Mohler takes on 'theistic evolution'

Associated Baptist Press ^ | January 13, 2011 | Bob Allen

[Mr. Silverback]

But it says in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was without form and void. If that was the first thing He did it doesn’t sound like that was very good.

What does it say happened next?

[Mr. Silverback]

You are incorrect the Evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life.

Why not?

Doesn't that seem bizarre to you?

Scientific theories of one type or another address everything from A to Z, but we hear repeatedly that science does not address what is arguably the most important question posed by mankind. Why the gap? Why the one question that's off-limits?

[balch3]

There’s a forum called Democratic Underground. It’s chock full of leftists, progressives, atheists, evolutionists, etc. Perhaps you would feel more at home there.

[campaignPete R-CT]

biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth arose from inanimate matter

different theory.

[stormer]

I think you'll have something of a wait. But I can feel my face drop as I think of my asshole cell biology professor - happily, I cannot recall his name. Nothing quite like trying to conjure up Kreb's Cycle during a mid-term as he helpfully reminds the class there are only 5 minutes left...

[Mr. Silverback]

Your FReeper page indicates that you’re a Christian. Does it bother you that your Lord is descended from a fictional character?

[LomanBill]

[What we do see is that evolutionary believers ]

 

We?  Maybe that's what you see. 

 

Meanwhile the image you project, regardless of c, is that of an arrogant religionist twit who jumps to conclusions about the faith of others in the process of pompously assuming dominion over it.

 

 

[CynicalBear]

>>What does it say happened next?<<

He started re-creating and reforming the “world that then was” that had been destroyed.

[stormer]

They don’t like me there, either. Good thing I’m not thin-skinned.

[editor-surveyor]

Albert Mohler is right!

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Giants do not exist.” <<

.
Anynore.

[editor-surveyor]

Grunthor - Ditto!

[stormer]

I’m not sure where spontaneous generation fits in a discussion of evolutionary theory, but I wonder how he would have felt about parthenogenesis in humans?

[editor-surveyor]

Good examples, but creation is the only science on this issue. Naturalism disregards all the evidence.

[campaignPete R-CT]

exquisite theory, Dr. Kreb.

I don’t like plants.

[Mr. Silverback]

Puzzlingly irrelevant.

Not so. Answer the question, please.

[Ira_Louvin]

Yes I am, but I understand the difference between Science and Religion

[editor-surveyor]

>> “What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics have to do with your assertion that ‘life cannot come from non-life’?” <<

.
The second law prohibits an increase in order. Logic also prohibits such for those with higher cognition, but for the back slope of the curve, hope springs eternal.
.

[stormer]

Some are still around...

[Mr. Silverback]

OK, let’s say that’s true.

Does it reflect well on eveolutionists that they play such word games? When someone says “Eveolution doesn’t address the origins of life” they know the listener is going to assume that means that modern biology doesn’t address it, and will never be aware there is another branch of theory.

Sounds like the word games Democrats play.