Poll: How did human life come about?

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.
And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?

 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Garth,

Because falsehoods left un-corrected are potentially harmful to the less informed.

If you really had any concern about the "less informed", you would attempt to communicate with them in a more constructive fashion, rather than with just sneers, ridicule or derogatory labeling.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Because falsehoods left un-corrected are potentially harmful to the less informed.

If you really had any concern about the "less informed", you would attempt to communicate with them in a more constructive fashion, rather than with just sneers, ridicule or derogatory labeling.

I tried that, and I discovered that you are not interested in communication. Instead I beat up on the nonsense you constantly spruik so that readers-along can make informed decisions on their own.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: Rapidskies

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.


I believe this passage refers to a spiritual death not a physical one. Adam and Eve before the apple had a intimate relationship with God in which they could actually speak with him, interact with him, see him etc. Think of the spiritual death they would have suffered being cut off from God after disobeying him, the utter emptiness that they would feel after being cast out. Hence one tree was the tree of Life and the other tree represented spiritual death.

You believe wrong. You can't just choose which parts of the bible you believe to be literal, and which parts you believe to be false and still be a true believer. That shows that the rational part of your brain told you that it's just impossible for some of those things to happen, so to try and adapt it you changed it's meaning. You lose.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.
And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?

There shouldn't be any. I don't read Hawthorne or Shakespeare and and take it all literally. "My love is a rose". "Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks". I don't get pissed and discount it because he says one thing one time and another some other time.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Seeker,

Suppose for a moment that there was sealife on top of mountains, and that it demonstrates conclusively that there was a huge flood. Even then, that is not evidence that human-like species were wiped out by itself. Nor would it present a problem with the "fossil record". No matter how you look at it, the fossil record is pretty solid and strongly supports the notion of human evolution from non-human ancestors.

You can certainly state that we do not have a complete fossil record demonstrating precise geneaology of humans all the way through the period when you believe there was an extinguishing flood through neanderthal life. However, that is not a "problem" for science. Science does not require a full record of evidence in this manner. The theory of evolution as it relates to mankind predicts that if we did find these fossils, they would resemble what we would expect them to given evolutionary tendencies.

So if we combine these things together, the theory of man being evolved from primate-like ancestors has no problems or holes as far as science is concerned, but does have problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.

Your belief that primate like ancestors were extinct after a global flood and man was created from scratch has problems as far as science is concerned, but has no problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.

Right?
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Rapidskies

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.


I believe this passage refers to a spiritual death not a physical one. Adam and Eve before the apple had a intimate relationship with God in which they could actually speak with him, interact with him, see him etc. Think of the spiritual death they would have suffered being cut off from God after disobeying him, the utter emptiness that they would feel after being cast out. Hence one tree was the tree of Life and the other tree represented spiritual death.

You believe wrong. You can't just choose which parts of the bible you believe to be literal, and which parts you believe to be false and still be a true believer. That shows that the rational part of your brain told you that it's just impossible for some of those things to happen, so to try and adapt it you changed it's meaning. You lose.

Have you ever read anything?

 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction. It doesn't have say that the passage is literal. Wouldn't it suck if all literature had a footnote explaining what was literal and what wasn't?

So how do you tell if a particular passage is literal or not? Some people believe that Adam literally lived to be several hundred years, some believe that he aged normally, how do you tell fiction from fact?
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Garth,

The Hebrew word "twm" is used 694 times in the Bible, and in each case it is used to describe a physical death. What makes this an exception, other than the fact that you need it to be in order to weasel out of an obvious contradiction?
Your definition is somewhat off. Here is the Strong's definiton:

4191 muwth mooth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction. It doesn't have say that the passage is literal. Wouldn't it suck if all literature had a footnote explaining what was literal and what wasn't?

So how do you tell if a particular passage is literal or not? Some people believe that Adam literally lived to be several hundred years, some believe that he aged normally, how do you tell fiction from fact?

When you get out of middle school and start reading real literature you'll figure it out.

 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Vic
You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism.

People have begun bashing the religious wing-nuts because they are hampering my everyday life with their restrictions on what I can and cannot see on television, or listen to on the radio, or whether or not my girlfriend gets denied a morning after pill. If the only thing that the religious right did was pray amongst themselves then I would have no problem with them. It's when they start trying to turn this great country of ours into a fascist theocracy and hold back scientific research and development, that I begin to feel that I have had enough with their self-righteous belief system telling me what I can and cannot do. When it affects funding for scientific research and tries to interfere with our school system, then that's when I say that I've had enough with people like you!

Science > religion

So you would turn it into an atheist totalitarian technocracy with requirements on belief just as strict the religionists would have?

BTW, I'm not "people like you." I'm not a religionist. Far from it, I'm a humanist, which is why I have to stand up against the authoritarian BS that passes for scientific atheism these days. It is simply wrong to force people what and how to believe whether you call it religion or science, get it? Education is one thing, and certainly the hallmark of science, but when you start spouting nonsense that religion is a con that should be outlawed and begin preaching intolerance and hate against those with different beliefs, then you don't represent science any more no matter how much you want to pretend to. In that case, you are a religion, and a particularly nasty one at that.

Nobody said that religions should be outlawed, once again you are making things up. What was said, is that religion should have no part in education, government spending, and social institutions. I have no problem in people believing in whatever they want to, so long as it doesn't influence the government, education system, and scientific research.
 

Seekermeister

Golden Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,971
0
0
Originally posted by: torpid
Seeker,

Suppose for a moment that there was sealife on top of mountains, and that it demonstrates conclusively that there was a huge flood. Even then, that is not evidence that human-like species were wiped out by itself. Nor would it present a problem with the "fossil record". No matter how you look at it, the fossil record is pretty solid and strongly supports the notion of human evolution from non-human ancestors.

You can certainly state that we do not have a complete fossil record demonstrating precise geneaology of humans all the way through the period when you believe there was an extinguishing flood through neanderthal life. However, that is not a "problem" for science. Science does not require a full record of evidence in this manner. The theory of evolution as it relates to mankind predicts that if we did find these fossils, they would resemble what we would expect them to given evolutionary tendencies.

So if we combine these things together, the theory of man being evolved from primate-like ancestors has no problems or holes as far as science is concerned, but does have problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.

Your belief that primate like ancestors were extinct after a global flood and man was created from scratch has problems as far as science is concerned, but has no problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.

Right?
No. The only thing that the fossil record provides, is that there have been other lifeforms, some of which, have some similarities to humans. This in no way is evidence of evolution. There is not a single fossil found, that demonstrates any evolutionary process. Of course, if you believe in spontaneous evolution, where there this happens all at once, in giant leaps of transformation, then I wouldn't know what to say, because you would be too far gone for hope.

 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.
And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?
There shouldn't be any.
Why not? Seekermeister claimed the bible is "totally accurate."

I don't read Hawthorne or Shakespeare and and take it all literally. "My love is a rose". "Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks". I don't get pissed and discount it because he says one thing one time and another some other time.
Where are there people running around purporting the Hawthorne or Shakespeare to be anything other than works of fiction?

You don't seem to understand that I'm challenging the notion that there shouldn't be contradictions in the Bible. Nobody claims that Shakespeare is the infallible word of some deity.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

The Hebrew word "twm" is used 694 times in the Bible, and in each case it is used to describe a physical death. What makes this an exception, other than the fact that you need it to be in order to weasel out of an obvious contradiction?
Your definition is somewhat off. Here is the Strong's definiton:

4191 muwth mooth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise.

That doesn't contradict anything that I said. For that matter, where did I define the word at all? I just described the context in which is it always used. Reading comprehension FTL.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.
And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?
There shouldn't be any.
Why not? Seekermeister claimed the bible is "totally accurate."

I don't read Hawthorne or Shakespeare and and take it all literally. "My love is a rose". "Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks". I don't get pissed and discount it because he says one thing one time and another some other time.
Where are there people running around purporting the Hawthorne or Shakespeare to be anything other than works of fiction?

You don't seem to understand that I'm challenging the notion that there shouldn't be contradictions in the Bible. Nobody claims that Shakespeare is the infallible word of some deity.

Oh, because the use of literary devices is solely exclusive to fiction. :disgust:
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.
And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?

There shouldn't be any. I don't read Hawthorne or Shakespeare and and take it all literally. "My love is a rose". "Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks". I don't get pissed and discount it because he says one thing one time and another some other time.

Shakespeare is fiction, just like your holy book.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: Juddog
Nobody said that religions should be outlawed, once again you are making things up. What was said, is that religion should have no part in education, government spending, and social institutions. I have no problem in people believing in whatever they want to, so long as it doesn't influence the government, education system, and scientific research.

This is a logical impossibility unless humans develop some sort of omniscience. So long as people who are religious are making policy decisions, it is impossible for there to be no religious influence over government, education, or science. It's like saying one shouldn't let their childhood influence their adult life. Maybe you meant something like be the primary influence. But it is certainly never going to be no influence at all unless all people become non-religious, which would contradict the notion that people can believe whatever they want.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction. It doesn't have say that the passage is literal. Wouldn't it suck if all literature had a footnote explaining what was literal and what wasn't?

So how do you tell if a particular passage is literal or not? Some people believe that Adam literally lived to be several hundred years, some believe that he aged normally, how do you tell fiction from fact?

When you get out of middle school and start reading real literature you'll figure it out.
Ah, no answers, just insults. Typical.

 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: Juddog
Nobody said that religions should be outlawed, once again you are making things up. What was said, is that religion should have no part in education, government spending, and social institutions. I have no problem in people believing in whatever they want to, so long as it doesn't influence the government, education system, and scientific research.

This is a logical impossibility unless humans develop some sort of omniscience. So long as people who are religious are making policy decisions, it is impossible for there to be no religious influence over government, education, or science. It's like saying one shouldn't let their childhood influence their adult life. Maybe you meant something like be the primary influence. But it is certainly never going to be no influence at all unless all people become non-religious, which would contradict the notion that people can believe whatever they want.

When it starts influencing spending decisions from big government, then we have a serious problem.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.
And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?

There shouldn't be any. I don't read Hawthorne or Shakespeare and and take it all literally. "My love is a rose". "Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks". I don't get pissed and discount it because he says one thing one time and another some other time.

Shakespeare is fiction, just like your holy book.

No, Shakespeare uses literary devices, as does the Bible.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Vic
You people are sick and delusional. Dictating to people what they should believe is harmful, whether it's religion or atheism.

People have begun bashing the religious wing-nuts because they are hampering my everyday life with their restrictions on what I can and cannot see on television, or listen to on the radio, or whether or not my girlfriend gets denied a morning after pill. If the only thing that the religious right did was pray amongst themselves then I would have no problem with them. It's when they start trying to turn this great country of ours into a fascist theocracy and hold back scientific research and development, that I begin to feel that I have had enough with their self-righteous belief system telling me what I can and cannot do. When it affects funding for scientific research and tries to interfere with our school system, then that's when I say that I've had enough with people like you!

Science > religion

So you would turn it into an atheist totalitarian technocracy with requirements on belief just as strict the religionists would have?

BTW, I'm not "people like you." I'm not a religionist. Far from it, I'm a humanist, which is why I have to stand up against the authoritarian BS that passes for scientific atheism these days. It is simply wrong to force people what and how to believe whether you call it religion or science, get it? Education is one thing, and certainly the hallmark of science, but when you start spouting nonsense that religion is a con that should be outlawed and begin preaching intolerance and hate against those with different beliefs, then you don't represent science any more no matter how much you want to pretend to. In that case, you are a religion, and a particularly nasty one at that.

Nobody said that religions should be outlawed, once again you are making things up. What was said, is that religion should have no part in education, government spending, and social institutions. I have no problem in people believing in whatever they want to, so long as it doesn't influence the government, education system, and scientific research.

Cons are frauds, and fraud is illegal, is it not?. Therefore, by calling a single religion the "biggest con in the history of man," that is an implicit statement that that religion should be outlawed, is it not?

Maybe this is a case of -- once again -- people on the internet shooting BS out of their asses without even realizing what their statements mean or imply.
BTW, religion is a social institution. And religions own and operate private schools. What is your solution to this?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction.
And what indications are there that Gen 2:17 is not to be taken at face value, other than the fact that on its face it contradicts another verse?
There shouldn't be any.
Why not? Seekermeister claimed the bible is "totally accurate."

I don't read Hawthorne or Shakespeare and and take it all literally. "My love is a rose". "Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks". I don't get pissed and discount it because he says one thing one time and another some other time.
Where are there people running around purporting the Hawthorne or Shakespeare to be anything other than works of fiction?

You don't seem to understand that I'm challenging the notion that there shouldn't be contradictions in the Bible. Nobody claims that Shakespeare is the infallible word of some deity.

Oh, because the use of literary devices is solely exclusive to fiction. :disgust:
But you haven't provided any reason why we should believe that a literary device was used in this instance. You can't. Rather, you need it to because its the only way you can rationalize the obvious contradiction to yourself.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction. It doesn't have say that the passage is literal. Wouldn't it suck if all literature had a footnote explaining what was literal and what wasn't?

So how do you tell if a particular passage is literal or not? Some people believe that Adam literally lived to be several hundred years, some believe that he aged normally, how do you tell fiction from fact?

When you get out of middle school and start reading real literature you'll figure it out.
Ah, no answers, just insults. Typical.

Apparently the understanding of literary devices in inconceiveable. Typical of someone who has never read anything outside of Hank the Cowdog.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: torpid
Seeker,

Suppose for a moment that there was sealife on top of mountains, and that it demonstrates conclusively that there was a huge flood. Even then, that is not evidence that human-like species were wiped out by itself. Nor would it present a problem with the "fossil record". No matter how you look at it, the fossil record is pretty solid and strongly supports the notion of human evolution from non-human ancestors.

You can certainly state that we do not have a complete fossil record demonstrating precise geneaology of humans all the way through the period when you believe there was an extinguishing flood through neanderthal life. However, that is not a "problem" for science. Science does not require a full record of evidence in this manner. The theory of evolution as it relates to mankind predicts that if we did find these fossils, they would resemble what we would expect them to given evolutionary tendencies.

So if we combine these things together, the theory of man being evolved from primate-like ancestors has no problems or holes as far as science is concerned, but does have problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.

Your belief that primate like ancestors were extinct after a global flood and man was created from scratch has problems as far as science is concerned, but has no problems as far as literal biblical interpretations go.

Right?
No. The only thing that the fossil record provides, is that there have been other lifeforms, some of which, have some similarities to humans. This in no way is evidence of evolution. There is not a single fossil found, that demonstrates any evolutionary process. Of course, if you believe in spontaneous evolution, where there this happens all at once, in giant leaps of transformation, then I wouldn't know what to say, because you would be too far gone for hope.

Giant leaps of transformation? I thought that was called creationism.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Garth

What utter nonsense. Take Genesis, for example. Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die," and then Gen 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Good luck with whatever mental gymnastics you have prepared to respond. It is obvious both of these verses cannot be simultaneously true.

When Adam ate from the tree he died not in the literal sense, but from a purity sense. He committed the first sin, and that act damned all of man afterwards. The Bible isn't completely literal, as in all literature, fiction or non-fiction. It doesn't have say that the passage is literal. Wouldn't it suck if all literature had a footnote explaining what was literal and what wasn't?

So how do you tell if a particular passage is literal or not? Some people believe that Adam literally lived to be several hundred years, some believe that he aged normally, how do you tell fiction from fact?

When you get out of middle school and start reading real literature you'll figure it out.
Ah, no answers, just insults. Typical.

Apparently the understanding of literary devices in inconceiveable. Typical of someone who has never read anything outside of Hank the Cowdog.
More insults, still no answers. Can you be more transparent?