Adam's Creation

[packsaddle]

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.

ahhhhhh, standard evolutionary rhetoric......."whackos", "zealots", etc.

sounds like ad hominems to me, not to mention libel, slander, and defamation of character.

is that all you've got?

where is the moderation on these forums anyway?

indeed, faith IS wonderful.

the question is: in what, or in whom, do you put your faith?

I choose to put my faith in the biblical God, absolute truths, the fundamental laws of logic and reasoning, etc.

you choose naturalism and determinism.

now, regarding the authenticity of scriptures, that would be an entirely separate discussion, involving various archaeological evidences, eyewitness testimonies (admitted as valid evidence in a court of law btw), etc.

the bottom line is that certain truths must be grounded in something.

regardless, this topic is about adam and eve and theistic evolution and biblical revelation.

unfortunately, you appear unqualified to discuss these issues at this time.

thanks for playing though.

 

[Sheseala]

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,
<long geneology>

CHeck out the meaning of names for the first set of people. It's a message, if I remember right.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Lightbearer - you're denying the bible! You're saying this lineage is false:
record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[1] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

How can you say that that lineage is false, you bible denier?

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Ad hominem attacks? Libel? Slander? Lack of moderation?

What do you call this?!?!?!?

one of my favorite pasttimes is to watch these theistic evos scurry, lying to cover previous lies

You sir take hypocrisy to a new level.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

screwed up post. will try later.

 

[packsaddle]

You sir take hypocrisy to a new level.

actually, I have empirical evidence to support my claims.

once again, this is an issue regarding theistic evolutionists, absolute truths, and biblical revelation.

one must first accept certain biblical truths before a logical discussion can take place.

if you're interested, send me a pm and we can arrange for a formal debate regarding the validity, or lack thereof, of theistic evolution.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

I'm don't hold to thestic evolution so no thanks. But I do have a question, exactly what are these certain truths that have to be agreed to before discussion can begin? Do you set the parameters of what these certain truths are?

 

[Ishmael Borg]

ahhhhhh, standard evolutionary rhetoric......."whackos", "zealots", etc.

sounds like ad hominems to me, not to mention libel, slander, and defamation of character.

You must have forgotten your comment about theistic evos (feeble, lie-covering, scurrying...).

is that all you've got?

Considering that you have NOTHING, it should be enough.

where is the moderation on these forums anyway?

I don't have any more to fear from them than you do.

now, regarding the authenticity of scriptures, that would be an entirely separate discussion, involving various archaeological evidences, eyewitness testimonies (admitted as valid evidence in a court of law btw), etc.

I was commenting on lack of evidence for God's existence and infalliblity. Archaeology won't help you there. Do courts accept millenia-old, dubiously recorded eyewitness accounts of supernatural claims?

unfortunately, you appear unqualified to discuss these issues at this time.

thanks for playing though.

Your assessment of my qualifications means little to me.



Edited for 'flame' content by I. Borg at mod's "suggestion" 4/16 09:40 est.

 

[ThePhoenix]

actually, I have empirical evidence to support my claims.

Could you perhaps for once present some of this emperical evidence instead of claiming it exists loudly? "I have here a list of 26 known problems with evolution!"

 

[packsaddle]

You must have forgotten your comment about theistic evos (feeble, lie-covering, scurrying...), you hypocrite.

Considering that you have NOTHING, it should be enough.

I don't have any more to fear from them than you do, hypocrite.

I was commenting on lack of evidence for God's existence and infalliblity. Archaeology won't help you there. Do courts accept millenia-old, dubiously recorded eyewitness accounts of supernatural claims? You better re-think your silly arguments.

Your smugness is only exceeded by your ignorance. Your assessment of my qualifications means little to me, hypocrite.

wow!

now THAT'S eloquent!

I guess if it weren't for ad hominems, evos wouldn't have anything to say.

alas, I digress.

 

[ThePhoenix]

wow!

now THAT'S eloquent!

I guess if it weren't for ad hominems, evos wouldn't have anything to say.

alas, I digress.

You can't digress, you need to have actually said something to digress from to do that.

 

[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.

Please good sir, in a gentlemanly manner, support your accusation that theistic evos scurry and lie.

Thank you.

 

[JohnR7]

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

Why would the allegory keep them from being real people? Is God not powerful enough to make a allegory out of a story about real people?

 

[fromdownunder]

Is this "revive ancient thread week", or is it an attempt to provide evidence for resurrection?

Norm

 

[JohnR7]

Is this "revive ancient thread week"

What is the problem with the revival of old threads?

 

[fromdownunder]

What is the problem with the revival of old threads?

Did I say that there was a problem? Well, I just re-read my post, and I didn't see anything that I wrote that was along those lines at all.

Norm

 

[Freodin]

What is the problem with the revival of old threads?

One problem is the fact that many of the people participating in the old thread are no longer on this board.

Adressing a question to a statement made more than two years ago is rather meaningless - there is not much hope for an answer.