Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Minimalist]

no, because from now till the time of adam via the jewish geneologies and records of time from Christ to Adam about 6000 years have past. Meaning It was 6000 years ago that man made in the image of God was expelled from the garden.

And then you wonder why I think you are a fucking idiot, Drippy.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Why is 6,000 years the timeframe you are working with? Is it because that is the generally accepted creationist-derived age of the universe?

no, because from now till the time of adam via the jewish geneologies and records of time from Christ to Adam about 6000 years have past. Meaning It was 6000 years ago that man made in the image of God was expelled from the garden.

I thought in another thread you said (was it you or GC?) that an indeterminate amount of time could have passed between creation of men and the fall. If it's not you then nvm.

I find your answer to be very silly anyway. Because of the unreliability of your source and the fact that they openly tell everyone they learnt about the creation through "divine revelation". Come on.

There is all sorts of proof of life- there's a whole science- Biology- based around it. Are you talking about life after death?

No what i am saying is that if there is proof of a soul, it will be found in our living. once we die the what physical proof there is will also be Gone.

This is very interesting for one reason. I once sat in a lecture (in a legit university) on traditional chinese medicine, and when the prof was explaining the Qi (lifeforce or idk what, a lot like soul, they can't really define it), she claimed that the reason they haven't found it is because it's gone after someone dies. So when you cut open the body you don't find anything.

Forgetting that we perform surgeries on live human beings everyday.

Since you said you couldn't say that souls were immaterial, does that mean you think they could have a physiological/genetic basis? Because that really would be problematic for reasons I'll get into if you like.

Possiably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

Honestly I don't know and really dont care too much. The above mentioning of the 21 grams we loose at death is what stuck in my mind good bad or indifferent.

the 21 grams presupposes that whatever was lost was the soul. I actually read about all this soul thing, the published papers, etc. etc.[/quote], not convinced.

[Captain Colostomy]

The referenced 21 grams is probably just intestinal gas.

[Zazzy]

no, because from now till the time of adam via the jewish geneologies and records of time from Christ to Adam about 6000 years have past. Meaning It was 6000 years ago that man made in the image of God was expelled from the garden.

Oh. So a Biblical date. I DID ask, so I guess I deserve this reply.

If we can not agree of what proof would look like then it would be foolish for me to search for something your looking for, but can not describe.

Drich, we aren't disagreeing. You proposed something. I asked for evidence. It isn't up to me to say what that looks like. The burden is entirely on you, unless you want to play the "get out of jail free" card of faith, at which point this conversation has no purpose. I have had many experiences where I could not imagine what evidence looked like, and yet it was provided and was very convincing. Just because I cannot imagine it does not mean it is not out there. YOU have to do the intellectual work to discover it. Again, I can point you in some directions that may be useful to you if you do not know where to begin.

No what i am saying is that if there is proof of a soul, it will be found in our living. once we die the what physical proof there is will also be Gone.

I am not trying to be rude, but this makes no sense. Because we are alive, this is evidence of a soul? If you genuinely want me to understand what you are trying to communicate, you need to try to explain yourself better. I'm not big on reading between the lines.

Since you said you couldn't say that souls were immaterial, does that mean you think they could have a physiological/genetic basis? Because that really would be problematic for reasons I'll get into if you like.

Possiably.

Well, I guess you can get back to me on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

I knew this was coming. Did you read the Wiki entry at all? And regardless, please find more reliable sources than Wikipedia, which my high school students knew was an unacceptable scientific source. If you like, I can help you learn to navigate the peer-reviewed literature- it's not difficult. That is a genuine offer that will change your research life if you take me up on it.

Honestly I don't know and really dont care too much.

So are we done? If you don't care, then why are you defending your proposal? Are you just killing time on the internet? Have you engaged in a bad faith conversation with me? I've been reading other folks' claims about dishonest tactics on your part- I'd hate for them to be proven right.

This is my first engagement with a theist (other than Rayaan) on this site. PLEASE be better than this.

[Beta Ray Bill]

who says they were all one race?

Do you not know who the wives of the sons of noah were? where they settled? start reading at genesis 10. Each son and his wife repersents the orgins of an entire race of people.

As far as the details of one specific people where they come from when they did x or z I have no idea.

Think about it though after the Ark came the tower of bable and that meant that we were orginally divided by language and not skin color, which means as people paired off their gene pools got shallower. which would tend to limit thier ablity to reproduce as diversly as they did closer to the time of noah. (Which included a whole new/old, Race/Breed of humans)

You say, "we were orginally divided by language and not skin color." You have just contradicted yourself. I thought you just said the sons of the Ark were of different races, but now you say they were only different by language and not skin color until after the Tower of Babel? I do not understand.

Also, how did people pair off? The Ark killed all but a minute few family members. Did men breed with their sisters? Is that how races were made? That is not sarcasm, honest.

[Rahul]

Think about it though after the Ark came the tower of bable and that meant that we were orginally divided by language and not skin color, which means as people paired off their gene pools got shallower. which would tend to limit thier ablity to reproduce as diversly as they did closer to the time of noah. (Which included a whole new/old, Race/Breed of humans)

Hmm. Very interesting. So how does the fact that Sub-Saharan Africans have a LOT more genetic diversity than any other human population fit in? Sub-Saharan Africans actually have more genetic diversity among themselves than all other humans put together. Way more.

How does your little theory explain that?

Because the scientific theory of evolution explains it perfectly.

[Zazzy]

So how does the fact that Sub-Saharan Africans have a LOT more genetic diversity than any other human population fit in? Sub-Saharan Africans actually have more genetic diversity among themselves than all other humans put together. Way more.

How does your little theory explain that?

Because the scientific theory of evolution explains it perfectly.

Thank you for posting this info- it's a lovely story that perfectly illustrates how we know what we know about genetic diversity. If the first humans came from sub-Saharan Africa (and all evidence points to this), it makes beautiful sense that this population would show a great deal more genetic diversity than the subsequent human populations that grew out of adaptive radiation from that original group. The same is true of the wonderful history of dog evolution.

And to comment on other posts here about race: the genetics of race (especially as it relates to skin color) are very well understood. It's another user-friendly set of facts that are very easy to understand. If anyone wants to know more about either of these, let me (or Rahul, since he had the insight to post about this in the first place) know, and I would be happy to say more about it, or post links, or both.

[Drich]

I thought in another thread you said (was it you or GC?) that an indeterminate amount of time could have passed between creation of men and the fall. If it's not you then nvm.

6000 years represents the time between now and the exodus of the Garden. Not the time between the 7th day of creation and the fall of man. That time is undisclosed.

I find your answer to be very silly anyway. Because of the unreliability of your source and the fact that they openly tell everyone they lear

then why the need to question details?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I thought in another thread you said (was it you or GC?) that an indeterminate amount of time could have passed between creation of men and the fall. If it's not you then nvm.

6000 years represents the time between now and the exodus of the Garden. Not the time between the 7th day of creation and the fall of man. That time is undisclosed.

Look at what you wrote. You said between the time god created man in his image and now there's 6000 years. Just pointing out your inconsistencies to you.

I find your answer to be very silly anyway. Because of the unreliability of your source and the fact that they openly tell everyone they lear

then why the need to question details?

Gave you the benefit of the doubt? But your religion doesn't bother with details anyway. What're you asking? I'm seriously at a lost.

[Drich]

Drich, we aren't disagreeing. You proposed something. I asked for evidence. It isn't up to me to say what that looks like.

If you do not know what the evidence your looking for looks like then how will you know it when you see it?

The burden is entirely on you, unless you want to play the "get out of jail free" card of faith, at which point this conversation has no purpose.

Why do you assume I am trying to play the faith card? You asked for proof. I need to know what constitutes as proof to you.

I have had many experiences where I could not imagine what evidence looked like, and yet it was provided and was very convincing.

A man who does not know what to look for, will fall for anything.

Just because I cannot imagine it does not mean it is not out there.

Then what am I supposed to do just start presenting you with things till you 'feel good' about what you've seen?

Your asking me to help you find a dog you want but wont tell me anything about it. Am I to just start bring you random dogs? Doesn't that seem foolish everywhere besides an academic setting?
To be sent on a fools errand just look for something that may or may not be out there? in a sense I can see how that may make sense to someone who is trained to think in circles, or to someone who has been trained to only process information in a institutionalized format, but in the real world people/life does not work that way.

If one of my guys tells me that I need to provide him with X, then he needs to be ready to provide the specs and parameters of X, otherwise his request will be dismissed.

Your in this instance, your job is to define the parameters of the proof you seek when you ask for said proof. My job is to provide something that fits your parameters or concede the fact that I can not. Again one last time. if you want me to provide you with proof then tell me what you are looking for. otherwise we come to an end of this discussion.

YOU have to do the intellectual work to discover it.

Again, even if I have already done said work how would you know it even if you saw it? Are you simply relying on what 'feels right?' How is the this burden completely on me, to not only provide actual proof, but still appeal to your emotional state? What if your emotional state is out of tune with the proof provided?

Again, I can point you in some directions that may be useful to you if you do not know where to begin.

Please do. (Calling you bluff/appeal to my pride. lets see what you've got.

No what i am saying is that if there is proof of a soul, it will be found in our living. once we die the what physical proof there is will also be Gone.

I am not trying to be rude, but this makes no sense. Because we are alive, this is evidence of a soul?

No.
Alive= Soul in physical body
Dead=Soul out of body present with the Lord.

IF there is proof of soul then it will be found in the living.

As the Soul leaves when a person dies.

Which means there will be no tangable proof of a soul that resides in a man who lived 6000 years ago. Which is what you are asking for is it not?

If you genuinely want me to understand what you are trying to communicate, you need to try to explain yourself better. I'm not big on reading between the lines.

No reading between the lines here, just good ole face value common sense.

I knew this was coming. Did you read the Wiki entry at all? And regardless, please find more reliable sources than Wikipedia, which my high school students knew was an unacceptable scientific source. If you like, I can help you learn to navigate the peer-reviewed literature- it's not difficult. That is a genuine offer that will change your research life if you take me up on it.

Ever heard of a fainting goat? By sacrificing this bit-o- pride I learned you are not a evolutionary biologist as you claimed. at best your a high school science teacher who may teach evolution for a semester...

So are we done? If you don't care, then why are you defending your proposal?

My proposal has nothing to do with the nature of the soul. We are done if you insist that I be held to the tangablity of a soul. again I make no claims as to the complete nature of the soul.

Are you just killing time on the internet? Have you engaged in a bad faith conversation with me? I've been reading other folks' claims about dishonest tactics on your part- I'd hate for them to be proven right.

Then perhaps we should move on to the topic at hand rather than spend time looking for an emergency exit if the conversation gets away from you. I promise you if you get too deep I will leave this avenue open and you can dismiss the whole conversation we can have on the fact that I can't say whether or not the soul has a physical element to it or not.

This is my first engagement with a theist (other than Rayaan) on this site. PLEASE be better than this.

I think your jumping the Gun. You said you wished to discussed my proposal concerning the assimilation of evolution in the creation account, and yet you have done nothing but stall and establish an exit strategy. so Are we done with this dance, or are you wanting to continue till the end of homecoming week?

---

Think about it though after the Ark came the tower of bable and that meant that we were orginally divided by language and not skin color, which means as people paired off their gene pools got shallower. which would tend to limit thier ablity to reproduce as diversly as they did closer to the time of noah. (Which included a whole new/old, Race/Breed of humans)

Hmm. Very interesting. So how does the fact that Sub-Saharan Africans have a LOT more genetic diversity than any other human population fit in? Sub-Saharan Africans actually have more genetic diversity among themselves than all other humans put together. Way more.

How does your little theory explain that?

Because the scientific theory of evolution explains it perfectly.

Perhaps Noah was a sub-Saharan African who's sub saharan son settled with sub-Saharan wife, in the sub- Saharan part of Africa.

Not a hard answer to come up with. Hitler had a similar answer, however the skin tones swung the other way.

---

who says they were all one race?

Do you not know who the wives of the sons of noah were? where they settled? start reading at genesis 10. Each son and his wife repersents the orgins of an entire race of people.

As far as the details of one specific people where they come from when they did x or z I have no idea.

Think about it though after the Ark came the tower of bable and that meant that we were orginally divided by language and not skin color, which means as people paired off their gene pools got shallower. which would tend to limit thier ablity to reproduce as diversly as they did closer to the time of noah. (Which included a whole new/old, Race/Breed of humans)

You say, "we were orginally divided by language and not skin color." You have just contradicted yourself. I thought you just said the sons of the Ark were of different races, but now you say they were only different by language and not skin color until after the Tower of Babel? I do not understand.

Also, how did people pair off? The Ark killed all but a minute few family members. Did men breed with their sisters? Is that how races were made? That is not sarcasm, honest.

Maybe ask a question before you make an assertion.

Noah, could have been race A his wife Race A, his sons Race 'A', their wives Race B, Race C, Race D. Which would make their sons and daughters Ab, Ac, Ad, and their progeny a combination of Ab, Ac, or Ad and so on till the tower of babble. which happens in Genesis 11 (the flood ended at the end of chapter nine.) A 1000 years could have elapsed between the flood and the tower.

At this point their were several different 'races' of people all living together in this city all speaking the same language. then god confused the language. They began to form groups, now whether the groups/languages were divided by race or not is unclear. What is clear is after 5000 years of interbreeding with only those who speak a given language (give or take some intermarriages and invasions) the gene pool narrowed making those who speak a given language a 'race' of people.

So again our primary division was in language and not skin color. (Skin color came after the language barrier.)

---

6000 years represents the time between now and the exodus of the Garden. Not the time between the 7th day of creation and the fall of man. That time is undisclosed.

Look at what you wrote. You said between the time god created man in his image and now there's 6000 years. Just pointing out your inconsistencies to you.

then why the need to question details?

Gave you the benefit of the doubt? But your religion doesn't bother with details anyway. What're you asking? I'm seriously at a lost.

Again, we left the garden 6000 years ago. this does not meant the end of creation happened 6000 years ago as the R/C church originally speculated.

What I have said over and over and over again is the bible puts no time line between the end of creation and the Fall or exodus of man from the Garden.

In other words from the time Genesis 2 ends to the time Genesis 3 Begins the whole story of evolution and then some could have happened.

So when did man leave the garden?
about 6000 years ago. how do I know? Because we can trace back through the geneology of Christ to Adam and can count the generations of jews from us to Him. add all of that together and you get 6000 give or take an exceedingly long life span of two.