There seems to be a great intrest here so allow me to repost what has already been done to death:

Quote:Very simply put, I point out their is no time line between the creation of man and the fall of man. I also point out that outside of details of creation itself everything mentioned, takes place in the Garden. Basically between the four rivers that define it, God created a picture of the world that would be consistent with the evolutionary progress of man at the time of the fall.

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul. That would leave room for whole complete fossil record that could not biblically be reconciled. It also explains the city Cain moved to and the wives and husbands the children of Adam and Eve took for themselves. (They intermingled with monkey man/woman and pass their gift onto their children.)

Now I know the goto verse to disprove this is in Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

In the English it seems that Adam's total existence was 930 years. But when we look at the Hebrew the word that is translated "lived" is:Chaya it means:1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life etc... (In short Mortal life)

At the fall Adam's eternal existence with God died as promised in Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.
Genesis 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

At this point Adam's immortality ended and his clock started on his 930 years. These were all of the days He spent on THIS Earth. (not the Garden/Presents of God/Heaven)


How do we know they were immortal in the Garden with God? because of Genesis 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

Amongest those trees was the tree of life. What did the tree of life do?

Genesis 3:22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

So to recap:
God created Man and woman and placed them in the garden. They could have been there a day before eating the forbidden fruit or they could have been there the 900 million bazillion years the scientist believe it took to evolve. Why? because there is no recorded time time between: "In the beginning" and the fall of man. Only speculation because we can count the generations back 6000 or so years.

When in fact all we can really say is that man has been out of the Garden 6000 or so years. We know the Garden was a sanctuary, and that God kept Man created in His image there for an undisclosed amount of time. This does not means the rest of the world did not have to evolve as the undeniable fossil record proves.

Something very important to note this is NOT "Gap theory" or Creation theory as made popular in the 17 century. Even though the empty term Gap Creation theory can apply, as far as I know this is something very new.

(This is creation gap theory:What is the "Gap Theory?" • ChristianAnswers.Net
In short between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is a whole nother version of creation story. The problem here is there is added or filler material between the two accounts. )

Why is it important to distance this theory from Gap creation theory?? Because it combines the unmolested Genesis account AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, with the evolutionary data we have discovered and can not other wise reconcile. Without Adding anything to scripture or taking anything away. This also explains several other creation "paradoxes" that atheist tend to use to disprove the genesis account.

I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly.

What do you think? I would like to refine and clean up this account of origins and start circulating it. Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything. Their standard goto the evidence only further supports the creation account at this point. This takes the account of "origins" out of the atheist arsenal for a legitmate reason they do not believe in God. While on the Atheist website because they saw the logic of this explanation many who originally greeted me with harsh words and complete disrespect started to ask legitimate questions.

If you like to see the actual discourse The website is atheist forums dot org. This place is not for the faint of heart there are little to no rules about what is said or seen there. It is under the religion/Christian category under drich "evolution."

Conjecture. The author of this quote also demonstrates the extent of his knowledge of the theory of evolution with this sentence;
"Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul."

... "monkey man". Fantastic, evidently an individual with very little in the way of qualifications.
It is rather irritating when people like this who have scant knowledge except for a few insipid Bible quotes attempt to lecture people on their origins without any other evidence.
At least some creationists try to mix in some irreducible complexity and pseudo science to make it slightly challenging, this doesn't even bother to attempt that.
You mistake the Atheists complaint to be one that your interpretations are displeasing as opposed to simply being unproven, suffice to say it is the latter that is found to be the more repugnant.

(August 6, 2012 at 10:55 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Conjecture. The author of this quote also demonstrates the extent of his knowledge of the theory of evolution with this sentence;
"Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul."

... "monkey man". Fantastic, evidently an individual with very little in the way of qualifications.

That would be me then.

(August 6, 2012 at 11:08 pm)jonb Wrote:

(August 6, 2012 at 10:55 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Conjecture. The author of this quote also demonstrates the extent of his knowledge of the theory of evolution with this sentence;
"Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul."

... "monkey man". Fantastic, evidently an individual with very little in the way of qualifications.

That would be me then.

You're kidding, thats your quote?
*You* used the term "monkey man"?
Am I misunderstanding this?
I mean for starters you know damn well the theory doesn't claim we evolved from monkeys. It claims we evolved from apes.

(August 6, 2012 at 11:12 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 6, 2012 at 11:08 pm)jonb Wrote: That would be me then.

You're kidding, thats your quote?
*You* used the term "monkey man"?
Am I misunderstanding this?
You know damn well the theory doesn't claim we evolved from monkeys. We evolved from apes.

That's just where you want to set the categories; hominid, ape, primate, etc to sea squirt and even back to bacteria. Thinking about it rather than monkey or ape I think I would prefer the term 'lemur man' I like their big eyes and beguiling tails.

Incidentally have you noticed how many babblists use monkey as a term of abuse, but they are supposed to honour their parents.

I like the little bit of fantasy that you added under the larger bit of fantasy....lol. Have you scribbled your new, improved genesis narrative into the margins of the old, shitty genesis narrative that came standard with your babble Drich?

The term 'monkey man' can easily be replaced with evolved homo sapiens if you had wished allowing one to move one to a more disputable point. However the trivial term here plays like a intentional blemish or intellectual trap 'catching' the lazy or weak arguments (usually based in personal attacks and/or general speculation as to the nature of the authors ability to think or reason) thus leaving that actual meat of the statement in tact and undisputed.

LOL, no, it doesn't. If you want to talk evolution, you don't get to use "monkeyman"...monkeyman. Pretty sure your little tract was disputed to death. Seems like you may have decided to post that elsewhere, seems like you may have been less than honest with your alternative audience. How's that going for you?

(August 6, 2012 at 11:26 pm)jonb Wrote:

(August 6, 2012 at 11:12 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: You're kidding, thats your quote?
*You* used the term "monkey man"?
Am I misunderstanding this?
You know damn well the theory doesn't claim we evolved from monkeys. We evolved from apes.

That's just where you want to set the categories; hominid, ape, primate, etc to sea squirt and even back to bacteria. Thinking about it rather than monkey or ape I think I would prefer the term 'lemur man' I like their big eyes and beguiling tails.

Incidentally have you noticed how many babblists use monkey as a term of abuse, but they are supposed to honour their parents.

... Am I missing context here or something?
Seriously, mind is full of fuck right now.

Either I've misunderstood and you're not claiming this is your quote, this is your quote but its actually a wonderful bit of satire mocking fundamentalist thinking or I've missed a fuck ton of memos.

If its the second one then I need to congratulate you because that would make this one of the most convincing imitations I have ever read. Seriously.
I read through it quite convinced I was reading the quote of someone genuinely attempting to combine evolution and creationism to make them equal in terms of plausibility.
I thought Drich was quoting himself or someone equally mental.

(August 6, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, no, it doesn't. If you want to talk evolution, you don't get to use "monkeyman"...monkeyman.

I'm not talking evolution. I am talking about how creationism assimilates evolution in it's trivial entirety. Again there is more than enough meat on the bone for a serious discussion here. I took a pot shot at your faith to see who would fall, and to see who would set up to the actual arguement.