Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

AV1611VET · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
If your dogma is so strong as to deny all evidence, then how would you ever know if you are wrong?

When I'm told I'm wrong in Heaven.

AV1611VET · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Like a young earth, a recent global flood, and special creation. These are directly contradicted by evidence found in the Creation.

And let me guess, the Creation tells you we are mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God, doesn't it?

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

AV1611VET said:
When I'm told I'm wrong in Heaven.

So there is no physical evidence in the here and now that you would ever accept as an indication that you are wrong?

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

AV1611VET said:
And let me guess, the Creation tells you we are mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God, doesn't it?

The creation tells us that we share a common ancestor with other species, that planet formation started 4.55 billion years ago in our Solar System, and that there has not been a global flood in the last 500,000 years (at the least).

AV1611VET · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
So there is no physical evidence in the here and now that you would ever accept as an indication that you are wrong?

Wrong about what?

If evidence convinces me Thalidomide is not a pre-natal wonder drug, then I'm wrong if I believe Thalidomide is a pre-natal wonder drug.

But if you're talking about evidence about the Creation week, no evidence in the universe is going to convince me I'm wrong.

AV1611VET · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
The creation tells us that we share a common ancestor with other species, that planet formation started 4.55 billion years ago in our Solar System, and that there has not been a global flood in the last 500,000 years (at the least).

I'll ask you a second time:

And let me guess, the Creation tells you we are mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God, doesn't it?

(You know better than to answer that, don't you? since you're an agnostic.)

verysincere · Dec 6, 2012

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to put aside for the moment the likely Poe-playing we've observed and I'll go ahead and demolish one of his vacuous arguments, just to illustrate how easily this can be done if one actually READS the Hebrew text of the Genesis creation pericopes:

KWCrazy said:
There is a difference, however, between not studying a text and studying a text to subsequently misrepresent it.

Agreed! And that is exactly why I prefer what the Torah texts actually state over and above what KWCrazy's favorite sect and traditions tell him that he should believe.

KWCrazy said:
Genesis states that the world was created in six days.

Actually it speaks of six YOM. So KWCrazy immediately assumes (without any knowledge of the underlying Hebrew) that he speaks for God and can declare WHICH definition of YOM applies here from the Hebrew----and even which of the MULTIPLE definitions of "day" applies here. Right, KWCrazy? You alone speak for God, right? How about telling us about your Semitic language training and exegetical skills? How long have you been translating Biblical texts and publishing Hebrew exegesis books and articles?

KWCrazy said:
In Exodus Moses was given the 10 Commandments, the fourth of which was to honor the seventh day because in six days God created the world and on the seventh He rested. Our calendar is based on the six day creation and the day of rest.

As is typical with these arguments, what he leaves out is as important as what he mentions. I grow tired of debunking the same lame arguments again and again, arguments displaying a general unfamiliarity with the Biblical text (and Torah Law for that matter.) But when one does little more than copy-and-pasting from creationist websites, one cannot expect competent arguments.

So I will simply append below an email I wrote responding to a young grad student who was asking about the same passages but was genuinely seeking to educate himself on the 6+1=7 YOM pattern of Genesis 1. (It addresses just a FEW of the ways the Biblical text speaks against a 24 hour day:

----- (The following is protected by copyright under the Bible.and.Science.Forum. I am the sole author.) -------------

But as to the Exodus passages which YECs always cite, this is their main argument which is second only to their "plain and natural, literal interpretation of Genesis 1" [which presumes that (a) there is only ONE "literal interpretation" and (b) pretends that the "plain and natural reading" of a Biblical text is NOT dictated by prior traditions and biases, including those interpretations made by the translators and reflected in the English Bible text. Indeed, translators, usually through no fault or intentional bias on their part, (a) tend to stay close to translation traditions established over the centuries and (b) avoid "shaking up" the reader with a translation that is too radically new (and which requires a LOT of study bible footnotes to explain why the changes are not arbitrary and heretical, such as "earth" vs. "land"), and (c) the translators often can't avoid "finalizing" a particular interpretation simply by the act of translation itself. For example, if the Hebrew word has TWO possible definitions and the context does not make clear which one is correct, the translator MUST pick one as the basis for the translation (unless he's lucky and there is an English word with the same ambiguity of two definitions) so that the ambiguity and difficulty of the Hebrew text is preserved in English. (To some degree, rendering ERETZ as "earth" has that quality of possible ambiguity in BOTH Hebrew and English. But unfortunately, TRADITION makes it likely that most readers will assume "planet earth" even though "land" or "country" are more accurate to the original--- but because EARTH *can* be understood the more correct way in terms of "region of the earth", "the world I see around me", and "the opposite of sky" or "the ground", it is technically NOT a translation. )

[By the way, I noticed yesterday that ERETZ in the NIV Bible in Genesis 1 has no footnote translation comment at the bottom of the page----but in Genesis 2 the word "earth" in the English NIV text has a footnote indicating "land" at the bottom of the page. And I think at least one of the NIV editions also used the "land" footnote in the Noah account. So I think it is funny that they didn't take the chance of shocking readers by rendering ERETZ as "land" ----although I think the NIV STUDY BIBLE (with room for lots of explanatory notes) probably mentions "lands" profusely nearly everywhere ERETZ appears.]

[Another possible way to translate the "heavens and earth" of Genesis 1 would be "sky and land". I'm not recommending it but it has its merits of capturing the "flavor" of the original. And because there is NO EVIDENCE that the ancient Hebrews had any concept of the large spherical planet kind of earth, we really should stay faithful to the original author's attention. Of course, creationists will say that God wrote it and knew the scientific realities and therefore the Hebrew text reflects the CORRECT cosmology. BUT NOTHING IS LOST BY REMAINING FAITHFUL TO THE LANGUAGE, ANCIENT COSMOLOGY, AND THE VIEWPOINT OF THE HUMAN AUTHOR. Obviously, for conservative Christians, there is fear involved in the changes.]

BACK TO SIX-HOUR DAY ARGUMENT INVOLVING HEBREW YOM & ITS MEANING

I don't recall whether I posted on the thread my complete argument about YOM's translation, but the summary is this:

1) YECs insist that God commanded the Children of Israel to observe a sabbath day of rest as the 7th day because God rested on the Sabbath after the six creation days.

2) So they assume that EMPHASIS of the Exodus command being explicitly attributed to the seven 24hour days of creation week means that the ANALOGY between them is somehow the length-of-the-days issue. In other words, the human calendar week and how it is allocated is based on the week in Genesis 1 so the "lesson" is that both weeks are of the same length.

3) And by linking the 7 YOM week of Exodus 20 with the 7 YOM of Creation (in Genesis 1), they claim that YOM must have the same meaning in each. So because Exodus 20 MUST refer to 24hour day, Genesis 1 must also be of the same length. That is their reasoning.

MY REBUTTAL:

Rubbish.

1) The key commonality between Exodus 20 and Genesis 1 is NOT the length of a YOM nor the idea that EVERYTHING about the weeks being compared was the same. Rather, the two are analogous because of (a) the 6+1=7 pattern, and (b) the SIX YOM of both are action/work days AND the seventh YOM is a rest day. The analogy says nothing about 24hours in a YOM nor the idea that Exodus 20 is meant to DEFINE the meaning and length of YOM in Genesis 1. [Indeed, would ANYBODY suggest that if the YOM in Genesis 1 were 25 hours in length while the YOM in Exodus 20 were 24 hours in length, the entire 6+1=7th YOM sabbath rest analogy would fall apart? Rubbish!]

2) So how do I know that the analogy focus of the establishment of the Sabbath YOM in Exodus 20 is two-fold: the 6+1=7 pattern AND the SABBATH YOM of rest is the 7TH YOM in both Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.? Besides the fact that it makes the must natural and common sense, the Torah repeats the same analogy for two other observances, both commanded in Leviticus 25.
* The SABBATH YEAR is also based on creation week, designating SIX YEARS of work followed by ONE YEAR OF REST. (For example, among other implications, all cultivated land was to remain fallow during the sabbatical year. It served as a kind of crop rotation schema, because random weeds and volunteer crops soon occupied the fields.) So the analogy to Genesis 1 is 6+1=7 YEARS with the 7th being a year of rest. [The fact that the pattern is based upon years and not days AND the 7th is a rest year doesn't YHWH's analogy.]

* The JUBILEE YEAR (also known as the SEVEN WEEKS OF YEARS or the SEVEN SABBATICAL YEARS SABBATH OR SABBATH OF SABBATH YEARS..) That is, every 49 years there was to be a very special kind of sabbath year of rest. Indentured servitude contracts from that 7x7 cycle of years were to end when the Jubilee Sabbath Year began. Also, any land which had been sold during that cycle was to revert back to their original families of ownership as designated in the original allotment when they first occupied Canaan. (This was to prevent some families and tribes from becoming land-rich and others land-poor.) The analogy to Genesis 1 is in seven units of WEEKS OF YEARS. Once again, the Creation Week Analogy makes no mention of YOM, telling us that days are NOT intrinsically important to the analogy. The SIX being associated with work and the SEVENTH being associated with rest is what mattered. 7 x (6+1)= 49 years of work and 1 year of rest. [[There is scholarly debate about some technicalities of counting toward the Jubilee Year but it doesn't impact the fact that the Jubilee Year relates to creation week.]]

SUMMARY: THE SABBATH YOM, THE SABBATH YEAR, and the SABBATH OF SABBATH YEARS ARE ALL BASED ON CREATION WEEK.

==> The focus of the analogy/association of these various Sabbaths to Genesis 1 is NOT the length of a YOM. It is the 6 periods of action/work followed by one period of rest in groups of sevens which associates ALL THREE KINDS OF SABBATHS with Genesis 1. So most creationists totally avoid mentioning the other two 6+1=7 patterns based upon Genesis 1----because it totally destroys their argument about a 24-hour YOM!

==> Notice the three "time units": the YOM, the YEAR, and the WEEKS OF YEARS. None of the three are the same period of time. But all three are UNITS OF TIME. And with all three Sabbath schemas, those units of time are counted in groups of 6+1=7.

3) And here's my final counter-argument of the three creationist claims: They pretend that there is some sort of linguistic rule that if in the vast majority of Hebrew Bible contexts, YOM=24-hour day, somehow that dictates that ALL contexts demand the same definition for YOM (even though the Hebrew lexicon lists several definitions for YOM.) Not only does that claim make no sense in ANY modern language including our own, it ignores the very rule of INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO CONTEXT which creationists usually champion. Because MOST of the Old Testament (all but part of the first two chapters of Genesis, some of Daniel and Zechariah, some Psalms and a few other text portions) focus on GOD'S INTERACTION WITH HUMANS OVER THE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY. So those kinds of contexts would obviously suggest that the Biblical text would reflect the units of time which humans experience: days, weeks, years. But in Genesis 1, the context is GOD'S INTERACTION WITH THE UNIVERSE. And obviously, the universe "experiences" units of time which are NOT confined to days, months, years. Therefore, if nearly every Hebrew lexicon states that the word YOM in the Bible can mean "an epoch/era" and "an indeterminate period of time" as well as "24-hour day" or "the hours of daylight", doesn't it make sense that some of those contexts where the LONGER periods of time are appropriate involve the history of the cosmos?

OBVIOUSLY, THE CREATIONIST ARGUMENT THAT THE SABBATH YOM IN EXODUS 20 DEFINES THE LENGTH OF THE SEVEN YOM IN GENESIS 1 IS DEMOLISHED.

I could provide many more arguments but the original objective was to destroy the very weak Exodus 20 argument for a 24-hour YOM, so I will leave it at that for now, especially considering that many creationists have told me that Exodus 20 is the very best and definitive argument that the six YOM of creation in Genesis 1 are the same as human work days.-

And it is also worth mentioning that in all other contexts, MOST Young Earth Creationists hold the view that the SEVENTH YOM of creation week lasts until the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth---when God will create again. In other words, the entire scope of human history is part of the seventh YOM of Creation Week in that God continues to rest/cease creation. And all creationists agree that Hebrew 4, which mentions "days" several times, describes, "A Sabbath rest awaits the people of God", that is, the ETERNITY OF HEAVEN. So even creationists, when not debating about origins topics, readily concede that not all of the YOM/"days" of the Bible are 24-hours!

(And yes, if I really wanted to rub it in, I could discuss "the evening and the morning was the Nth YOM", which spans a LITERAL NIGHT, not a 24hour day! A 24hour day in Hebrew culture, then and now, is evening to evening! No, it is an IDIOM which basically means "from start to finish". Hebrew, much like English, uses works like morning/evening, day/night, dawn/dusk in a variety of idiomatic ways and the knowledge reader rarely struggles with them. Only when the powerful force of TRADITION takes over the brain does the flow of common linguistic techniques befuddle the mind.)

KWCrazy · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
I would say that you are the one attacking the Bible by requiring an interpretation that is directly contradicted by reality.

In which of the miracles of the Bible, all of which deny reality, do you believe?

If you think that the son of God came to earth, took up human form, cured the sick, supposedly cast out demons, got in trouble with the high priests and was crucified, then rose from the dead on the third day in defieance of all natural laws to the contrary than you are making a mockery of science.

If you don't believe that, then you have no hope of salvation.

You are doing more damage to christianity than any evil atheist scientist could ever do.

I never said scientists were evil. They just study the physical world so intently they many times think that's all that is. What's evil is attempting to destroy the faith of others because it offends your rejection of such faith. (Collective you, not personal.)

I am echoing what other christians are saying on the matter.

And I'm echoing what Christ said. Who would you think is more likely to be right?

Who is Dr. Francis Collins, you may ask? He RAN the NIH funded Human Genome Project, and he also a devout christian.

That doesn't exactly make him a Biblical scholar, does it? As for evolution happening, other than the roughly 4,500 year period from the release of the pairs of animals from the ark to present, evolution has never happened. Molecules to man never happened. Chimps to Gharlie never happened either.

So again, why do you insist on interpretting the Bible in a way that makes it wrong?

You DO realize that you are the ones doing the interpreting, right? I believe it as written.

Aesop stated that a tortoise and a hare had a race. Does this mean that the race actually happened?

Jesus never affirmed Aesop like He affirmed Noah and the days of the flood; or the accuracy of Scriptures.

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

KWCrazy said:
If you read post 349, you'll see that Jesus Christ, the son of God, who actually WITNESSED the accounts, never disputed a word of the Scriptures and in fact believed them to be accurate.

Please show where Jesus claimed to have witnessed these events.

Since I believe the words of Christ to be the very definition of truth, I have no reason to doubt that if it was all alegory that He would have told us so.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.--Galileo Galilei

Maybe you are expected to you ue the brains you were given to figure these things out?

Further, the only reason I could see why you or anyone else would contradict the Scriptures is to pretend that nature is somehoe greater than God or that the laws of the science which He created have more validity that God Himself.

I am only trying to show that CREATIONISTS are wrong. Creationists are not scripture. They are not God.

Unlike some, I understand as Genesis teaches that everything was created in its mature state.

Millions of christians disagree with you.

The real question is why you claim that the Bible is truth, and then insist on an interpretation that makes the Bible false.

If the Earth was created recently, shouldn't we find evidence for that? If species were created separately, we shouldn't find evidence that is clearly consistent with evolution, should we? If there was a global flood, surely we could find a global flood layer that dates to recent times by radiometric dating, right?

You take the assumption that the only truth is what you can see, feel, hear, taste or smell.

I assume the same things that millions of christians assume, that truth will not be contradicted by what we can sense.

What about those things that are not physical;

We are talking abou the things that ARE PHYSICAL, such as the Earth, species, etc.

Suppose you had a conversation with an angel. I did not see the angel or hear the angel, and the angel left no physical evidence of its presence. I might contend that it never happened; that angels have never been proven to exist; that lacking any conclusive proof I can't believe your story. Does that make it any less true or any less real? For you who had seen and experienced the presence, could what you know later be swayed by a non-believer who said there was no scientific evidence it ever happened?

That is not the situation here. We have EVIDENCE for an old Earth, no recent global floods, and shared ancestry between species. This isn't a case of having no evidence. This is a case of having mountains of evidence pointing to one conclusion.

46AND2 · Dec 6, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Wrong about what?

If evidence convinces me Thalidomide is not a pre-natal wonder drug, then I'm wrong if I believe Thalidomide is a pre-natal wonder drug.

But if you're talking about evidence about the Creation week, no evidence in the universe is going to convince me I'm wrong.

This reminds me of that story that Christians like to use about the man stuck on a roof during a flood and praying that God would save him. A boat comes along and offers him a ride, and the man says, "nope, God is going to rescue me."

A little while later, a helicopter comes by and offers to give him a lift...."nope, God is going to rescue me."

The man drowns, and when he gets to heaven asks, "God, I prayed and I prayed for you to rescue me. Why did you not do so?"

God says, "I sent you a boat and a helicopter, didn't I?"

AV could go to Heaven one day and ask God why he didn't tell him that the Genesis account was not strictly literal.

And God would say, "I gave you radiometric dating and nested hierarchies, didn't I?"

AV1611VET · Dec 6, 2012

verysincere said:
Yes, it is always fun to demolish the YOM=24hour tradition of Young Earth Creationists.

Good ... start here with Strong's Concordance:

YOM

1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

KWCrazy · Dec 6, 2012

KWCrazy said:
[/color]
In which of the miracles of the Bible, all of which deny reality, do you believe?

If you think that the son of God came to earth, took up human form, cured the sick, supposedly cast out demons, got in trouble with the high priests and was crucified, then rose from the dead on the third day in defieance of all natural laws to the contrary than you are making a mockery of science.

If you don't believe that, then you have no hope of salvation.

So that we know how much of the Bible you believe is true, please answer the above.

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

KWCrazy said:
In which of the miracles of the Bible, all of which deny reality, do you believe?

None of them. However, without evidence one way or another I can not claim that they did not occur. This is not the case with the history of geology and biology found in the evidence. We do have evidence in this case, and it directly contradicts the claims that you are making.

I never said scientists were evil. They just study the physical world so intently they many times think that's all that is. What's evil is attempting to destroy the faith of others because it offends your rejection of such faith. (Collective you, not personal.)

In my experience, creationism does a much better job of destroying faith than anything atheists can say.

That doesn't exactly make him a Biblical scholar, does it? As for evolution happening, other than the roughly 4,500 year period from the release of the pairs of animals from the ark to present, evolution has never happened. Molecules to man never happened. Chimps to Gharlie never happened either.

What evidence, if found, would prove you wrong?

You DO realize that you are the ones doing the interpreting, right?

Yes, and we can show with evidence that it is the correct interpretation of the physical evidence. So again, why do you insist on interpretting the Bible so that it is contradicted by the facts we find in nature?

Jesus never affirmed Aesop like He affirmed Noah and the days of the flood; or the accuracy of Scriptures.

That one flew right over your head. When Jesus talked of the Prodigal Son, did this mean that the Prodigal Son was a real person?

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

KWCrazy said:
So that we know how much of the Bible you believe is true, please answer the above.

I have no evidence for or against the miracles you speak of. I need evidence before I can believe in thos miracles.

This is different for the age of the Earth, the relatedness of species, and a recent global flood. We do have evidence for or against these things.

Do you understand the difference or not?

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Good ... start here with Strong's Concordance:

Strong's Concordance is not the KJV. AV, you are commiting heresy.

verysincere · Dec 6, 2012

{CF character-count limits disallowed the final two paragraphs so here they are below, some closing remarks to encourage KWCrazy in learning from the Biblical text itself. He need not be a prisoner to traditions!}

Yes, it is always fun to demolish systematically the YOM=24hour tradition of some of the more uninformed Young Earth Creationists. And KWCrazy, do you see how actually READING and STUDYING the Biblical text takes you away from the mind-control of man-made traditions about what they WANT the text to say and instead one can use long-standing linguistic tools and procedures to determine what the Bible actually states?

Indeed, it takes many years of hard work, especially for the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek language skills. The grammatical/syntactical complexities can seem overwhelming at times---but whenever you read a quality English Bible translation and exegetical commentary, you are benefiting from exactly these kinds of scholarship and research. KWCrazy, you don't HAVE to be crippled by what a particular sect is telling you! You can learn from the Biblical text itself! You don't have to live in crazy, conflicted world where your Bible interpretations and your understanding of the clear scientific evidence all around you in creation keeps you in a world of contradictions where God is a deceiver and trickster. You can do better! Truth beats error-riddled traditions imposed by the uninformed. The Book of Proverbs says the wise do not refuse instruction. Learn from the scriptural evidence and the scientific evidence. Reality is not a giant paradox.

KWCrazy · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
None of them. However, without evidence one way or another I can not claim that they did not occur.

Fine. Please do not mention the Bible to me again or defer to religion in any way. You are confusing your arguments; bouncing between a purely naturalistc belief and attacking my interpretation of a Bible you don't believe in. There's no sense in using Biblical arguments with a person that doesn't believe in God. You can't separate the miracles of God from God. If you don't believe in miracles, then the world is your god.

That one flew right over your head. When Jesus talked of the Prodigal Son, did this mean that the Prodigal Son was a real person?

No, it did not, and again you're confusing your own argument. Aesop told a fable. Jesus taught using parables. Whether His parables were true only He knows. What matters to us was the meaning behind them, not whether they were based on actual events.

verysincere · Dec 6, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Good ... start here with Strong's Concordance:

Wow! AV had to go all of the way back to 1890 to find a long-dead scholar who agrees with him!

Hmmm, I wonder if scholarship has made any progress in the past 122 years? Ya think? (Naaaah. I mean, what are the chances of that?)

Plus, AV once posted "Lexicons can take a hike!" But in this case, he cites the lexicon portion of an 1890 English Bible tool for laypeople. (Hmmm, I wonder if that is selective use of evidence----the kind of evidence that he usually says can take a hike?)

No doubt he and KWCrazy are both accustomed to having their tails between their legs after such topics are raised. AV apparently abandoned the 6+1=7day week argument of my post and instead resorted to simple denial. Good for him. It's all he's got.

verysincere · Dec 6, 2012

KWCrazy said:
So that we know how much of the Bible you believe is true, please answer the above.

I have the same question for you, KWCrazy. You regularly replace what the Bible actually states with your own sects traditions. You haven't told us what makes conclusions the final authority? I base my exegesis on the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. Were are you getting yours?

You appear to have even less respect for God's creation. You treat it as if God create a universe filled with lies----evidence which you choose to ignore because it conflicts with your favorite man-made traditions. Why? Where does the Bible say that you should ignore what the Creator is clearly showing you in his creation? Why do you pretend God's Bible defies God's creation?

(And yes, I expect silence because you have no answers. You prefer to mock and denigrate the truths God has revealed in scripture and in creation.)

verysincere · Dec 6, 2012

AV1611VET said:
And let me guess, the Creation tells you we are mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God, doesn't it?

AV likes to denigrate how the creator diversified and adapted life on earth. (I guess he resents not having been given the opportunity to grant permission.)

Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Exegete/Linguist

Newbie

Contributor

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Exegete/Linguist

Newbie

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency