoy the interaction, and yes it beats grading papers!

2 Likes

I’m confused, I expressly said “any position”. That means I’m not forcing old animals to mean either, but saying either can work within the framework.

2 Likes

According to @r_speir, if your interpretation makes space for evolution, by definition it must be the wrong interpretation… :roll_eyes:

2 Likes

And that is not an uncommon position in our day. Isn’t that still Hugh Ross’ view?

In any case, you represent an important point-of-view which can help diversify this forum and enrich our discussions.

2 Likes

Ok let’s drop the animals. And to the point: Do you believe in evolution, macroevolution?

He already stated “no.” He is an old earth creationists, perhaps similar in some ways to Hugh Ross at RTB.

2 Likes

@r_speir, as Joshua said, I’m not a theistic evolutionist. Though the findings in my article allow for science to answer many of the “how God worked out the details” questions, I personally line up more with progressive creationists or more liberally with progressive mediate creationists (akin to a theistic version of punctuated equilibrium). As an O.R./Data Scientist, I have worked with countless algorithms that model complex processes (including genetic algorithms, machine learning, stochastic simulation, etc) and I find natural mechanisms (even if front-loaded by God) to be insufficient causes of the complex information we find in life.

2 Likes

So what we’re down to is that some land mammals were non-predatory before the flood. Well, that’s certainly true, whenever the flood is supposed to have happened.

[/quote]
It could, but there is much data that makes that notion unlikely unless God is trying to deceive us.

3 Likes

Apparently you are incorrect.

I did not ask that. But after much beating around the bush you did give me that answer that I suspected when you said

And this is nothing short of evolution. So, I am still disappointed. But at least I am informed of your position. I repeat, With your tolerance of evolution, you have failed to successfully build a bridge to me and millions in the body of Christ.

When will you lay down your anti-evolution idols to follow Jesus?

2 Likes

Idols to you, convictions to me. And the following of Jesus? Well, I must follow my convictions if I am to follow him. And where do those come from? From an apostle to the gentiles (of which group I am a part) to me once “I warned you not to go beyond what is written.” Should I diss my apostle to follow mainstream science? What if it turns out that mainstream science is just so much baloney? Fables, cleverly crafted? Then what do I have? Where does that leave me?

That is all good and fine till we we realize that evolution is not in conflict with Scripture. So why do you oppose it?

Yes, the presuppositions are strong in you. You are certain before even looking that evolution and Scripture are in conflict. But I looked and found no conflict.

This idol of your pretends to be devotion to God, and to His Word, but it cannot be found in Scripture. I also carried that idol once. I found that Jesus is greater. Come follow Him.

2 Likes

Ironically, my position does not go beyond “what is written”. If you spend time in my article, especially point number 8, you’ll find that everything in that section is based on exegesis. You have a presupposition that God taking time, or using providential processes to create things is somehow unbiblical. Yet I show in that section that is exactly what God appears to be doing. So I could equally claim that your “instant ex nihilo” creation position is actually unsupported by the language used in Genesis 1-2, and thus I have to listen to my “apostle” and reject it, along with its extra-biblical assertions about supposed sudden changes to post-fall animals, supposed flood effects – volcanic activities, ice ages, that aren’t mentioned anywhere in scripture. Ponder your presupposition. Remember, you already believe that God formed man from dust (mediate creation), and that Eve was formed from Adam (mediate creation)… why are you so quick to reject the possibility of any other “mediate” creation, and the possibility of time involved? Please ponder, and re-read my section 8 with an open mind. Blessings.

4 Likes

You are completely mistaken about what I believe in this regard. You are not qualified to elucidate my beliefs here. You wrote:

“The truth is, most of God’s verbal commands in Genesis 1 are commanding something or someone else to do something, and to do it the same way it happens today – Through natural providence.”

Your grand assumption which I reject (and millions like me reject) is that “natural processes” go outside of the boundaries of the text which clearly indicates created KINDS and allows for evolutionary processes to engage and somehow complete what God started. There can be no question that you are reading into the text to support such a notion.

Motives as to why you would do this? Are you trying to make peace with a science that you believe is irrevocable and firm? Do you really believe that evolutionary science is that strong that it should be brought to bear on the Scriptures as you have done? Please elucidate you motives. It would help me to understand why you think you have to go where you go in your argument.

Are you trying to twist this in your favor? You know full well that God can call forth KINDS of animals, say in twos or sevens, from the earth in an instant and over time allow their populations to increase. You also know that extended periods of time will not require or necessitate anything whatever that even remotely looks like evolution. So why are you trying to use an “ex nihilo” argument against me as if I believe the entire earth or seas have to “swarm instantly”? I am not a fool in this matter. Please craft your argument better and address people as if they are fully capable of handling the Scriptures just as well as you believe you handle them.

Again, you are presuming I am naive in this matter. That is rather insulting actually. I am fully aware of how A&E were created from what already existed. Land animals and sea creatures could also have been created male and female according to KINDS - with no help from evolution - and progress forward in time to populate and “swarm”.

I in no way intend to insult your intelligence, knowledge of scripture, or person. Yet I feel like your insistence that I have some ill-intention or side motive is you doing that exact thing to me. Point #8 in my article is doing word studies to demonstrate that God uses providential means to accomplish his decrees. I honestly don’t even care if evolution or progressive creation are true as much as I want to be faithful to the text. Just because God “Can” do something doesn’t mean that’s how He does it. He also “Can” instantly sanctify the earth and perfectly sanctify all believers, but no, he takes time. He takes thousands of years to accomplish His purposes and bring about a new earth. Why? I have no clue, but that’s what the text says.

By the way, even when I refer to “natural providence”, I in no way assume that God is uninvolved ever. I hold to a Thomistic view that God is always actively sustaining and guiding all cause/effect relationships in nature. He is the unmoved mover, not a spectator of some process He kicked off a long time ago (which is deistic). It’s all miraculous. It’s all supernatural. It’s all God!

Are you as vehemently opposed to progressive creation, which entails independently created kinds, separated by time? Just curious if your problem is with God creating a KIND using the blueprint from another KIND, or also a problem with God creating mutually exclusive kinds separated by TIME.

Again, I’m sorry for any insinuations. Perhaps we can both stop trying to assume things about each other’s motives and positions. Thanks for interacting.

3 Likes

Hello @Chad, and welcome. I have just one easy question for you …

What does the “O.R.” stand for? :slight_smile:

Hi Dan! Glad to meet you. O.R. Stand For Operations Research – a broad field including analytics, data science, AI, optimization modeling, meta-heuristics, statistics, etc.

1 Like