[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[Papa Zoom]

I think you also are in an exegetical vacuum of Gen 1-2. Christian promoters of evolution duck and weave around the fact that in these 2 chapters, nowhere does God state that he used the mechanism of evolution to create the heavens and the earth - including human beings.

Oz

I meant that for Barbarian lol.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry, creationists don't get to decide what scientists think. As you see, those stories you were showing us were invented by creationists, not scientists.

That is not what I stated. I gave you Google evidence that many scientists use the name, evolutionism. I give you white and you call it black. It's a straw man.

To your consternation, many of the creationists are scientists with PhDs in science. An evolutionist such as Michael Denton after warning in 1986 that evolution was a theory in crisis, warns that Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016).

I see no point in continuing this interaction as you will not respond to the challenges and evidence I provide.

Bye,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I've repeatedly asked you to show us your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 with chemistry and you've repeatedly refused to do it. Is it your opinion that there is no such thing as chemistry? If there is, why can't you show it in Genesis?

Christian promoters of creationism duck and weave around the fact that in these 2 chapters, nowhere does God state that he used the mechanism of chemistry to create the heavens and the earth - including human beings.

I was the one who asked you to provide exegesis of Gen 1-2 and demonstrate that God used evolution in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the evolutionary worldview.

 

[Barbarian]

That is not what I stated. I gave you Google evidence that many scientists use the name, evolutionism.

To your consternation,I just showed you some differences between evolution and the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism."

many of the creationists are scientists with PhDs in science.

For example, Kurt Wise, who has taken creationists to task for misrepresenting evolutionary theory with their fake doctrine of "evolutionism", and who has pointed out the vast number of transitional organisms predicted by evolution.

Or Harold Coffin, who has said that if not for his religious beliefs, the evidence would convince him that the Earth was very old.

An evolutionist such as Michael Denton after warning in 1986 that evolution was a theory in crisis, warns that Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016).

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

There is a tree of life. There is no doubt that all extant life forms are related, and descended from a primeval ancestral form at the base of the tree.
...
Descent with modification implies a pattern of descent through time, where extant forms have descended with modification from common ancestral forms, right back to the last common ancestor of all extant life. But the fact of descent with modification cannot be taken as…. support for any sort of gradualism.
...
However, my claim that life is an integral part of nature is not an argument for design or a defense of Plato’s cosmology, but an ontological verdict on the fabric of reality
Michael Denton, Evolution is Still a Theory in Crisis

Have you actually read any of these?

 

[Barbarian]

I was the one who asked you to provide exegesis of Gen 1-2 and demonstrate that God used evolution in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the evolutionary worldview.

I suggested that you might learn by trying to provide exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 and demonstrate that God used chemistry in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis, because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the chemical worldview.

Why not just admit that evolution wasn't even part of creation until living things appeared? And by now, you surely realize that even if you can't do an exegesis of Genesis using chemistry, it doesn't mean that God didn't use chemistry after the initial creation, just as He used evolution.

C'mon. It's time to face reality again.

 

[Cygnus]

The creationist site proved your statement that evolutionism is a creationist-invented ideology is wrong. It's a word that evolutionary scientists use.

I've quit responding to that barbarian post because he is using the word "evolutionism" as a diversion.

 

[Barbarian]

I've quit responding to that barbarian post because he is using the word "evolutionism" as a diversion.

From now on, we'll assume that you mean the real thing if you say "evolution" or "evolutionary theory", and you mean the creationist misconceptions about evolution, if you say "evolutionism."

 

[OzSpen]

From now on, we'll assume that you mean the real thing if you say "evolution" or "evolutionary theory", and you mean the creationist misconceptions about evolution, if you say "evolutionism."

Why do you keep repeating the same thing? I'm not buying your idiosyncratic, pro-evolutionary worldview that does not want to acknowledge the true meaning of evolutionism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I suggested that you might learn by trying to provide exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 and demonstrate that God used chemistry in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis, because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the chemical worldview.

Why not just admit that evolution wasn't even part of creation until living things appeared? And by now, you surely realize that even if you can't do an exegesis of Genesis using chemistry, it doesn't mean that God didn't use chemistry after the initial creation, just as He used evolution.

C'mon. It's time to face reality again.

'if you can't do an exegesis of Genesis using chemistry'.

Come on, mate.

That kind of statement demonstrates you don't know the meaning of exegesis. 'Using chemistry' would be imposing a view on the text and thus would be eisegesis.

 

[Barbarian]

Why do you keep repeating the same thing?

The truth doesn't change. Repetition is a good teaching technique when the student is having trouble with the material.

I'm not buying your idiosyncratic, pro-evolutionary worldview that does not want to acknowledge the true meaning of evolutionism.

You seem to be locked into your misconceptions. And that's all right. There are others who will read this, and notice the disconnect between your belief in "evolutionism" and evolution as it actually is.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I suggested that you might learn by trying to provide exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 and demonstrate that God used chemistry in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis, because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the chemical worldview.

Why not just admit that evolution wasn't even part of creation until living things appeared? And by now, you surely realize that even if you can't do an exegesis of Genesis using chemistry, it doesn't mean that God didn't use chemistry after the initial creation, just as He used evolution.

C'mon. It's time to face reality again.

Come on, mate.

That kind of statement demonstrates you don't know the meaning of exegesis. 'Using chemistry' would be imposing a view on the text and thus would be eisegesis.

I already showed you that such things don't work. And yet you were trying to get me to do just that with a different science. Are you beginning to see what the problem is here?

 

[OzSpen]

The truth doesn't change. Repetition is a good teaching technique when the student is having trouble with the material.

You seem to be locked into your misconceptions. And that's all right. There are others who will read this, and notice the disconnect between your belief in "evolutionism" and evolution as it actually is.

I'm not being troubled by the material.

There is NO disconnect between the definition of evolution and evolutionism. You don't want to accept the scientific enterprise's definition of evolutionism. It is NOT a term invented by creationists. That's your invention.

It's obvious that you don't know how to do exegesis of the Hebrew or English language of Gen 1-2.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Barbarian observes:
I suggested that you might learn by trying to provide exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 and demonstrate that God used chemistry in the original creation. You refuse to engage in this exegesis, because, it seems, you are overwhelmed with the chemical worldview.

This is another demonstration that you don't understand what is involved in exegesis and engage in eisegesis of Gen 1-2 by imposing your 'God used chemistry in the original creation' into the text.

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words ('What's the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?)​

We are getting nowhere here as you don't want to pursue exegesis of Gen 1-2, letting the text speak for itself.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

I'm not being troubled by the material.
There is NO disconnect between the definition of evolution and evolutionism.

Well, let's take a look...

Evolutionism:
Evolutionism is a random process.
Evolutionism about the origin of life.
Evolutionism says individuals evolve.
Evolutionism says that if there are humans, there shouldn’t be any apes left.
Evolutionism says organisms try to adapt.
Evolutionism has no evidence.
Many scientists doubt evolutionism.
Evolutionism leads to immoral behavior.
Evolutionism says scientists should want humans to have lots of mutations.
Evolutionism is contrary to the Bible

Evolution
Evolution is a non-random process.
Evolution is not about the origin of life.
Populations evolve, not individuals.
Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes living today.
Adaptation are happen through random mutation and natural selection.
There are many, many different sources of evidence for evolution.
The vast majority of scientists accept evolution.
Evolution does not say anything about morals or ethics.
More mutations will not make evolution go faster. A high rate of mutations is generally harmful.
Evolution is consistent with the Bible.

As you see, there's a huge difference.

You want to accept the creationist definition of evolutionism, but you don't want to acknowledge that it's very unlike evolution or evolutionary theory. As you see, it's a term invented by creationists. Your invention. You even presented a number of the key misconceptions of evolutionism, confusing them with the real thing. There is no "molecules to man" in evolutionary theory, nor is the evolution of man a straight line from monkeys to modern humans. You've been misled and you're clinging to those misconceptions for reasons that aren't entirely clear.

And from your attempt to get me to do an exegesis using evolution, it's obvious that you didn't know how to do exegesis. I suggested, as a way of instruction, that you might try to do it using chemistry, but you repeatedly dodged doing so. I assume you now realize that you can't do exegesis using science.

Instead of trying to put your new ideas into Genesis, why not just accept it as it is?

 

[OzSpen]

And from your attempt to get me to do an exegesis using evolution, it's obvious that you didn't know how to do exegesis.

With respect, Barbarian, I have an in-depth knowledge of exegesis vs eisegesis, having an earned PhD in NT from an accredited university.

Please go ahead and provide an exegesis of Gen 1-2 to see if the text tells us that God created the heavens and the earth using evolutionary methodology.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

With respect, Barbarian, I have an in-depth knowledge of exegesis vs eisegesis, having an earned PhD in NT from an accredited university.

And yet you demurred numerous times when I tried to explain to you that you can't do an exegesis on Genesis using science. I think you finally got it, when I suggested that you try what you asked me to do, using chemistry. You repeatedly ignored the request. Now, unless you don't think there's such a thing as chemistry, the only explanation for that is that you've now realized that such an exegesis is not possible.

If I'm wrong, please explain to me how you think you can do an exegesis on Genesis using science.

Please go ahead and provide an exegesis of Gen 1-2 to see if the text tells us that God created the heavens and the earth using evolutionary methodology.

Guess you still think it can be done. But since evolution didn't even exist until much later when the first living things were created, your request makes no sense.

Meantime, please explain to me how your PhD in NT showed you how one could use science to to an exegesis of Genesis (third request)

 

[Papa Zoom]

The truth doesn't change. Repetition is a good teaching technique when the student is having trouble with the material.

It also leads to talking in circles when it comes to political discussions.

 

[Papa Zoom]

 

[Barbarian]

It also leads to talking in circles when it comes to political discussions.

Science isn't a political issue.

Some things just are. And I find that even if it takes a few repetitions, people do eventually catch on.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Science isn't a political issue.
Some things just are. And I find that even if it takes a few repetitions, people do eventually catch on.

Science is never "settled" and is open to different views. That's what's really going on here. You're condescending attitude isn't going to change that.

Adding snotty little snarky comments to your posts doesn't help make your case. It shows a weakness. You know this is the case because you're smarter than that.