My Symbolic Challenge

[River Jordan]

Simple YES or NO question:

Is Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

(Please note that I'm not looking for two feet of text. I'm looking for a single word: YES or NO.)

No, because a non-literal reading of Genesis 1 predates the science of evolution by a lot.

 

[BCP1928]

I can also see that it doesn't really matter what answer is given, when its obvious that the question is flawed in the first place!

A false dichotomy as usual.

 

[AV1611VET]

NO

So this is the way it went down?

Not this way?

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI, guys, all answers are being recorded for quality purposes.

 

[durangodawood]

So this is the way it went down?

View attachment 360613

Not this way?

View attachment 360614

NO

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is 'a literal teaching of evolution' anyway? An explanation on that would be interesting to find out.

Unless you mean history. Are you against the teaching of history?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is 'a literal teaching of evolution' anyway?

From AI Overview:

A literal teaching of evolution is the belief that the scientific theory of evolution is literally true, and that it is contradictory to religious texts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

A literal teaching of evolution is the belief that the scientific theory of evolution is literally true, and that it is contradictory to religious texts.

No, I want your explanation of it. Not AI's. Yours. Because even then, 'a literal teaching of evolution' is... what? Science? History? What is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I want your explanation of it. Not AI's. Yours. Because even then, 'a literal teaching of evolution' is... what? Science? History? What is it?

Have a good day.

I'm not going to play around with your attempt to keep yourself from understanding my simple challenge.

Others have answered it.

Albeit, I will admit, I'm surprised they said NO.

But I think I know why too.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have a good day.

I'm not going to play around with your attempt to keep yourself from understanding my simple challenge.

Others have answered it.

Albeit, I will admit, I'm surprised they said NO.

But I think I know why too.

No, it's a pertinent question to ask with a simple yes or no answer: when you say 'a literal teaching of evolution', do you refer to science and history? Because I genuinely do not know what you mean by 'a literal teaching of evolution', since I have never once heard or read of anyone using that combination of words in that sentence before.

And I did answer it: post #16 which you've chosen to ignore.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's a pertinent question to ask with a simple yes or no answer: when you say 'a literal teaching of evolution', do you refer to science and history? Because I genuinely do not know what you mean by 'a literal teaching of evolution', since I have never once heard or read of anyone using that combination of words in that sentence before.

From AI Overview:

Yes, evolution is taught as a literal scientific fact, meaning that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that life on Earth has evolved over time through natural processes, and this is considered a well-established scientific theory supported by extensive evidence; it is not presented as a metaphorical or figurative concept in science education.

If the challenge is too hard, just ignore it.

Outta site, outta mind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

Yes, evolution is taught as a literal scientific fact, meaning that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that life on Earth has evolved over time through natural processes, and this is considered a well-established scientific theory supported by extensive evidence; it is not presented as a metaphorical or figurative concept in science education.

If the challenge is too hard, just ignore it.

Outta site, outta mind.

So you are arguing against science and history then. Good to know.

 

[dlamberth]

So you are arguing against science and history then. Good to know.

That's not new.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's not new.

No, it's not at all new.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not new.

Care to give it a go?

Does academia allegorize Genesis 1, so they can teach the theory of evolution within the confines of Scripture?

They can't have both.

They can't have a literal Genesis 1 and a literal macroevolution at the same time.

One of them has to take a hike.

Which one, in your opinion?

Either Adam was Adam, or he is y-Adam.

Which one?

In your opinion.

 

[River Jordan]

Care to give it a go?

Does academia allegorize Genesis 1, so they can teach the theory of evolution within the confines of Scripture?

They can't have both.

They can't have a literal Genesis 1 and a literal macroevolution at the same time.

One of them has to take a hike.

Which one, in your opinion?

Either Adam was Adam, or he is y-Adam.

Which one?

In your opinion.

Again, non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 existed long before the science of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 existed long before the science of evolution.

So?

 

[BCP1928]

From AI Overview:

A literal teaching of evolution is the belief that the scientific theory of evolution is literally true, and that it is contradictory to religious texts.

Nonsense. Why do you think they call it "artificial" intelligence, anyway?

"Genesis 1 reduced to symbols" is also nonsense.

 

[River Jordan]

So?

So there isn't necessarily a link between non-literal reading of Genesis 1 and evolution. The way Genesis 1 is written gives reasons for non-literal interpretations all by itself.

 

[dlamberth]

Care to give it a go?

Does academia allegorize Genesis 1, so they can teach the theory of evolution within the confines of Scripture?

They can't have both.

They can't have a literal Genesis 1 and a literal macroevolution at the same time.

One of them has to take a hike.

Which one, in your opinion?

Either Adam was Adam, or he is y-Adam.

Which one?

In your opinion.

Genesis isn't even in the picture as a reality to be pushed aside so something else can be presented. Your giving it way more credit in that way than warranted.