Adam & Eve Materialized on Evolved, Populated Earth

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In science a theory is as good as it gets.

Where did this idea come from ?

There is much that is provable, beyond doubt, and totally in line with God's Word.
The theories men come up with or believe, the ones opposed to God entirely, are not provable.

 

[SkyWriting]

What evolutionism does is remove original sin as well as mans sin nature from being a by-product of disobedience into an unbiblical realm of thought.
To accept evolutionism much of the bible needs to be rewritten.

The quote from above is unbiblical "at some point of maturity in human's evolution, God breathes a soul into it, and Adam becomes the self-aware"
The bible doesn't teach this. The bible teaches that sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Romans 5:12 instructs us on how sin came to spread. What is written there doesn't say a population of pre-humans evolved and God breathed a soul into the population.
Romans continues with ...For if the many died by the trespass of the one man,...then states it again....For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man,...then states it again.....Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men,...and again with ...For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners. Romans 5 has to be completely re-written.

Nothing you quoted is a problem for the populated earth view. Sin entered through Adam becasue he was the first human re-made into the image of God, which is a Spiritual transformation.
Adam received law and until that happened, could not "die" becasue humans had not yet "lived."

So Adams sin affected the whole of creation as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

Where did this idea come from ?
There is much that is provable, beyond doubt, and totally in line with God's Word.
The theories men come up with or believe, the ones opposed to God entirely, are not provable.

Anything provable
requires no Faith.
So what value is that?
God has no interest.

 

[JackRT]

Where did this idea come from ?

The idea of "no proof in science" is a widely accepted point of view in the philosophy of science.

There is much that is provable, beyond doubt, and totally in line with God's Word.
The theories men come up with or believe, the ones opposed to God entirely, are not provable.

The concept of proof applies only in mathematics, pure logic and the distillation of alcohol. There are those who believe that certain things can be proven from the Bible. However, this is a belief and not provable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The idea of "no proof in science" is a widely accepted point of view in the philosophy of science.

Even if that were correct(I don't believe it is), so what ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There are those who believe that certain things can be proven from the Bible. However, this is a belief and not provable.

Oh, I see...... take that up with YHWH then. It is His Word .

 

[JackRT]

Even if that were correct(I don't believe it is), so what ?

The "so what" is that science makes no claim to being infallible and admits that new information can absolutely destroy a theory. Most people have never even heard of Darwin's other major theory. Evidence very quickly relegated to the scientific trash heap. It is actually a great tragedy that theology cannot admit fallibility.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The "so what" is that science makes no claim to being infallible and admits that new information can absolutely destroy a theory. Most people have never even heard of Darwin's other major theory. Evidence very quickly relegated to the scientific trash heap. It is actually a great tragedy that theology cannot admit fallibility.

So what ?
Who said science is right, let alone infallible ?
Who cares about a godless theory(of men and demons) ?
Who cares about theology(of men) ?!

 

[JackRT]

Oh, I see...... take that up with YHWH then. It is His Word .

It is an assumption on your part that I have not. Your assumption is "unprovable". If I claimed that YHWH approved of my views, that would also be unprovable.

 

[JackRT]

Who said science is right, let alone infallible ?

In the final analysis the only validation of science lies in the question "Does it work?" Yes, science does work and works extremely well. It is arguably the most successful enterprise mankind has ever undertaken.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is an assumption on your part that I have not. Your assumption is "unprovable". If I claimed that YHWH approved of my views, that would also be unprovable.

YHWH does not approve of your views. That is provable. (but not on this forum due to the rules of the forum, and the worldliness thereof)
I made no assumption about anything as far as I know.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In the final analysis the only validation of science lies in the question "Does it work?" Yes, science does work and works extremely well. It is arguably the most successful enterprise mankind has ever undertaken.

In a way, very strangely, and perversely, that is correct (carnally).
As written in Galatians,
along with all the rest of society, it is pernicious (leading to death) no matter how 'successful' it is for the carnal world.

 

[JackRT]

YHWH does not approve of your views. That is provable. (but not on this forum due to the rules of the forum, and the worldliness thereof)
I made no assumption about anything as far as I know.

Your assumption is the portion of your post that I have bolded. It is completely improvable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Your assumption is the portion of your post that I have bolded. It is completely improvable.

I think I'll leave that to others to prove. (no worries, they already did).

i.e. no assumption required for you, them or me.

 

[Tolworth John]

With religion superstition can be greater than obvious fact

Not just religion that confusses fact for belief. As I've already said the belief that evolution is scientific fact is a superstition that is fact free.

The revelation that Adam and Eve, 2 incarnate celestial beings

Here you are taking your believes and reading them into scripture, instead of reading what it actualy says.

 

[Tolworth John]

Here we go again with "proof". In science a theory is as good as it gets. There is no such thing as proving a theory because to do so would require that we know everything that the theory touches on and that is obviously impossible. New information can and has resulted in existing theories having to be either modified or discarded completely. The theory of evolution is based on enormous empirical evidence and explanatory power. In 150 years nothing has seriously challenged the theory of evolution in spite of concerted efforts to do so. Taken on a worldwide basis, of all the scientists working in the earth and life sciences only 1/10th of 1% are not evolutionists.

Actually proof is a vital part of science.
Ever theory has to be demonstrated to weork, either mathmatically or practically.
So most of your reply is nonsence.

Why appeal to how many scientist belief in evolution? Is truth determined by how many people say something is true or is it determined by how well it discribes reality.

 

[Colter]

Not just religion that confusses fact for belief. As I've already said the belief that evolution is scientific fact is a superstition that is fact free.


Here you are taking your believes and reading them into scripture, instead of reading what it actualy says.

The scripture is what the authors believed in ignorance when they were written, or rather rewritten, during the Babylonian captivity. The Hebrew priest appropriated Mesopotamian lore in the construction of their own exaggerated history. That history, preserved in fragmented form, gives us a glimpse of the past in the part that they bent to fit their own agenda.

The evolution of life from primitive life forms is a fact outside of the agenda of religion.

 

[Tolworth John]

The scripture is what the authors believed in ignorance when they were written, or rather rewritten, during the Babylonian captivity. The Hebrew priest appropriated Mesopotamian lore in the construction of their own exaggerated history. That history, preserved in fragmented form, gives us a glimpse of the past in the part that they bent to fit their own agenda.

The evolution of life from primitive life forms is a fact outside of the agenda of religion.

Please justify this.
Please remember rthat analysis of words, and grammer by Prof Robert D Wilson, has shown that the OT was written in the time periods it claims to have been written and not as lesser scholars claim durring the time in babylon.

 

[jhwatts]

The first creation begins in Genesis 2:4 (KJV) and is described to take place at Genesis 1:1 (KJV), at a time in earths past before Genesis 1:2 (KJV). This is in Eden. Eden is not mentioned in the second account. The fall of man with other things that transpired then led to the placement of the deep Genesis 1:2 (KJV).

Notice Genesis 1:26 (KJV). Read it carefully. It sounds like man was already here and they are saying since he is really not all the way right, now let us make him over and do it the correct way, in our image.

Read Genesis 1:27 (KJV). It says replenish. The are to replenish the earth with the creation made the correct way.

 

[sfs]

Actually proof is a vital part of science.
Ever theory has to be demonstrated to weork, either mathmatically or practically.
So most of your reply is nonsence.

Evolution works. That's why scientists accept it.