Adam's Creation

[packsaddle]

God created humans by the process of evolution and Genesis 2-3 is an allegory meant to teach theological truths, not scientific ones.

thanks for your opinion!

 

[MartinM]

And give me a break about the typo, people. It's like the Gistapo around here.

Gestapo.

 

[Mekkala]

Creationism is a scientific theory. It was the accepted theory from 1700 - 1831. It is a falsified theory. But being falsified does not remove a theory from science. It simply moves it from the short list of currently valid theories to the very long list of falsified theories.

It never was a scientific theory, because it was not arrived at by the scientific method. There are many statements and worldviews regarding science that are commonly mistaken for scientific theories, but are not in fact any such thing.

For example, Aristotle's reasoning that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects was never a scientific theory. It was, at best, an hypothesis that, when eventually tested, was immediately falsified. It was never a theory.

Same with creationism. It was an hypothesis that for many centuries was never tested. When we finally were able to examine the evidence and test it, it was immediately falsified, and so never became a scientific theory in the first place. To qualify as a theory, an hypothesis must undergo and survive rigorous testing. An untested hypothesis cannot be called a scientific theory in any sense.

 

[Mekkala]

I'm somewhat surprised to find that the self-righteous, self-egradizing tones so common in the Christian posts have found their homologs here. It is simply ignorant to say that theorizing is specific to science alone. As you may or may not know, what we know today as science grew out of philosophy, and up until the turn of the last century, scientists were called natural philosophers. Any theory is valid--that is part of the scientific process. I could theorize that we dropped out of the sky, and I would have a valid theory to test. Your somewhat arrogant claim on any valid search for truth, spiritual or scientific, weakens your position as a scientist, because you then don't require religion to use the same standards as other ideas and theories.

And give me a break about the typo, people. It's like the Gistapo around here.

You would not have a scientific theory. You would have a scientific hypothesis.

 

[LightBearer]

I believe the Bible account is pure allegory. Adam & Eve are archetypes for man and woman. They were not real people.

So where in the list below does it change from historical to allegorical characters. Please point the name where the change takes place.

Luke 3:23-38 Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,
of Joseph,
[son] of He´li,
24 [son] of Mat´that,
[son] of Le´vi,
[son] of Mel´chi,
[son] of Jan´na·i,
[son] of Joseph,
25 [son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
[son] of A´mos,
[son] of Na´hum,
[son] of Es´li,
[son] of Nag´ga·i,
26 [son] of Ma´ath,
[son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
[son] of Sem´e·in,
[son] of Jo´sech,
[son] of Jo´da,
27 [son] of Jo·an´an,
[son] of Rhe´sa,
[son] of Ze·rub´ba·bel,
[son] of She·al´ti·el,
[son] of Ne´ri,
28 [son] of Mel´chi,
[son] of Ad´di,
[son] of Co´sam,
[son] of El·ma´dam,
[son] of Er,
29 [son] of Jesus,
[son] of E·li·e´zer,
[son] of Jo´rim,
[son] of Mat´that,
[son] of Le´vi,
30 [son] of Sym´e·on,
[son] of Judas,
[son] of Joseph,
[son] of Jo´nam,
[son] of E·li´a·kim,
31 [son] of Me´le·a,
[son] of Men´na,
[son] of Mat´ta·tha,
[son] of Nathan,
[son] of David,
32 [son] of Jes´se,
[son] of O´bed,
[son] of Bo´az,
[son] of Sal´mon,
[son] of Nah´shon,
33 [son] of Am·min´a·dab,
[son] of Ar´ni,
[son] of Hez´ron,
[son] of Pe´rez,
[son] of Judah,
34 [son] of Jacob,
[son] of Isaac,
[son] of Abraham,
[son] of Te´rah,
[son] of Na´hor,
35 [son] of Se´rug,
[son] of Re´u,
[son] of Pe´leg,
[son] of E´ber,
[son] of She´lah,
36 [son] of Ca·i´nan,
[son] of Ar·pach´shad,
[son] of Shem,
[son] of Noah,
[son] of La´mech,
37 [son] of Me·thu´se·lah,
[son] of E´noch,
[son] of Ja´red,
[son] of Ma·ha´la·le·el,
[son] of Ca·i´nan,
38 [son] of E´nosh,
[son] of Seth,
[son] of Adam,
[son] of God.

 

[Debaser]

So where in the list below does it change from historical to allegorical characters. Please point the name where the change takes place.

Oh, oh, me first!

Adam,
[son] of God.

I think it is this one. Do I get a prize?

 

[cabrown]

Gestapo.

Mwhahaha. A clever trap, laid to drive home my point about OCD forum participants. You feel right into it, you silly man. Again, I laugh at your folly. Mwhahaha. (No, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I can't spell and never use a spell-checker. Nothing at all.)

 

[LightBearer]

Oh, oh, me first!



I think it is this one. Do I get a prize?

So what you are saying is that they are all historical characters up to and including Seth the son of Adam but not Adam.

You accept the son of Adam is historical but his Father is an allegory.

Yes you get a prize, a booby prize. Doh!!!

 

[Philosoft]

So what you are saying is that they are all historical characters up to and including Seth the son of Adam but not Adam.

You accept the son of Adam is historical but his Father is an allegory.

Seth wouldn't be the only historical figure to have falsely claimed divine birth (or nearly so).

 

[LightBearer]

Seth wouldn't be the only historical figure to have falsely claimed divine birth (or nearly so).

Where?

 

[Philosoft]

Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, numerous Pharaohs...

For starters.

 

[LightBearer]

Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, numerous Pharaohs...

For starters.

I meant, where did Seth claim Divine birth?

 

[Philosoft]

I meant, where did Seth claim Divine birth?

Oh. It's not exactly the same, granted, but the principle is similar.

 

[Debaser]

So what you are saying is that they are all historical characters up to and including Seth the son of Adam but not Adam.

No. That pretty strawman is entirely your own work.

You accept the son of Adam is historical but his Father is an allegory.

No. I accept that people have parents, I have observed this. What I don't accept is that Adam's daddy was a vengefull, cloud dwelling diety in dire need of a shave. Therefore, I tend to believe the whole thing is allegorical.

Yes you get a prize, a booby prize. Doh!!!

Don't tell my girlfreind.

 

[LightBearer]

No. That pretty strawman is entirely your own work.



No. I accept that people have parents, I have observed this. What I don't accept is that Adam's daddy was a vengefull, cloud dwelling diety in dire need of a shave. Therefore, I tend to believe the whole thing is allegorical.



Don't tell my girlfreind.

So you accept Adam as a historical character as listed in the Bible geneology. Fine.

 

[Jet Black]

So you accept Adam as a historical character as listed in the Bible geneology. Fine.

did he say that?

 

[Debaser]

So you accept Adam as a historical character as listed in the Bible geneology. Fine.

No. I accept Adam as a character as listed in the Bible geneology.

 

[packsaddle]

So where in the list below does it change from historical to allegorical characters. Please point the name where the change takes place.

there are many ways to expose the absurdity of the theistic evolutionist's position.

this is merely one of them.

when called to the carpet regarding biblical truths, their domino theory of lies is set into motion.

one of my favorite pasttimes is to watch these theistic evos scurry, lying to cover previous lies, in a feeble attempt to harmonize a flawed theory of a fallible man (pope charlie) with the absolute truths revealed through scripture from an infallible God.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

one of my favorite pasttimes is to watch these theistic evos scurry, lying to cover previous lies, in a feeble attempt to harmonize a flawed theory of a fallible man (pope charlie) with the absolute truths revealed through scripture from an infallible God.

One of my favorite pasttimes is watching Christian-zealot-whackos who know nothing about science or evolution spew nonesense such as this. Pope Charlie? Gimme a break. If time travelers went back and eradicated Darwin at his birth, I doubt the scientific theory of biological evolution would look much different at this point, and creationism would still be a falsified and invalidated theory.

How do you know that God is infallible? Because the scriptures say he is? How can we believe what the scriptures say about Him? Because God dictated them, and he is infallible? Anyone else see any problems with this logic?

Faith is wonderful, but it's all you have here, packsaddle. I've never even seen evidence that He exists, so it would be jumping the gun to objectively evaluate his fallibility. You can't comment on either point really, unless you rely on the circular reasoning that you use to come to your other conclusions.

 

[LightBearer]

No. I accept Adam as a character as listed in the Bible geneology.

I see your position now. Sorted.

Regards.
LB