Evolution Trumps Creationism

[popeyespappy]

like a real scientific proposal.

Goddidit doesn't count?

[Minimalist]

Drich, you're like a lot of Chritians I know: you're not stupid,

Don't be so fast to dismiss the possibility, Billy.

[Beta Ray Bill]

Drich, you're like a lot of Chritians I know: you're not stupid,

Don't be so fast to dismiss the possibility, Billy.

At least he gave me a "thesis" to analyze. GC and Johnny Five just give empty statements, and Waldorf? Well, he's to stubborn to understand his own words.

[Esquilax]

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.

Um, actually...

So, for starters, even if we don't have biblical timelines for events, we do know for a fact that planets and stars do not form in a day, which puts a crimp in your "seven literal days," theory right from the start.

But that's got nothing to do with evolution, though. That's cosmology. In terms of evolution, your biblical account simply does not match with the fossil record no matter how far back we go. To begin with, we see evidence of human cultures well before your claim that the fall of man happened 6,000 years ago. All over the earth, there are cultures older than that, and we can demonstrate that they were there with ease. Secondly, our evolutionary lineage from ape ancestors to man is very well plotted, as shown in this list of human transitional fossils. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that man was created whole in the garden; we simply demonstrably were not.

So, evolution and a literal reading of genesis are at odds. That's just the way it is.

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.

If you were open minded you would have exposed yourself to some biology textbooks, and never would have resorted to that idiotic "evolved from slime" canard.

[pocaracas]

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.

Um, actually...

So, for starters, even if we don't have biblical timelines for events, we do know for a fact that planets and stars do not form in a day, which puts a crimp in your "seven literal days," theory right from the start.

Aww... come on!! MAGIC trumps all!
Magic can make an entire Universe in a single flash, can generate living plants without light, can make Eve fall in love with Adam.... MAGIC!

But that's got nothing to do with evolution, though. That's cosmology. In terms of evolution, your biblical account simply does not match with the fossil record no matter how far back we go.

Dude, MAGIC!

---

---

So, evolution and a literal reading of genesis are at odds. That's just the way it is.

MAGIC can make it look like that.
MAGIC can do anything!
Don't you get it?!
Merlin was REAL!

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.

If you were open minded you would have exposed yourself to some biology textbooks, and never would have resorted to that idiotic "evolved from slime" canard.

Biology can all be explained by MAGIC!
The magician went through a LOT of trouble JUST to make it look like there was no MAGIC involved, but he/she/it failed!
We know it all, we have various books that tell how it was all the work of this magician.... although, each book claims a different magician... hmmm
Oh well, maybe the people who wrote the books were thinking of the same magician, but just couldn't write the message correctly, so as to create a unified account of the magician.

Remember, MAGIC can do anything the magician wants!
Evolution= puhhlease! I made that shit up just to throw you peeps off my trail.
Lightning= yeah... keep thinking it's just static electricity!
Planets and stars= Snap my virtual fingers and bam! cleverly making it look like there was an accretion disk and blah blah blah...
Earthquakes= That's what happens when I get cold shivers!
Volcanoes= ooops, sneezed!

MAGIC is very powerful stuff, but sometimes has unintended results... sorry about that, puny humans.

[Zazzy]

like a real scientific proposal.

Goddidit doesn't count?

This should be a useful exercise for Drich, if he'd like to try. Staying away from terms like "monkey man" and refraining from rolling out tons of biblical text would help him- and everyone else- see what he is trying to say more clearly.

If creationists are going to mix science with religion, they should at least learn how to use correct terminology, damnit.

[Drich]

[
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.

The opening line in my thread summerizes the actual theory completely.

There is no time line between the end of the seven days of creation, and the Fall of man. (Basically nothing says how much time elapsed between Genesis 2 and 3.) which will allow you to potentially fit any version of evolution you want in that space.

The Genesis account focouses on a centeralized Garden perspective. The Garden was a sancuary built for Adam and eve to reflect the 'evolved world' at the time of the fall so there was no harsh transition..

Now, that said if you are indeed a evolutionary biologist by trade then you should be well aware that the onis in on you to take an intrest in the data provided, if you want to be apart of this conversation. Meaning your going to have to suck it up and interperate the data provided in the formate provided (Bible verses and all.) No free rides here. For if you start to spout evolutionary specific terms, then I am required to ask you a question, or look the terms up myself, IF I want to be apart of the conversation. Same goes for you sport. Ask a question or bow out and let someone else speak.

---

Don't be so fast to dismiss the possibility, Billy.

At least he gave me a "thesis" to analyze. GC and Johnny Five just give empty statements, and Waldorf? Well, he's to stubborn to understand his own words.

What minnie is trying to tell you is that if you hold tightly to the idea that I am an idiot, despite any evidence to the contary then you can simply move through my posts and dismiss what ever does not tickle your fancy. That way you can dismiss whole threads with out any proof or research. In otherwords it is a way to perserve one's 'faith' without haveing to stand up to the scrutiny of providing proof when I ask you to back your claim.

[max-greece]

"Now, that said if you are indeed a evolutionary biologist by trade then you should be well aware that the onis in on you to take an intrest in the data provided, if you want to be apart of this conversation. Meaning your going to have to suck it up and interperate the data provided in the formate provided (Bible verses and all.)"

Erm.......no. An evolutionary biologist would no more consult Genesis than the Beano. There is simply nothing there - its a gibberish story written by and for morons thousands of years ago- we've moved on.

To be honest - there is little point in you being part of the conversation. I may as well invite my Beagle for his opinion - even though he has been dead for 2 years.

[Zazzy]

The opening line in my thread summerizes the actual theory completely.

There is no time line between the end of the seven days of creation, and the Fall of man. (Basically nothing says how much time elapsed between Genesis 2 and 3.) which will allow you to potentially fit any version of evolution you want in that space.

I still don't see how, and this is because you have been non-specific about exactly how evolution could fit in. Were Adam and Eve not humans? Were they RNA-based prokaryotes? Were there other life forms elsewhere evolving at the same time? If so, how would Adam and Eve be related to or relevant to human beings?

The Genesis account focouses on a centeralized Garden perspective. The Garden was a sancuary built for Adam and eve to reflect the 'evolved world' at the time of the fall so there was no harsh transition..

Harsh transition from what to what? What does it mean to say it "reflected the evolved world"? What is "the evolved world"? That doesn't mean anything in evolutionary terms. Life on Earth has always been evolving.

Now, that said if you are indeed a evolutionary biologist by trade then you should be well aware that the onis in on you to take an intrest in the data provided, if you want to be apart of this conversation. Meaning your going to have to suck it up and interperate the data provided in the formate provided (Bible verses and all.) No free rides here.

Are you aware of how scientific discourse works? The proposer provides a clear, well-explained proposal. If the listener needs more explanation, the proposer doesn't just repeat her original proposal; she fleshes it out using clear scientific language. If that's good, then data is provided (where's your data again? Is that the biblical stuff? Do you consider that scientific data?). Then the listener looks at the data and determines if it supports the claim.

We are still at the first stage, and you are just repeating yourself instead of giving more detail and explanation.

For if you start to spout evolutionary specific terms, then I am required to ask you a question, or look the terms up myself, IF I want to be apart of the conversation. Same goes for you sport. Ask a question or bow out and let someone else speak.

Yes, you are required to do that if you want to make scientific claims. You won't get very far unless you increase your vocabulary. Why are you resistant to that?

I AM asking you questions, and I am asking them because I'm genuinely curious about this idea of yours. You can answer them and we can have a real conversation in which we both learn something, or you can continue to dismiss me.

And I haven't noticed that I'm stopping anyone else here from speaking.

[Drich]

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.

Um, actually...

So, for starters, even if we don't have biblical timelines for events, we do know for a fact that planets and stars do not form in a day, which puts a crimp in your "seven literal days," theory right from the start.

Again The creation account was given from a centeralized Garden perspective. If God sat you down in the middled of what would be the Garden of eden at the end of day 6 this is what you would have saw in the order you saw it. Does it mean that other things did not happen before or since? no. It means if you saw if you were in the Garden this is what you would have seen.

But that's got nothing to do with evolution, though. That's cosmology. In terms of evolution, your biblical account simply does not match with the fossil record no matter how far back we go. To begin with, we see evidence of human cultures well before your claim that the fall of man happened 6,000 years ago.All over the earth, there are cultures older than that, and we can demonstrate that they were there with ease.

Again evolved man (man NOT made in the image of God/Man without a soul) lived and worked outside the garden. Man without a soul is still physically 100% Homo sapeian. The soul is a the Spiritual element of our existance. Souls are not needed to physically exist. Man out side the Garden existed and did what men do 10's of thousands of years before the fall. Only Adam was recorded as being given a soul, which he passed down to his children.

Secondly, our evolutionary lineage from ape ancestors to man is very well plotted, as shown in this list of human transitional fossils. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that man was created whole in the garden; we simply demonstrably were not.

Again, Adam was the only one created by God, Eve was produced from Adam in the Garden. Evolved man/Man without a soul developed from the slim or monkies or fish, or birds or dinsaurs or anything else you like. outside the garden for bazillions of years till at the end of your established lineage you come up with Homosapeian. Which is how/why God created Adam as He did. He knew the evolutionary progress of man, would coinside with time of the Fall of Adam from grace. That way when they were expelled from the garden they could adapt to life outside the garden and pass of the the gift/soul to their offspring.

So, evolution and a literal reading of genesis are at odds. That's just the way it is.

Appearently you did not read my thread very well, or you are so hung up on what you think christianity says your not willing to open your mind to any other possiable christian theories.

If you were open minded you would have exposed yourself to some biology textbooks, and never would have resorted to that idiotic "evolved from slime" canard.

All evolved life on this planet started out as single celled organisms which had to be suspended in water. (Which makes slime) Maybe you should take your own advise, and stop assuming that I don't know what I am talking about just because I choose not to package information in the same what you were taught to expect to see it. True knoweledge and wisdom comes from knowing a subject well enough to not confine yourself to the traditional understandings of it.