[_ Old Earth _] Death Before Sin

[SyntaxVorlon]

 

[ThinkerMan]

I have a question related to this thread....

How long were Adam & Eve around before they screwed up and got kicked out?

If it was hundreds (or thousands (or millions)) of years, then one must accept that the rules of physics were substationally different at that time. In fact, one must accept that there were really no physical laws...with no death, decay, radiation, gravity, etc.

If it was three days or a week, it seems God didn't do a particularly good job with his creation.

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":09947]If it wasn't possible, then perhaps they had something that prevented themfrom getting cancers, or from dying from it.

Jesus strength sunblock?[/quote:09947]

No. I meant perhaps that the protective parts of the atmosphere were strong, very strong. Just like today, some areas in the world have ozone holes, in the beggining, there was plenty of atmosphere strength for protection.

 

[mh13]

There was a vapor/ice canopy. Gen 1:6-8

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day
http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id3.html

 

[mh13]

edit

oops hit the submit button twice

 

[goliwog man]

I have a question related to this thread....

How long were Adam & Eve around before they screwed up and got kicked out?

If it was hundreds (or thousands (or millions)) of years, then one must accept that the rules of physics were substationally different at that time. In fact, one must accept that there were really no physical laws...with no death, decay, radiation, gravity, etc.

If it was three days or a week, it seems God didn't do a particularly good job with his creation.

Hey thats a great question. Well to start with before Sin there would be no suvh thing as time, just as there is no such thing as time to God. (2 pet 3v8)

 

[Asimov]

Hey thats a great question. Well to start with before Sin there would be no suvh thing as time, just as there is no such thing as time to God.

Wow, making things up is fun, can I join too!?

 

[Featherbop]

HUH. Why would time not exist before sin. :infinity:

 

[Asimov]

There was a vapor/ice canopy. Gen 1:6-8

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day
http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id3.html

No, there wasn't. Young Earthers like to ascert that there was a vapor canopy, but they provide absolutely no scientific research to back up their claims.

 

[BryanJ]

You should be looking for TRUTH and not arguing with very silly people about a very silly fable from a very silly book !!!! Hint : Ever heard of EVOLUTION ????





Cheers

Sorry. Just don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

 

[Asimov]

You should be looking for TRUTH and not arguing with very silly people about a very silly fable from a very silly book !!!! Hint : Ever heard of EVOLUTION ????





Cheers

Sorry. Just don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Good, Evolution doesn't require faith.

 

[Featherbop]

A lot of it does require faith. As I stated earlier, Common descent of humans has never been observed. If you beleive it happend, you beleive by faith alone. (and some circumstancial evidence too I suppose).

As with the smaller changes in living creatures, that is observed, all people are aware of this, whether or not they believe in "evolution".

The question never should be "Do you beleive in evolution?", it should be "What kind of evolution do you beleive in?"

;-)

 

[BryanJ]

You should be looking for TRUTH and not arguing with very silly people about a very silly fable from a very silly book !!!! Hint : Ever heard of EVOLUTION ????





Cheers

Sorry. Just don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Good, Evolution doesn't require faith.

But it does require faith. It is based on something called secular humanism - which is a religion - a religion based on the premise that man is God. Therefore it requires faith.

Here's something I hope you'll read with an open mind: http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ev ... notsci.htm

The article doesn't say much about my opening statement - evolution requires faith. But it does, I believe, deal with some serious flaws about evolution.

Wish I could have written something in my own words, but a busy life won't allow it.

 

[Asimov]

A lot of it does require faith. As I stated earlier, Common descent of humans has never been observed. If you beleive it happend, you beleive by faith alone. (and some circumstancial evidence too I suppose).

Genetics is not circumstancial evidence. That is the single most compelling argument for common descent, while it is not directly observed, common descent has empirical evidence to suggest it's true.

The question never should be "Do you beleive in evolution?", it should be "What kind of evolution do you beleive in?"

I hope you're not referring to "Macro" and "Micro" Evolution. I wont go into that, until you tell me exactly what types of evolution the Theory of Evolution you think states.

 

[Asimov]

But it does require faith. It is based on something called secular humanism - which is a religion - a religion based on the premise that man is God. Therefore it requires faith.

No, it requires no faith. You either accept evolution, or you don't. Evolution is not based on something called secular humanism. Evolution is based on the research that Darwin obtained during his voyage on the Beagle. This started the whole thing. Evolution does not posit that man is God, it doesn't posit a God at all. Science does not search for, or state that a God exists, because the existence of God is a supernatural thing, something which is not scientific.

Secular Humanism is not a religion which bases it's premise that man is God. Secular Humanism requires no faith. Secular Humanism is the belief that man through his own works, can better themselves. It also focuses on not harming other human beings.

Here's something I hope you'll read with an open mind: http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ev ... notsci.htm

Um, that site is fundamentally flawed in the premise that it states that evolution is set to show that things came about naturally without God. "Mother Nature without Father God", or some bunk like that. This is not true, if God exists, he has been shown to use naturalistic processes. So saying natural, does not negate God, nor does it say there is one.

The article doesn't say much about my opening statement - evolution requires faith. But it does, I believe, deal with some serious flaws about evolution.

What flaws are those? I'm not saying Evolution is bullet-proof, nor do I a-priori that Evolution is absolutely true. But I'm asking you, what is flawed about evolution.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

A lot of it does require faith. As I stated earlier, Common descent of humans has never been observed. If you beleive it happend, you beleive by faith alone. (and some circumstancial evidence too I suppose).

As with the smaller changes in living creatures, that is observed, all people are aware of this, whether or not they believe in "evolution".

The question never should be "Do you beleive in evolution?", it should be "What kind of evolution do you beleive in?"

Since the two are the same thing then the first question is still valid. It does not require faith. Faith is belief that is unjustified empirically, held onto by force of will. We have knowledge to back up evolution in any sense of the word, faith is unnecessary.

 

[BryanJ]

But it does require faith. It is based on something called secular humanism - which is a religion - a religion based on the premise that man is God. Therefore it requires faith.

No, it requires no faith. You either accept evolution, or you don't. Evolution is not based on something called secular humanism. Evolution is based on the research that Darwin obtained during his voyage on the Beagle. This started the whole thing. Evolution does not posit that man is God, it doesn't posit a God at all. Science does not search for, or state that a God exists, because the existence of God is a supernatural thing, something which is not scientific.

Secular Humanism is not a religion which bases it's premise that man is God. Secular Humanism requires no faith. Secular Humanism is the belief that man through his own works, can better themselves. It also focuses on not harming other human beings.

BryanJ wrote:
Wrong on that. Secular Humanism is a religion. Check out what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Ar ... 3/1121.asp

[quote:92de7]Here's something I hope you'll read with an open mind: http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ev ... notsci.htm

Um, that site is fundamentally flawed in the premise that it states that evolution is set to show that things came about naturally without God. "Mother Nature without Father God", or some bunk like that. This is not true, if God exists, he has been shown to use naturalistic processes. So saying natural, does not negate God, nor does it say there is one.

The article doesn't say much about my opening statement - evolution requires faith. But it does, I believe, deal with some serious flaws about evolution.

What flaws are those? I'm not saying Evolution is bullet-proof, nor do I a-priori that Evolution is absolutely true. But I'm asking you, what is flawed about evolution.[/quote:92de7]

Well, at least you ask an honest question. For one thing, not one transistional life form has ever been found - the in-between stage of development.

Now I'm sure you will try to give some examples, but I'll bet I could refute what you give: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ossils.asp

Still more death blows to the theory: Web Cast One: http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ramhur ... 19-2000.rm

Web Cast Two: http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ramhur ... 20-2000.rm

If, after having digested this information you still persist, then you are not being intellectually honest and have already made up your mind to be blind.

 

[Asimov]

Well, at least you ask an honest question. For one thing, not one transistional life form has ever been found - the in-between stage of development.

That's kind of a loaded question, and I'm glad you've given me some articles to work with on the 'transitional' argument. The thing is, we do have transitional fossils. But since Evolution is so gradual, it's impossible to get "all" of the transitions. Technically, all organisms are in transition. So asking for transitional fossils is rhetoric.

The lineage of the archaeopteryx is a good example of transitionals. Paleontologists have labelled archeopteryx as a bird, because for our own devices, we need to draw lines somewhere. We just drew it at Archaeopteryx. The Arch has definite birdlike features, as well as definite reptilian features. It is a bird, but it is also a reptile. It's just classified as a bird.

Another good lineage is the whale evolution, as well as horse evolution. Talkorigins has a great article on both I believe.

If, after having digested this information you still persist, then you are not being intellectually honest and have already made up your mind to be blind.

I didn't know what to do with the .ram files...I don't know what those are, so there was no information to digest. However, even if after persisting, I am not being intellectually dishonest. If you offer false information, I'm not going to just accept it, on the chance that I might be intellectually dishonest. I will decide whether or not what you say has veracity, then offer counter points. That is what a debate is.

 

[BryanJ]

Well, at least you ask an honest question. For one thing, not one transistional life form has ever been found - the in-between stage of development.

That's kind of a loaded question, and I'm glad you've given me some articles to work with on the 'transitional' argument. The thing is, we do have transitional fossils. But since Evolution is so gradual, it's impossible to get "all" of the transitions. Technically, all organisms are in transition. So asking for transitional fossils is rhetoric.

The lineage of the archaeopteryx is a good example of transitionals. Paleontologists have labelled archeopteryx as a bird, because for our own devices, we need to draw lines somewhere. We just drew it at Archaeopteryx. The Arch has definite birdlike features, as well as definite reptilian features. It is a bird, but it is also a reptile. It's just classified as a bird.

Another good lineage is the whale evolution, as well as horse evolution. Talkorigins has a great article on both I believe.

If, after having digested this information you still persist, then you are not being intellectually honest and have already made up your mind to be blind.

[quote:7a3f6]I didn't know what to do with the .ram files...I don't know what those are, so there was no information to digest. However, even if after persisting, I am not being intellectually dishonest. If you offer false information, I'm not going to just accept it, on the chance that I might be intellectually dishonest. I will decide whether or not what you say has veracity, then offer counter points. That is what a debate is.

[/quote:7a3f6]

You will need Real Player to open those files up.

 

[Asimov]

You will need Real Player to open those files up.

:smt118

eeeewwww....realplayer....