YECists attempt to dig into sheol

[vossler]

Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. So all the evolution which led to humanity occurred in the populations which were ancestral to Adam.

If Adam was an individual, he never evolved.

If Adam is representative of the human species, he is still evolving.

I stand corrected. That's what I meant.

 

[vossler]

Do you mean that the creation story is an "allegory" (properly a mythos, as CC pointed out) for the process of evolution? I don't see why your wording seems to put things the other way around. Evolution isn't an allegory for anything. It's a scientific process, at least to those who think that enough evidence exists to show that it occurs.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for the help. I seem to repeatedly be having the problem of describing theories and ideas that are foreign to me.

I appreciate you setting me straight here!

 

[Mallon]

This is why it is difficult having a discussion with TEs about matters such as these. I remember recently seeing a poll where many TEs stated they didn't believe in a literal Adam. The same is true for a lot of matters such as these. Lots of variations among the TE belief patterns. How's a YEC to know and keep straight what each of you believes before posting?

That's a pitfall of stereotyping. I often have much the same problem when speaking to YECs, not knowing whether they believe in canopy "theory", hydroplate "theory", runaway subduction "theory", or ice comet "theory".
That said, I think "TE" is probably a broader concept than "YEC", incorporating more people from more diverse backgrounds. I would equate the former term to the level of "Creationist". TEs just haven't yet felt the need to subdivide themselves beyond that category, I guess.

So did Adam develop over billions of years from a zygote to a fish to a bird (or was that bird to a fish?), to a mammal to an ape to a human all in the garden?

As gluadys already pointed out, individuals do not evolve. I would also point out that your evolutionary progression is nothing short of a farce! A zygote isn't even a species; it's a fertilized egg before the commencement of cell division. And no, fish did not evolve from birds.
Vossler, you said earlier that you reject evolution on the basis that you understand it and have found it to be scientifically lacking. I really question the honesty of this assertion.

 

[vossler]

Vossler, you said earlier that you reject evolution on the basis that you understand it and have found it to be scientifically lacking. I really question the honesty of this assertion.

Just because I can't recall the sequence doesn't mean I haven't studied the subject. Did you take Algebra in college? I did, yet I couldn't tell you how to do an equation today. So does that make me dishonest?

 

[Mallon]

Just because I can't recall the sequence doesn't mean I haven't studied the subject. Did you take Algebra in college? I did, yet I couldn't tell you how to do an equation today. So does that make me dishonest?

Only if you reject algebra as a result of your faulty understanding.

 

[vossler]

Only if you reject algebra as a result of your faulty understanding.

Obviously according to TEs I have a faulty understanding that has led me to reject evolution, which in turn has now apparently made me also dishonest.

 

[steen]

I don't have answers to scientific problems, besides it's not my theory.
Time, at least that's how I've understood it. I really don't know, it's not my theory.

I would suggest that if you really don't kbnow what Evolution is, that you stop making remarks about it until you actually knows. Does wonders for your credibility (Or rather, not doing so will rapidly trach your credibility).

 

[steen]

Obviously according to TEs I have a faulty understanding that has led me to reject evolution, which in turn has now apparently made me also dishonest.

Jejecting Evolution doesn't make you dishonest. However, climing that you understand evolution when your claims and your own admission shows that you don't really, that kind of hurts your credibility.

 

[vossler]

I would suggest that if you really don't kbnow what Evolution is, that you stop making remarks about it until you actually knows. Does wonders for your credibility (Or rather, not doing so will rapidly trach your credibility).

I wasn't referring to evolution in the post cited, I was referring to evolution being used as an allegory.

 

[steen]

How so?

 

[The Lady Kate]

How so?

Yes, same question... how exactly is evolution an "allegory"?

 

[vossler]

Go back a read the posts, since giving my answers I'm not prepared to discuss the theory any further.

 

[theFijian]

Go back a read the posts, since giving my answers I'm not prepared to discuss the theory any further.

The theory of evolution? of the theory of evolution as allegory? Don't get my hopes up now.

 

[steen]

Go back a read the posts, since giving my answers I'm not prepared to discuss the theory any further.

Hmm, so you want to make unsubstantiated accusations against science, but refuse to make any kind of substantiation.

Hey, no sweat off my brow, it is only your own credibility that suffers by refusing to substnatiate peculiar claims that seem to have no foundation in reality. If you are happy with having wild "just because I say so" postulations stand as your only input, so be it.

 

[shernren]

I think I'm partly to blame for using the word "allegory" very loosely in this thread, I shall now get my words back into shape. ("You! Yes you, you goofing word 'allegory'! Get back in your cage!" - no words will be harmed in the production of this post, I hope.)

I think that one thing you have to understand is that the mythos communicates an event that was real and historical. Did God create the world? Absolutely. Did man sin and fall short of the glory of God? Yes. Is all man under that same curse of sin? Agreed.

Is Genesis 1-11 an accurate historical representation of these events? No.

An event may be real and yet transmitted through mythos for various reasons. We see this every day.

A single satirical cartoon can out-punch a lengthy opinion article in the daily newspaper, regardless of how well-written the article may be.
Many people have read George Orwell's Animal Farm and know what it means for some people to be "more equal" than others, even if they would never go near a historical treatise on the Russian Revolution with a ten-foot pole.
Many guys call themselves (or are called) "Romeo"s while knowing full well that Romeo is a fictional character.
A play with a village, a witch, and a scientist can win the first place in a small school drama competition where a lengthy reenactment of the Dark Ages (complete with the flaying of Hypatia!) would have bored everyone to sleep in half a minute.

Are any of these forms historical? No.
Does that stop these forms from transmitting the truths manifested in very historical events? Not at all!

Genesis ultimately describes historical events in a mythical way which, while perhaps obscuring their historicity and authenticity to the modern mind, bring out every ounce of spiritual truth which those historical events were loaded with.

 

[chaoschristian]

Howdy folks. I just got done with a relaxing day, swimming at the pool, enjoying the (up until just now) good weather, playing with my daughter (the son is in North Carolina),

Its the sort of day that helps to puts things back into perspective somewhat.

The group labels that we use the various povs that dominate this discussion are conveniences. In reality we approach this forum as individuals, and we can expect to see a wide variety of opinions that deviate from what the group labels attempt to normalize. This includes the use of language. This can make it difficult to communicate at times, but persevere we must if we are to communicate at all and not isolate ourselves from one another.

Let's remember to be patient with one another.

Let's keep in mind how our tone with one another reflects on who we are collectively as Christians, and the impact that that has on the lurkers.

 

[chaoschristian]

I think that one thing you have to understand is that the mythos communicates an event that was real and historical. Did God create the world? Absolutely. Did man sin and fall short of the glory of God? Yes. Is all man under that same curse of sin? Agreed.

Is Genesis 1-11 an accurate historical representation of these events? No.

An event may be real and yet transmitted through mythos for various reasons. We see this every day.

A single satirical cartoon can out-punch a lengthy opinion article in the daily newspaper, regardless of how well-written the article may be.
Many people have read George Orwell's Animal Farm and know what it means for some people to be "more equal" than others, even if they would never go near a historical treatise on the Russian Revolution with a ten-foot pole.
Many guys call themselves (or are called) "Romeo"s while knowing full well that Romeo is a fictional character.
A play with a village, a witch, and a scientist can win the first place in a small school drama competition where a lengthy reenactment of the Dark Ages (complete with the flaying of Hypatia!) would have bored everyone to sleep in half a minute.

Are any of these forms historical? No.
Does that stop these forms from transmitting the truths manifested in very historical events? Not at all!

Genesis ultimately describes historical events in a mythical way which, while perhaps obscuring their historicity and authenticity to the modern mind, bring out every ounce of spiritual truth which those historical events were loaded with.

Got enough lime here to start making margheritas (non-alcoholic of course) for everyone!

 

[xpiotosaves]

As I said before, no one knows for sure how creation precisly happened! Instead of going back and forth fighting on who is right and wrong we should just be content with that we are all people who believe in jesus. period.

 

[theFijian]

As I said before, no one knows for sure how creation precisly happened! Instead of going back and forth fighting on who is right and wrong we should just be content with that we are all people who believe in jesus. period.

You are correct that we shouldn't be fighting, but I'd disagree that we should be content with not expanding our sphere of knowledge and discussion based thereon.

 

[xpiotosaves]

You are correct that we shouldn't be fighting, but I'd disagree that we should be content with not expanding our sphere of knowledge and discussion based thereon.

Yeah, but you can't attack people for not believing what you do. It doesn't expand your knowledge to listen to someone tell what they believe and you telling them that they are wrong.