Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 1:31 am
(January 23, 2015 at 1:24 am)Drich Wrote: Why would I need to admit that the Genesis account is allegorical if it's plausible and works along side the evolutionary account?
Okay, so first of all, the Genesis account is not plausible in any respect, and it won't be until you can establish that creation ex nihilo and supernatural beings are possible, let alone extant. For something to be plausible, it needs be possible first; possibility is a necessary condition for plausibility. What you're doing here isn't just putting the cart before the horse, it's setting the cart up before the horse is even born.
Second of all, you have an extremely broad definition of "works," if your sole basis for what works is that it isn't directly ruled out by the bible. 
Quote:God seems to love using the painfully obvious and foolishly simple to show up the learned and the wise of this world.
Well, at least we both agree that you're foolishly simple. That's something. 
Quote:How much more obvious and simple can it get that because their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place?
How much more obvious and simple can it get that because "it doesn't not say that!" isn't positive evidence for a thing, your continued assertions and breathtakingly arrogant presentation just makes you look like an enormous, dripping bell end?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 2:17 am
(January 23, 2015 at 1:24 am)Drich Wrote: ... their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place? Adam was 930 bible years old (actually 930 moons or 75 years). How does this equate to 4,500,000,000 years? How we see light from 13,800,000,000 years ago? 
Change your story again. I am sure no one will notice.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 2:25 am
(January 23, 2015 at 2:17 am)IATIA Wrote: Adam was 930 bible years old (actually 930 moons or 75 years). How does this equate to 4,500,000,000 years? How we see light from 13,800,000,000 years ago?
Change your story again. I am sure no one will notice.
Oh, well, see, time travel was involved. Since the bible doesn't specifically say that time travel didn't happen in the narrative, therefore it did. That's the way Drich's argument works; he's pretty much safe to say anything he wants.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 23187
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 2:58 am
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 2:58 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 23, 2015 at 1:24 am)Drich Wrote: How much more obvious and simple can it get that because their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place?
Probably because the Earth is 4.6 BYO, while man has only been around for about 2.3 million years, as genus Homo. Pretty sure that six days doesn't equal 4.5977 billion years ... unless you're watching Robert Schuller.
There's no evidence for any genus Homo beyond that, and that conclusively kills any possible concordance between Genesis and the scientific understanding of the Earth's history.
Posts: 743
Threads: 35
Joined: December 1, 2014
Reputation:
12
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 8:14 am
(January 23, 2015 at 2:17 am)IATIA Wrote: (January 23, 2015 at 1:24 am)Drich Wrote: ... their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place? Adam was 930 bible years old (actually 930 moons or 75 years). How does this equate to 4,500,000,000 years? How we see light from 13,800,000,000 years ago?
Change your story again. I am sure no one will notice.
I believe Drich is arguing that the genealogies can start when Adam and Eve leave the Garden of Eden? So Adam lived 930 years outside the Garden of Eden and millions or billions of years inside the Garden of Eden?
Of course the simpler explanation is that Genesis is fiction. How could the Israelite slaves live in Egypt among cats and not take one cat with them when they embark on the Exodus? There is not one mention of "cat" in the Bible, and I believe Biblical archaeology has yet to find any evidence of cats in early Israel. Who would take gold when you could take a cat? Therefore the Israelites were never in Egypt. Therefore the Garden of Eden is also fiction.
Posts: 7153
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 9:31 am
(January 23, 2015 at 8:14 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: I believe Drich is arguing that the genealogies can start when Adam and Eve leave the Garden of Eden? So Adam lived 930 years outside the Garden of Eden and millions or billions of years inside the Garden of Eden? That seems to be his point. I consider it another form of the "gaps" style of arguing. Between "it doesn't say otherwise" and "it could have happened" you can fit an enormous amount of expository content into your holy book to try and paper over any holes in the narrative. This kind of reading-between-the-lines seems common; you can refer to the different cultures of the time, or the different language and language uses, or any other way of adding additional meaning than what the words just say.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 441
Threads: 12
Joined: March 1, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 11:56 am
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 12:02 pm by Davka.)
(January 23, 2015 at 1:24 am)Drich Wrote: Why would I need to admit that the Genesis account is allegorical if it's plausible and works along side the evolutionary account? You wouldn't.
But since it's not and it doesn't, your question is merely rhetorical.
Quote:God seems to love using the painfully obvious and foolishly simple to show up the learned and the wise of this world.
How much more obvious and simple can it get that because their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place?
That's not "obvious and simple," it's "desperate and convoluted."
... oh, and while we're at it:
Quote: ...because their is no timeline...
![[Image: their.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=s3.amazonaws.com%2Ftheoatmeal-img%2Fcomics%2Fmisspelling%2Ftheir.png)
Posts: 183
Threads: 7
Joined: January 13, 2015
Reputation:
11
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2015 at 4:33 pm by Roxy904.)
Honestly, Drich. I'm suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you believe in the story of Genesis. Christians (most) do believe, after all, that God impregnated a virgin with himself, who is also his son, and then proceed to order Jesus to die a painful death, for our sins, which originated from when a guy and a girl ate some fruit.
Gone
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 24, 2015 at 6:58 am
"Maybe" that is all true.
Not much of an argument is it? It gives equal weight to absolutely anything that can't be proven totally impossible. Which is an infinite collection of absurdities with no value to anyone.
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Creation/evolution3
January 26, 2015 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 10:21 am by Drich.)
(January 21, 2015 at 9:53 am)ManMachine Wrote: (January 21, 2015 at 9:06 am)Drich Wrote: 
How old do you think I am?
Plus this theory I put together must have really shaken you if you are telling I am not allowed to argue it because of what happened hundreds of years...
Before I break down your indivisual arguements I'd like a simple question answered first...
What does it matter if the Genesis account was written by more than one person? Not saying it was mind you, just want to know what victory you think you've won here? Perhaps maybe you think that if you can dispel moses wrote it the whole book some how becomes invalid?
If that's the case please explain the leap in logic.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension I am saying that this is in some way related to some kind of temporal 'sell-by date'. I'm not.
I'm telling you that this position is hypocritical, which it clearly is.
Laugh at that chuckles.
MM
Tell me then oh great 'monk' how is the murder of a man 500 years ago somehow related to a religion who's 'laws' do not support such an act?
(January 23, 2015 at 1:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: Okay, so first of all, the Genesis account is not plausible in any respect, and it won't be until you can establish that creation ex nihilo and supernatural beings are possible, let alone extant. For something to be plausible, it needs be possible first; possibility is a necessary condition for plausibility. What you're doing here isn't just putting the cart before the horse, it's setting the cart up before the horse is even born. The Genesis account is not plausible if you have preconcluded that God can not exist.
Your lack of 'evidence' is not proof of the non-existance of God.
Quote:Second of all, you have an extremely broad definition of "works," if your sole basis for what works is that it isn't directly ruled out by the bible.
The bible is a very hard mistress to 'work' for. If your honestly trying to reconcile it with a theory or principle like this one.
Quote:Well, at least we both agree that you're foolishly simple. That's something.
indeed.
Quote:How much more obvious and simple can it get that because their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place?
Quote:How much more obvious and simple can it get that because "it doesn't not say that!" isn't positive evidence for a thing, your continued assertions and breathtakingly arrogant presentation just makes you look like an enormous, dripping bell end?
Where the confusion lies is I'm not trying to force my theory onto Evolution (thus requiring your 'proof.') I am simply providing a sound biblical plausible theory for those who are trying to reconcile their faith with a fossile the church thus far can not explain in a scientifically satasfactory way.
My theory allows one to except all that science has to say and yet retain belief in a seven day creation.
(January 23, 2015 at 2:58 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: (January 23, 2015 at 1:24 am)Drich Wrote: How much more obvious and simple can it get that because their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place?
Probably because the Earth is 4.6 BYO, while man has only been around for about 2.3 million years, as genus Homo. Pretty sure that six days doesn't equal 4.5977 billion years ... unless you're watching Robert Schuller.
There's no evidence for any genus Homo beyond that, and that conclusively kills any possible concordance between Genesis and the scientific understanding of the Earth's history.
No sport what I am saying is In the beginning God literally created everything Genesis Accounts for in 7 days. Then between the last day of creation (the rest) and the fall of Man your 4.6 billion (or whatever number your precious science wants to plug into that slot) happened, then about 5000 years ago (give or take) the fall happened and Man was expelled from the garden. So yes Adam and Eve were potentially in the garden for 5 billion years, or whatever number you need to plug into that spot. (Per the tree of life which they had access to.)
That is why the tree of knoweledge was so tempting to eve. (it was the only thing left in a garden the size of 2/3's of North america that they had not done/was an unknown.)
So Again a literal 7 day creation, but a very long period between the last day of creation and the fall of man which starts the geneologies found in scripture that dates 'man with soul' to about 5000 years.
(January 23, 2015 at 8:14 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: (January 23, 2015 at 2:17 am)IATIA Wrote: Adam was 930 bible years old (actually 930 moons or 75 years). How does this equate to 4,500,000,000 years? How we see light from 13,800,000,000 years ago?
Change your story again. I am sure no one will notice.
I believe Drich is arguing that the genealogies can start when Adam and Eve leave the Garden of Eden? So Adam lived 930 years outside the Garden of Eden and millions or billions of years inside the Garden of Eden?
Of course the simpler explanation is that Genesis is fiction. How could the Israelite slaves live in Egypt among cats and not take one cat with them when they embark on the Exodus? There is not one mention of "cat" in the Bible, and I believe Biblical archaeology has yet to find any evidence of cats in early Israel. Who would take gold when you could take a cat? Therefore the Israelites were never in Egypt. Therefore the Garden of Eden is also fiction.
Maybe they took 1000's of cats... however a strictly manna diet is not the same as the meow mix needed to keep one alive.
|
