YECs - please read.

[herev]

agree with PV

 

[California Tim]

I see now that, in reality, TwinCrier is talking about something else entirely: abiogenesis.

This is something that has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution deals with how living species change. Abiogenesis deals with how life actually appeared. It hypothesizes that life came from non-life, which is what you are assuming evolution states, TwinCrier. You have mixed up the two.

The reason abiogenesis and ET (and to a point TE) are inextricably intertwined is that the Bible rather plainly describes the introduction of a fully mature human species in Adam and Eve, from which there is no way to reasonably conclude there was a preceeding mother or father. In fact Eve is specifically listed as the FIRST woman and Adam as the FIRST man. Without a woman before Eve, Adam could not have been born or, in a nutshell, "evolved". If Adam did not evolve, it does not take any mental gymnastics to accept the rest of the creation account at face value - a literal historical narrative. If the rest of the account is accepted in its plainly written style, then it is difficult to reconcile any of the ET with the Biblical account, leaving the ultimate question back at the beginning of time - "how did life emerge?".

Evolution - run backwards to the beginning- must reconcile with the answer to this question eventually. Unfortunately for TE'ers the Bible deals a convincing blow in contradiction to the idea that the "seeds of life" (so to speak) were initially introduced to the planet by God who then used endless ages of evolution and selective reproduction to develop and arrive at the species we know today as the Human race (homo sapiens).

 

[PaladinValer]

California Tim, you are dead wrong. Please research on what abiogenesis and evolution are first before assuming what you have:

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed.

Evolution deals with how life mutated after it was formed.

Two entirely different animals.

If this is how YEC disagree with the theory of evolution, then their fears have no basis in actual fact on the actual theories. You do not need to hold to the theory of abiogenesis to agree with the theory of evolution. And quite frankly, you could very well agree in abiogenesis yet say that the theory of evolution is incorrect. Just because a person holds that life came from non-life doesn't mean that person must also believe that life can mutate.

Or, to put this all into three words, this: Fallacy of Equivocation

 

[herev]

The reason abiogenesis and ET (and to a point TE) are inextricably intertwined is that the Bible rather plainly describes the introduction of a fully mature human species in Adam and Eve, from which there is no way to reasonably conclude there was a preceeding mother or father. In fact Eve is specifically listed as the FIRST woman and Adam as the FIRST man. Without a woman before Eve, Adam could not have been born or, in a nutshell, "evolved". If Adam did not evolve, it does not take any mental gymnastics to accept the rest of the creation account at face value - a literal historical narrative. If the rest of the account is accepted in its plainly written style, then it is difficult to reconcile any of the ET with the Biblical account, leaving the ultimate question back at the beginning of time - "how did life emerge?".

Evolution - run backwards to the beginning- must reconcile with the answer to this question eventually. Unfortunately for TE'ers the Bible deals a convincing blow in contradiction to the idea that the "seeds of life" (so to speak) were initially introduced to the planet by God who then used endless ages of evolution and selective reproduction to develop and arrive at the species we know today as the Human race (homo sapiens).​

​

 

[Vance]

I think the problem with your problem, Tim, is that you start with "rather plainly" as a sort of presumption. I kind of prima facie case. I don't ever start with the presumption that the "plain readin'" to our modern ear is AT ALL what was intended.

 

[herev]

prima facie case
that sounds like lawyer talk to me

 

[Vance]

oops, sorry, I forget myself on occasion . . . :0)

 

[California Tim]

I think the problem with your problem, Tim, is that you start with "rather plainly" as a sort of presumption. I kind of prima facie case. I don't ever start with the presumption that the "plain readin'" to our modern ear is AT ALL what was intended.

I must continually remind myself that the basis for our differences lies in the different interpretation of the same text. I hope, however, you enjoy this opportunity as much as I do to participate in such an exercise that demands we research the Bible, our convictions and present our case before worthy opponents.

 

[PaladinValer]

It has nothing to do with interpretation this time, California. It has to do with YECs continuing to insist on using a fallacious argument of equivocating abiogenesis with evolution.

If you wish to debase either, then at least do so knowing exactly what exactly they actually hold to instead of relying on falsehoods spread by fallacious sources.

The biggest problem a lot of TEs have with YECs (and YEC"ism") is their (the) reliance on such logical fallacies such as that of equivocation [ie: abiogenesis with evolution], appealing to (false) authority [ie: Jack Chick or Hovind], and Straw Men [etc].

Perhaps if you gave an argument that didn't use any of these fallacies, you may be given more credit (I personally would, at least).

 

[Vance]

Oh, absolutely, Tim, just a friendly reminder about underlying presumptions.

BTW, I just picked up three new books yesterday with Christmas gift cards. One is called "The New Testament Story" which combines a history of how the New Testament texts came to be written and compiled along with an overview of themes and teachings.

The second is called "The Bible the Way it Was", which discusses how the first five books of the Bible were interpreted up to the first century AD.

The third is a history of the early Church, from Christ through Constantine. All are areas I have covered before, but they might provide some new insights.

I am also listening to a lecture series on the history of science. I am just starting on the renaissance, and there was a very interesting chapter on "The Science of Creation" covering the various interpretations of Genesis 1 by various Christian scientists (mostly monks) in the middle ages. It confirmed my previous understanding that almost none of them interpreted the text to mean a literal 24-hour days.

It also harked back to Saint Augustine, who also believed the reference to days were not to be read literally, but was a literary formula. He actually believed that God created all of the universe instantaneously, but not everything was present immediately. Instead, He created the potential for all we see today, which all developed over time. He describes it as God planting "seeds" into the natural system which come to fruition as time goes by.

Very interesting.

 

[California Tim]

It has nothing to do with interpretation this time, California. It has to do with YECs continuing to insist on using a fallacious argument of equivocating abiogenesis with evolution.

If you wish to debase either, then at least do so knowing exactly what exactly they actually hold to instead of relying on falsehoods spread by fallacious sources.

The biggest problem a lot of TEs have with YECs (and YEC"ism") is their (the) reliance on such logical fallacies such as that of equivocation [ie: abiogenesis with evolution], appealing to (false) authority [ie: Jack Chick or Hovind], and Straw Men [etc].

Perhaps if you gave an argument that didn't use any of these fallacies, you may be given more credit (I personally would, at least).

You may have to forgive my unclear post on the subject which was a result of brevity. I am fully aware of the differences and meant to convey the "reason" why the two are often linked in the course of a normal debate. The reason takes into account the human nature of those invovled in the debate, in addition to the "fact" they are separate issues. If that offended you, it was unintended. Regardless, our differences exclude the whole concept of abiogenesis as we both accept that all life was created by God. The difference of opinion is on "when" and "how".

 

[Vance]

Agreed, Tim, and it is important to maintain this simple fact in mind: we ALL believe God did it ALL. As you say, it is just a matter of how and when. Which, in my mind, is not a crucial issue.

The problem arises partly out of a misunderstanding of the true scope of the dispute. What it IS and, more particularly, what it ISN'T.

It is NOT about God's ability to do anything: He is omnipotent.

It is NOT about faith in God: we all have faith in God's power and grace.

It is NOT about the validity of Scripture: we all believe it is valid, we just think it is telling us different things.

It is NOT about placing Man's knowledge over God's Scripture: since that presupposes that we all agree what God's Scripture says, and some of us are just letting Man's knowledge override that meaning.

It is NOT about compromising with the World: TE's disagree with the world on the very basic point of Christ's redemption, so we have no desire to conform or make anyone "happy". As a very conservative Christian who shares my faith with the unbeliever regularly, I am not shy at all about being "different" or seeming strange in their eyes.

It is NOT about who is properly led by the Spirit: TE's are as open to the Spirit's guidance as any other Scripture and the Spirit will not lead any astray.

It is these issues and areas that distract from the true areas for discussion and, yes, debate. It too often seems like these are "fall-back" positions for the YEC's when they hit a wall in the exegesis or the science. Not all, and not all the time, but enough to become very annoying.

 

[grmorton]

"Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind"

What is the subject of the phrase "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures"? The earth is the subject. Subjects in grammar, are the active participants or the thing acted upon. This is active and thus it is the earth which is bringing forth the animals. God commanded / delegated the bringing forth of animals to the earth.

If someone told you,"Glenn said, "Let mhess13 drive the car" why would anyone think I drove the car? They would think you drove the car. Yet when young-earther's get ahold of the very same sentence structure relating to the creation of life on earth, they suddenly think the earth didn't do the bringing forth.



The Bible reads: And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Gen.2:19)



Genesis 1:20 says:
"Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures"

Same structure, the waters did the abounding.


The Bible reads: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Gen. 1:21)

There is no conflict SO LONG as God's means of creating is via delegating to the earth. Under that interpretation all the verses are true. Under the typical YEC interpretation, The earth brought forth nothing, God did it and then lied to us by saying that the earth did it, and thus, this makes the Bible is wrong. All verses can't be true under the YEC interp.

Besides, the prescientific rabbi's seemed to see process in Genesis. If the YECs are claiming that they read the bible literally, why do the pre-scientific rabbis read it differently.

Maimonides died in 1204 AD:

“Accordingly they assume that God created with the heavens everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words," I call unto them, they stand up together" (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently, all things were created together, but were separated from each other successively. Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile : We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. ”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp.htm



I have already cited Nachmanides, but will do so again:

‘AND G-D SAID: ‘LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS.’ He decreed that there be among the products of the earth a force which grows and bears seed so that the species should exist forever. It is possible that the name ‘earth’ mentioned in the first verse already contains a hint that a force which causes things to grow should spring up from the earth, and it was from this force that the foudnations of all vegetations according to their kinds emanated.” Ramban(Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, Transl. by Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing Co. 1971), p.40

Both these guys say that God created and used temporal processes to finish the creation! These Rabbis think God created via a process. YEC viewpoints are contra the beliefs of the Hebrews themselves about their own scripture

 

[grmorton]

Then why was it posted that the earth brought forth life? Besides being a misreading of scripture, should you TE's correct that assumption? I'm simply answering the bible with bible.

I will say that if it is considered a misreading of scripture to cite the words in their exact order, then we have sunk to a very sad state. Here they are:

"earth bring forth the living creature after his kind"

What is the subject of that command? Earth. Earth is ordered to bring forth the living creatures. Animals aren't ordered. God didn't say he did it directly. God did it INDIRECTLY via the earth. And I have cited Medieval rabbis who beleived that God did it indirectly as well.

If it had said "animals bring forth animals after his kind" then it would mean that animals reproduce after their kind, but animals is not the word which is the subject of that sentence!

Now, do you have a problem with the word order in Scripture? Do you want it rewritten to meet your preconceptions?

 

[grmorton]

If you want to believe the waters and/or earth are capable of creating life you may find your beliefs libing up more with paganism than Christianity.

If Jesus was capable of making stones cry out during the Triumphal Entry on Palm Sunday, God is certainly capable of making the earth capable of bringing forth life! Or do you not believe the Bible?

 

[grmorton]

The reason abiogenesis and ET (and to a point TE) are inextricably intertwined is that the Bible rather plainly describes the introduction of a fully mature human species in Adam and Eve, from which there is no way to reasonably conclude there was a preceeding mother or father. In fact Eve is specifically listed as the FIRST woman and Adam as the FIRST man. Without a woman before Eve, Adam could not have been born or, in a nutshell, "evolved". If Adam did not evolve, it does not take any mental gymnastics to accept the rest of the creation account at face value - a literal historical narrative. If the rest of the account is accepted in its plainly written style, then it is difficult to reconcile any of the ET with the Biblical account, leaving the ultimate question back at the beginning of time - "how did life emerge?".

Evolution - run backwards to the beginning- must reconcile with the answer to this question eventually. Unfortunately for TE'ers the Bible deals a convincing blow in contradiction to the idea that the "seeds of life" (so to speak) were initially introduced to the planet by God who then used endless ages of evolution and selective reproduction to develop and arrive at the species we know today as the Human race (homo sapiens).

My views resolve the tension. People don't like them, but they do resolve the tension you mention. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

 

[MLML]

I will say that if it is considered a misreading of scripture to cite the words in their exact order, then we have sunk to a very sad state. Here they are:

"earth bring forth the living creature after his kind"

What is the subject of that command? Earth. Earth is ordered to bring forth the living creatures. Animals aren't ordered. God didn't say he did it directly. God did it INDIRECTLY via the earth. And I have cited Medieval rabbis who beleived that God did it indirectly as well.

If it had said "animals bring forth animals after his kind" then it would mean that animals reproduce after their kind, but animals is not the word which is the subject of that sentence!

Now, do you have a problem with the word order in Scripture? Do you want it rewritten to meet your preconceptions?

Here you are assuming it is the earth that creates, through God's power. You may or may not be correct. This though is not proof in the slightest for evolution because if you read Genesis 1:24-25 in context, there is no time gap for the creation of animals as indicated by scripture. Rather it states God created the animals much like He created man.

IN Genesis 1:24, your argument rests on what the meaning of forth is. Forth in Hebrew is Yatsa' and this means to come out, go forth, exit, to go out. This does not in the slightest indicate a direct creation by the earth itself. Because I go out the door, I exit the door, I come out of the door, I go forth out of the door does not mean I was created by the door.

Now look at Genesis 1:25 and notice it says 'And God made...' Made is present tense, not pass tense as if the earth already created in the previous verse. Made means to make, fashion, to do, or accomplish. This is an active verb, showing God actively created in that verse.

Look at Genesis 2:19 and it says 'out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl in the air;" Just for your clarification fowl is owph in Hebrew that means all creatures that fly.

Clearly you can see it was God would directly created, not indirectly, all the animals from the ground.

I still have yet to see a convincing argument to correlate scripture and evolution. This one was much of a stretch as it was grasping at straws and hoping the reader doesn't compare the teaching with what is actually in Scripture.

 

[herev]

Agreed, Tim, and it is important to maintain this simple fact in mind: we ALL believe God did it ALL. As you say, it is just a matter of how and when. Which, in my mind, is not a crucial issue.

The problem arises partly out of a misunderstanding of the true scope of the dispute. What it IS and, more particularly, what it ISN'T.

It is NOT about God's ability to do anything: He is omnipotent.

It is NOT about faith in God: we all have faith in God's power and grace.

It is NOT about the validity of Scripture: we all believe it is valid, we just think it is telling us different things.

It is NOT about placing Man's knowledge over God's Scripture: since that presupposes that we all agree what God's Scripture says, and some of us are just letting Man's knowledge override that meaning.

It is NOT about compromising with the World: TE's disagree with the world on the very basic point of Christ's redemption, so we have no desire to conform or make anyone "happy". As a very conservative Christian who shares my faith with the unbeliever regularly, I am not shy at all about being "different" or seeming strange in their eyes.

It is NOT about who is properly led by the Spirit: TE's are as open to the Spirit's guidance as any other Scripture and the Spirit will not lead any astray.

It is these issues and areas that distract from the true areas for discussion and, yes, debate. It too often seems like these are "fall-back" positions for the YEC's when they hit a wall in the exegesis or the science. Not all, and not all the time, but enough to become very annoying.

very well said, my friend

 

[grmorton]

Here you are assuming it is the earth that creates, through God's power. You may or may not be correct. This though is not proof in the slightest for evolution because if you read Genesis 1:24-25 in context, there is no time gap for the creation of animals as indicated by scripture. Rather it states God created the animals much like He created man.

There is room for evolution if the Days of Proclamation viewpoint is correct which views Genesis 1's proclamations as pre-temporal plans for the universe. IN that case, Genesis 1:24-25 is entirely pre-temporal planning and the lack of apparent gap means nothing when God actualized his plans and created the universe.

IN Genesis 1:24, your argument rests on what the meaning of forth is. Forth in Hebrew is Yatsa' and this means to come out, go forth, exit, to go out. This does not in the slightest indicate a direct creation by the earth itself.

Is this your mantra? "This does not in the slightest indicate...." repeat until believed? Now, what do you think the evolutionary viewpoint is saying? Life came out of(YATSA) the earth. So in what way to you think this doesn't indicate evolution or creation by the earth?

Because I go out the door, I exit the door, I come out of the door, I go forth out of the door does not mean I was created by the door.

Life came out of the earth. What is the problem other than your prejudice that evolution must be discounted regardless of the theological cost?

Now look at Genesis 1:25 and notice it says 'And God made...' Made is present tense, not pass tense as if the earth already created in the previous verse. Made means to make, fashion, to do, or accomplish. This is an active verb, showing God actively created in that verse.

The tense can't quite mean what you say it does. Afterall, the account wasn't written down for a long time afterwards and the act in the present tense didn't happen at the time it was written.

Look at Genesis 2:19 and it says 'out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl in the air;" Just for your clarification fowl is owph in Hebrew that means all creatures that fly.

Out of the what? Soil? Adamah? And isn't that exactly what evolution ultimately says? God ordered the earth (upon which lies the soil) to bring forth life. I see the Scripture teaching evolution.

Clearly you can see it was God would directly created, not indirectly, all the animals from the ground.

No, clearly I see God using a secondary source, the ground. IF God did it directly, why did he need the ground? Why didn't the animals merely appear? Why use ANYTHING?

Of course God is the ultimate cause but that doesn't mean he didn't use the earth to create life via evolution.


[quoteI still have yet to see a convincing argument to correlate scripture and evolution. This one was much of a stretch as it was grasping at straws and hoping the reader doesn't compare the teaching with what is actually in Scripture.[/QUOTE]
I have no doubt you will ever say you see a convincing case because like people who say they will give 10,000 dollars to anyone who can prove evolution, nothing is ever good enough. And they know that going in.