Lions were designed to kill

[rsc2a]

The problem is that those terms don't really mean anything, biologically. Like you said, "macro" evolution is just the accumulation of enough "micro" changes for us to notice a big difference. And no, you can't watch it happen in the lab (unless you count microscopic organisms, which you should, because five minutes on Google will yield you hundreds of results demonstrating macroevolution in the lab), you can observe it for larger organisms in the fossil record.

Not only are the terms inadequate, they also keep changing and contradict themselves. 

For example, I had an argument with an evolutionist who used the case of mosquitoes in a subway to "prove" macroevolution.  Mosquitoes split off and changed enough that they couldn't produce offspring with the original set of mosquitoes.  He called that "speciation" meaning there's a new species, hence macroevolution is true. 

No, I say, they're still mosquitoes.  They just can't reproduce with their original kin.  Worse, his definition of speciation gets destroyed by the fact that you can cross a lion with a tiger. 

No, he says, that's evidence that they have a common ancestor.

So when a mosquito can't reproduce with a mosquito, that's evolution.  And when a lion can reproduce with a tiger, that's evolution.  Therefore everything is evolution. 

Thus the reason I asked earlier what the scientific definition of species was. (And I actually said it's a trick question.) The answer is that there are many different definitions for "species".

But, yes, all but the most crazy of people acknowledge that living things evolve. The question is one of degree, and I see absolutely no reason to believe the train tracks only run to the end of town and stop instead of continuing on to Albuquerque (to borrow ddgently's analogy).

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]Face it:  Evolutionists can imagine an evolution explanation behind everything, and creationists can imagine a creation/intelligent design explanation behind everything.  All that proves is man has a good imagination.  We all interpret the evidence according to our imaginative assumptions, but none of us were there to see how the evidence was produced.  [/quote]

You've just acknowledged that you have no problem with the idea of evolution. You just want to stop the process without any stated cause for the stoppage.

And I have no problem with both evolution and a "creation explanation" being correct.  8)

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]If anything, the intelligent design people have done more to test their hypothesis than evolutionists.  We do intelligent design all day long, every day.  We just don't design new life forms.  But we prove intelligent design is possible every time we create a web site or design a new car. [/quote]

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. If anything, it's an apples-to-rocket ships comparison.

 

[christundivided]

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. If anything, it's an apples-to-rocket ships comparison.

Translation...... I don't know what to say..... so I'll call it the old "apples to rocket ship comparison".

Evolutionary creation theology is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You know as well I as I do.... that all you have are foundless theories that have never been proved to be much of anything. The observation of change does not a practical theory make.

 

[ddgently]

The problem is that those terms don't really mean anything, biologically. Like you said, "macro" evolution is just the accumulation of enough "micro" changes for us to notice a big difference. And no, you can't watch it happen in the lab (unless you count microscopic organisms, which you should, because five minutes on Google will yield you hundreds of results demonstrating macroevolution in the lab), you can observe it for larger organisms in the fossil record.

Care to point to a specific case witnessed in the fossil record???

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html
http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml

For the record,  I am not a young earth creationist. I happen to believe in my own form of the gap theory. I haven't read the entire thread and I don't really care to. If you have already answered this, could you point me in the right direction?

Also, I have asked many people like you this question and never gotten a satisfactory answer.....

What is "Adam" to you? and how does your view of "Adam" affect your theology?

I don't have a strong opinion on "Adam." I don't think the text mandates that "Adam" was a specific individual, as the Hebrew word can simply mean "mankind." I think we all fall from grace fine on our own without the need for a specific patrilineal scape-goat.

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. If anything, it's an apples-to-rocket ships comparison.

Translation...... I don't know what to say..... so I'll call it the old "apples to rocket ship comparison".

Evolutionary creation theology is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You know as well I as I do.... that all you have are foundless theories that have never been proved to be much of anything. The observation of change does not a practical theory make.

I would direct you to this blog post (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html) that created quite a stink in YEC circles a few years ago. I know, one man's opinion, but this canard that evolution is a global conspiracy propped up by atheists who want to have extra-marital sex and abortions without worrying about a judgmental God has got to go if YEC are to be taken seriously.

Evolution is a functional theory that makes predictions and explains that available data. To pretend otherwise is to remove yourself from the scientific dialogue. When Einstein revolutionized our understanding of gravity, he didn't do so by claiming Newton was wrong and no one's ever seen such and such, and yada yada. He couldn't, because there's too much evidence that, for the most part, Newtonian gravity is a successful theory. It's not a complete theory, but it's successful within certain confines.

If YEC or ID scientists want to contribute to our understanding of origins, they should start by acknowledging evolution's success, rather than pretending that mounds of evidence doesn't exist.

 

[christundivided]

For the record,  I am not a young earth creationist. I happen to believe in my own form of the gap theory. I haven't read the entire thread and I don't really care to. If you have already answered this, could you point me in the right direction?

Also, I have asked many people like you this question and never gotten a satisfactory answer.....

What is "Adam" to you? and how does your view of "Adam" affect your theology?

I don't have a strong opinion on "Adam." I don't think the text mandates that "Adam" was a specific individual, as the Hebrew word can simply mean "mankind." I think we all fall from grace fine on our own without the need for a specific patrilineal scape-goat.

Let me lead with the most important of our conversation thus far....

You sound just like every evolutionary theist I've ever come across. None of you have a "strong opinion" on Adam. I think you should reconsider your position and at least come up with a "strong opinion" on a man/thing referenced over 100 times in the Protestant canon.

I know its not important to you to embrace what you really think of "Adam" or to even give it much thought. I think its probably quite possible you really don't want to know. It would affect your position.

I'll take one verse. If you can adequately explain why "adam" can be "something" other than an a individual??? I'll immediately express defeat.

Act 17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

If you study the various textual origins of this verse.... I think you come to no other conclusion than the fact Paul is talking specifically of a single individual. Now you either believe Acts 17:26 or must reject it all together. There is no room for any other view and accept the words of Paul on Mars Hill. Paul was either right or he was wrong.

Do you have a strong opinion on the matter?

 

[prophet]

His thoughts on people who accept "micro-evolution" and deny "macro-evolution": selective ignorance. Scientifically speaking, they are the same thing.

No, they are not.  Microevolution can be observed and tested.  Macroevolution is just the imagination that given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution.  But that hypothesis has never been observed or tested.

A hypothesis that can't be observed and tested, doesn't graduate to a theory, it gets expelled from school.
Of course, now the public schools are implementing "no hypothesis left behind", where they all become theories, and even scientific law by the grading curve of: repeating them til they are true.

Anishinaabe

 

[ddgently]

Let me lead with the most important of our conversation thus far....

You sound just like every evolutionary theist I've ever come across. None of you have a "strong opinion" on Adam. I think you should reconsider your position and at least come up with a "strong opinion" on a man/thing referenced over 100 times in the Protestant canon.

This sounds a little harsh. I think I've tried to be charitable with the YEC here. I didn't say Adam was unimportant, or discount when he's mentioned.

I'll give you one strong opinion. There is good reason to believe there was not a single primordial human couple. Current estimates is that the population of homo sapiens has probably never dipped below 10,000.

I know its not important to you to embrace what you really think of "Adam" or to even give it much thought. I think its probably quite possible you really don't want to know. It would affect your position.

I suppose you're right that I don't give the historicity of Adam a lot of thought, no more than I give the historicity of Job much thought. Whether either was a "real person" does not diminish the truth their stories communicate.

I'll take one verse. If you can adequately explain why "adam" can be "something" other than an a individual??? I'll immediately express defeat.

Immediately? Okay, here goes, but I think you left yourself a lot of wiggle-room with "adequately."

  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

If you study the various textual origins of this verse.... I think you come to no other conclusion than the fact Paul is talking specifically of a single individual. Now you either believe Acts 17:26 or must reject it all together. There is no room for any other view and accept the words of Paul on Mars Hill. Paul was either right or he was wrong.

Do you have a strong opinion on the matter?

Well, here's my attempt at an adequate explanation. The phrase I've bolded above (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to, as it is translate "one man" in other versions), is from the Greek word haima (Strong's G129) which, as it is translated here, means "blood." So looking at the broader context, Paul seems to be talking about the commonality that all mankind has: that is that we ultimately come from God. cf. Acts 17:28.

Interestingly, when Paul talks about Christ just a few verses later, he refers to him as a "man" ("anēr" Strong's 435), so he certainly could have used that word in verse 26 if he wanted to say that all human beings were literally descended from one historical Adam.

Even if that is what he wanted to say, he wouldn't be wrong, since there is one male most recent common ancestor from whom we are all descended (Y-chromosome Adam). He's just not the Adam from Genesis 2. Which is okay by me, but I suspect not by you.

 

[ddgently]

You promised you'd immediately admit defeat!

 

[ddgently]

You promised you'd immediately admit defeat!

who are you are talking to?.......  ???

and in what way were they defeated?......  ???

Talking to christundivided. See above.

@cu? Was that an adequate explanation? If not, could you point out the inadequacy?

 

[christundivided]

This sounds a little harsh. I think I've tried to be charitable with the YEC here. I didn't say Adam was unimportant, or discount when he's mentioned.

You don't have to be charitable with me. Don't even take it into consideration. For the record. I am not YEC. Yet, I am a creationist. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to see a metaphor or allegory in almost every single verse of the Scriptures. Such beliefs have consequences.

I'll give you one strong opinion. There is good reason to believe there was not a single primordial human couple. Current estimates is that the population of homo sapiens has probably never dipped below 10,000.

Based on what? What you've personally observed in studying the DNA of millions of humans through hundreds of thousands of years of existence? While I am not a big "Answers in Genesis" fan. I will say he has one thing right. You kind of "believers" are entirely too arrogant with your "science". The cornerstone of scientific theory is "observation". The fact is. You were not there. I wasn't there. I don't know all there is to know about it. Don't pretend to know. In fact, the very story of Job teaches you this. "Job's" God ask him "where were you" when I created all these things. "Tell me" if you have understanding. In the end... our best source of information is the Scriptures. Would you agree? Somehow. I don't think I'll get a straight answer. What is our best source of information?

I suppose you're right that I don't give the historicity of Adam a lot of thought, no more than I give the historicity of Job much thought. Whether either was a "real person" does not diminish the truth their stories communicate.

Humm..... I fail to see how their stories do not change if they didn't actually exist as individuals. Sorry. In fact, it is clear to me..... Job was a man that lived somewhere from the time of the great flood to the time preceding the call of Abraham.

I find it extremely comforting to know such men embraced our "Redeemer". If you know what I mean by this.... I might take heart in the fact you have actually read the book of Job.

Well, here's my attempt at an adequate explanation. The phrase I've bolded above (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to, as it is translate "one man" in other versions), is from the Greek word haima (Strong's G129) which, as it is translated here, means "blood." So looking at the broader context, Paul seems to be talking about the commonality that all mankind has: that is that we ultimately come from God. cf. Acts 17:28.

Well.... at least you looked at the "Strong's" definition. Can you give me a circumstance in which "G129" isn't translated "blood"? IF you can, then you explain the difference?

Sorry.... Paul is talking about the community we all have in Adam. You would be interested to know that several manuscripts specifically relate the revelation of "one man".  Not the idea of "mankind".

Interestingly, when Paul talks about Christ just a few verses later, he refers to him as a "man" ("anēr" Strong's 435), so he certainly could have used that word in verse 26 if he wanted to say that all human beings were literally descended from one historical Adam.

He did. Don't get hung up in the KJV. This is why I wrote what I wrote. I am glad you finally have embraced the verse. You may need some more time to actually understand it. Take your time.

Even if that is what he wanted to say, he wouldn't be wrong, since there is one male most recent common ancestor from whom we are all descended (Y-chromosome Adam). He's just not the Adam from Genesis 2. Which is okay by me, but I suspect not by you.

No. Its not okay with me. There is an essential doctrine found in Christianity called "original sin". Now do you apply original sin?

Do you believe their will be humanoid species in eternity absent the requirement to embrace Christ? Did Christ just die for "Y-chromosome Adam"?

Are you one of those evolutionary nuts that actually believe God literally died for a "maggot"? If you are.... I can't but think the fallen angels Christ ignored might just get upset to take a back seat to a "maggot".

 

[christundivided]

You promised you'd immediately admit defeat!

Not yet. I was working on my response.

I was using dd.... gently in the VI editor I was using. You got to be gentle/careful with such things...

 

[lnf]

I'll give you one strong opinion. There is good reason to believe there was not a single primordial human couple. Current estimates is that the population of homo sapiens has probably never dipped below 10,000.

Even if that is what he wanted to say, he wouldn't be wrong, since there is one male most recent common ancestor from whom we are all descended (Y-chromosome Adam). He's just not the Adam from Genesis 2.

Hmm…these two quotes don’t add up in my mind.  First you state that there was probably not a single human couple, then you state that we have one male common ancestor.

I also have questions on your 10,000 population statement.  Wouldn’t the human population need to start with one male and one female to grow to 10,000?  That number seems to speak more to Noah than to Adam…

 

[ddgently]

I'll give you one strong opinion. There is good reason to believe there was not a single primordial human couple. Current estimates is that the population of homo sapiens has probably never dipped below 10,000.

Based on what? What you've personally observed in studying the DNA of millions of humans through hundreds of thousands of years of existence? While I am not a big "Answers in Genesis" fan. I will say he has one thing right. You kind of "believers" are entirely too arrogant with your "science". The cornerstone of scientific theory is "observation". The fact is. You were not there. I wasn't there. I don't know all there is to know about it. Don't pretend to know. In fact, the very story of Job teaches you this. "Job's" God ask him "where were you" when I created all these things. "Tell me" if you have understanding. In the end... our best source of information is the Scriptures. Would you agree? Somehow. I don't think I'll get a straight answer. What is our best source of information?

There's a lot to unpack here, let's take it piece-by-piece:

First, no, I haven't "personally observed in studying the DNA of millions of humans through hundreds of thousands of years." Neither have I personally spent thousands of hours testing the effects of various chemicals on the human body. But when my doctor scribbles a prescription, I trust that others have, and so I swallow the little.

I haven't done an exhaustive study of primary sources, but I'm pretty sure John Adams was the second president. Were you there? Have you talked with Adams? Did you ask him about his rivalry with Jefferson? We can't observe Adams being the second president, and yet it's ridiculous to assert he isn't because of the evidence. It amazes me how otherwise epistemologically realist Christians turn into gnostics as soon as we start talking about evolutionary science. What I mean is, you're so certain you know what these ancient texts mean, but the second we talk about something that challenges you're worldview, you say, "Well, we can't really know."

Second, I'll give you a straight answer. The Scriptures are the best source of information for the type of information they seek to impart. So if I want to know how to be in right relation with my Creator, I'll look to the Scriptures. If I want to know if I'm out of mayonnaise, I'll look to the refrigerator. If I want to know about the history of the universe, I'll look to a cosmologist. If I want to know about the history of the United States, I'll look to an historian.

I'm not going to ask the Scriptures if the earth goes around the sun, because it won't tell me.

Humm..... I fail to see how their stories do not change if they didn't actually exist as individuals. Sorry. In fact, it is clear to me..... Job was a man that lived somewhere from the time of the great flood to the time preceding the call of Abraham.

I'm glad its clear to you. It's not as clear to both conservative and liberal scholars who are a lot smarter than both of us.

Well, here's my attempt at an adequate explanation. The phrase I've bolded above (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to, as it is translate "one man" in other versions), is from the Greek word haima (Strong's G129) which, as it is translated here, means "blood." So looking at the broader context, Paul seems to be talking about the commonality that all mankind has: that is that we ultimately come from God. cf. Acts 17:28.

Well.... at least you looked at the "Strong's" definition. Can you give me a circumstance in which "G129" isn't transla1ted "blood"? IF you can, then you explain the difference?

No, sorry, it's always translated "blood."

Sorry.... Paul is talking about the community we all have in Adam. You would be interested to know that several manuscripts specifically relate the revelation of "one man".  Not the idea of "mankind".

Paul is talking about the community we have in our humanity. Romans, like other ancient peoples, thought they were superior to everyone else. So Paul is taking a swipe at that, using their own poetry, to reinforce that we, as humans, are "one blood" and come from God. You're really reading the Adam thing into this.

Interestingly, when Paul talks about Christ just a few verses later, he refers to him as a "man" ("anēr" Strong's 435), so he certainly could have used that word in verse 26 if he wanted to say that all human beings were literally descended from one historical Adam.

He did. Don't get hung up in the KJV. This is why I wrote what I wrote. I am glad you finally have embraced the verse. You may need some more time to actually understand it. Take your time.

condescension noted

It's not in the KJV, it's in the Greek. Paul specifically references a man a few verses later because he is talking about a specific man (Christ).

Even if that is what he wanted to say, he wouldn't be wrong, since there is one male most recent common ancestor from whom we are all descended (Y-chromosome Adam). He's just not the Adam from Genesis 2. Which is okay by me, but I suspect not by you.

No. Its not okay with me. There is an essential doctrine found in Christianity called "original sin". Now do you apply original sin?

Do you believe their will be humanoid species in eternity absent the requirement to embrace Christ? Did Christ just die for "Y-chromosome Adam"?

Why would there be. As it is written, "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So no one gets a pass, with or without a literal historical Adam.

Are you one of those evolutionary nuts that actually believe God literally died for a "maggot"? If you are.... I can't but think the fallen angels Christ ignored might just get upset to take a back seat to a "maggot".

I'm sure they're upset anyway, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where do "maggots" fit in?

 

[ddgently]

I'll give you one strong opinion. There is good reason to believe there was not a single primordial human couple. Current estimates is that the population of homo sapiens has probably never dipped below 10,000.

Even if that is what he wanted to say, he wouldn't be wrong, since there is one male most recent common ancestor from whom we are all descended (Y-chromosome Adam). He's just not the Adam from Genesis 2.

Hmm…these two quotes don’t add up in my mind.  First you state that there was probably not a single human couple, then you state that we have one male common ancestor.

I also have questions on your 10,000 population statement.  Wouldn’t the human population need to start with one male and one female to grow to 10,000?  That number seems to speak more to Noah than to Adam…

This is something I learned just in the last few years about evolution. The adaptations and genetic changes we're talking about don't take place just in one individual. Evolution is about population genetics. So one breeding population becomes isolated from another, and then eventually enough changes accumulate in that population that they can no longer breed with their precursor.

So, in short, no you don't have to start with just two individuals to get to 10,000. And you can have one last common male ancestor for everyone without an original couple, because our last common female ancestor was not his mate.

 

[rsc2a]

If one does not have a strong opinion on the First Adam, how can he have a strong opinion on the Second Adam?

Who doesn't have a (strong?) opinion on the first Adam?

(I'm ignoring the logical fallacy inherent in your question. )

 

[christundivided]

I'll give you one strong opinion. There is good reason to believe there was not a single primordial human couple. Current estimates is that the population of homo sapiens has probably never dipped below 10,000.

Based on what? What you've personally observed in studying the DNA of millions of humans through hundreds of thousands of years of existence? While I am not a big "Answers in Genesis" fan. I will say he has one thing right. You kind of "believers" are entirely too arrogant with your "science". The cornerstone of scientific theory is "observation". The fact is. You were not there. I wasn't there. I don't know all there is to know about it. Don't pretend to know. In fact, the very story of Job teaches you this. "Job's" God ask him "where were you" when I created all these things. "Tell me" if you have understanding. In the end... our best source of information is the Scriptures. Would you agree? Somehow. I don't think I'll get a straight answer. What is our best source of information?

There's a lot to unpack here, let's take it piece-by-piece:

First, no, I haven't "personally observed in studying the DNA of millions of humans through hundreds of thousands of years." Neither have I personally spent thousands of hours testing the effects of various chemicals on the human body. But when my doctor scribbles a prescription, I trust that others have, and so I swallow the little.

I'm going to slow down for a moment. Lets take this piece by piece. I'm glad you used this example.

I hope you realize that little pill you've taken.... affects some people differently than others. In fact, some people may take that pill .... and DIE. Even though you may say that is RARE. The fact is..... there is that possibly. A possibly that the manufacturer can not remove from its drug because it does not have enough knowledge/experience to full understand what they are doing. Mankind has proven time and time again... that he often knows just enough to get in trouble. Often this lack of knowledge has dangerous consequences. He pretends he's got a handle on what he knows and time and time again..... experience proves he DOESN'T.

The facts are, we can rely on the Scriptures much more than the unproven experience of mankind in many areas. One of those areas is the unproven "scientific" study of the origins of mankind. We DO NOT have a large enough sample of specimens across a large enough period of time to even begin to understand what the SMALL SAMPLE is telling us. In this REAL world, this same thing happens in the production of "drugs" to threat various aliments. What might help one.... might KILL another. I'll give a real world example. A few years back my wife took a z-pack. She had taken it before and never had an issue. This TIME, she had a very bad reaction. Bad enough that we thought she had permanent liver damage. THANK GOD.... she eventually got better. So.... you go ahead and completely trust that "little pill" if you want. I think I'll hedge a little bit...

 

[christundivided]

If one does not have a strong opinion on the First Adam, how can he have a strong opinion on the Second Adam?

Who doesn't have a (strong?) opinion on the first Adam?

(I'm ignoring the logical fallacy inherent in your question. )

Take people off ignore and you might understand..... Its pitiful that as good as the forum is at policing people...... you feel you have to ignore some people. Its pitiful. You're just a coward that can't defend much of anything.

For the record. You have said the same thing in the past. You have said you didn't have a strong belief about Adam. You have refused to answer the question. I'd almost say you have a sock in ddgently.... but I know the Admin is good at keeping the socks out.

 

[christundivided]

Why would there be. As it is written, "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So no one gets a pass, with or without a literal historical Adam.

I'm going to point you to a specific verse that you probably don't know exists. If you do know, then you may have forgotten it or your lack of understanding "original sin" is the problem.

Rom 5:14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Did you notice what it said? Do you see that the judgement of sin (death) passed onto to all mankind..... even to those that didn't sin. Now, I can give several examples of those who die that have never personally committed sin.... but I think you get the point.

Your logic fails...miserably.

 

[christundivided]

ddgently wrote.

I'm sure they're upset anyway, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where do "maggots" fit in?

There is a precept taught in the book of Hebrews concerning the priestly work of our Master. It speaks of how our Master took upon Himself the form of that which he redeemed. One of the many characteristics of said "redemption" involves the fact that God so loves man... that he took upon Himself, the very form of Adam. Man had a very special place in the heart of God. God didn't do it for the angels that fell. God didn't do it for any other creature. He took upon Himself the form of Adam.

Now. Stop. Think for a minute. If you believe in a generic application of Adam to apply to various species of "humanoid"... then you have a problem. A big problem. Such teaching falls apart and the analogy has no application.

 

[ddgently]

I'll give you one strong opinion. There is good reason to believe there was not a single primordial human couple. Current estimates is that the population of homo sapiens has probably never dipped below 10,000.

Based on what? What you've personally observed in studying the DNA of millions of humans through hundreds of thousands of years of existence? While I am not a big "Answers in Genesis" fan. I will say he has one thing right. You kind of "believers" are entirely too arrogant with your "science". The cornerstone of scientific theory is "observation". The fact is. You were not there. I wasn't there. I don't know all there is to know about it. Don't pretend to know. In fact, the very story of Job teaches you this. "Job's" God ask him "where were you" when I created all these things. "Tell me" if you have understanding. In the end... our best source of information is the Scriptures. Would you agree? Somehow. I don't think I'll get a straight answer. What is our best source of information?

There's a lot to unpack here, let's take it piece-by-piece:

First, no, I haven't "personally observed in studying the DNA of millions of humans through hundreds of thousands of years." Neither have I personally spent thousands of hours testing the effects of various chemicals on the human body. But when my doctor scribbles a prescription, I trust that others have, and so I swallow the little.

I'm going to slow down for a moment. Lets take this piece by piece. I'm glad you used this example.

I hope you realize that little pill you've taken.... affects some people differently than others. In fact, some people may take that pill .... and DIE. Even though you may say that is RARE. The fact is..... there is that possibly. A possibly that the manufacturer can not remove from its drug because it does not have enough knowledge/experience to full understand what they are doing. Mankind has proven time and time again... that he often knows just enough to get in trouble. Often this lack of knowledge has dangerous consequences. He pretends he's got a handle on what he knows and time and time again..... experience proves he DOESN'T.

The facts are, we can rely on the Scriptures much more than the unproven experience of mankind in many areas. One of those areas is the unproven "scientific" study of the origins of mankind. We DO NOT have a large enough sample of specimens across a large enough period of time to even begin to understand what the SMALL SAMPLE is telling us. In this REAL world, this same thing happens in the production of "drugs" to threat various aliments. What might help one.... might KILL another. I'll give a real world example. A few years back my wife took a z-pack. She had taken it before and never had an issue. This TIME, she had a very bad reaction. Bad enough that we thought she had permanent liver damage. THANK GOD.... she eventually got better. So.... you go ahead and completely trust that "little pill" if you want. I think I'll hedge a little bit...

Let's not get too caught up in the example, shall we not? I'm not trying to argue that science is infallible. But the last 400 have produced astounding progress. Does an earlier theory later need to be tweaked in light of new data? Of course, this happens all the time. It doesn't mean that if I haven't personally obtained a terminal degree in a particular field that I review all the accomplishments of that field with suspicion.

I have a very primitive understanding of how a computer works. Does that mean I shouldn't trust a computer scientist? Does the fact that my computer does not work correctly 100% of the time mean the "computer scientists" are lying to me? What a ridiculous way to live one's life.

Why would there be. As it is written, "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So no one gets a pass, with or without a literal historical Adam.

I'm going to point you to a specific verse that you probably don't know exists. If you do know, then you may have forgotten it or your lack of understanding "original sin" is the problem.

This is getting a little absurd. If you cannot have a dialogue with someone you disagree with without saying things like "you've probably never heard of this verse" then either you don't have a lot of confidence in your assertions, or you're out of arguments and so you just want to tear someone down. Stick to the point and we can keep talking.

Rom 5:14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Did you notice what it said? Do you see that the judgement of sin (death) passed onto to all mankind..... even to those that didn't sin. Now, I can give several examples of those who die that have never personally committed sin.... but I think you get the point.

Your logic fails...miserably.

So Adam suffered immediate physical death as the result of his transgression? Then why does Genesis record him living several hundred more years.

Allow me to blow your mind. Paul probably believed in a literal Adam who lived a relatively short time before him. And Paul's belief is reflected in his writings that form a part of Scripture. That doesn't mean that God is not communicating truth to us through Paul.

 

[christundivided]

Let's not get too caught up in the example, shall we not? I'm not trying to argue that science is infallible. But the last 400 have produced astounding progress. Does an earlier theory later need to be tweaked in light of new data? Of course, this happens all the time. It doesn't mean that if I haven't personally obtained a terminal degree in a particular field that I review all the accomplishments of that field with suspicion.

Okay. I can accept this. I would like to know how you rate the Scripture in terms of reliability? Is it just as reliable as the last 400 years of astounding progress?

I have a very primitive understanding of how a computer works. Does that mean I shouldn't trust a computer scientist? Does the fact that my computer does not work correctly 100% of the time mean the "computer scientists" are lying to me? What a ridiculous way to live one's life.

I just happen to work in the Information Systems. While I do not know everything there is to know about it myself. I do have 25 years of experience. I can tell you. Most of the time. Those that claim to know something about computers..... usually don't. Its rather comical at times to hear people try to explain how one works..... I often think God Himself has the same opinion when we try to explain something we actually know very little about.

This is getting a little absurd. If you cannot have a dialogue with someone you disagree with without saying things like "you've probably never heard of this verse" then either you don't have a lot of confidence in your assertions, or you're out of arguments and so you just want to tear someone down. Stick to the point and we can keep talking.

I can be a little sarcastic sometimes. However, have you ever really considered the verse before? It make me wonder sometimes if evolutionary theists have actually studied their subject. I know they study science but I question if they have put the same effort into getting to know the Scriptures. I can't help but think of such verses when I engage someone about the subject. Its not like I am googling to try and be part of this discussion. I have actually spent many years and many hours embracing theology. Its part of me. Since it is part of me.... I seriously wonder how some people believe the things they believe. I can't help but think they really haven't put much effort into knowing. If they had, they wouldn't believe some of the nonsense they believe. Now, if you tell you have spent years studying the issue. I'll drop it. I'll take your word at it. I'm just wondering and being a little sarcastic at the same time.

So Adam suffered immediate physical death as the result of his transgression? Then why does Genesis record him living several hundred more years.

Maybe you're being a little sarcastic yourself. That's fine. I rather enjoy a good testy exchange. I'm sure you've picked up on that already.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I wrote. There are many members of mankind that die without committing sin. They receive the judgement of God (death) because of their relationship to Adam. Your view of Adam is important. If you believe the term "Adam" spans multiple, different species of humanoid kind.... then you have a problem making a connection to sin.

Also, I can't help but notice you've ignored what I said about the book of Hebrews. I look forward to your answer concerning my comments.

Allow me to blow your mind. Paul probably believed in a literal Adam who lived a relatively short time before him. And Paul's belief is reflected in his writings that form a part of Scripture. That doesn't mean that God is not communicating truth to us through Paul.

I see. You didn't blow my mind. Heard it before. I imagine that you're privy to scientific revelation that poor Paul just couldn't understand. Thus, its taken thousands of years of scientific progress for mankind to accurately understand the "Genesis" of mankind. I get it. You have an high opinion of scientific revelation in nature. Even to the point that you must understand such to properly understand the Scriptures. I get it. Sorry. I can't agree. You've given me no reason to think otherwise.