"The" original sin is the sin Adam did which resulted in his fall with the result of all of his progeny receiving a sin nature.
Upvote
0
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.
You still didn't answer my question that you claimed to have answer for, and that is, what is "original sin" or where does it come from?
So if he had lost a leg, that would have resulted in all his progeny having only one leg."The" original sin is the sin Adam did which resulted in his fall with the result of all of his progeny receiving a sin nature.
Having given the matter careful consideration, I do not think Genesis is an account of creation. I think it is two contradictory accounts. Check out the chronologies. They seriously co9nflict. Gen. 1 has fist animals, than man and women. Gen. 2 has fist man, then animals, then woman. The literary style is very different. Hence, I believe that 2 was written long before 1. I realize that many have tried to explain away this contradiction, but I have yet to find one that really succeeds. I believe we have to bear in mind that the ancient Hebrews saw God's major salvific revelations as occurring in history, not nature. Hence, the creation accounts are very brief, leaving out many key details. The editors butt edited these two account together, because they weren't sure which was right. And probably, they didn't care. All they were trying to demonstrate is that only the God who is the creator can save you, period. Now let's get back to history.
So if he had lost a leg, that would have resulted in all his progeny having only one leg.
Sounds logical to me.
What???
In a literal Genesis humans are perfectly created and functioning exactly as God designed, and yet were still able to sin.
I am giving you the facts. If you want to ignore them, that is your choice.
You dodged the question.
You forget...the creation fell. Hello mutations.Just for the record, that number depends on how the similarity is measured. Various methods exist.
Some will show 96% others will show 98%, etc.
However, it's always consistent accross the board. No method shows more similarity with mice then it does to other primates for example.
That would be a decend argument, if the similarity being talked about would only refer to "common blocks". But that's not accurate. What is striking is the patterns of similarities. Its hierarchical nature. That is NOT something we would expect in context of a "common creator".
Evolution explains why chickens, who don't have teeth, have DNA to build teeth.
Evolution explains why we share an enormous amount of ERV's with chimps (=which is inserted DNA as a result of an infection).
A "common creation" does NOT explain such a thing. Not at all. In fact, it only raises even more questions.
Just to illustrate....
Imagine a computer that only requires 4 wires to connect all the parts to the motherboard. Analogous to chicken DNA to build teeth, the case of the computer would hold those 4 wires and in addition another bunch of wires that aren't connected to anything. Or that are connected to stuff that isn't working, for example a hard drive that isn't connected to the power supply and thus "just sits there".
That's not how an engineer does things.
It's not energy/resource efficient. It's bad practice. It's bad design.
Any engineer working like that would be fired instantly for being a total amateur.
However, a process like evolution would inevitably lead to such structures.
For evolution, it would actually be a bigger challenge to explain why a teeth-less animal like chickens would have NO TRACE of genes to build teeth at all!
In an evolutionary context, it is fully expected to find such inactive genes or traces thereof in teethless animals, considering their ancestry.
Another great example is the non-functioning eyes of moles. They can't even open their eyes. Their eyeballs are covered by a layer of skin. Their eyes do not function. But they are still there, hidden behind skin.
An engineer who's going to design a life form that does not have the ability of sight, is not going to give it eyeballs and have it spend resources and energy on developping those eyeballs....
Likewise, an engineer who's going to design a life form that has no teeth, is not going to give it the "codes" to build teeth.
It amazes me that people use this argument..... "similarity = common design". As if a chicken having non-functioning DNA to build teeth or a mole having non-functioning eyeballs is better explained by an "all-knowing perfect engineer" then through the process of evolution - in which it is actually EXPECTED to encounter such structures.
Amazing.
You forget . . . Evidence. You need some. Hello evidence.You forget...the creation fell. Hello mutations.
Lok at the blind cave fish.
would you ask why would God create a blind cave fish? He didn't. That happened after creation and the fall..like your examples.
What would you consider evidence?
I couldn't have put it better myself.
You forget . . . Evidence. You need some. Hello evidence.
It's your claim. You tell us what evidence led you to that conclusion.
If the fall would have cause Adam genetic make up to produce people with one leg..then yes. All people would have one leg.
What would you consider as evidence?
If?
In the science section we prefer to see evidence of things that really happened, not descriptions of stories in your head.
If mutations only entered into the human population just 6,000 years ago I would expect to see a much lower amount of genetic variation. I would also expect to see genetic equidistance between humans and all ape species.
If mutations only entered into the human population just 6,000 years ago I would expect to see a much lower amount of genetic variation. I would also expect to see genetic equidistance between humans and all ape species.
You forget that creationists can make up endless ad hoc hypotheses in order to hang onto their position. The hypotheses don't even need to have a biblical basis; they just need to explain away some inconvenient fact.
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?