(August 8, 2012 at 7:23 am)Faith No More Wrote:

Drich Wrote:That's not me, that evolution. i am showing you how 'evolution could potentially fit with in the bounds of creation.

No, that's you inserting evolution into the bible where the bible says nothing about it. "Stay silent where the bible is silent," remember?

Do you realize the precedent you're setting with this mishmash of science and myth? When the bible doesn't conform to the scientific evidence, feel free to add to it to make it fit. What's stopping others from adding to other parts of the narrative where it doesn't fit the scientific episode, and more specfically, why can't I conform the ressurection to fit scientifc evidence by giving it a plausible, natural explanation?

Again the theology stops @ the fact there is not a time line between creation and the fall. as far as introducing 'evolution' into the mix i have only said this is just plausiable now (where it was not before) like a 100 times now.

That means I spoke where the bible spoke and remained silent where the bible was silent

Saying something is plausible when the Bible doesn't say otherwise isn't exactly staying silent..

(August 8, 2012 at 8:52 am)Zen Badger Wrote: We don't have to disprove ANYTHING laddie.

The time line.. If and only if you want to be apart of this discussion.

---

(August 8, 2012 at 1:11 pm)jupitor Wrote: I've not read much of this thread as it is so long but the Adam and Eve story is so ridiculous its incredible. Firstly there would be no thought of years/months then so they wouldn't know how long they lived and there certainly wouldn't be a record of it; plus a human would never live to be 800 yrs or so. Secondly Adam and Eve had two sons. Cain killed Abel and then travelled and got married. Who did he marry?????
Life began as bacteria and amoeba and evolved into humans

I do not expect anyone to read an entire thread, and will and have answered the same questions many times, but your question was answered in the OP. maybe try reading to opening post if you want to be apart of the discussion..

---

(August 9, 2012 at 9:22 am)catfish Wrote: Genesis leaves open the posibility that Adam & Eve were not the first... So then, the "timeline" is really irrelevant.

How so?

(August 9, 2012 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: Again the theology stops @ the fact there is not a time line between creation and the fall. as far as introducing 'evolution' into the mix i have only said this is just plausiable now (where it was not before) like a 100 times now.

That means I spoke where the bible spoke and remained silent where the bible was silent

Except that the timeline remains. You don't like the timeline (mostly because you don't think that it allows you to insert your extra biblical fantasies) and so you ditch it. That's okay, you can ditch whatever part of the biblical narrative you don't agree with. You can also add whatever you like when you find the narrative lacking. Nevertheless, even by ditching the timeline and adding your monkeyman nonsense, the narrative is still not reconciled with evolution or the fossil record. In other words, not only have you butchered the narrative, you haven't accomplished what you set out to do in the first place. If you want to reconcile the narrative, in a literal sense, you're going to have to ditch genesis entirely (just for starters). I guess that means it can't be reconciled, oh well.

(August 9, 2012 at 10:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Saying something is plausible when the Bible doesn't say otherwise isn't exactly staying silent..

Staying silent is Not interjecting doctrine into the bible, and forcing believers to adhear to said doctrine as if the bible records it. Observing or pointing out the silence of the bible (by removing the time line) and then identifying a plausiable outcome like this one, is not interjecting doctrine where the Bible has none. For everyone could simply ignore or accept what they hear. Theories on the other hand demand to be accepted or rejected.

That is why this is not a theory. It is a biblicaly based removal of a traditional time line placed on the life of Adam and Eve. Which give oppertunity for the creation account to assimilate anything that happened outside of the garden.

A "plausible outcome"?



Sorry, no. For reasons already handled at length in two separate threads.

(August 9, 2012 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 7:23 am)Faith No More Wrote: No, that's you inserting evolution into the bible where the bible says nothing about it. "Stay silent where the bible is silent," remember?

Do you realize the precedent you're setting with this mishmash of science and myth? When the bible doesn't conform to the scientific evidence, feel free to add to it to make it fit. What's stopping others from adding to other parts of the narrative where it doesn't fit the scientific episode, and more specfically, why can't I conform the ressurection to fit scientifc evidence by giving it a plausible, natural explanation?

Again the theology stops @ the fact there is not a time line between creation and the fall. as far as introducing 'evolution' into the mix i have only said this is just plausiable now (where it was not before) like a 100 times now.

That means I spoke where the bible spoke and remained silent where the bible was silent

It would be plausible if creationism had any evidence behind it and didn't claim an invisible, all-powerful being made the universe appear without breaking a sweat then decided he would have to make Adam out of dust as opposed to making him simply appear.
Then decided to break off Adams rib and make Eve out of it.
According to Creationism these were the first human beings.
Oh and then a snake talked to Eve to convince her to eat an apple.
At which point God was pretty pissed off they'd eaten "The Fruit of Forbidden Knowledge". Not particularly sure why he put it out for them. He knows everything after all, he must of known this would happen but thats another dicussion.
Anyway, they got cast down to earth as a result.

Thats the creationists theory.
There is no proof behind it and it sounds like something a child would come up with.
Unless you can prove it you have no cause to assume its true and definitely no cause to attempt to mix it with far more plausible theories.
Theres no reason the story of Apocalypse Now! couldn't of taken place during the Vietnam War... except someone took it from the experiences of a man called Conrad and theres no evidence any such events ever took place during that time frame or even in that country.
The Vietnam War did though, we can prove it did... just incase anyones wondering.

(August 8, 2012 at 11:45 pm)Drich Wrote: So this is just a sock puppet account?

I post under this account when I'm feeling full of the Holy Spirit and feel the need to put you sissy, namby pamby pseudo Christians in their place.

You see, as a True Christian ™, I don't need any of this heathen science and logic to know The Truth nor do I feel any need, as you apparently do, to reconcile our Holy Creation accounts (both of them) either with one another or with what those godless scientists tell us is the timeline of the universe.

The problem you wussbag phony Christians run into when you try to do so is you wind up playing in their playground. It's like when Muslim apologists try to talk to me about how the "comforter" in the Gospel of John refers to Muhammad. They're using our Holey text and that's why they get their asses handed to them. We should stick to the Bible, only the Bible and nothing but the Bible when we witness to atheists.

Let me give you a one examples: In Genesis chapter 1, the first Creation account, we see that our Lord created the earth and plants (day 3) and then the sun and stars (day 4). Now those heathen scientists will try to tell you about how the sun came first and many of the stars in the sky are even older than that. They'll say the earth only came afterwards and the plants long after that. It just goes to show you how hopelessly deluded these scientists are and how Satan will have his jollies with them as they're roasting in Hell.

So you see, with these deluded fools doubting what is clearly written as the order of events in the Bible, there's no point in trying to discuss with them how to reconcile their ideas of the age of the earth with what is clearly written in divine revelation!

Just call evil-lution a grand conspiracy maintained by Satan and his demons for over 100 years across all international boundaries and be done with it already.

Or you can continue to wuss out and try to find some way to reconcile our revealed Word with their delusional ramblings.

(August 9, 2012 at 11:13 am)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 11:45 pm)Drich Wrote: So this is just a sock puppet account?

I post under this account when I'm feeling full of the Holy Spirit and feel the need to put you sissy, namby pamby pseudo Christians in their place.

You see, as a True Christian ™, I don't need any of this heathen science and logic to know The Truth nor do I feel any need, as you apparently do, to reconcile our Holy Creation accounts (both of them) either with one another or with what those godless scientists tell us is the timeline of the universe.

The problem you wussbag phony Christians run into when you try to do so is you wind up playing in their playground. It's like when Muslim apologists try to talk to me about how the "comforter" in the Gospel of John refers to Muhammad. They're using our Holey text and that's why they get their asses handed to them. We should stick to the Bible, only the Bible and nothing but the Bible when we witness to atheists.

Let me give you a one examples: In Genesis chapter 1, the first Creation account, we see that our Lord created the earth and plants (day 3) and then the sun and stars (day 4). Now those heathen scientists will try to tell you about how the sun came first and many of the stars in the sky are even older than that. They'll say the earth only came afterwards and the plants long after that. It just goes to show you how hopelessly deluded these scientists are and how Satan will have his jollies with them as they're roasting in Hell.

So you see, with these deluded fools doubting what is clearly written as the order of events in the Bible, there's no point in trying to discuss with them how to reconcile their ideas of the age of the earth with what is clearly written in divine revelation!

Just call evil-lution a grand conspiracy maintained by Satan and his demons for over 100 years across all international boundaries and be done with it already.

Or you can continue to wuss out and try to find some way to reconcile our revealed Word with their delusional ramblings.

Seriously, this is a pretty fucking bang on impersonation.

(August 9, 2012 at 10:36 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 9:22 am)catfish Wrote: Genesis leaves open the posibility that Adam & Eve were not the first... So then, the "timeline" is really irrelevant.

How so?

Genesis 1:27-28
King James Version (KJV)

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.