Science Disproves Evolution

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

But since that is demonstrably false, I ignored it. I don't take a 144-hour creation view, and yet I still hold the doctrinal points that I claim to hold. I'm not lying about my doctrinal beliefs.

I never said you were lying.  I am saying that you have an incoherent theology that allows you to take the Bible literally when it suits you but then discard the inerrancy of the Bible when the Bible disagrees with what you want to believe in other areas. 

Quote

You said about a week ago that the serpent in Genesis 3 is figurative for Satan (and I agree with this). Do you have textual evidence to support that claim? You are completely fine with figurative language in parts of the Genesis account.

What I said that was, the phrase "crawling on your belly and eating the dust of the earth" was an ancient idiom for living in a state of defeat.   Snakes don't  eat dirt.  

Whether Satan was possessing the body of a snake or simply took on the form of a snake doesn't really matter.  What matters is that the historical core is true.  There was a real temptation, a real tree, Adam and Eve were real, and that man really did Fall in the Garden.  It wasn't an allegory or a metaphor, or myth or whatever.  It was an actual historical event.

What you seem to refuse to factor in when it comes to stuff like the serpent is that there was a supernatural environment that existed at that time that our modern, secular mindset doesn't like to, or want to entertain.  

Edited March 26, 2018 by shiloh357

[BeyondET]

What does science say about the supernumerary nipple that 1 in 18 humans are born with?

[frienduff thaylorde]

18 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

What does science say about the supernumerary nipple that 1 in 18 humans are born with?

Oh dear,    um that its useless as teets on a boar hog .     ya got me on this one .   

[BeyondET]

3 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

Oh dear,    um that its useless as teets on a boar hog .     ya got me on this one .   

Haha yea they are quite useless today, but that wasn't always the case, lol

[BeyondET]

Actually they are only used by females, though males do have them it's because in the womb the gender is not detirmined until a set point, before that the festis gender is undetermined thus we all have those.

But there is a reason why such things accure.

[BeyondET]

It's a birth defect, strangly enough a women in 1827 had a fully working breast on her thigh and milked her babies with it. birth defects can be really weird indeed.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Sojourner414 said:

Right: and Christ didn't die for allegorical sin; Jesus Christ died for literal, real sin committed by a literal, real pair of people whose now-defiled nature was then passed down to us literal real people.

Why would you assume I disagree with this when I explicitly said otherwise?

[Guest shiloh357]

49 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Why would you assume I disagree with this when I explicitly said otherwise?

He is just pointing out the absurdity of the "allegorical" position on Genesis 1-3.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

He is just pointing out the absurdity of the "allegorical" position on Genesis 1-3.

I thought we'd been over this... multiple times... I have revised my earlier terminology since I do not hold an allegorical approach by the strict definition of the word. I believe Adam and Eve were real and I believe they performed real sin. I believe that all humans after Adam and Eve are born slaves to real sin. It does not matter whether they ate a physical apple or a metaphorical apple, they chose their way over God's. The sin is not in the biting of the apple, the sin is in their choice to follow their own path. If that is absurd to you, then I believe I'll still be able to move on with my life :-P

[Guest shiloh357]

52 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I thought we'd been over this... multiple times... I have revised my earlier terminology since I do not hold an allegorical approach by the strict definition of the word. 

There is no non-strict definition of the word.  Either you believe it was allegorical or not.  There is no in between, which is what it sounds like you are trying find.

Quote

I believe Adam and Eve were real and I believe they performed real sin

But you have consistently rejected the biblical truth that they were the first an only humans on earth until the birth of Cain and Abel.   You can't accept them as the first and only humans in existence in Genesis 1-3 because of the evolutionary model.   The Bible can't right AND evolution fit into the biblical narrative.  

 

Quote

. I believe that all humans after Adam and Eve are born slaves to real sin. It does not matter whether they ate a physical apple or a metaphorical apple, they chose their way over God's.

Oh, but it does matter.   It matters when it comes to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. It matters if the story is to be seen as accurate.  You don't get to assign textual values like "metaphorical" without warrant from the text/author.  The author assigns those values, not the reader.   If Bible gets any details wrong, if the Bible is claiming something to historical when it isn't, then the Bible can't be trusted. 

 

Quote

The sin is not in the biting of the apple, the sin is in their choice to follow their own path. If that is absurd to you, then I believe I'll still be able to move on with my life :-P

The sin is eating the fruit in disobedience to God.  It matters what they did, otherwise we can make that sin into anything.  There are those who teach that the "forbidden fruit" was Eve's sexual intercourse with the serpent, that produced Cain.    If we don't stick by exactly what the Bible says, we run into HUGE theological problems. 

The problem in all of this is that you are hell bent on making evolution fit the biblical narrative and anyone with any skill  in literary analysis can see that it simply won't work.  Just because you can work it  out in your imagination, doesn't mean it works in reality.