(March 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I think there's some confusion here.

Meh, as long as he's accepting evolution, that's close enough for me. I don't care what Drich has to do to make both Genesis and evolution true as long as evolution being true is in there. He's not going to be trying to keep science teachers from teaching proper biology.

[quote='tobie' pid='258682' dateline='1332279176']
[quote]There are a few flaws in this argument.
1) How did Adam and Eve, who had just been kicked out on their arses from eden, become the dominant species over the city building monkey-descended humans?[/quote]
Why do you assume that they were?
They were simply made in the Image of God (Which means they had a soul) Nothing else (recorded) seperated them.

[quote]2) If this is the case, then the two species will have intermingled. Yet somehow, we are still exactly the same as the species of human in Damascus etc. [/quote]Except the monkey men were not made in God's Image (No soul) and the offspring of Adam and Eve had a souls.
So when they intermingled (cain's wife) they passed that gift to their children. and so one all the way to Noah where everyone born after the flood was considered to be Made in the Image of God.

[quote]
How are we proof that the world was created?
[/quote]
I do not understand the question how is it not?

Drich, you're an original one, I'll give you that much.

What you've presented is assertion, and biblical conjecture, without any evidence. Your proposal is overly complicated and Occam's razor applies equally to it.

This is all overly twisted to fit into the bible, but since you have no evidence to present, which doesn't lead to the simpler natural explanations, you really don't have a lot to stand on.

The bible is not a source of evidence, it would be self-authenticating, which is circular and useless to back up your idea.

Why not go the whole hog and realise that trying to squeeze scientific fact into the bible isn't going to work, without some major reinterpretation. Which is fine, its been mangled before to try and fit with science before but it always fails to make logical sense.

I wave you cheerio, and look forward to your next crazy interpretation in a thread that actually makes an ounce of sense. I'm afraid discussing the issue gives your idea more credit than it deserves.

Quote:Why do you assume that they were?
They were simply made in the Image of God (Which means they had a soul) Nothing else (recorded) seperated them.

If there was nothing special about adam and eve, then why bother creating them? Why not just give the already existing humans a soul?

Quote:Tobie: How are we proof that the world was created?
Drich: I do not understand the question how is it not?

Something written in a book does not constitute proof. If it did, anyone could write any old shit down and it would be true, by your reasoning. The burden of proof is on you creationists to show that it is, not just wave some book in our face.

(March 20, 2012 at 6:06 pm)tobie Wrote: If there was nothing special about adam and eve, then why bother creating them? Why not just give the already existing humans a soul?

I did not say they were not special, I simply said The descendants of Adam did not become the dominate species till after the Great Flood.

Quote:Tobie: How are we proof that the world was created?
Something written in a book does not constitute proof. If it did, anyone could write any old shit down and it would be true, by your reasoning. The burden of proof is on you creationists to show that it is, not just wave some book in our face.

That is not what I asked. I asked why does our being Here Not constitute proof of creation?

There was no great flood.

The existence of human beings is not in question, and that's what "our being here" constitutes "proof" of. The mechanism by which we came to be is an entirely different matter. That's how. Just so happens that all evidence points to a mechanism called "evolution" and absolutely none to a mechanism called "creation".

[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='258702' dateline='1332280896']
[quote]Drich, you're an original one, I'll give you that much.

What you've presented is assertion, and biblical conjecture, without any evidence. [/quote]Then please tell me what you consider to be "evidence" so i may seek to provide it.

[quote]Your proposal is overly complicated and Occam's razor applies equally to it.[/quote]Actually it is extremely simple. In that There are no time lines recorded in scripture. The only thing we know for sure is the fall of man happened 6000 years ago. Far to often on both sides of the argument we assume the creation account says that 7 days prior to the fall, the whole creation process was first started.
The bible does not say this, so "creationist" in turn should not argue this. There is in fact an undisclosed amount of time between the creation of Man and the Fall of man.

All I have done here is very simply suggested that because we have a creation account with an undisclosed amount of time between the dawn of creation and the fall that happened 6000 years ago, Everything that can be found in our fossil record can be accounted for.

What can be simpler than that?

[quote]This is all overly twisted to fit into the bible, but since you have no evidence to present, which doesn't lead to the simpler natural explanations, you really don't have a lot to stand on.[/quote]Again can you give me an example of what "proof" of this magnitude looks like?

[quote]The bible is not a source of evidence, it would be self-authenticating, which is circular and useless to back up your idea.[/quote]Actually it is not. There is a very detailed list of promises that is offered to the believer. All one has to do is follow the instructions and receive the gifts. Once received then verify the gifts against what was promised in the text.

[quote]Why not go the whole hog and realize that trying to squeeze scientific fact into the bible isn't going to work, without some major reinterpretation. Which is fine, its been mangled before to try and fit with science before but it always fails to make logical sense.[/quote]
Like what? There is absolutely nothing science offers that can not fit into this new account of origins.

[quote]I wave you cheerio, and look forward to your next crazy interpretation in a thread that actually makes an ounce of sense. I'm afraid discussing the issue gives your idea more credit than it deserves.[/quote]You know if I never talked to a shaken atheist before i might have missed the true meaning behind this statement. Know, this may be my third day here on this web site, but it is not my third day on the job

So let's see if I've got this straight.

You (alone, apparently) are suggesting that the time span (in Genesis) between "In the beginning..." and "GTFO of Eden" was 5.4 billion years minus 6,000 or so?

Edit to add - ... and that during this time, the Earth and all of it's life forms evolved as they appear to have done, while inside of Eden, everything happened according to Genesis?

(March 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So let's see if I've got this straight.

You (alone, apparently) are suggesting that the time span (in Genesis) between "In the beginning..." and "GTFO of Eden" was 5.4 billion years minus 6,000 or so?

Edit to add - ... and that during this time, the Earth and all of it's life forms evolved as they appear to have done, while inside of Eden, everything happened according to Genesis?

Pretty close!