(March 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm)Drich Wrote: [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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

NoMoreFaith read my arguments with Drich in the Noah's Ark thread. I am making the same argument you are for circular logic of the bible proving god exists proving the bible is true proving god exists. It's the argument from personal experience dressed up in, I'll give it this, a new way. Drich remember when you accused me of having my arguments rehearsed? Here is your theory again in exactly the same way you said it to me in the other thread. NoMoreFaith he/she also claimed that Christianity is the ONLY religion where one has a personal relationship with god. My argument being that all monotheistic religions have essentially made the same claims about their followers experiences. Throw this one back. It's not a keeper.

(March 20, 2012 at 11:29 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The simple answer is that it's not that science believes that evolution cancels out biblical creationism. This is the view of the Christians, which is why they are always so anti-evolution.

AMEN!

---

(March 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 20, 2012 at 1:13 am)Faith No More Wrote: Why is it that creationists are so adamant that god couldn't have created them through evolution?

They are not.

But it seems that your interest in evolution amounts to finding ways to make it entirely compatible with Genesis. Not so interesting.

Why not read Genesis less literally to encompass everything that evolutionary science ever discovers? I really don't see why there needs to be a conflict so long as you don't insist on a literal reading.

---

(March 20, 2012 at 4:14 pm)Drich Wrote: at the same time the bible does not record that they didn't evolve. Man progressed from the point in which He was created and originally deemed "good." In that God took his finished/good product and evolved a portion of him into "Eve." Because even though Man was found "good" the circumstance in which man live was incomplete.

No where in scripture does does it say "good" is always complete.

If you pretend to think evolution could be the chosen method of God to carry out creation, why in the world do you insist on going literal over Adam's rib? Evolution was good enough for everything from amoebas to gorillas but when it came to man .. that took the master's direct intervention? Why? Aren't we made out of the same meat and blood as every other creature, wired with the same neurons and procreate in the same manner as other mammals? Is God too feeble to have brought man into being via evolution if He so desired? I lose patience.

(March 20, 2012 at 11:16 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Drich remember when you accused me of having my arguments rehearsed? Here is your theory again in exactly the same way you said it to me in the other thread. NoMoreFaith he/she also claimed that Christianity is the ONLY religion where one has a personal relationship with god. My argument being that all monotheistic religions have essentially made the same claims about their followers experiences. Throw this one back. It's not a keeper.

Just because your brother here shares your affliction does not mean the identification of your shared behavior is not warranted. Me identifying the misinformed content of your post, in comparison of the original comments you were misquoting or misunderstood proves what i said in this last passage, and your post in the Noah's ark thread.

The fact is, That both of you were arguing the same type of stock atheist argument directed toward a roman Catholic believer and his understanding of Christianity. Rather than addressing what was written on my post. To which I rightfully pointed out your half hearted effort. Also know i will do so each and every time this happens.

Repeating content is not the sin here. Not reading the post or addressing the points as stated is. Again this is something you are both (and 2 or 3 others) are guilty of.

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Gen5:5

(March 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm)whateverist Wrote: Why not read Genesis less literally to encompass everything that evolutionary science ever discovers? I really don't see why there needs to be a conflict so long as you don't insist on a literal reading.

That's just it. If one simply take a literal reading of Genesis and does not persupose or add the tradition unfounded time line then one can take the reading of Genesis literally and still incorperate all that evolutionist offer. Why compermise faith when one does not have to?

Quote:f you pretend to think evolution could be the chosen method of God to carry out creation, why in the world do you insist on going literal over Adam's rib?

Why not?

Quote:on was good enough for everything from amoebas to gorillas but when it came to man .. that took the master's direct intervention? Why?

Because God hand crafted a companion in His own image.

Quote:try other creature, wired with the same neurons and procreate in the same manner as other mammals? Is God too feeble to have brought man into being via evolution if He so desired? I lose patience.

Thankfully I do not, even though i have addressed this point 3 different times now.

God created the Garden and everything in it apart from the rest of the Earth, as a sanctuary for Man Created in the Image of God.(Meaning Man with a soul or MWAS for short)

Now outside of the Garden Man or what would evolve into man genetically or what i have been calling " Monkey Man" crawled up out of what ever soup you all now magically agree on... He developed on his own and evolved apart from MWAS until the Fall recorded in Genesis.(About 6000 years ago) where upon MWAS and monkey man intermingled and their offspring was given the gift of a soul. Until The great flood. Where upon all Monkey men were wiped out, and only MWAS (Noah and His family) was their to repopulate the earth with more MWAS.

You can clearly believe whatever you wish about what the bible says (and every denomination has it's little ticks), nevertheless, you'll have to completely trash the entirety of genesis (similar situation with most if not all of the OT) to have some semblance of factual accuracy.

MWAS-Man Without Any Sense. (seems more appropriate). Again, there was no flood, end of.

(March 21, 2012 at 12:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Gen5:5

I was wondering when/if one of you were going to open your bible.

Adam was created in the Image of God making him Immortal. He was told "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or on that day you will surely die!" Adam ate of the fruit and His life with God ended and He was cast out of the Garden, "Where all the days Adam lived Numbered nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

This means Adams mortality began at the fall. The fall in a sense was his birth into the world outside of God/The Garden. From that point to his death was 930 years.

It was good you looked it up, and made a strong effort, but in the proper exegesis of scripture, one must look at the whole context of the passage, chapter or even a series of chapters to get the complete message. Not just one verse. Because anyone can twist one verse to say what ever He wills. If we are looking at Adam's death we must look to the first instance or promise of Death to Adam, and find out what happened there in relation to the Genesis 5 account.

(March 21, 2012 at 12:15 am)Drich Wrote: God created the Garden and everything in it apart from the rest of the Earth, as a sanctuary for Man Created in the Image of God.(Meaning Man with a soul or MWAS for short)

Now outside of the Garden Man or what would evolve into man genetically or what i have been calling " Monkey Man" crawled up out of what ever soup you all now magically agree on... He developed on his own and evolved apart from MWAS until the Fall recorded in Genesis.(About 6000 years ago) where upon MWAS and monkey man intermingled and their offspring was given the gift of a soul. Until The great flood. Where upon all Monkey men were wiped out, and only MWAS (Noah and His family) was their to repopulate the earth with more MWAS.

.. and then the lid came off and the Christian's interest in evolution was revealed to be entirely apologetics. I can respect the right of every adult to their own beliefs. So sorry to find you have only one belief and that one is wasted on the bible rather than in a wise God whose ways are beyond the understanding of mere men but whose contemplation might ennoble a man. I personally think you're missing the best part but so says one who stands beside you on the planet in no better position than yourself to know the truth. I believe the God I used to believe in was so much more worthy than the one you have locked up in the bible. It must make you feel powerful to have him under your control.

(March 21, 2012 at 12:17 am)Rhythm Wrote: You can clearly believe whatever you wish about what the bible says (and every denomination has it's little ticks), nevertheless, you'll have to completely trash the entirety of genesis (similar situation with most if not all of the OT) to have some semblance of factual accuracy.

MWAS-Man Without Any Sense. (seems more appropriate). Again, there was no flood, end of.

I love the intellectual gymnastics that some Christians use in order to get the Darwinian account of evolution to fit with Genesis.

The scary thing is the Discovery Institute which is proposing the opposite. That all facts are to be truth checked against the bible. Anything that appears to contradict biblical claims would be thrown out. Now THAT'S some crazy stuff.

LOL, why would I have to crack open a bible for that, that's a story you learn in sunday school. "Proper exegesis of scripture" is that the authors believed that Adam lived 930 years, all you're going on about now is apologetic bullshit. You outta try mustering up a little faith, stop looking for god in excuses and just believe. "We must" do nothing, but you might want to stop reading your fantasies into scripture.

"And all the days (except some other days, to the tune of billions of years as evidenced by modern science and here omitted) that Adam lived were nine-hundred thirty years; and he died" Gen5:5-Drich Expanded Version.

Well hell buddy if you're going to rewrite the big man's good book for him, I think you could do better. Hell, the original storytellers could have used a guy like you when they were dreaming this up. As an origins narrative for a specific group of people (which actually is what this story is, so you're half right) it's the usual shit. Fortunately for me (and unfortunately for you, I'm guessing) the people described here are not our ancestors. You're to be the smited, not the smiter, the "soul-less" (in your personal narrative, at least), not the glorified.