Quote:I've only taken away an unfounded belief.

Start with your fucking bible, moron.

(September 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Yeah, Drich, right.

Get a time machine. Go back to the year 1300 BCE and ask Moses if what you wrote is EXACTLY what the Jewish philosophy of creation means. Every word of it. He'd have you burned for blasphemy and make a "sweet savor unto the LORD." What you wrote is completely ad hoc. It was added only so the Bible could work with Evolution. There is not an ounce of verifiable truth to your ideas.

Geeze, it's like trying to teach a blind man to play Pictionary. I can draw the clearest picture over and over, but he'll never see it. Your problem, Drich, is that you're not blind, you just won't open your eyes.

Just incase you missed it the first time or maybe just incase you are praying that I do not understand the defination I posted here it is again:

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified.

So now show me what I 'added' to make my work an 'ad hoc' theory.[/u]

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Yeah, Drich, right.

Get a time machine. Go back to the year 1300 BCE and ask Moses if what you wrote is EXACTLY what the Jewish philosophy of creation means. Every word of it. He'd have you burned for blasphemy and make a "sweet savor unto the LORD." What you wrote is completely ad hoc. It was added only so the Bible could work with Evolution. There is not an ounce of verifiable truth to your ideas.

Geeze, it's like trying to teach a blind man to play Pictionary. I can draw the clearest picture over and over, but he'll never see it. Your problem, Drich, is that you're not blind, you just won't open your eyes.

Just incase you missed it the first time or maybe just incase you are praying that I do not understand the defination I posted here it is again:

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified.

So now show me what I 'added' to make my work an 'ad hoc' theory.[/u]

Ok "ad hoc" "Ad loogie" "ad homim" "addaboy", whatever, still doesn't make invisible sky daddies real. Not yours not any.

Drich,

Not only did I read your theory - I recognised it.

I once came up with an almost identical theory in conversation with a young earth believer.

In the end it all comes down to whether Adam is dated from his creation or from the day he left Eden.

I couldn't get the young earther to accept that dating from the day he left Eden was the more likely.

From a scientific pov, however, there is simply no need for Adam and Eve in the story. They don't add anything and, obviously, there isn't a jot of evidence for them or Eden.

(September 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm)max-greece Wrote: Drich,

Not only did I read your theory - I recognised it.

I once came up with an almost identical theory in conversation with a young earth believer.

In the end it all comes down to whether Adam is dated from his creation or from the day he left Eden.

I couldn't get the young earther to accept that dating from the day he left Eden was the more likely.

From a scientific pov, however, there is simply no need for Adam and Eve in the story. They don't add anything and, obviously, there isn't a jot of evidence for them or Eden.

Not only is it a myth, it is a morally bankrupt story.

God sets up a game without the mutual consent of the pawns, uses them as a bet, which is rigged in any case, then punishes them for the game and bet he did not have to set up.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Just incase you missed it the first time or maybe just incase you are praying that I do not understand the defination I posted here it is again:

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified.

So now show me what I 'added' to make my work an 'ad hoc' theory.[/u]

Dude, I already posted the definition in my second post. Why do you think I need to be taught what it means?

Let's break it down:
ad hoc: the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified.

extraneous: irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with.
hypotheses: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation
theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained
falsified: proven (a statement or theory) to be false

Are we clear on those definitions? Let's test them against your post:

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul,

Where is your proof of this? Where in the Bible does the term "monkey" ever come up? That sounds like a hypothesis to me. There is no Biblical foundation. If I am wrong, quote me the scripture that talks about "monkey man."

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.)

Again, how can you verify this? So homo habilis man had no soul? Where does the Bible, the Torah or the Koran even mention "monkeys without a soul?" So something that "could not be biblically reconciled" is the word of God? You're saying that man evolved for millions of years, then God just decided to stop at homo sapiens, because they looked like Him? If what you say is true, that was EVOLUTION, not CREATION. Your idea is just a HYPOTHESIS (see definition above) being used to link evolution to the Bible, and that, my friend, is ad hoc. It is a hypothesis trying to keep the Bible from being falsified. There is NO religious backing to your claims.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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)

Huh? So Adam "had life, remained alive, sustained life" for 930 years? Sounds about the same to me as "lived." How many people in Genesis lived hundreds of years? Most of them. There is no scientific backing to that. Science shows that primitive man lived about 30 years. Look it up. It's far more believable than the estimates in Genesis are.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.”

I know how you'll defend this. You'll say "it means that he will now be mortal and subject to death." Nope. That's not what it means. It means that if he eats the fruit, he dies. It says "For in the day..." not "in 930 years (or days)."

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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"--

All Biblical speculation. Not ad hoc, but totally un-provable. What about every other religion on the Earth? Are two-thirds of the Earth a bunch of fucking idiots? Of course not. And neither are Christians. But no one can claim their faith is any more "true" than anyone else's. Religion cannot be proven. Not all of Science can, either, but a lot of it can be, whereas none of any religion can be.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.

Did you know the Jews were never in Egypt? There is absolutely no record anywhere on this Earth - except the errancy-filled Bible - that the Jews were ever there. How does that affect your counting of generations?

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.

So you admit fossil records are undeniable? Good job! But you're saying they are obviously implied in the Bible? Fail! ad hoc!

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.

Again, find me the word "monkey-man" in the Bible. Find me the word "evolution." Can't do it? Then maybe this theory of yours has no Biblical merit. Maybe it is changing what the Bible originally meant because, to use your phrase, the undeniable fossil record shows that how man understood the Bible for 4000 years doesn't work. The facts prove it. Your ideas are extraneous (irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with). Evolution is totally unrelated to creationism, unless changes are made to the idea of creation.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.

Not in the least. They are extraneous hypotheses that attempt to keep the Bible from sounding simple-minded and irrefutably incorrect. You're making stuff up to fill in these "holes" in the account just so they'll work with Creationism. Very creative. But there is NO WAY you can ever prove them, because they are all SPECULATION. Don't think I can prove Evolution? Go back to school. Just go to a museum. Clear as day.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything.

That is your opinion. I think I did a pretty good job. If I had a doctorate in human history, I'd really kick your butt. Alas, I am just a pretty damn smart atheist.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: ...many who originally greeted me with harsh words and complete disrespect started to ask legitimate questions.

I have been stern, but I have never used harsh words on you, or disrespected you (okay, maybe the Pictionary joke was a little strong). I ask nothing of you. Truth be told, your theories have only strengthened my belief in Evolution. You showed me how far-fetched the human imagination can be, and I thank you for that.

(September 19, 2013 at 4:29 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Dude, I already posted the definition in my second post. Why do you think I need to be taught what it means?

because you have yet to use the term according to the actual definition. again to Ad Hoc means to add to a theory. You have insisted I added to evolution or to the creation account and I have not.

I simply point out that the current YEC understanding of creationism is not biblically supported.

Quote:Let's break it down:
ad hoc: the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified.

extraneous: irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with.
hypotheses: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation
theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained
falsified: proven (a statement or theory) to be false

Are we clear on those definitions? Let's test them against your post:

Why not simply test the AD Hoc definition against the core theory? The one that says all of these other things I ad hoc-ed are possiable now?

Quote:Where is your proof of this? Where in the Bible does the term "monkey" ever come up? That sounds like a hypothesis to me. There is no Biblical foundation. If I am wrong, quote me the scripture that talks about "monkey man."

Your either intentionally moving the goal posts or you have ignored context for content.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.”

Quote:I know how you'll defend this. You'll say "it means that he will now be mortal and subject to death." Nope. That's not what it means. It means that if he eats the fruit, he dies. It says "For in the day..." not "in 930 years (or days)."

He did die. His mortal life ended that day and God gave him a new life. His Chaya ended and he was given chay. Chaya= eternity Chay=930 years.

(September 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: 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"--

Quote:All Biblical speculation.

lol. Why eat a forbidden fruit if there are other new 'experiences' to be had?
The only logical reason Adam and Eve were even in proxcimity to the tree of knowledge in a 'garden the size of North America is because they were bored. They had been every and seen and done everything except the one thing that was forbidden.

Quote: Not ad hoc, but totally un-provable.

Unlike the evolution account in general or even the THEORY of evolution? because as we all know both orgins accounts are well documented and completely supported with absolute undisputiable proof and nothing new can ever be added or taken away.

Quote:Did you know the Jews were never in Egypt? There is absolutely no record anywhere on this Earth - except the errancy-filled Bible - that the Jews were ever there. How does that affect your counting of generations?

Did you know this is considered a non-sequitor? that despite whether your statement is true or not your using this statement to try and evoke an emotional response in order to try and change the focous of the subject? Which I guess is a bit of a red herring

Quote:So you admit fossil records are undeniable? Good job!

I did not say any of the current theories that explain the fossil record are accurate, I simply said one can not deny fossils exist.

Quote: But you're saying they are obviously implied in the Bible?

where did I say that? Fail! ad hoc!

Quote:Again, find me the word "monkey-man" in the Bible. Find me the word "evolution." Can't do it? Then maybe this theory of yours has no Biblical merit.

Again it does not seem that you comprehend my theory at all. One last time. My theory simply states that there is no documented or implied time line between the end of a literal 7 day creation period, and the fall of man.

The rest of what I have to say is just one possiable way as to how the two orgins accounts could come together if there was indeed no time line between end of creation and the Fall.

Quote: Maybe it is changing what the Bible originally meant because, to use your phrase, the undeniable fossil record shows that how man understood the Bible for 4000 years doesn't work.

There is a lot about how man understands the bible and believes about God to be wrong. That is why we are told to question all things and to hold onto what is good.

Quote: The facts prove it. Your ideas are extraneous (irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with). Evolution is totally unrelated to creationism, unless changes are made to the idea of creation.

:} prove it.

Quote:That is your opinion. I think I did a pretty good job.

But, you failed. You did not even address the theory I presented here. In fact it does not even seem like you understand the core theory here. So that begs the question 'how can you refute it.'

Quote: If I had a doctorate in human history, I'd really kick your butt. Alas, I am just a pretty damn smart atheist.

Indeed you are...
Probably the 'smartest atheist' who ever tried to argue my theory without even comprehending let alone address it's primary component.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:29 am)Drich Wrote: The only thing that needs to be 'prooved' is that there is no time indicators between the end of creation and the fall of Man. And the bible does this quite well as it is completely silent on that time frame.

What difference would it make if there were indicators? The Bible says that the time between the formation of the universe and the rise of modern man happened 13,699,999,999 years and 51 weeks faster than we know it really did, and you're willing to handwave this indicator as a metaphor. Regardless of what the Bible says or does not say, you'll simply interpret it however you want.

The people who codified your myths obviously believed that Adam died within a millennia of the universe's creation.

(September 20, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Drich Wrote: My theory simply states that there is no documented or implied time line between the end of a literal 7 day creation period, and the fall of man.

The rest of what I have to say is just one possiable way as to how the two orgins accounts could come together if there was indeed no time line between end of creation and the Fall.

It's certainly a way to twist scripture into something resembling harmony with scientific observation, but do you personally need to do it to be happy in your religion, or is this just a thought experiment for you?

Also, I have trouble believing that first-century authors would be so coy about such important information. True, they were big on allegory, but one could apply this same logic to any of the thousands of other creation myths out there and have it work just as well. And I would say that "7 days" implies 7 days, so there does seem to be an implied time line. I would assume that the authors knew what a day was.

It's like "Proof" is a bad word to Christians.

Commandment 11: Thou shalt always deny the existence of proof

This whole thread was about how everything on the Earth did not have individual starting points, that everything can be broken down into simpler and simpler forms, showing that everything in existence evolved from the same source. No supreme being designed every individual thing, because it has been determined, with greater clarity than any Biblical idea, that everything in existence evolved from the same source.

Maybe this book can provide the P-word that Christians need:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time...en+hawking

or they can watch this video:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Earth-Made-His...B00126808K

Maybe those sources will provide the proof you insist I don't have. There is plenty of it out there.

I found this great quote that sums up my ideas pretty well:

"Great early scientists in the Renaissance and even later, "believed" in God and a whole lot of other things because they would be burned at the stake for saying otherwise.

There is nothing in modern science that rules out the existence of a creator. There is just no evidence for one, despite patient searching. If you are going to believe in a creator, you at least have to believe in one who went out of his way to camouflage his existence, because there is simply no evidence for it at all."

Drich, your statements are purely ad hoc, because the theories don't fit with the original Biblical stories until you change the original message of the Bible to keep it from sounding dated and out of touch with human intelligence. If you don't want to see that, then I just can't help you. I'm sorry.