Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Intersting! Do you recommend American Scientific Affiliation to learn about Christian views on science?
How can a theory "divorce itself" from a separate topic which was NEVER a part of the theory?
I'm amazed at (and wonder why) anybody would insist on confusing the theory of evolution with various modern-day hypotheses about abiogenesis. A scientific theory always focuses on explaining the answer to a particular question, that is, making sense out of the data surrounding a single issue. Surely any rational individual can understand the difference between:1) Explaining changes over time in life forms which already exist....versus 2) Explaining how life first came into existence.
....Somehow the only people insisting that abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution should be merged into a single........something (??)......stand outside the field of evolutionary biology [usually holding protest signs, figuratively speaking] and constantly confuse many other foundational concepts and basic scientific vocabulary.
And that's kind of interesting. Don't you think?
I have read the creeds and have no major objections to the organization I maintain my position as non-denominational.
Christians have every right to disagree on matters other than the root gospel of salvation and who Jesus Christ is. To that end God bless them.
Are you a member?
1) That tradition arose from a misunderstanding (primarily from the English translation) that HADAM meant "adult male" instead of "the human one" (or even "the red one" or "the read soil human"). In English, "man" can mean either an adult human male OR simply "humanity" or "mankind". So the confusion is understandable.
2) Traditions have also assumed that God making something implied an instantaneous action. But the wording applies equally to something involving a long period of time and many gradual processes. [Entire books and journal articles have been written on the Hebrew exegesis so I'm not going to try and reproduce it here.]
Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.So.....What was Adam? Created at some age, or just one man pulled from an Ape tribe....or what?
Originally Posted by SkyWritinghttp://www.christianforums.com/t7645240/#post60374014
Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.
R U an expert on the generations that we read about in our Bible? I have studied them extensively. I do not skip over the begats. We have more evidence that Adam was a real historical person compared to whatever opinions you have that he was not a real person. Because you do not have a shred of evidence to back up your opinion. The theory of evolution is the theory of common ancestor and common descent. Science clearly tells us that the common ancestor of the Hebrew people COULD have been Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.
One thing that Evolution, DNA and Population genetics does prove is that the genealogies or generations in the Bible are true and accurate.
What is the Hebrew word used for "ingredients"? The Bible says: "dust". Science says "elements". Sounds so very simple, but I do not think anyone is really smart enough to fully understand.1) As to "What was Adam?", the Genesis text only states that HADAM (like all other animals) was made from the ingredients to be found in soil.
How?
1) How can evolutionary processes somehow explain the "genealogies" of the Bible, especially in terms of accuracy? How can evolution tells us anything about NAMES and LIFESPANS?
You are partially correct. The Bible does not explicitly state that Adam was "a fully grown human", but it considers that fact should be known to the reader based upon the context of the text. Let us take a look at the information we can glean from the Scriptures as to whether or not Adam was a fully formed mature man, or whether it was meant to be understood as mankind.Genesis 1 and 2 do NOT state that Adam was made "a fully grown human".
1) That tradition arose from a misunderstanding (primarily from the English translation) that HADAM meant "adult male" instead of "the human one" (or even "the red one" or "the read soil human"). In English, "man" can mean either an adult human male OR simply "humanity" or "mankind". So the confusion is understandable.
.
1) As to "What was Adam?", the Genesis text only states that HADAM (like all other animals) was made from the ingredients to be found in soil.
2) Considering that humans are apes, I'm not exactly sure what he means by "pulled from an ape tribe."
I have my own speculations about his proximate "source". Where the Biblical text ends......<snip>
.
Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.
No quotes from scripture? I thought not.
There was no question asking about what one muses after they fall asleep reading.
Would a child marry? No.
I am aware of Dembski's work; a scathing attack on evolutionary biology by a mathmatician.I was hoping you might have picked up on a distinction I implied between evolution and common descent.
So evolution has divorced itself from the explanation of the origin of life giving up a comprehensive understanding of where different species originated. Thus evolution is a weak and ineffectual hypothesis.
- Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life.
- Evolution relies on common descent of previous or existing species.
- Ultimately common descent would need a UCA (universal common ancestor or ancestors).
- A UCA according to a materialistic view would have to arise from natural chemistry or natural circumstance.
Charles Darwin said:There is a grandeur in this view of life
Agreed.You may consider Dembski a wise, knowledgeable, and credible source. Most of us do not.
Forgive me if you have answered this already, I have asked but I havn't seen you answer.That is WHY I now say Science tells us that it COULD have happened the way the Bible says it did. The DNA Population Genetics Evidence clearly shows that Adam and Eve COULD have been real people that lived in the Garden of Eden in 4004 BC as Bishop Ussher talks about in his book. "The annals of the world" written back in 1650 and now in the 7 th edition. I think that is enough time has passed sense the first edition for someone - somewhere to show that something - anything in the Bishops book is not true or accurate.
In Ameria we are innocent until proven guilty. You do not have one shred of evidence to show that Adam and Eve were not real historical people that lived in the middle east in the Euphrates river valley in 4004 BC. In what Myers calls a Biodiversity hot spot.
To be sure there is clearly more then one "Eden". For example there was a biodiversity hot spot in the Yellow River Region of China. Rice and Millet does not come from the Middle East. There was no rice on Noah's Ark. Because Noah only had to save Eden, just the middle east biodiversity hot spot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?