My logical take on creation/evolution/Genesis.

Claiming something is logical does not make it so.

OK, but all you provide for evidence is the bible.

If the bible said humans wouldn't be burned by fire, would you stick your hand in it to see?

Originally Posted by Padawanbater2

OK, but all you provide for evidence is the bible.

If the bible said humans wouldn't be burned by fire, would you stick your hand in it to see?

Of course, in order for this to work out, you have to believe in the bible as true. Which I do.

Originally Posted by Kaendar

Edit: dont know why single is spelled with a c... typo I missed.

Wow. I think your illustration is missing quite a few steps between dust and that chimp. Why did god make all of these creatures without souls before Adam, did he get bored and wanted to spice things up? I'm a musician, and I think evolution happened more like this:

Originally Posted by tyler.durden

Wow. I think your illustration is missing quite a few steps between dust and that chimp. Why did god make all of these creatures without souls before Adam, did he get bored and wanted to spice things up? I'm a musician, and I think evolution happened more like this:

Yea I did, its kinda hard to draw small organisms in MS paint lol.

Sure, I'll stipulate that is exactly what happened. I'll stipulate that before about 70,000 BCE, there were no homo sapiens. We seem to have emerged from a great extinction event, a population bottleneck that doomed all lines but one Maternal line and from that only one Paternal line made it. I'll stipulate that human story telling by memory is much more persistent and accurate than printed writing.

Such persistence, that the stories of this fantastic human good luck, could make it into writing and therefore be horribly edited. And I can easily see how Divinity could be attributed to it and create the first foundation of what later became Abrahamic tradition. But, that doesn't prove Diety. It proves that we humans are funny creatures.

If we have the bit of open mind all things in the bible and other scriptures can, quite easily be explained. All the greed for power, position, to be believed, to try to do good. It's the story of Man. We are looking at ourselves here. What we want to be. And, how we fail.

Originally Posted by Kaendar

Of course, in order for this to work out, you have to believe in the bible as true. Which I do.

A big problem with this is that there is no legitimate "in between". You are trying to take a partial Biblical interpretation (which the Bible expressly forbids) and graft it onto the body of science (which is not equipped to deal with questions of Divinity, but is equipped to provide contrast and dissent to the Bible's accounts of mundane happenings). In the process, you dishonor both houses.

I have not been able to make the dictated Biblical account square with the derived scientific one. Worse, when I studied the Bible as an independent work, it showed me internal inconsistencies that put paid to any concept of an inerrant/infallible text, which is absolutely required to accept the Bible's central claim: to be the word of a God. (Conclusion: I reject it whole.)

You'll be told this by both the stewards of the sort of hardline Protestant philosophy you've embraced, and by the curators of science which you aren't representing well either:
you can't DO that.

My opinion. cn

Originally Posted by cannabineer

A big problem with this is that there is no legitimate "in between". You are trying to take a partial Biblical interpretation (which the Bible expressly forbids) and graft it onto the body of science (which is not equipped to deal with questions of Divinity, but is equipped to provide contrast and dissent to the Bible's accounts of mundane happenings). In the process, you dishonor both houses.

I have not been able to make the dictated Biblical account square with the derived scientific one. Worse, when I studied the Bible as an independent work, it showed me internal inconsistencies that put paid to any concept of an inerrant/infallible text, which is absolutely required to accept the Bible's central claim: to be the word of a God. (Conclusion: I reject it whole.)

You'll be told this by both the stewards of the sort of hardline Protestant philosophy you've embraced, and by the curators of science which you aren't representing well either:
you can't DO that.

My opinion. cn

Who cares what nutty people say? Non-theists are always saying shit like oh how did god create man from dust. Heres my answer. Take it or leave it.. its not that far fetched and I would put money on it being true.