Oh JOY, the wonders of being completely ignored.
Did you even read what I read, Calypsis4?
Well, I’m going to respond, even if you didn’t, and don’t, for outdoor_engineer’s benefit.
He needed to be given reasons why creationism is a legitimate topic of scientific discussion to begin with. I gave him some solid reasons.
No, you didn’t. What you gave him were 3 reasons, only one remotely dealing with evolution, that science is wrong. Your three reasons were all wrong. This includes the one that dealt with evolution.
You gave him 3 anti-science incorrect statements. This shows NOTHING about creationism being a legit science topic. Even if evolution were shown to be 100% utterly totally completely wrong, it would not endorse creationism ONE BIT.
To show creationism to be scientific, you need to showcase positive claims with evidence that creationism has made. Attacking evolution is a negative claim. Negative claims to one topic are not positive claims to another.
I would say us ‘heretics’, ‘skeptics’, and ‘troublemakers’ have done him more of a service by telling him what would need to be done rather than feeding him false information and telling him it’s what he needs.
Secondly, if Adam was the first in Jesus family tree according to Luke (3:38) then the Genesis account is true and evolution is a total myth. If that is not true then Jesus family tree as mentioned by Luke is worthless and we can't trust the gospel.
Yes, because if something can’t be read with the significance YOU expect it to have, it’s completely wrong and so is the entirety of Christ’s message.
No, those who read the plain spoken words of the Savior about the creation (in fact ALL that Moses wrote is true, according to Him) are guilty of heresy and unbelief.
Wait a sec, so if we read the plain spoken words we are guilty of heresy and unbelief? What? So how are we supposed to read the Gospel without reading His plain spoken words...? I think you wrote that sentence wrong.
He was not ambiguous about the creation. THere is no evolution in scripture and those who believe it defy the living God and His written account of what happened.
The two Genesis accounts were written by MOSES, a MAN. He was inspired by God, he was probably even told what to write, but nowhere does it say it needed to be interpreted LITERALLY. Sorry.
As I said before (and you roundly ignored) there is no internet, DNA, gunpowder, controllable electricity, quantum mechanics, Christian Forums, World War II, nylon, or a host of other things in the Bible. Does that mean they are untrue? After all, they aren’t in Scripture, now, are they?
The truth is you believe neither Moses nor Jesus.
Well, as long as you say ‘believing’ ACTUALLY mean ‘literally interpreting’, then yes. But believing DOESN”T mean ‘literally interpreting’, sorry.
And now to Pythons
The difficulty I have in accepting T.E. as it's generally understood is the picture painted in my mind of Adam and Eve's "parents". For T.E. "theory" to be true some type of female ape-like hominid would have been chased down and bred by a dominant male ape-like hominid of the same species. I watch enough discovery channel to connect the dots and the picture I end up with is difficult, at best to sync with the Christian faith.
I think I get what you mean. You are saying something along the lines of:
I have a hard time reconciling TE because, as evolution says, the parents of Adam and Eve would be so closely related to them there would be effectively no perceptible difference, so we would have Adam and Eve with a soul and four parent hominids that are almost indistinguishable from them without a soul.
Is that right?
If it is, well, I don’t have an answer for you. But God being omnipotent means He could surely do it. And His ways are high above our ways. And perhaps it wasn’t just Adam and Eve, perhaps it was their ‘group’ (clan/tribe/whatever). After all, IIRC, Adam means simply either ‘man’ or ‘a man’. And we must remember the entire thing is one huge theological lesson, so the idea of ONLY two humans existing at one time that we get from the literal words may not be correct.
My suggestion is to find the most solid "proof" for both sides and put them against each other and if it comes down to a matter of faith stick with the one that elevates Christ the most.
Yes, take the scientific predictions and evidences of each and see which explains more of the evidence, is in tune with more of the evidence, etc.
EXCEPT. Creationism doesn’t have anything. Calypsis4 tried to give some earlier, but all it was was attacks on evolution. *shrug* Well, actually, only one even remotely dealt with evolution, it was just attacks on SCIENCE.
Metherion
