Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Tonus]

Very simply put, I point out their is no time line between the creation of man and the fall of man.

This may be the first time I've seen the 'god of the gaps' argument used to paper over a gap in the Bible. I find it amusing.

[Drich]

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

Honestly I work very hard to mirror the effort and the intensity of those who I interact with. Some times I have off days and I just feel like being an ass. but most of the time I want those I speak with to see in me what I see in them. So if something like what you said is indeed said i can point back to their own behaivor.

I do this till i get the feel of people and then once the dance/measurement of manhood period is complete we can get to the business a normal discourse.

'New guys' generally feel like they have something to proove, so they push really hard. most of them look to be pushed back in a certain way. when I (can) push back it tends to be focoused on their pride. To see who/what this person is made of. (Is this person worth a tremoundous effort, or are they just looking for a fight.) Time is the only true way to measure someone, but picking a fight with someone who maybe looking for one will help me get a pretty good idea.

If that makes me a prick, then it serves two purposes. It helps me not to throw pearls of wisdom before swine, and it gives a certain type of member here the antagonist they are looking for. win/win.

[Psykhronic]

I don't think Zazzy has done anything to warrant your prickness, is all.

[Zazzy]

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.

I am interested in discussing whether or not your idea works in the framework of available evidence. If you aren't, OK. It would have been an interesting thought exercise. I wish you would see that I'm doing the opposite of dismissing you- I'm taking it seriously enough to look at from a scientific perspective.

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.

I don't care what you believe, and I'm not asking you to put aside your faith. I'm asking you to examine your idea scientifically, because it's a claim about how things have happened in the natural world. Your sneering isn't necessary- you can just say you don't wish to have that conversation, and then you can argue Scripture with someone else.

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)

We haven't had the conversation because you keep refusing to have it, so I don't know if you can reconcile it with scientific evidence or not. I haven't heard your arguments. It seemed at the beginning as if you wished to examine it scientifically, but you keep sliding away from that.

feel free to come back and re-express the 'genuine intrest' you told me about, that has seemingly since disipated.

Your sneering tone aside, I still find it genuinely interesting and would enjoy discussing it in light of scientific evidence. I actually think you could make a stab at it if you tried.

[Drich]

---

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.)

As Mentioned above they were Homo sapieans.

The bible does not say.

As from the passage above yes. outside the garden

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.

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.

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.

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

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.



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.

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

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


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


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!

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

---

---

...And what are cells made of?

You think they are made from slime?

How's the hunt for the garden going?

You can just say I dont know.

Then I would say Protoplasm.

then I would ask if you seen Ghost busters? Then ask do you remember 'SLIMMER" If yes, I'd ask if you remember what was he supposed to be made of?

Then when you think I've gone off an committed some terriable error of logic, and have sinned against science by referencing a movie. I pop you with reference material that says protoplasm is basically slime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplasm

thus justifying the movie quote and my orginal assertion. "That all life evolved from slime" underscoring the fact that I indeed know what I am talking about even though I did not package what I know in a format you have been trained to look for. Which should get you to think about who really knows more about what you believe.

---

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.

I am interested in discussing whether or not your idea works in the framework of available evidence. If you aren't, OK. It would have been an interesting thought exercise. I wish you would see that I'm doing the opposite of dismissing you- I'm taking it seriously enough to look at from a scientific perspective.

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.

I don't care what you believe, and I'm not asking you to put aside your faith. I'm asking you to examine your idea scientifically, because it's a claim about how things have happened in the natural world. Your sneering isn't necessary- you can just say you don't wish to have that conversation, and then you can argue Scripture with someone else.

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)

We haven't had the conversation because you keep refusing to have it, so I don't know if you can reconcile it with scientific evidence or not. I haven't heard your arguments. It seemed at the beginning as if you wished to examine it scientifically, but you keep sliding away from that.

feel free to come back and re-express the 'genuine intrest' you told me about, that has seemingly since disipated.

Your sneering tone aside, I still find it genuinely interesting and would enjoy discussing it in light of scientific evidence. I actually think you could make a stab at it if you tried.

Good!

You have an understanding of my core belief here so let proceed. any other questions?

[Zazzy]

Good!

You have an understanding of my core belief here so let proceed. any other questions?

Excellent.

If you are willing to look at this scientifically, I'll ask again: are we in agreement that the Bible is outside of science and that we will do this using available scientific evidence? Or do we disagree? This is not a trap, and not an attempt to get you to abandon your faith. It's what religious scientists do all the time when they are in the lab, looking at evidence. They aren't abandoning faith; they're just not using it to argue why they got a result they got.

And speaking of traps, I'm also not interested in the ad hoc argument. In a scientific discourse, modifying one's position is necessary and expected when confronted with evidence that doesn't square. Since I'm a scientist and you're not, I expect I will point out things you didn't know, and if you need to modify your position based on those things, I'm not going to claim that it's dead. This is the way such discussions proceed if they are to be useful.

[max-greece]

"Which should get you to think about who really knows more about what you believe."

Oh obviously you do - I mean it stands to reason doesn't it. You have God to help you on your side and I only have a lack of delusions.

As it happens I wouldn't have gone for slime - I'd have gone for a variety of chain molecules including proteins, starches and some nucleic acids all in a primarily water based fluid - but obviously I don't know.

I could have gone on to describe the structures of those singled celled creatures (maybe because I studied Biotechnology at university) but then I would have had to ask you some questions about the cell types under discussion and you would have thought I was showing off (like prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells).

Still slime is OK I suppose - but it wouldn't get you though higher education.

[tokutter]

I don't think Zazzy has done anything to warrant your prickness, is all.

Zazzy's questions are starting to box Drick in......what happens when you start cornering an animal(not saying Drick is an animal).....out comes the teeth and claws


.

[Zazzy]

Zazzy's questions are starting to box Drick in......what happens when you start cornering an animal(not saying Drick is an animal).....out comes the teeth and claws

It's not my intention to box him in, only to get him to examine this idea fully. He already believes evolution occurred (yet oddly, he still manages to be a creationist), so he's not the enemy. It's a pretty novel idea, and I'd like to see what he comes up with to support it. Usually creationists are way less creative than this.

[Esquilax]

It's not my intention to box him in, only to get him to examine this idea fully. He already believes evolution occurred (yet oddly, he still manages to be a creationist), so he's not the enemy. It's a pretty novel idea, and I'd like to see what he comes up with to support it. Usually creationists are way less creative than this.

Unfortunately, boxing in is really the only thing one can do with a problem like Drich, especially on an issue like this one. The trouble is that he has absolutely no scientific evidence for the assertion he's made, just a gap in the bible he can try to fit the wealth of current scientific knowledge into. But it's like trying to fit a full grown man into a condom; eventually something will snap and he'll be left embarrassed, irritated, and possibly covered in lubricant.

Otherwise, I congratulate you on the level headed way you've approached this, and I'll admit to some interest in how this particular condom will end up breaking.