Evolutionist Professor Goes Ballistic

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - Your arguments have no substance and certainly have no truth in them.

 

My assertion is quite simple, the scripture clearly states (again using Gen. 1:24) "Let the land produce..." please explain to me how that means anything other then mediate creation? The Bible does not say "Let there be living creatures...", nor "Let there be vegetation....", nor "Let there be in the water living creatures...", nor etc., God invokes the land to bring forth/produce living creatures. Again, I appreciate that many find the term "evolution", which allows for much equivocation, but there is absolutely no suggestion of common ancestry involved on my part or in any sense abiogenesis.

 

Quote - You are trying write Evolution into the text of Genesis when the very wording of the text (which you of necessity must completely ignore) precludes the possibility of Evolution.

 

Why the capital E for evolution...it would seem that you are attempting to impose into my view something that was never stated. As I've noted my use of "evolution" is defined only as a "God ordained process", nothing more with the specific details as yet not fully known.  Also, I believe that you and others are simply avoiding what is plainly written in the text.

 

 

Quote - The problem is that you don't seem to want to face the fact that when the Bible says that God saw what He had made on the days of creation and said "it is good" it meant that it was as "good as it can be." 

 

It isn't at all a problem for me, the problem lies in the simple fact that you believe in "immediate" creation when the bible as referenced in the various verses states no such thing.  The only thing that the bible states is that God's commands were "so" and then on a specific day.

 

Quote - You still have not dealt with, as far as I can tell,  the problem that the creation of man presents for your claim that Evolution is present in Genesis 1.

 

What were living creatures made from?  What is "our image", physical or spiritual?

[Guest shiloh357]

Cobalt1959 - You want to believe evolution over what the Bible says, and you are forcing your personal beliefs onto the text.

 

Obviously there exists no ability to answer "Let the Land..." , the fact that it clearly states mediate creation, and the fact that it imposes a process. Attempting to assert what I "want" to believe hardly addresses the scripture. Further, there is no suggestion on my part to equate darwinsim/neo-darwinism as to the details of the God ordained processes stated in Genesis, other than to allow the use of the term "evolution", though not in the extreme context which you and others choose to impose. 

Cobalt is right. You are imposing what you want on to the text.  There is no clear statement about a mediate creation or any processes.  Your continued empty claim to that effect isn't going to get off the ground.  You see what you want to see, and not what the text actually says.  Your position is weak and baseless and no thinking person should accept it.

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - Cobalt is right. You are imposing what you want on to the text.  There is no clear statement about a mediate creation or any processes.  Your continued empty claim to that effect isn't going to get off the ground.  You see what you want to see, and not what the text actually says.  Your position is weak and baseless and no thinking person should accept it.

 

Another empty response... Please explain to me how "And God said, Let the land produce..." does not clearly lead a "thinking" person to conclude mediate creation?  How is that not clear?  What have I imposed, as that is exactly what the text states. Why does the text state "Let the land..." please explain? At this point I would just as easily suggest that you and others "see what you want to see and not what the text actually says". 

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - Cobalt is right. You are imposing what you want on to the text.  There is no clear statement about a mediate creation or any processes.  Your continued empty claim to that effect isn't going to get off the ground.  You see what you want to see, and not what the text actually says.  Your position is weak and baseless and no thinking person should accept it.

 

Another empty response... Please explain to me how "And God said, Let the land produce..." does not clearly lead a "thinking" person to conclude mediate creation?  How is that not clear?  What have I imposed, as that is exactly what the text states. Why does the text state "Let the land..." please explain? At this point I would just as easily suggest that you and others "see what you want to see and not what the text actually says". 

the one with the empty responses is you.  You are the one making stuff up and trying to insert it into the Bible as if it were "clearly stated."  You haven't provided any real facts to work from to refute.  All we have so far is your fertile imagination at work. You are asking me to disprove what have imagined the text says and I am don't need to disprove your fantasy.  You need to provide facts or give up on an debate you are losing.

 

  I work from what the text says.  I am not doing what you are doing.  You reading Evolution into the Bible.   I am taking God at His word that He made the universe in six days.  I believe the word of an all knowing all powerful God over a sinful fallible human being and his over- active imagination.

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - the one with the empty responses is you.  You are the one making stuff up and trying to insert it into the Bible as if it were "clearly stated."

 

So essentially you can not explain what "Let the land...", Let the waters...", etc. mean in terms of creation? 

 

I am simply reading what the Bible says, and any "thinking" person would give pause to "Let the land..." as opposed to "Let there be living creatures...". In 6 days God commanded all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced.  That you seek to impose a particular pejorative version of "evolution" into this is of your doing not mine.  

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - the one with the empty responses is you.  You are the one making stuff up and trying to insert it into the Bible as if it were "clearly stated."

 

So essentially you can not explain what "Let the land...", Let the waters...", etc. mean in terms of creation? 

 

I am simply reading what the Bible says, and any "thinking" person would give pause to "Let the land..." as opposed to "Let there be living creatures...". In 6 days God commanded all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced.  That you seek to impose a particular pejorative version of "evolution" into this is of your doing not mine.  

No, you are reading INTO what the Bible says.   And until you can actually provide any substantive evidence for your textual claims, there is no reason to take your claims seriously.  Your position lacks complete intellectual credibility and should be treated as the empty, pointless drivel that it is.

[LouF95]

And he never answered where sin came from. He was asked several times, and not once did he state his belief about it. That says a lot, methinks.

Yes. I did.  Sin is simply missing the mark or falling short of what God expects of us.  The original question is a malformed question.

[LouF95]

 

That is a fair challenge but you are implying that Genesis, as 100% historical, is the default position and the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.  I think we each have to prove our position.

 

 

You implied that the ancient Jews and prophets took Genesis as historical.  That doesn't prove historicity.  The ancient greeks believed there was a Mt. Olympus.  Does that make Mt. Olympus historical?  Would a trained historian accept your claim as proof.

 

You said Jesus mentioned Adam & Eve so Adam & Eve must have existed.  You need to prove 1) That Jesus took A&E as historical when He mentioned it.  I can mention Dick Tracy to make a point about detective work but I know Dick Tracy doesn't exist.  2)  That Jesus actually mentioned A&E.  To do that, you need to prove the bible as a 100% historical reliable text.  The gospel writer may have included Jesus in his parable.  He may have put the words in Jesus's mouth to give his writing more authority.  He may have misquoted Jesus.

 

For clarification, let me ask you.  Is Genesis 100% factual?  Is any segment allegorical, i.e. the talking snake, the tree A&E were supposed to say away from?

 

 

 

Actually, no.  Since you make the claim that Genesis is allegory, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it actually is.  Or at least some indicators that we should view the majority of the text as allegory.

 

That the Prophets, OT Jews and Apostles viewed the text as historical would, in fact carry a great deal of weight, since they would know much better how to interpret the text since they were much closer, time-wise to the original author(s).  So if the Prophets viewed Genesis as historical, and took the events as fact, why would it be an acceptable for someone in the 21st century to suddenly label it allegory?  If the Jews and the Apostles viewed it as historical, and since the Apostles built the church, I would think that no one, who genuinely loved Christ would wish to tamper with that.  If the Prophets and the Apostle's word that it is historical isn't good enough, then no ones would be.  And that would be a sad commentary on someone's faith.  The concept of large chunks of scripture being suddenly viewed as allegory, not literally was unknown until Origen, Philo and Augustine invented the concept, and invented it as a jumping-off point for Replacement Theology.  Allegory has always been used by the Catholic church as a device to change the meaning of scripture to support a false doctrine which cannot be supported any other way.  The use of allegory has now been adopted by modern Liberal scholars as a device to render the text helpless to combat things like social doctrine, homosexuality, and evolution, because holding actual biblical positions on those issues would be uncomfortable and not secular society-friendly.  Consequently, liberal proponents default to the secular side.  And spiritually-speaking, that is a huge mistake.

 

This is an assertion of what the ancients believed or didn't believe.  We weren't there to interview the general population as to what degree they took Genesis as factual.  I did get this response from a professor at Hebrew University.  His response is an assertion but a highly educated assertion.  As I said before, there should be no default position.  Truth seeking begins with objectivity and starting with no assumptions.  Of course objectivity is a difficult goal for us puny humans.

 

PROFESSOR'S RESPONSE:  Most people would agree that B'réshіt is historical from the 12th chapter onwards. As to the earlier chapters, opinions vary from considering all eleven chapters as 100% literal at one end of the spectrum to seeing all eleven chapters as 100% allegorical at the opposite end—with many subsidiary views in between. You pays your money and takes your choice, as they say.

[Tolken]

Shiloh357 - Your position lacks complete intellectual credibility and should be treated as the empty, pointless drivel that it is.

 

As you are aware this is pointless...the scriptures clearly state Mediate creation as "Let the land produce..." suggests. I have asked for interpretation/view/perspectives on that clear statement and received nothing in return but a feeble attempt with "you are imposing", "empty claim",  "fertile imagination", "intellectual credibility".

 

Once again, "And God said, Let the land..." please explain how that is not a command for the land, water, etc. to be the "agency" of His creation? Further, since this commanded agency would clearly involve God imbuing the land, water, etc. with the capacity to produce how does that not strongly imply a process?  Show me how one comes to the conclusion of "immediate" creation when as noted the scripture says no such thing?    

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357 - Your position lacks complete intellectual credibility and should be treated as the empty, pointless drivel that it is.

 

As you are aware this is pointless...the scriptures clearly state Mediate creation as "Let the land produce..." suggests. I have asked for interpretation/view/perspectives on that clear statement and received nothing in return but a feeble attempt with "you are imposing", "empty claim",  "fertile imagination", "intellectual credibility".

 

Once again, "And God said, Let the land..." please explain how that is not a command for the land, water, etc. to be the "agency" of His creation? Further, since this commanded agency would clearly involve God imbuing the land, water, etc. with the capacity to produce how does that not strongly imply a process?  Show me how one comes to the conclusion of "immediate" creation when as noted the scripture says no such thing?    

Mediate creation is your invention.  Creation is a supernatural event, not a naturalistic, evolutionary event.   God is exercising His power.  God is the agent of creation.  He is the Creator.   The earth and sea are not the agents of creation.  You have it all wrong.  You need to believe the Bible instead weaving fairytales..