Question about Preachers and Creationism defenders?

[Hammster]

Since the Theory of Evolution is false, wouldn't a PhD in Evolutionary whatever be akin to a PhD in Astrology?

 

[OzSpen]

Hammster,

Since the Theory of Evolution is false, wouldn't a PhD in Evolutionary whatever be akin to a PhD in Astrology?

I think you'll need more proof than that assertion.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,



I think you'll need more proof than that assertion.

The Ten Commandments works nicely, especially the first one.

 

[OzSpen]

Hammster,

The Ten Commandments works nicely, especially the first one.

I agree, but a Christian evolutionary scientist could retort, 'In the beginning God created ... refers to his creating by means of evolution'. I know that bara does not mean that.

However, that's not the issue. Your question at #21 began, 'Since the Theory of Evolution is false'. You need to provide the evidence to demonstrate that evolution is false.

But will your evidence be accepted if you do not have a PhD in evolutionary biology?

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,

I agree, but a Christian evolutionary scientist could retort, 'In the beginning God created ... refers to his creating by means of evolution'. I know that bara does not mean that.

However, that's not the issue. Your question at #21 began, 'Since the Theory of Evolution is false'. You need to provide the evidence to demonstrate that evolution is false.

But will your evidence be accepted if you do not have a PhD in evolutionary biology?

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.


Game, set, match. Whether someone accepts that or not is not my concern. It's the truth of God's word.

 

[OzSpen]

Hammster,

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Game, set, match. Whether someone accepts that or not is not my concern. It's the truth of God's word.

You don't seem to be considering that a Christian evolutionist could accept exactly what you wrote and even stamp it with 'game, set, match'. How come?

Don't you understand 2 Peter 3:8:

But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day (NLT).

You are requiring that Genesis 1 be literal days. That's not the way it is for the evolutionary scientist, Christian or otherwise. Millions of years can be understood in Gen 1 for them.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,



You don't seem to be considering that a Christian evolutionist could accept exactly what you wrote and even stamp it with 'game, set, match'. How come?

Don't you understand 2 Peter 3:8:


You are requiring that Genesis 1 be literal days. That's not the way it is for the evolutionary scientist, Christian or otherwise. Millions of years can be understood in Gen 1 for them.

Then they really have a problem with day four. I don't have that problem. But if they are convinced that science trumps scripture, no argument from me will convince them.

 

[OzSpen]

Hammster,

Then they really have a problem with day four. I don't have that problem. But if they are convinced that science trumps scripture, no argument from me will convince them.

Yes, there is an issue with Days 4 and 5: Vegetation, plants with seed, and fruit trees millions of years before the lights were created separating day from night and as signs for the seasons, days and years.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,



Yes, there is an issue with Days 4 and 5: Vegetation, plants with seed, and fruit trees millions of years before the lights were created separating day from night and as signs for the seasons, days and years.

And even if they want to use the Peter reference, that's only thousands of years, not millions.

 

[FoxyRoxy]

And even if they want to use the Peter reference, that's only thousands of years, not millions.

Apparently literary devices such as metaphor and allegory are beyond you.

So when Jesus said “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry" He actually meant he was Jewish Rye and we should dab Him in olive oil?

 

[OzSpen]

Hammster,

And even if they want to use the Peter reference, that's only thousands of years, not millions.

2 Peter 3:8 is really teaching that God's relation to time is not as that of human beings.

This seems to be linked to Psalm 90:4, 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night' (ESV). This is teaching that the Lord is outside of time.

It's important to note the Greek hws (as) - 2 of them - because Peter did not say that a single day IS a thousand years, but that a single day is AS a thousand years. It doesn't matter if it is one day or a thousand years, they are 'as' (as in reality) - the same - to the Lord (insight from R C H Lenski). God does not count time.

 

[OzSpen]

Foxy,

Hammster wrote: 'And even if they want to use the Peter reference, that's only thousands of years, not millions.'

Your response to that citation was, 'Apparently literary devices such as metaphor and allegory are beyond you'. What does Hammster's response have to do with metaphor and allegory? You have left me scratching my head.

 

[Hammster]

Apparently literary devices such as metaphor and allegory are beyond you.

So when Jesus said “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry" He actually meant he was Jewish Rye and we should dab Him in olive oil?

And that has what to do with Exodus 20?

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,



2 Peter 3:8 is really teaching that God's relation to time is not as that of human beings.

This seems to be linked to Psalm 90:4, 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night' (ESV). This is teaching that the Lord is outside of time.

It's important to note the Greek hws (as) - 2 of them - because Peter did not say that a single day IS a thousand years, but that a single day is AS a thousand years. It doesn't matter if it is one day or a thousand years, they are 'as' (as in reality) - the same - to the Lord (insight from R C H Lenski). God does not count time.

We agree, which is new territory for us.

 

[FoxyRoxy]

Foxy,

Hammster wrote: 'And even if they want to use the Peter reference, that's only thousands of years, not millions.'

Your response to that citation was, 'Apparently literary devices such as metaphor and allegory are beyond you'. What does Hammster's response have to do with metaphor and allegory? You have left me scratching my head.

Because he is making it seem like "a day is like a thousands years" means that LITERALLY one day feels precisely like 1000 earth years to God. Obviously this is metaphorical and could be describing any length of time. even millions of years.

 

[OzSpen]

Because he is making it seem like "a day is like a thousands years" means that LITERALLY one day feels precisely like 1000 earth years to God. Obviously this is metaphorical and could be describing any length of time. even millions of years.

It was I who introduced2 Peter 3:8 in #26. In a later post I explained further:

2 Peter 3:8 is really teaching that God's relation to time is not as that of human beings.

This seems to be linked to Psalm 90:4, 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night' (ESV). This is teaching that the Lord is outside of time.

It's important to note the Greek hws (as) - 2 of them - because Peter did not say that a single day IS a thousand years, but that a single day is AS a thousand years. It doesn't matter if it is one day or a thousand years, they are 'as' (as in reality) - the same - to the Lord (insight from R C H Lenski). God does not count time.
​

I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of metaphor and allegory to associate one day as a thousand years with these figures of speech.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

We agree, which is new territory for us.

I expect that there would be many areas of theology in which you and I would agree, but not in Calvinism vs Arminianism or charismatic gifts vs cessationism.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,
How do you know there are 3 million scientists around the world who believe in the theory of evolution? How will you determine how many scientists around the world DO NOT believe in the theory of evolution?

Membership rolls of very large mutually exclusive scientific societies include hundreds of thousands of members each. I used the number 3,000,000 because it is very easy to prove that there are today over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned a Ph.D. or an equivalent degree—Dr.Sc., D.Sc., D.S., S.D., or Sc.D. In many countries, however, a Sc.D. is a higher degree than a Ph.D. in science, and requires substantially more education and a sustained contribution to scientific knowledge. For the past 40 years, creationist organizations have been searching for scientists who reject as untrue the theory of evolution. At this time, between 22 and 25 such scientists who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science are known, and about five of these are currently employed as scientists (including teachers of a science at the college level). Most of the others are employed by religious organizations.

Are you daring to tell me that H C Leupold's exegetical commentary (based on a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew), Exposition of Genesis (1942. London: Evangelical Press/The Wartburg Press) is that of a dumbo exegete because he does not promote the theory of evolution?

Leopold’s commentary on Genesis was the first commentary on Genesis that I purchased. At the time that it was published, it presented a distinctly old school interpretation of Genesis. I have not seen it quoted by any scholars of Genesis in the last 30 or 40 years—have you?

There are several hundred Old Testament scholars who are currently researching and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies. The current interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is that it is a series of heavily redacted epic tales (or sagas, myths, or legends). This genre of literature is unique in the Bible, and Genesis 1-11 is more and more often being studied as a distinct and separate unit of Scripture. For a list of current academic-level commentaries on Genesis, please see here: Category: Books / Commentaries / Books of the Bible: Genesis / Difficulty: Technical - Christianbook.com Search

Even if there are 3 million PhD scientists around the world who believe in evolution, that does not prove the existence of evolution, any more than, perhaps, millions of atheists around the world do not prove that God does not exist.

Even though there are 22-25 scientists around the world who disbelieve in evolution, that does not prove that the theory is unsound. We have today literally trillions of pieces of data that support the theory of evolution. Furthermore, even the most radical creationist organizations accept as true what they call “microevolution” which is, in reality, identical to what they call “macroevolution” except for the period of time over which the evolution has taken place. This “microevolution” has been observed repeatedly in the laboratory and in the field, and it operates using exactly the same mechanisms that makes macroevolution possible. Even our fundamentalist colleges and universities are beginning to teach science as science (including the theory of evolution) and biblical studies as biblical studies. They are two very different disciplines, but they are both shedding a wealth of light in the area of biblical exegesis. The theory of evolution poses a threat to the gospel only when attacks against it are commingled with the gospel—diluting and contaminating the gospel —and when people are taught an outdated and severely incorrect interpretation of Genesis and references to it in other parts of the Bible.

Every day, thousands of young people are being told that they must choose to believe either science or the Bible—and the very large majority is choosing to believe science rather than the Bible. Young earth creationism and anti-evolution propaganda are the culprits—not the theory of evolution. I came to Christ as an evolutionist—just as many people in my church did. Far too many others, however, were shot dead by young earth creationism and anti-evolution propaganda because it destroyed, in their minds, the credibility of the Bible and made a mockery of the Christian faith.

I was shot myself, many times, but by the grace of God, Christ Jesus came to me one night as I walked down the sidewalk along the main street in the metropolis where I was living. One moment Jesus was no more real to me than Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny—but the very next moment I was filled with the Holy Spirit and I knew that Christ Jesus was the Son of God and that He had saved me from my sins.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is the power of God for salvation, and so it is—if it has not been commingled with young earth creationism and anti-evolution propaganda—diluting and contaminating it!

 

[OzSpen]

PG,

Membership rolls of very large mutually exclusive scientific societies include hundreds of thousands of members each. I used the number 3,000,000 because it is very easy to prove that there are today over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned a Ph.D. or an equivalent degree—Dr.Sc., D.Sc., D.S., S.D., or Sc.D. In many countries, however, a Sc.D. is a higher degree than a Ph.D. in science, and requires substantially more education and a sustained contribution to scientific knowledge. For the past 40 years, creationist organizations have been searching for scientists who reject as untrue the theory of evolution. At this time, between 22 and 25 such scientists who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science are known, and about five of these are currently employed as scientists (including teachers of a science at the college level). Most of the others are employed by religious organizations.

This is no guarantee that there are 3 million doctoral level scientists who are convinced evolutionists. Your presuppositions are driving your conclusion. It is a begging the question issue for you. Of course you will want to find doctoral evolutionary scientists because that is your starting point.

I have experienced the indoctrination of evolution in the university classroom in the USA university PhD class in biology. When the professor interpreted a given matter in an evolutionary framework, I raised my hand and asked a few questions. He did not give me time to present evidence but he made his views about me very clear, 'Your views are blankety blank', and he swore at me with an ad hominem logical fallacy.

And you want me to believe that doctoral-level evolutionary scientists have a strong argument to make. I know that evolutionary biology professor I encountered in a doctoral class was indoctrinated in evolution and he did not want to argue any other view. Question begging fallacies are not what make for a reasonable defense of a position.

Leopold’s commentary on Genesis was the first commentary on Genesis that I purchased. At the time that it was published, it presented a distinctly old school interpretation of Genesis. I have not seen it quoted by any scholars of Genesis in the last 30 or 40 years—have you?

I notice your technique. You did not engage with what I stated about Leupold and his Hebrew scholarship. Put downs such as 'distinctly old school interpretation of Genesis' don't work for me because that is not dealing with the issues of the text. 'Old school' or 'new school' are perspectives that are not based on inductive exegesis of the text. What you have written so far in this thread indicates that you want to impose your secular evolutionary understanding on the biblical text. That's called eisegesis. When I see evolution coming from an exegesis of the biblical text, I'll believe you. In 40 years of exegesis of the text I have not found evolutionary means of creation by God to come from the Book of Genesis. But I've met my fair share of those like yourself who impose a secular evolutionary view on the text.

As for scholars quoting Leupold in the last 30-40 years, I have heard a number of them - sound exegetes and expositors in the pulpits in the USA, Canada and here in Australia.

The current interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is that it is a series of heavily redacted epic tales (or sagas, myths, or legends). This genre of literature is unique in the Bible, and Genesis 1-11 is more and more often being studied as a distinct and separate unit of Scripture

Most of these are coming from a modernist or postmodernist worldview. Imposing a worldview on the text is an illegitimate method of exegesis. I don't read Plato's, Caesar's, Jerome's, Wesley's or the Brisbane Courier-Mail's writings that way, so I'm not planning on bringing it to the Bible.

We have today literally trillions of pieces of data that support the theory of evolution

And you've read them all??

I stated this:

Even if there are 3 million PhD scientists around the world who believe in evolution, that does not prove the existence of evolution, any more than, perhaps, millions of atheists around the world do not prove that God does not exist.

You quoted it in your response to me but said not a word about its content. What are you trying to prove when you cite me but for no other reason than to cite me. What game are you playing?

even the most radical creationist organizations accept as true what they call “microevolution” which is, in reality, identical to what they call “macroevolution” except for the period of time over which the evolution has taken place

You know that it is false to state that microevolution = macroevolution.

Every day, thousands of young people are being told that they must choose to believe either science or the Bible—and the very large majority is choosing to believe science rather than the Bible. Young earth creationism and anti-evolution propaganda are the culprits—not the theory of evolution.

You are here presenting a one-sided view. There are young people in my part of the world who attend Creation Ministries International presentations by PhD scientists who are convinced creationists and are in university studying. But have a guess what? They are not allowed to present their creationist evidence because the university system is so indoctrinated with the evolutionary worldview. Academic freedom is not possible for students and teachers at university who are not prepared to toe the party line of evolution. I know teachers in the university system and they tell me what is happening.

I'm not interested in the promotion of a dictatorial, evolutionary worldview whether at high school, university, church or on this forum.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

It's obvious that you cannot come up the the theory of evolution from scripture. There's nothing in there to even hint at evolution. In fact, at one point there was a discussion on whether six days was too long since some believed God did it in an instant.

So if evolution turns out to be true, and I'm standing before God, I would have no problem saying that I believed His word and my error came from elsewhere. However, if evolution is NOT true, I'd hate to stand before the Creator and say that I believed scientists over the Holy Spirit.

So if I err, it's on the side of God's word.