Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Plenty of room in Ark.

Blacknads, you need to try a bit harder than that.

Forming a woman from a rib isn't evolutionISM..that is quite clear.

As to being literal...even the Gospels claim a literal Adam:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.

Perhaps you could point out from the llist above where the list went from real people to make believe people....or you could simply retract your anti-bible opinion and announce that you were wrong.

TB wrote:
"Perhaps you could point out from the llist above where the list went from real people to make believe people"

Actually he shouldn't. What should happen is that the moderators should realize that your post, has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with origins, and delete it, and many of us sincerely hope they will.

Perhaps due to your youth you are unable to appreciate this fact but it is, indeed, a fact.
This is SCIENCEAGOGO.COM not PROSLETYZEMYCHRISTIANTHEOLOGY.COM.

If you are totally incapable of talking science.
If you are totally incapable of learning rather than parroting.
If you are totally incapable of using real words.
Please excuse yourself from the table until you can come back and act like an adult.
Thank you.

Trilobyte, you don't do any real homework.

You came in here calling evolution, evo-babblers, demonstrating that you don't know anything about evolution or about statistics.

The Bible is not a scientific source. If you want to pretend your religion is supported by science, go somewhere else and do it.

trilobyte:
Posting pedigrees and quoting scripture is neither appropriate nor scientific. If you can't post on topic, please refrain from posting. This is a Science forum, it is not a place to go proselytising. Have some respect for Science and those who come here to read and post Science and Science related topics. Any more off topic garbage from you and I will delete it. You do not understand Science and are making no effort to do so. Your disruption and ignorance are on display here for all to see. Please take your ignorance elsewhere.

Amaranth
Moderator

Ah! Trilobyte. I see you accept that Tane and Hine-Nui-Te-Po were real, historical people. Many Maori claim them as ancestors. Some even claim descent from a particular tree or rock. It's good to see you are so accepting of other cultures! Perhaps if the US and British governments were as accepting we would not have the trouble in the Muddle East we do.

Your logic fails you. To say that the scriptural picture of creation may not be literal is not the same as saying there is no person referred to as Adam. Some theologists think that Adam was the first person to evolve a full capacity for moral comprehension. Also the genealogy uses a convention where only significant characters were named. There may be thousands of generations missing, yet YECs use this to date the earth. How utterly absurd.

I would love evolution to be false and leave us with no recourse but to see God's creative act. But I am reasonable enough to accept that things don't always turn out as I want.

Will you stop bringing the Bible into what is essentially a scientific matter?

If you really understood genetics and had real and solid doubts that mutation cannot lead to complex systems then people here would respect that.

But we all know that you are driven by your interpretation of the Bible.


Can't you understand that people here can only see this in terms of wanton ignorance and intellectual dishonesty?

Blacknad.

Blacknad posted:
Your logic fails you. To say that the scriptural picture of creation may not be literal is not the same as saying there is no person referred to as Adam. Some theologists think that Adam was the first person to evolve a full capacity for moral comprehension. Also the genealogy uses a convention where only significant characters were named. There may be thousands of generations missing, yet YECs use this to date the earth. How utterly absurd.

It's obvious those theologist are incorrect as they try to twist scripture to form a view supporting the religion of evolutionism.

Besides those two verses, you know....Eve being formed from Adams rin and the geneology...there is more that tells us Genesis is literal.

1CO 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

1CO 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

1CO 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

and then....

1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

There's even a few more verses that present a literal Genesis.

Once again, the bible denies evolutionism.

Oh, BTW, you said "There may be thousands of generations missing"...care to back up that "may be' statement?

Trilobyte. You introduce a whole new set of problems with this statemet:

"Notice I said a lion like and a tiger like animal...not what we know today as a tiger and a lion.

Please get it right next time."

OK, do lions and tigers descend from the same lion and tiger like animal? If so how has it come about that they are no longer able to form fertile offspring? On the other hand perhaps you believe they descend from separate creations? This means many more species were taken onto the ark than you listed previously.

Nothing in your last post proved anything. It is a question of perception. You see it one way and assume that is the only way it can be seen and have therefore probably labelled me as 'hellbound liberal'.

Regarding your last statement - the point I'm making here is 'we just don't know' and to try to form a chronology for the earth from a genealogy that is incomplete is foolish.

See:

http://nabataea.net/eden7.html


I will now bow out of this particular discussion and give you the last word. This is a science forum and not a place to have lengthy debates on Christian scripture. And bsides, I know how this goes:

You say something.
I counter.
You counter.
I counter.
You counter...Ad infinitum.

I'm saying that things are just not that black and white and you're saying they are. From experience I feel that the gulf between us will not be bridged.

There is an Arabic saying, 'You are standing in a valley to the West, and I am standing in a valley to the East.' This applies to you and me - to you and science - and to you and anyone who isn't a hardline conservative fundamentalist. Never the twain shall meet.

Blacknad.

It sounds like Trilo is now accepting a little evolution to produce millions of species from the few "kinds" that were on the Ark.

So what is it, TB? Does evolution exist, complete with mutations adding up, to get you from the Ark to the present day? Or is evolution impossible, and the Ark wasn't large enough to handle the numbers of species we have today?

You are claiming, probably without knowing it, that evolution proceeded at break-neck speeds since the Noachian flood.

Ah, I know this one. You don't need two animals here- just the one.

It's called a Liger. It's real and is the favourite animal of Napoleon Dynamite. They can do mad magic and have loads of skills. I heard the other day that they can give birth to a litter of both Lions and Tigers or just stick with having another Liger. So they were ideal for the ark and are very friendly with Ele-potamuses and Giraf-odiles, so no fighting.

I hope this clarifies things.

Blacknad.

As a bonobosapiens I appreciate the clarification.