Evolution

[FallentoReason]

Sorry, I don't know if this has been discussed/answered already, but where is it that the Garden of Eden used to be in the world? Or it's not possible to tell?

[NoMoreFaith]

3 doors down from Valhalla, across the road from Olympus obviously. Duh.

[Chuff]

[quote='Cthulhu Dreaming' pid='258734' dateline='1332283560']
So let's see if I've got this straight.

You (alone, apparently) are suggesting that the time span (in Genesis) between "In the beginning..." and "GTFO of Eden" was 5.4 billion years minus 6,000 or so?

Edit to add - ... and that during this time, the Earth and all of it's life forms evolved as they appear to have done, while inside of Eden, everything happened according to Genesis?

Pretty close!

so during the 5 odd billion years where life evolved outside of Eden into these monkey-men of which you speak, who are(genetically) identical to humans but have no soul.

And considering that man is made in gods image.

It would appear then that evolution seems to have done a remarkable job in building an exact replica of Gods image using only the power of natural selection(minus the soul of course)... ?

[Doubting Thomas]

Sorry, I don't know if this has been discussed/answered already, but where is it that the Garden of Eden used to be in the world? Or it's not possible to tell?

According to the Mormons, in Missouri.

[Jackalope]

---

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.

Which is EXACTLY What I said as well, where are you confused?

"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.

This is fun i am genuinely glad to see someone take such an in depth interest !!

In the Transliterated Hebrew Genesis 5:5
yowm (day, time, year)
'Adam (The First Man)
chayay (to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, Etc...)

As Apposed to the Breath of Life God imparted into Adam upon His creation in Genesis 2:7 The Hebrew word there is
nĕshamah= breath, spirit (of God)

Obviously the life Adam lived in the beginning (Gen 2:7) was very different than the life Adam lived after the Fall (Gen 3) when God promised "For The Day You Eat Of This Forbidden Fruit You Will Surly Die."

Adam did not die in the traditional sense or our understanding of the word. Adam's Previously Privileged life was taken (The Breath of God or nĕshamah) was taken and He was sent out amongst the monkey men to live. thus beginning His 930 Chayay (life) as we understand it.

I can understand your mistake if all your working with is a sunday school memory and an english translation. If you wish to dig alittle deeper I used the, The Bullinger Critical Lexicon and Concordance if you like to look it up for yourself..

---

[quote='Cthulhu Dreaming' pid='258862' dateline='1332310113']
Explain? Seriously? How about providing the evidence you have that corroborates the Genesis narrative with reality.

Don't worry about the comment re: the alleged global flood. I was distracted a bit and the connection isn't as well-developed in my mind as I thought at first.

So let's hear your evidence.

We are not discussing evidence at this point. We are discussing the plausible incorporation of the evolutionary fossil record into the creation account. That means if you are apart of this conversation then you accept (for the sake of this argument at least) the genesis account for the purposes of finding incompatibility issues with evolution.

If you wish to change topics please explain to me what "evidence" you would be looking for? What would it look like? Because any evidence you can provide, the new Genesis understanding I have provided can also claim.. So again what am I supposed to be providing to you?

Or are you just arguing a pre programed argument? I say genesis and evolution in the same post, and you warm up the old evolution argument check list. Starting with EVIDENCE!!!

If you took the time to read this thread or if you understood what is being discussed "evidence" as you know it anyway, is no long a valid goto for you. (that is why it wasn't being discussed by any of your buddies) Because Everything you can use I can use. That is why your brothers are attacking my education, me personally, my credentials, my interpretation of scripture, and even my integrity (When you can not kill the message kill the messenger right?) These are all last resort efforts. designed to extract something they can use to dismiss my efforts. Why else do you think you are the first to call for EVIDENCE in over 100 posts???

If you wish me to break my argument down further for you i would be happy to help you understand better, so you can skip the evidence part and go to attacking the messenger rather than the message like so many of your peers.

---

So, in other words, no you don't have any?

I could give a flying fuck what my peers have been doing in this thread.

You have made several positive material claims, if you want to be taken seriously, then provide some demonstrable evidence. You know, the kind that other people can examine and verify/falsify, and that exists somewhere other than in your imagination.

If you can't or won't do that, the only conclusion I can draw is that you're full of shit.

[NoMoreFaith]

It explains nothing unless you have evidence for existence.

Other, than that, it is surplus to requirement. Occams Razor prevails.

Just for the record Drich, I posted directly after the 'garden of eden' hypothesis you proposed.

First post and several after asking for evidence of your proposal Drich. You declined to offer any, so there is no point to debating it.
Now you claim nobody asked.

You may as well argue that faeries are compatible with evolution, because they were made in the seelie and unseelie kingdoms unreachable from this plane of existence.

As a proposal, this has equivalent theoretical status unless you can provide evidence for the existence of this garden of eden on earth.

You've been called out as a weasel who avoids the questions, and I call you out on it again.
Evidence or a faery gets it.

Sadly I know your sort, by using questions instead of proof, or even logic, you can remain in an imaginary offensive without justifying your self-authenticated illusions.

[Welsh cake]

Why do Atheist believe evolution cancels out creationism?

The question is nonsensical and should be rephrased. Atheism is a single response to theistic claims that a god or gods exist in that we don't believe any such being exists. My atheism tells you nothing about what I do believe in.

Because God says how he created us, already human, he spoke us into existence.

If he's real how do you know he's not lying? How do you know he's not a plagiarist taking the credit for something that happened naturally or was created by some other being?

Eden is well defined paradise bordered by 4 rivers

My idea of paradise is one with 3 rivers.

Therefore, Eden was not a paradise.

[Jackalope]

http://atheistforums.org/post-259279.html#pid259279

[The Grand Nudger]

If you have to tease the text you're reading it wrong (or you have the wrong texts, maybe the qu'ran would suit you better?). They call this apologetics for a reason. Try faith, I hear it works. Amusement =/= interest. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love how you're bending the text as new knowledge becomes available, I know where this leads...lol. The words of an ignorant god aren't good enough for me either, I'd take the ole red marker to the bible myself. Keep up the good work.

[Drich]

Well there are many enlightened Christians who don't read the bible literally and so have no problem accepting evolution. So of course I hoped you were one of them.

Nooope!

Certainly your talk of you and your fellow Christian's interest in evolution made it sound that way.

Just because i do not agree with every christian view, it does not automatically puts me on "your side." I am looking at the fatal flaws in the belief of Origins as a whole. This simply means I am not playing favorites. I have taken an honest look at both accounts identified and eliminated the conjecture and speculation on both sides, and combined what was left.

Turns out you are just interested in learning enough about evolution to be able to disparage it and preserve your literal bible facts.

Again not really a discussion on the mechanics of evolution. My opening post was more of a philosophical one. I wanted to know why one canceled out the other.

From an outside perspective it doesn't look that way at all. It looks like you expect God to deliver on what the bible promises as if it were some kind of contract.

What I am looking for is the proof that was promised in the bible. thats it, If God was not around to full fill these promises then who would I be worshiping?

What are you going to do if you're just plain wrong in the way you're reading the bible and therefore have it wrong about God and what He expects of you, sue Him?

If I was wrong, I guess I would fall from my faith as many of you have, since I did not get what I was looking for. My faith is nothing special it is a weak and as temperamental as anyone else's. The question that should be asked is what exactly have I found that demands my full devotion.

Oh I'll bet it is. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but it probably doesn't go away willingly. To give up all your own thoughts to try and adopt the facts of the bible as you understand them shows no faith at all in God.

Replace the words "Bible" and "God" with Theory, and the same rehearsed arguments all of you seem to be sharing. If anything this points to a hive mind mentality on your part. So truthfully no matter what is believed how does this statement not apply in some form or fashion to everyone?

You have faith in the bible and its God, but not God Himself.

Without the bible how is one to know God?

prayer but you don't trust Him to help you read the bible in an intelligent way, as a piece of literature.

soo.. Because I do not read the bible in a way to support my atheistic brother's beliefs, and because I read the bible to support the God found in it, and support His teachings I do not trust God or I do not trust the "intelligent ways" you have identified?

It is definitely easier to interpret the bible as facts than to engage it with your whole being to understand it directly. If only you guys had any faith in yourselves perhaps you could find some for God.

What makes you think I have not studied the bible extensively (Including all the ways you are pointing at,) and have come to the conclusion their isn't continuity your way? That God can't be found in an abstract interpretation of the bible. Only the philosophy of God will be found. One/a philosophy that conforms to the moralities of popular culture... BTW what you are suggesting is what Himmler did to make the bible work for him and his political agenda.