(July 13, 2015 at 7:09 am)Alex K Wrote: Bullshit.

The bible could have said: "The universe as we know it started 13.x billion years ago, the earth and the sun formed 4.x billion years ago, humans evolved such and such. Oh, and wash your hands, don't keep slaves and guys be nice to your women."

Why the fuck doesn't it?

If you need to work up theories how you might have to interpret through layers of metaphors what the damn book says about the age of the universe, it doesn't say it, period.

Testing your faith, Alex, testing your faith.

(July 13, 2015 at 5:29 am)SamS Wrote: I've heard people say that the early Church believed in a non-literal Genesis, and that the literal interpretation began just a few centuries ago. Not sure where that comes from...

Just for information's sake: <snip, snip>

Has anyone heard of the Gap Theory? Seems like it has actual Scriptural credibility. It's basically the idea that the Bible teaches an old earth and a young human race (but, still against evolution). I don't see a way to get human evolution into the Bible.

Gap theory does not work because it speaks of a time between days of creation in essence it speaks where the bible is silent/It adds to the creation account.

Here is something I wrote similar to gap theory, but does not change the complete biblical account or evolution in any way. It simply lines the two accounts up and shows how they can fit together.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

I voted, it's not incompatible, and it's more desirable for society that it isn't - Luckily, I've never met a priest who believed in creationism

(July 13, 2015 at 4:44 am)Cato Wrote: Most Christians accept evolution; one must give up a literal account of The Bible though. Seems to be a big problem for Evangelicals.

To be fair isn't it controversial whether fundies are even sentient? Maybe we shouldn't expect too much.

(July 13, 2015 at 8:36 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 5:29 am)SamS Wrote: I've heard people say that the early Church believed in a non-literal Genesis, and that the literal interpretation began just a few centuries ago. Not sure where that comes from...

Just for information's sake: <snip, snip>

Has anyone heard of the Gap Theory? Seems like it has actual Scriptural credibility. It's basically the idea that the Bible teaches an old earth and a young human race (but, still against evolution). I don't see a way to get human evolution into the Bible.

Gap theory does not work because it speaks of a time between days of creation in essence it speaks where the bible is silent/It adds to the creation account.

Here is something I wrote similar to gap theory, but does not change the complete biblical account or evolution in any way. It simply lines the two accounts up and shows how they can fit together.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

LOL...no, it doesn't.  It didn't then, nothings changed since.  You keep linking it though, don't you. The silliest part, to me anyway...is that you've been provided with practical means to establish or discredit your hypothesis. Seems as though you still haven't decided that your own ideas are worth investigation. Why should anyone else think differently?

I love this christian "gap theory"

Because christianity is a religion that thrives on gaps in science.  The more facts we learn from scientist, the harder it becomes to manipulate the bible to agree with actual fact.  The more facts we learn make the fundies and others look ridiculous.

This is why so many christians are afraid of the LHC.  It has and will fill in more gaps, thus making it harder to reconcile the truth with the fairy tale book bible.

(July 13, 2015 at 9:23 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 8:36 am)Drich Wrote: Gap theory does not work because it speaks of a time between days of creation in essence it speaks where the bible is silent/It adds to the creation account.

Here is something I wrote similar to gap theory, but does not change the complete biblical account or evolution in any way. It simply lines the two accounts up and shows how they can fit together.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

LOL...no, it doesn't.  It didn't then, nothings changed since.  You keep linking it though, don't you.  The silliest part, to me anyway...is that you've been provided with practical means to establish or discredit your hypothesis.   Seems as though you still haven't decided that your own ideas are worth investigation.  Why should anyone else think differently?

Again its not a hypothsis. It is an observation.

I have observed that their is no time line between the last day of creation, and the fall of man. In that time span it is possible that all of evolution could have indeed occoured outside the garden.

How does that need to be falsified other than reading the Genesis account?

Yeah, you observed all of that, with your time machine and magic detection goggles.  You're a moron, Drich. Nevertheless, it -is- falsifiable, and you -will- require more than your bible because of the claims you chose to make - namely, you'll have to show that the events described in your bible are an accurate description of the events which occurred here in reality (which you should be able to, as has already been explained to you). Are you not interested in whether your contribution to apologetics could even -be- accurate? Whether it's plausible -if- possible? What is your appraisal of a person who's claimed to have achieved something for which they haven't even -begun- the work? I generally use the term liar, in your case, liar for christ. Is that what you hoped to achieve when you shared your thoughts with us, is that who you want to be? Because if it isn't..........do work.

Drich, as per your observation, at which point of the speciation of man was man/monkey forbidden from eating the fruit, and at which point did man get kicked out? And how does your observations account for the several branches of homosapiens?

If the Bible is translated literally: No chance for compatibility whatsoever.

If the Bible is translated metaphorically: maybe. To be honest, I'm not sure (but I'm very curious as to what the talking snake and the Garden of Eden are supposed to represent in that case). The only problem with metaphorical translation is that it provides thousands of possible interpretations, creating a shitload of potential disagreement within the Christian/Catholic community. So really, there'd be no way of knowing if the interpretation you're looking at is the right one. There's be no way of knowing if anyone got it right. :/