Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Drich]

Dude, I already posted the definition in my second post. Why do you think I need to be taught what it means?

because you have yet to use the term according to the actual definition. again to Ad Hoc means to add to a theory. You have insisted I added to evolution or to the creation account and I have not.

I simply point out that the current YEC understanding of creationism is not biblically supported.

Let's break it down:
ad hoc: the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified.

extraneous: irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with.
hypotheses: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation
theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained
falsified: proven (a statement or theory) to be false

Are we clear on those definitions? Let's test them against your post:

Why not simply test the AD Hoc definition against the core theory? The one that says all of these other things I ad hoc-ed are possiable now?

Where is your proof of this? Where in the Bible does the term "monkey" ever come up? That sounds like a hypothesis to me. There is no Biblical foundation. If I am wrong, quote me the scripture that talks about "monkey man."

Your either intentionally moving the goal posts or you have ignored context for content.

At the fall Adam's eternal existence with God died as promised in Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

I know how you'll defend this. You'll say "it means that he will now be mortal and subject to death." Nope. That's not what it means. It means that if he eats the fruit, he dies. It says "For in the day..." not "in 930 years (or days)."

He did die. His mortal life ended that day and God gave him a new life. His Chaya ended and he was given chay. Chaya= eternity Chay=930 years.

When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.
Genesis 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

At this point Adam's immortality ended and his clock started on his 930 years. These were all of the days He spent on THIS Earth. (not the Garden/Presents of God/Heaven)


How do we know they were immortal in the Garden with God? because of Genesis 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

Amongest those trees was the tree of life. What did the tree of life do?

Genesis 3:22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

All Biblical speculation.

lol. Why eat a forbidden fruit if there are other new 'experiences' to be had?
The only logical reason Adam and Eve were even in proxcimity to the tree of knowledge in a 'garden the size of North America is because they were bored. They had been every and seen and done everything except the one thing that was forbidden.

Not ad hoc, but totally un-provable.

Unlike the evolution account in general or even the THEORY of evolution? because as we all know both orgins accounts are well documented and completely supported with absolute undisputiable proof and nothing new can ever be added or taken away.

Did you know the Jews were never in Egypt? There is absolutely no record anywhere on this Earth - except the errancy-filled Bible - that the Jews were ever there. How does that affect your counting of generations?

Did you know this is considered a non-sequitor? that despite whether your statement is true or not your using this statement to try and evoke an emotional response in order to try and change the focous of the subject? Which I guess is a bit of a red herring

So you admit fossil records are undeniable? Good job!

I did not say any of the current theories that explain the fossil record are accurate, I simply said one can not deny fossils exist.

But you're saying they are obviously implied in the Bible?

where did I say that? Fail! ad hoc!

Again, find me the word "monkey-man" in the Bible. Find me the word "evolution." Can't do it? Then maybe this theory of yours has no Biblical merit.

Again it does not seem that you comprehend my theory at all. One last time. My theory simply states that there is no documented or implied time line between the end of a literal 7 day creation period, and the fall of man.

The rest of what I have to say is just one possiable way as to how the two orgins accounts could come together if there was indeed no time line between end of creation and the Fall.

Maybe it is changing what the Bible originally meant because, to use your phrase, the undeniable fossil record shows that how man understood the Bible for 4000 years doesn't work.

There is a lot about how man understands the bible and believes about God to be wrong. That is why we are told to question all things and to hold onto what is good.

The facts prove it. Your ideas are extraneous (irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with). Evolution is totally unrelated to creationism, unless changes are made to the idea of creation.

:} prove it.

That is your opinion. I think I did a pretty good job.

But, you failed. You did not even address the theory I presented here. In fact it does not even seem like you understand the core theory here. So that begs the question 'how can you refute it.'

If I had a doctorate in human history, I'd really kick your butt. Alas, I am just a pretty damn smart atheist.

Indeed you are...
Probably the 'smartest atheist' who ever tried to argue my theory without even comprehending let alone address it's primary component.