Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Drich]

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.

That's just it. The bible does not give a time line till after man leaves the garden. Man made in the Image of God, Man with a soul has only been out of the garden about 6000 years. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden. Meaning he could have possiably been in the garden as long as 'evolution' says it took to evolve from slime. If you read genesis 1 and 2 all of creation is from a garden perspective. Nothing aside from the Heavenly bodies are mentioned to be outside of Eden. leaving the rest of the world to figure things out and evolve on it's own.

---

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.

So do I. That is why I've acknoweledged the 7 day creation period as being a literal 7 days. But once that seven days was over it could have been trillions of eons between the end of creation and the fall of man. (which happened about 6000 years ago.) We simply do not know.

Again The creation account only records (more of less) what happenes in the Garden of Eden. I am suggesting God made Eden apart from what happens in the rest of the planet.
Eden

---

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.

This is all one big red herring arguement. None of what you have said here addresses ANYTHING Being Discussed.

It is appearent that You have Completely abandoned your orginal arguements, now that you know what is being said, and are attempting to appeal to christian sterotypes and the general disgust of your peers toward Christianity in order to try and win the arguement by popular opinion... You are like a floater circling the bowl as it is being flushed, marking up the sides of the bowl trying to stay a float. Let's see how many people reach out to your turd of an arguement and help you try and save it.

[Zazzy]

I've acknoweledged the 7 day creation period as being a literal 7 days.

So you are a biblical literalist?- I'm new here, so I don't know. I'm having some trouble with your line of thought.Man was created during those 7 days, but also evolved elsewhere on the planet?

But once that seven days was over it could have been trillions of eons between the end of creation and the fall of man. (which happened about 6000 years ago.)

Is your position that the fall of man happened at least 10,000 years after humans domesticated the dog?

We simply do not know.

We know a great deal about civilizations before 6,000 years ago. How does that square with what you are trying to say?

Again The creation account only records (more of less) what happenes in the Garden of Eden. I am suggesting God made Eden apart from what happens in the rest of the planet.

This is hard to understand. So scores of human civilizations were going about their business while Adam and Eve were in the garden? How about Eve's punishment? Women were giving birth in great pain before Eve did a bad thing? Adam and Eve were in the garden while all other humans were evolving? I'm interested, I just can't get a grasp on your argument.

[Ryantology]

That's just it. The bible does not give a time line till after man leaves the garden. Man made in the Image of God, Man with a soul has only been out of the garden about 6000 years. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden. Meaning he could have possiably been in the garden as long as 'evolution' says it took to evolve from slime. If you read genesis 1 and 2 all of creation is from a garden perspective. Nothing aside from the Heavenly bodies are mentioned to be outside of Eden. leaving the rest of the world to figure things out and evolve on it's own.

Genesis 5:5: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

I see a very clear timeline: Adam died 930 years after the creation of the universe.

[Beta Ray Bill]

This is all one big red herring arguement. None of what you have said here addresses ANYTHING Being Discussed.

It is appearent that You have Completely abandoned your orginal arguements, now that you know what is being said, and are attempting to appeal to christian sterotypes and the general disgust of your peers toward Christianity in order to try and win the arguement by popular opinion... You are like a floater circling the bowl as it is being flushed, marking up the sides of the bowl trying to stay a float. Let's see how many people reach out to your turd of an arguement and help you try and save it.

This quote of mine follows my opening post perfectly:
"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."

This sentence follows what I've been saying about you for a while:
"...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."

Red herring? I'm completely on track. You wanted me to address your ideas, so I did, step-by-step, showing ways that evolution has no place in the Bible unless you bend the facts. I have been providing what I think is ample evidence to my ideas and why they are more true than yours. I have even given you other sources of info - some that are decidedly neutral, and not atheist - that support my claims. How does that change anything? I'm just supplying back-up for my ideas, something you have yet to do.

Just because I'm supporting my ideas from another direction does not mean that I am detracting from our original argument. My statement still stands, the Bible makes no mention of evolution unless you add hypotheses to it. I make no such attempt to change the theory of evolution.

[Michael Schubert]

I think the biggest part of the problem is that idiot creatards cannot understand the difference between a mechanical contrivance and a biological entity capable of reproduction.
They are all fucking idiots.

It is pretty stupid to believe in magic.

---

That's just it. The bible does not give a time line till after man leaves the garden. Man made in the Image of God, Man with a soul has only been out of the garden about 6000 years. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden. Meaning he could have possiably been in the garden as long as 'evolution' says it took to evolve from slime. If you read genesis 1 and 2 all of creation is from a garden perspective. Nothing aside from the Heavenly bodies are mentioned to be outside of Eden. leaving the rest of the world to figure things out and evolve on it's own.

Evolution does not say humans "evolved from slime". Evolution only measures population genetics, biodiversity and descent with modification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuiNtC4kURk

Genesis is the silliest story I ever read.

[Drich]

I've acknoweledged the 7 day creation period as being a literal 7 days.

So you are a biblical literalist?- I'm new here, so I don't know. I'm having some trouble with your line of thought.Man was created during those 7 days, but also evolved elsewhere on the planet?

But once that seven days was over it could have been trillions of eons between the end of creation and the fall of man. (which happened about 6000 years ago.)

Is your position that the fall of man happened at least 10,000 years after humans domesticated the dog?

We simply do not know.

We know a great deal about civilizations before 6,000 years ago. How does that square with what you are trying to say?

Again The creation account only records (more of less) what happenes in the Garden of Eden. I am suggesting God made Eden apart from what happens in the rest of the planet.

This is hard to understand. So scores of human civilizations were going about their business while Adam and Eve were in the garden? How about Eve's punishment? Women were giving birth in great pain before Eve did a bad thing? Adam and Eve were in the garden while all other humans were evolving? I'm interested, I just can't get a grasp on your argument.

I've outlined everything here in my orginal thread. all of you question have been answered in the OP
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

---

That's just it. The bible does not give a time line till after man leaves the garden. Man made in the Image of God, Man with a soul has only been out of the garden about 6000 years. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden. Meaning he could have possiably been in the garden as long as 'evolution' says it took to evolve from slime. If you read genesis 1 and 2 all of creation is from a garden perspective. Nothing aside from the Heavenly bodies are mentioned to be outside of Eden. leaving the rest of the world to figure things out and evolve on it's own.

Genesis 5:5: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

I see a very clear timeline: Adam died 930 years after the creation of the universe.

see the above post to Zazzy

---

This is all one big red herring arguement. None of what you have said here addresses ANYTHING Being Discussed.

It is appearent that You have Completely abandoned your orginal arguements, now that you know what is being said, and are attempting to appeal to christian sterotypes and the general disgust of your peers toward Christianity in order to try and win the arguement by popular opinion... You are like a floater circling the bowl as it is being flushed, marking up the sides of the bowl trying to stay a float. Let's see how many people reach out to your turd of an arguement and help you try and save it.

This quote of mine follows my opening post perfectly:
"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."

This sentence follows what I've been saying about you for a while:
"...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."

Red herring? I'm completely on track. You wanted me to address your ideas, so I did, step-by-step, showing ways that evolution has no place in the Bible unless you bend the facts. I have been providing what I think is ample evidence to my ideas and why they are more true than yours. I have even given you other sources of info - some that are decidedly neutral, and not atheist - that support my claims. How does that change anything? I'm just supplying back-up for my ideas, something you have yet to do.

Just because I'm supporting my ideas from another direction does not mean that I am detracting from our original argument. My statement still stands, the Bible makes no mention of evolution unless you add hypotheses to it. I make no such attempt to change the theory of evolution.

Not true.

Want proof of what I said about the efforts you highlighted in the above post? So would I. I would like you to take the time and prove that you have done all that you said you did. and I will show you how what you said is not true.

---

I think the biggest part of the problem is that idiot creatards cannot understand the difference between a mechanical contrivance and a biological entity capable of reproduction.
They are all fucking idiots.

It is pretty stupid to believe in magic.

---

That's just it. The bible does not give a time line till after man leaves the garden. Man made in the Image of God, Man with a soul has only been out of the garden about 6000 years. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden. Meaning he could have possiably been in the garden as long as 'evolution' says it took to evolve from slime. If you read genesis 1 and 2 all of creation is from a garden perspective. Nothing aside from the Heavenly bodies are mentioned to be outside of Eden. leaving the rest of the world to figure things out and evolve on it's own.

Evolution does not say humans "evolved from slime". Evolution only measures population genetics, biodiversity and descent with modification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuiNtC4kURk

Genesis is the silliest story I ever read.

With my theory, you can believe what ever your mind tells you to believe about evolution, whether that be true or not it does not change the creation account.

[Beta Ray Bill]

Drich, this debate is just running in circles. I won't accept your ideas because they are all obviously ad hoc, and you won't accept my ideas because you claim I've not provided any evidence. I could quote every book in existence dealing with the evolution of the universe, and still you'd disagree. Drich, you're like a lot of Chritians I know: you're not stupid, but you are incredibly close-minded and unwilling to look at existence from other points of view. I've looked at your ideas, analyzed them, and considerately disagreed with them. Open your eyes, Drich, there is so much more to this universe than dogmatic speculation.

Enough said.

[Ryantology]

see the above post to Zazzy

I already know what I'll find: you leaping through hoops and redefining words and meanings so that you can attempt to make sense of a senseless story. Let's just ignore the fact that none of the authors of the Bible shared your meaning because, unlike you, they had no way of knowing how long the world had been there and could be forgiven for thinking that the universe was installed a few years before they decided to speculate on its origins. People who think the universe was created in six days aren't going to think that 13 billion years passed between that and their present day.

[Drich]

Drich, this debate is just running in circles. I won't accept your ideas because they are all obviously ad hoc, and you won't accept my ideas because you claim I've not provided any evidence. I could quote every book in existence dealing with the evolution of the universe, and still you'd disagree. Drich, you're like a lot of Chritians I know: you're not stupid, but you are incredibly close-minded and unwilling to look at existence from other points of view. I've looked at your ideas, analyzed them, and considerately disagreed with them. Open your eyes, Drich, there is so much more to this universe than dogmatic speculation.

Enough said.

Omg "my irony meter" just got cancer because what you said was so stupid.

Everything you just said, from your categorical attempt to dismiss what I said as a ad hoc, (even though despite your best efforts you could not prove it,) to your defaulting to a stereotypical atheist Christian evolution/creationism argument (despite what I have actually said.) to you appeal to the stereotype of the 'closed minded Christian.' This all reeks of someone who has painted himself into a corner and is projecting his short comings into me.

You opened a can of worms you do not know what to do with.

You said I ad hoc'ed a theory, when in fact all I did was underscore that there is no biblical time lines in creation account. Which means everything evolution says is biblically possible. Which is a thought I have never seen or argued before, which would indicate an 'open minded' thought process. Your appeal to one stereotype after another, and then told me I was close minded. This is what gave my irony meter cancer.

Seriously, your projecting your short comings (short comings I saw from the beginning but had planned on not mentioning till you tried to assign them to me.) if your looking for a way to end the conversation just make fun of my spelling or grammar or something obvious. I won't look to correct you there if I am indeed at fault.

---

see the above post to Zazzy

I already know what I'll find: you leaping through hoops and redefining words and meanings so that you can attempt to make sense of a senseless story. Let's just ignore the fact that none of the authors of the Bible shared your meaning because, unlike you, they had no way of knowing how long the world had been there and could be forgiven for thinking that the universe was installed a few years before they decided to speculate on its origins. People who think the universe was created in six days aren't going to think that 13 billion years passed between that and their present day.

I should hope that you know what I have said in that thread if you are trying to discuss it. But according to the rest of your post it appears you don't know what is being discussed.

[Zazzy]

[
I've outlined everything here in my orginal thread. all of you question have been answered in the OP
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

I read it, and it's just bizarre. It doesn't answer any of my above questions at all.

I'm an evolutionary biologist by trade, and since this is actually kind of a new spin on creationism for me, I want to better understand your idea (the OP didn't do much for me, mostly because I'm totally uninterested in what the bible says, so to be fair I probably did lose your point somewhere in all the scriptural talk).

I'd love it if you could put it more succinctly, without the biblical proofs, since I don't care about those. Since it appears you are trying to reconcile religion with science, proper scientific evolutionary language would be appreciated- you know, like a real scientific proposal.