Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

The monkey men must have evolved to men without souls?

souls have nothing to do with intellegence. Chimps can learn to do just about everything we can, and no one will dispute the are a lessor primate. And it is safe to say they are without souls. So why not evolved man?

They sound like they evolved advanced enough to create the land of Nod and produce a wife for Cain. No?

yes

Which Gen story are ya going with? Adam first then rib woman or both at the same time?

i wasn't aware of a second one.

Your version almost sounds like genetic manipulation from extra terrestrials from a galaxy far far away.

Why? Because it doesn't hold to the picture of God your use to? Who says that picture was right to begin with?[/quote]

---

I don't understand that sentence in bold means. Maybe you can rephrase it? I do agree that Adam's lifespan could be measuring only those years after he left the Garden of Eden.

the core of the theory simply says their is not Time line between the last day of creation and the fall of man. This can not be disputed biblically as there is no time line listed. That means it could have been an hour or it could have been a day a year or million of years or even billions of years.
Bottom line is we don't know. This means God could have kept them in the garden as long as it took for evolution process to happen.

O.k. So when homo-monkeyus mates with homo-gardenus, is the offspring in the image of God (i.e. having a soul)? You might be able to combine this idea with your belief in predestination. Those of us who can't seem to make Christianity work are simply soulless, biological robots - homo-monkeyus.

that's wicked awesome! homo-monkeyus and homo-gardenus..
Actually that is where Noah's ark comes in. It bottle necks man kind, meaning after the ark homo-monkeyus was all washed up, and all was left was homo-gardenus.

In short we all have souls because ultimatly we are all defendants of noah.

O.k. so you're saying that many years after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, it became a desert, and the spiritual beings were no longer needed to keep humans from returning?

im saying the desert is that flaming sword, and the Angels keep that place a desert so it doesn't become a garden again.

Also I'm curious about the 7 days of creation described in Genesis 1. I suppose the man described in Genesis 1 is just the soulless homo-monkeyus?

we know that is not true because in Genesis 2 where We have been given greater detail we are told God breathed a living soul into Adam.

I don't see how you can read this literally, because paleontology says it took billions of years. Maybe if you imagine God moving at relativistic speeds, but why would he dictate a story for humans using times measured in a different reference frame from Earth?

i state in the OP that as per the creation account God created the garden and everything in it apart from the rest of the planet. He created the garden to reflect what earth looked like at the time of the fall so A&E would be acclimated to life outside the garden.
So to recap, God made the garden and man modern, and let the rest of the world evolve, because that's how long it would take for A&E to fall from grace.

I think the creation stories are much richer if you understand the context of the Near Eastern religious cosmology instead of trying to shoe-horn them into our current scientific cosmology.

You just need to be open minded enough to see that they do indeed fit together, if you aren't bent on keeping them seperate.[/quote]

---

No. The bottom line is that you worship a god you say dishes out cancer in order to force people to worship him.

is your reading comperhension as bad as you are claiming mine to be? Or can you show me Where I said this?

You worship a god who you allege meted out the death sentence to every human being in history for the "sins" of the first two.

again I am quite sure I have never said this either. Matter of fact I have pointed out the the doctrine of ' orginal sin' is not biblical. So again is this your failed reading comperhension or can you actually quote me.

You worship a god you demands collective punishment, the murder of innocents, and will forgive the worst evils i exchange for a promise of worship.

can you provide BCV to support this claim?

You worship a god claiming to be perfectly merciful, yet created hell. You worship a god who acknowledges having created evil, but who refuses to take responsibility for such an evil act.

That is the bottom line. This horseshit about how many days passed between creation and the day your god sentenced every human to death for the "sins" of two of them, is, well, horseshit.

I'd advise you to stop shoveling it.

I have seen you twist my words and the bibles words to make your Arguement work. What does this say about your arguement when you have to bend the truth to drive your points? It says either you fail to relay an accurate account of the message, or you yourself don't understand it.

Maybe if you weren't so blinded by hate you could see your way to the truth once and a while.

---

You always have to giggle when they use the disingenuous assertion that we have "faith in science."

Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falisify the claim that the norse god Loki was able ot assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works...unlike the religious leaders who base it on a superstitious fictional book put together and sold to the masses. greatest scam ever pulled on mankind.

Your confusing applied science and fringe/theoretical science. The rules and proofs of applied science doesn't apply to the fringe science used in the scientific theory of orgins. For one to say fringe science has the same stablity and reliability as applied science takes a lot more faith than it seems your willing to admit to.