Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Zazzy]

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.

Now we're getting somewhere. This is what it looks like for you to give more explanation. So there were organisms made, but not by God, outside of the Garden, and they evolved into people, but were soulless. Correct?

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.

So the early hominids we see in fossil records- up to the time that H. sapiens came around- were only physically people who lacked something immaterial?

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 as soon as H sapiens was here on its own, the descendants of Adam (also H. sapiens with compatible genomes) interbred with the evolved people and gave them souls?

Have I restated your position accurately? Now, if I have misunderstood anything in my restatements, you should clarify for me so we can be on the same page. Then we can look at your data.

[max-greece]

"All evolved life on this planet started out as single celled organisms which had to be suspended in water. (Which makes slime) "

Actually it doesn't make slime. Its just water - filled with single celled organisms. Get hold of a microscope and a drop of pond water and you will get the idea.

As for your theory all you have to do now is find the garden with the cherubim at the gate and the flaming sword and you're good to go with publishing in Science, Nature or Scientific American for peer review.

[Drich]

I still don't see how, and this is because you have been non-specific about exactly how evolution could fit in.

Very simply put, I point out their is no time line between the creation of man and the fall of man. I also point out that outside of details of creation itself everything mentioned, takes place in the Garden. Basically between the four rivers that define it, God created a picture of the world that would be consistent with the evolutionary progress of man at the time of the fall.

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, 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.)

Were Adam and Eve not humans?

As Mentioned above they were Homo sapieans.

Were they RNA-based prokaryotes?

The bible does not say.

Were there other life forms elsewhere evolving at the same time?

As from the passage above yes. outside the garden

If so, how would Adam and Eve be related to or relevant to human beings?

As mentioned above God created Adam and produced Eve to reflect the evolutionary progress of Man at the time He knew the Fall would occour.
So that their children had breeding stock to populate the earth with Humans with souls.

Harsh transition from what to what?

If you were taken from this day and time and transfered to the cretaceous period, how long would you last? The transition was from garden life to outside Garden life, and if Adam lived on a diet of XYZ, and then was place in an enviorment that could only provide 123 how long would he live? The Garden was built as was man to ease the transition between a blessed existance with God to this fallen world.

What does it mean to say it "reflected the evolved world"?

Reflect means to look like. so the Garden was made to exist as the world outside the Garden at the time of the Fall of Man.

What is "the evolved world"?

The world found outside the boarders of the Garden of eden. The rest of the Planet made to 'evolve.'

That doesn't mean anything in evolutionary terms. Life on Earth has always been evolving.

Indeed, which is why in the beginning God made the Garden to look like the ever evolving world so Adam and Eve could transition into 'evolved' world.

Are you aware of how scientific discourse works? The proposer provides a clear, well-explained proposal.

Indeed. Which Is why I provided the bible verse. You need to look at this exchange not as an addendum to evolution, but as the incorperation/assimilation of evolution into another theory. your role here is to learn the other theory, not to try and make the other theory fit what you know. Which means you will have to subject yourself to the reference material I provide, not the other way round.

If the listener needs more explanation, the proposer doesn't just repeat her original proposal;

The orginal proposal was repeated because it was very clear you did not read it.

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

I am repeating myself because you did not familiarize yourself with the information provided to you.

[quote] 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?

Are you seriously that dense? YOUR THE ONE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ANYTHING Containing Scripture!!

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.

You were being dismissed because your core questions were answered in the Orginal thread. The same thread you said you were NOT going to Read because of a predudice against bible verses!

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

Your consuming my time which means someone who has Read the initial thread, and has a genuine question may not get an answer.

---

"All evolved life on this planet started out as single celled organisms which had to be suspended in water. (Which makes slime) "

Actually it doesn't make slime. Its just water - filled with single celled organisms. Get hold of a microscope and a drop of pond water and you will get the idea.

As for your theory all you have to do now is find the garden with the cherubim at the gate and the flaming sword and you're good to go with publishing in Science, Nature or Scientific American for peer review.

...And what are cells made of?

[Zazzy]

Are you seriously that dense? YOUR THE ONE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ANYTHING Containing Scripture!!

I will totally concede that you can read Scripture this way, which is why I'm not interested in Bible verses. I'm interested in how this idea squares with scientific observation. No need to shout at me when I'm trying to understand your point. Are you always this defensive?

You were being dismissed because your core questions were answered in the Orginal thread. The same thread you said you were NOT going to Read because of a predudice against bible verses!

No prejudice- just not interested because they aren't useful to scientific observation, which you clearly know, since you're trying to square your beliefs with the available evidence. Since I absolutely believe that you can read biblical passages to support your idea, can we move on from that?

Your consuming my time which means someone who has Read the initial thread, and has a genuine question may not get an answer.

Then ignore me. That would be a shame, since I am trying to give you a fair hearing.

[Drich]

Now we're getting somewhere. This is what it looks like for you to give more explanation. So there were organisms made, but not by God, outside of the Garden, and they evolved into people, but were soulless. Correct?

that is because the OP read my orginal thread.

So the early hominids we see in fossil records- up to the time that H. sapiens came around- were only physically people who lacked something immaterial?

I can't say a soul in immaterial.

So as soon as H sapiens was here on its own, the descendants of Adam (also H. sapiens with compatible genomes) interbred with the evolved people and gave them souls?

Yes

Have I restated your position accurately? Now, if I have misunderstood anything in my restatements, you should clarify for me so we can be on the same page. Then we can look at your data.

So far so good.

[Zazzy]

So far so good.

OK.

To move forward, I will reiterate that I believe you can read the Bible in such a way as to support this position, so I see no reason to argue any of your Biblical proofs. Can you accept that, or are you more interested in arguing Scriptural fine points? Are you in agreement that the Bible is outside of scientific observation, and so has no place in a discussion about whether this proposal holds up in light of available scientific evidence?

[Minimalist]

YOUR THE ONE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ANYTHING Containing Scripture!!

"Scripture" is childish horseshit, Drippy. Right up your alley.

[Drich]

So far so good.

OK.

To move forward, I will reiterate that I believe you can read the Bible in such a way as to support this position, so I see no reason to argue any of your Biblical proofs. Can you accept that, or are you more interested in arguing Scriptural fine points? Are you in agreement that the Bible is outside of scientific observation, and so has no place in a discussion about whether this proposal holds up in light of available scientific evidence?

Again this discussion is not about homogenizing the biblical account to discuss evolution. It's about assimilating the evolutionary account to fit Creation. Which I think you finally see, which is why your moving to dismiss me by introducing non essential discussion parameters into our discourse.

Hey, look I do not fault you here if I were in your shoes I would be looking for an easy way out myself. what easier way out of a discussion with a man of faith than to try and make him put his faith aside at the start of the conversation.

If and when you are feeling froggy again or can find that same zeal that you first started our conversation with (You know when you thought my theory was full of holes, that you could easily expose) feel free to come back and re-express the 'genuine intrest' you told me about, that has seemingly since disipated.

[Psykhronic]

I do not understand why you have to be such a prick, Drich.

[max-greece]

---

[quote='Zazzy' pid='510812' dateline='1380033752']
I still don't see how, and this is because you have been non-specific about exactly how evolution could fit in.

Very simply put, I point out their is no time line between the creation of man and the fall of man. I also point out that outside of details of creation itself everything mentioned, takes place in the Garden. Basically between the four rivers that define it, God created a picture of the world that would be consistent with the evolutionary progress of man at the time of the fall.

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, 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.)

Were Adam and Eve not humans?

As Mentioned above they were Homo sapieans.

Were they RNA-based prokaryotes?

The bible does not say.

Were there other life forms elsewhere evolving at the same time?

As from the passage above yes. outside the garden

If so, how would Adam and Eve be related to or relevant to human beings?

As mentioned above God created Adam and produced Eve to reflect the evolutionary progress of Man at the time He knew the Fall would occour.
So that their children had breeding stock to populate the earth with Humans with souls.

Harsh transition from what to what?

If you were taken from this day and time and transfered to the cretaceous period, how long would you last? The transition was from garden life to outside Garden life, and if Adam lived on a diet of XYZ, and then was place in an enviorment that could only provide 123 how long would he live? The Garden was built as was man to ease the transition between a blessed existance with God to this fallen world.

What does it mean to say it "reflected the evolved world"?

Reflect means to look like. so the Garden was made to exist as the world outside the Garden at the time of the Fall of Man.

What is "the evolved world"?

The world found outside the boarders of the Garden of eden. The rest of the Planet made to 'evolve.'

That doesn't mean anything in evolutionary terms. Life on Earth has always been evolving.

Indeed, which is why in the beginning God made the Garden to look like the ever evolving world so Adam and Eve could transition into 'evolved' world.

Are you aware of how scientific discourse works? The proposer provides a clear, well-explained proposal.

Indeed. Which Is why I provided the bible verse. You need to look at this exchange not as an addendum to evolution, but as the incorperation/assimilation of evolution into another theory. your role here is to learn the other theory, not to try and make the other theory fit what you know. Which means you will have to subject yourself to the reference material I provide, not the other way round.

If the listener needs more explanation, the proposer doesn't just repeat her original proposal;

The orginal proposal was repeated because it was very clear you did not read it.

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

I am repeating myself because you did not familiarize yourself with the information provided to you.

[quote] 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?

Are you seriously that dense? YOUR THE ONE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ANYTHING Containing Scripture!!

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.

You were being dismissed because your core questions were answered in the Orginal thread. The same thread you said you were NOT going to Read because of a predudice against bible verses!

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

Your consuming my time which means someone who has Read the initial thread, and has a genuine question may not get an answer.

---

"All evolved life on this planet started out as single celled organisms which had to be suspended in water. (Which makes slime) "

Actually it doesn't make slime. Its just water - filled with single celled organisms. Get hold of a microscope and a drop of pond water and you will get the idea.

As for your theory all you have to do now is find the garden with the cherubim at the gate and the flaming sword and you're good to go with publishing in Science, Nature or Scientific American for peer review.

---