Evolution Trumps Creationism

[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?