Rossiter on Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 31, 2016

theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz,
notes this podcast he did:

Theistic Evolution and the Absent God (July 22, 2016) More.

Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square.

See also: Wayne Rossiter on teaching Darwin’s unquestionable truths

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Mung
So why all the grief against TE’s while YEC’ism gets a pass?
Grief from whom? The academy (and the Darwinists) don't give the TE's much grief. TEs get tenured positions--and grants-- and prestige. By talking out of both sides of their mouths, they seek to make everyone love them. To the gullible Christians, they say, "Yes, we believe in God and Darwin," but to the Darwinists, they say, "but don't worry, we believe in a quiet God and a loud Darwin Besides we are recruiting naive Christians for you. So please keep loving us." Pure duplicity. And by the way, I am not singing the praises of Rossiter. He has a long way to go. He is only beginning to get the picture.StephenB_{August 2, 2016
August
08
Aug
2
02
2016
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Did God guide his ascent when he jumped?
ID says YES, He would have had to since jumping 100 feet up (evolution from molecules to man) is clearly an unnatural event requiring supernatural intervention. ID is in conflict with TE. (Are you suggesting that TE also says yes? That God is injecting information into the evolutionary process, just in a fashion that looks exactly like RMNS and pure chance are responsible?)
Did God guide the man’s descent when he jumped?
ID says NO, because it isn't necessary after the initial one-time creation of the building. ID is not in conflict with YEC.drc466_{August 1, 2016
August
08
Aug
1
01
2016
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

It seems you've bought into the evodelusionary lie that speciation takes umpteen Darwin years to occur. Not so much, here, here, here. Then again, your comments are rarely understandable these days.Vy_{August 1, 2016
August
08
Aug
1
01
2016
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

You’re a Young Earth Creationist?
Yes.
How many species were on the ark?
???
How many species exist today?
What has that got to do with the validity of YEC?
What is a baramin? What is a holobarimin?
Here, here.
How many baramin were on the ark? How many holobaramin were on the ark?
Here. More:
Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.
-
If more species exist today than the number of species which were on the ark, how do Young Earth Creationists account for the difference?
If you would stop stringing up strawmen versions of YEC, you wouldn't need to ask such a question. "If there is more variance in people's skin color today than those which were on the ark, how do Young Earth Creationists account for the difference?" What??? And oh, wasn't it here an article was posted on what is a species?Vy_{August 1, 2016
August
08
Aug
1
01
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Vy:
Wow! I’m beginning to think something swapped your logical thinking capabilities with Zachriel’s.
You're a Young Earth Creationist? How many species were on the ark? How many species exist today? What is a baramin? What is a holobarimin? How many baramin were on the ark? How many holobaramin were on the ark? If more species exist today than the number of species which were on the ark, how do Young Earth Creationists account for the difference?Mung_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

All evolution, no real theism. It applies equally well to Young Earth Creationism when we are talking about the current state of living species and not the original starting point (ground or skyscraper).
Wow! I'm beginning to think something swapped your logical thinking capabilities with Zachriel's. :(Vy_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

drc466: God put a man on the ground, and he jumped. Did God guide his ascent when he jumped? drc466: YEC: God put a man on top of a skyscraper, and he jumped. Did God guide the man's descent when he jumped?Mung_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

What is the Young Earth Creationist view of God’s role in evolution?
As much as God's role in the creation of phlogiston - none, because neither exist.Vy_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

So why all the grief against TE’s while YEC’ism gets a pass?
Because scenario 2 is a reasonable explanation that comports with experimentally-confirmed physics (gravity/devolution), while scenario 1 is ridiculous in the extreme (men can't jump 100ft up any more than they can evolve from chemicals)? From an ID perspective: ID posits that there is a limit to how high man can go w/o intelligent design (i.e. make a ladder, building, etc.). YEC posits an Intelligent Designer made a skyscraper, and man fall. No conflict w/ ID. TE posits an Intelligent Designer made ground, and men can jump 100 feet up. Conflicts w/ ID. Sorry, I'm clearly missing the point you are trying to make.drc466_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

I'm halfway through the interview, and so far it's terrible. The interviewer seems more interested in making sure that the author and listener understand what his views are than in allowing the author discuss his views. Greg Koukl interrupts, argues with, and otherwise steps all over his guest. Wayne Rossiter clearly deserves better. Maybe Koukl will shut up in the second half and let him talk. Sheesh...jstanley01_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

drc466, yes, I think that pretty much sums it up. The godless force of gravity is analogous to the godless forces of devolution. It's still godless evolution. All evolution, no real theism. It applies equally well to Young Earth Creationism when we are talking about the current state of living species and not the original starting point (ground or skyscraper). So why all the grief against TE's while YEC'ism gets a pass? Does Intelligent Design itself take a position on whether the starting point was the ground or a skyscraper?Mung_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Mung, Analogy: Current state: A man is 100 feet in the air. TE: God put a man on the ground, and he jumped. YEC: God put a man on top of a skyscraper, and he jumped.drc466_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

What is the Young Earth Creationist view of God's role in evolution?Mung_{July 31, 2016
July
07
Jul
31
31
2016
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply