Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Drich]

The only thing that needs to be 'prooved' is that there is no time indicators between the end of creation and the fall of Man. And the bible does this quite well as it is completely silent on that time frame.

What difference would it make if there were indicators? The Bible says that the time between the formation of the universe and the rise of modern man happened 13,699,999,999 years and 51 weeks faster than we know it really did, and you're willing to handwave this indicator as a metaphor. Regardless of what the Bible says or does not say, you'll simply interpret it however you want.

The people who codified your myths obviously believed that Adam died within a millennia of the universe's creation.

That's just it. The bible does not give a time line till after man leaves the garden. Man made in the Image of God, Man with a soul has only been out of the garden about 6000 years. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden. Meaning he could have possiably been in the garden as long as 'evolution' says it took to evolve from slime. If you read genesis 1 and 2 all of creation is from a garden perspective. Nothing aside from the Heavenly bodies are mentioned to be outside of Eden. leaving the rest of the world to figure things out and evolve on it's own.

---

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.

It's certainly a way to twist scripture into something resembling harmony with scientific observation, but do you personally need to do it to be happy in your religion, or is this just a thought experiment for you?

Also, I have trouble believing that first-century authors would be so coy about such important information. True, they were big on allegory, but one could apply this same logic to any of the thousands of other creation myths out there and have it work just as well. And I would say that "7 days" implies 7 days, so there does seem to be an implied time line. I would assume that the authors knew what a day was.

So do I. That is why I've acknoweledged the 7 day creation period as being a literal 7 days. But once that seven days was over it could have been trillions of eons between the end of creation and the fall of man. (which happened about 6000 years ago.) We simply do not know.

Again The creation account only records (more of less) what happenes in the Garden of Eden. I am suggesting God made Eden apart from what happens in the rest of the planet.
Eden

---

It's like "Proof" is a bad word to Christians.

Commandment 11: Thou shalt always deny the existence of proof

This whole thread was about how everything on the Earth did not have individual starting points, that everything can be broken down into simpler and simpler forms, showing that everything in existence evolved from the same source. No supreme being designed every individual thing, because it has been determined, with greater clarity than any Biblical idea, that everything in existence evolved from the same source.

Maybe this book can provide the P-word that Christians need:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time...en+hawking

or they can watch this video:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Earth-Made-His...B00126808K

Maybe those sources will provide the proof you insist I don't have. There is plenty of it out there.

I found this great quote that sums up my ideas pretty well:

"Great early scientists in the Renaissance and even later, "believed" in God and a whole lot of other things because they would be burned at the stake for saying otherwise.

There is nothing in modern science that rules out the existence of a creator. There is just no evidence for one, despite patient searching. If you are going to believe in a creator, you at least have to believe in one who went out of his way to camouflage his existence, because there is simply no evidence for it at all."

Drich, your statements are purely ad hoc, because the theories don't fit with the original Biblical stories until you change the original message of the Bible to keep it from sounding dated and out of touch with human intelligence. If you don't want to see that, then I just can't help you. I'm sorry.

This is all one big red herring arguement. None of what you have said here addresses ANYTHING Being Discussed.

It is appearent that You have Completely abandoned your orginal arguements, now that you know what is being said, and are attempting to appeal to christian sterotypes and the general disgust of your peers toward Christianity in order to try and win the arguement by popular opinion... You are like a floater circling the bowl as it is being flushed, marking up the sides of the bowl trying to stay a float. Let's see how many people reach out to your turd of an arguement and help you try and save it.