Core Message Of Christianity Isn't One Of Love

[Drich]

---

The doctrine of 'original sin' is not a biblical one.

 Get an epidural

that's not true. We all have the same opportunity everytime we are faced with the temptation of sin.

 
IDK... Maybe the same way Eddie Murphy made a 'Dunkey' talk.

Ah, no. All adam and Eve passed down was the knowledge of good and evil, the tree represented nothing more. The tree itself was not evil it only offered the knowledge of it. with knowledge comes responsibility.

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html
read the op
ah, no.. if you still think this click on the link above and re-read the op.

Oh the wonders I missed by not being a member in 2012.   Man evolved for a billion years while Adam and Eve live immortally in the garden and then God pitches them out among the  soulless "monkey men" that have been evolving meanwhile.

Every time I think I've seen the most batshit crazy apologetic yet, someone comes along and ups the ante.  Apparently Drich claims it as original:

I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly.

What do you think? I would like to refine and clean up this account of origins and start circulating it. Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything. Their standard goto the evidence only further supports the creation account at this point. This takes the account of "origins" out of the atheist arsenal for a legitmate reason they do not believe in God. While on the Atheist website because they saw the logic of this explanation many who originally greeted me with harsh words and complete disrespect started to ask legitimate questions.

 From Drich's original OP.

I like it when you all move to dismiss without addressing any points. Because it means you rather pretend to know better than to demonstrate it by pointing out logical errors.
 Just because something is new and/or original does mean it's impossible. At it's core my obversation simply states that their isn't a time line given between the end of creation and fall of man. This could have been a second or it could have been the 100 ballizion or so years 'science' says it took for evolution to happen.

We also know that the Garden while expansive was not considered to be a planet wide occourance. Their were 4 rivers that defined the garden. The bible also makes no mention of what happened outside the garden pre fall. However post fall we come to find out that their are cities. (Cain feld to one/Nod)
For community to be classified as a city a given number of people have to live there. We also know Adam and Eve did not populate a whole city between the birth of abel and his murder by his brother. Which means homo sapeian (monkey man) was active pre fall. (rome nor any other city wasn't built in a day) this observation also accounts for the spouces Adam's other children took.

The closest thing to this I ever heard was gap theory. and in gap theory it is assumed that between one of the days of creation all the scientific 'stuff' was planted in.

What I was given is not 'gap theory.' I am saying that between the end of a literal 7 day creation (which again is creation from a central point and time located from a garden perspective/because everything mention is from a singular vantage point in a linear progression of time Eg: 7 days of creation, was all from a single central garden POV) and the fall of man essentially the time span between basically genesis 2 and 3 the rest of the world was allowed to 'mutate/evolve' to catch up with what was created in the garden. then the fall happened, and A&E were expelled.