Author Topic: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet  (Read 97126 times)

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #100 on: September 18, 2014, 05:53:14 PM »
And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.
Thanks for the clarification. 

Semantically though.  A miracle.  Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?
A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.
So God does not violate or contradict the laws of nature.  He suspends them with miracles.  vooke would seem to suggest that a few of these suspensions have happened around the genesis story. 

Is there any criteria to distinguish the miraculous from the merely metaphorical in the Bible?
vooke is free to suggest that and no one is stopping him or telling him he is wrong. what he is not free to do is insist everyone else does. I also would prefer you let me speak for myself and not paraphrase for me, thanks.

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #101 on: September 18, 2014, 05:58:43 PM »
You are ignoring these facts;
1.DNA is out of question because it is not found in dust
2.live offsprings of ANYTHING are out of question because they are not found in dust
3. Dead offsprings of ANYTHING too are not found in dust

In any case, if 2 or 3 was the case, shouldn't at death man revert to his pre-Adamic ancestor seeing only soul makes him a man?
Like I said, whatever you take 'formed from dust' to mean, it MUST NOT be inconsistent with the Scriptures or common sense

What you are avoiding at all costs including adopting illogical stance is the one possibility that God simply formed man and there was no man before that nor anything like him. You are busy stringing a relationship between man and some pre-Adamic creature so as to make evilution palatable
Like I said, no one knows HOW, he could've simply taken their DNA and no more. He could've also used their live offspring. Whatever "life" it had would not be a spiritual one, and not a soul. He may also merely have used a lifeless body. Bottom line, all the Bible requires me to believe is that Adam's body was formed from matter by God and his soul directly by him. The rest, I am free to speculate along with science.
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 8728
  • Reputation: 106254
  • An oryctolagus cuniculus is feeding on my couch
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2014, 06:01:53 PM »
A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.
So God does not violate or contradict the laws of nature.  He suspends them with miracles.  vooke would seem to suggest that a few of these suspensions have happened around the genesis story. 

Is there any criteria to distinguish the miraculous from the merely metaphorical in the Bible?
vooke is free to suggest that and no one is stopping him or telling him he is wrong. what he is not free to do is insist everyone else does. I also would prefer you let me speak for myself and not paraphrase for me, thanks.
The paraphrasing is just for my own benefit and understanding.  Just saying out loud while ready to accept any correction.  It's like saying, this is how I understand you...and the ball lands in your court to correct me.  That's all there is to it.

I used to think that if a Bible story is utterly absurd from an informed perspective, it is treated as metaphorical.  How do you decide what is metaphorical or literal or miraculous in the Bible?
"I freed a thousand slaves.  I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

Harriet Tubman

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #103 on: September 18, 2014, 06:04:24 PM »
You are ignoring these facts;
1.DNA is out of question because it is not found in dust
2.live offsprings of ANYTHING are out of question because they are not found in dust
3. Dead offsprings of ANYTHING too are not found in dust

In any case, if 2 or 3 was the case, shouldn't at death man revert to his pre-Adamic ancestor seeing only soul makes him a man?
Like I said, whatever you take formed from dust to mean, it MUST NOT be inconsistent with the Scriptures or common sense

What you are avoiding at all costs including adopting illogical stance is the one possibility that God simply formed man and there was no man before that nor anything like him. You are busy stringing a relationship between man and some pre-Adamic creature so as to make evilution palatable
Like I said, no one knows HOW, he could've simply taken their DNA and no more. He could've also used their live offspring. Whatever "life" it had would not be a spiritual one, and not a soul. He may also merely have used a lifeless body. Bottom line, all the Bible requires me to believe is that Adam's body was formed from matter by God and his soul directly by him. The rest, I am free to speculate along with science.
This is getting tiresome. You are simply regurgitating the same stuff hoping you will get a different response this time. \ Dna is not found in the dust, so what? My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless molecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does. Another round of you throwing "objections" that are not objections to nothing is a waste of expensive wifi.

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #104 on: September 18, 2014, 06:10:58 PM »
God made man from dust NOT creatures
Does dust mean anything else other than dust in scriptures?

Genesis 2:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

7 Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.


 Genesis 3:19 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

19 You will eat bread[a] by the sweat of your brow
until you return to the ground,
since you were taken from it.
For you are dust,
and you will return to dust.
to work the ground from which he was taken.

 Ecclesiastes 12:7 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

7 and the dust returns to the earth as it once was,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.




This is getting tiresome. You are simply regurgitating the same stuff hoping you will get a different response this time. \ Dna is not found in the dust, so what? My view is that God made man from creatures who ultimately came from a molecule which ultimately came from lifeless molecules. So either way, God must have introduced life whether in evolution or from the soil because as you say, soil got no DNA yet Adam does. Another round of you throwing "objections" that are not objections to nothing is a waste of expensive wifi.
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #105 on: September 18, 2014, 06:16:15 PM »
In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.

Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #106 on: September 18, 2014, 06:16:57 PM »
Dust does not preclude stages between the dust and the body, sorry. Try another one.

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #107 on: September 18, 2014, 06:20:36 PM »
You have lost me here
Dust does not preclude stages between the dust and the body, sorry. Try another one.
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #108 on: September 18, 2014, 06:22:28 PM »
What contradiction would lead you to settle on dust as creatures?
Does it have ANY precedent anywhere inside and outside scriptures?

Explain the intellectual leap from DUST/ground to CREATURES

In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.

Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.

2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline veritas

  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Reputation: 4790
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #109 on: September 18, 2014, 06:26:25 PM »
In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.

Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.


The heliocentric debate we know of today is dominated by chest thumping scientists. When in actual fact Copernicus himself didn't publicise it in respect to the masses who couldn't handle the truth. Academics aka priests were martyred BEFORE Galileo for foolishly advocating heliocentrism. The papacy was in a geopolitical tussle with monarchies. That biblical contention was overblown by monarchies and the church didn't have the luxury to fold. Politics comes before knowledge in the bigger scheme of things.

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #110 on: September 18, 2014, 06:46:59 PM »
What contradiction would lead you to settle on dust as creatures?
Does it have ANY precedent anywhere inside and outside scriptures?

Explain the intellectual leap from DUST/ground to CREATURES

In the Bible, you have layers of meaning. Words almost always have more than one meaning. The first assumption in exegeisis is the most ordinary meaning of words as they are used in their own language in the context they appear. However, when you have apparent contradictions between texts, you must chose the meaning that reconciles both. This is based on the assumption there can be no true contradiction, only apparent. When you have apparent contradictions between facts as recorded and facts as they are known, you chose the meaning that does not contradict the known facts. Hence, people say the sun stood still is inaccurate as the sun never moved. In the old times, the faithful did not know that the sun didn't move, hence they took this passage as describing an actual reality. But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.

Other ways are known by the kind of text, the Gospels, Acts and a good portion of the New and Old Testament are Historical accounts from their linguistic style and the testimony of the church from the time in which they were written. revelation is largely allegorical, many of the poetic books as well.

The intellectual leap is in your head. When you have something new to share do so.

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #111 on: September 18, 2014, 06:50:17 PM »
What makes DUST CREATURES?
Do you really believe this? Seeing you have NO reason for believing what you do, can we say you are unreasonable?
The intellectual leap is in your head. When you have something new to share do so.
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #112 on: September 18, 2014, 06:59:05 PM »
What makes DUST CREATURES?
Do you really believe this? Seeing you have NO reason for believing what you do, can we say you are unreasonable?
The intellectual leap is in your head. When you have something new to share do so.
You really think bullying will work, you're a tool! How do you usually reconcile the two creation accounts of Genesis with your literalist view of the creation passages? I'm just curious. You are the last person who can pontificate to me on reason, you are yet unable to show the Bible must be interpreted as you please, so you resort to your usual tactics. DUST creatures is so fantastic. you believe Adam was one, no?

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #113 on: September 18, 2014, 07:04:40 PM »
If am bullying you using the same words you spew out then I gladly accept the tag. Don't act/post before you think

How do dust become creatures? Was Adam sent to till creatures since he came from them?

I don't know what two creation accounts you are talking of
You really think bullying will work, you're a tool! How do you usually reconcile the two creation accounts of Genesis with your literalist view of the creation passages? I'm just curious. You are the last person who can pontificate to me on reason, you are yet unable to show the Bible must be interpreted as you please, so you resort to your usual tactics. DUST creatures is so fantastic. you believe Adam was one, no?
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #114 on: September 18, 2014, 07:10:04 PM »
If am bullying you using the same words you spew out then I gladly accept the tag. Don't act/post before you think

How do dust become creatures? Was Adam sent to till creatures since he came from them?

I don't know what two creation accounts you are talking of
You really think bullying will work, you're a tool! How do you usually reconcile the two creation accounts of Genesis with your literalist view of the creation passages? I'm just curious. You are the last person who can pontificate to me on reason, you are yet unable to show the Bible must be interpreted as you please, so you resort to your usual tactics. DUST creatures is so fantastic. you believe Adam was one, no?
Find the dust creatures first then we can discuss them. As it stands your fantasies don't make much fodder for discussions. Not ones I care to participate in anyway.

Your bullying tactics, you've tried them all over, basically trying to throw insinuations of a lack of intelligence or faith on my part, as if such a judgment from you has weight. You don't read Genesis, I see.

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #115 on: September 18, 2014, 07:10:20 PM »
kadame believes Adam was created from pre-existing homo sapiens, animals which were not quite human.

Here comes the flood in Genesis 6 and Noah is aksd to save animals by making an ark
Noah herds a pair of the homo sapiens alongside other animals
You may protest that homo sapiens were humans and Noah,wife and kids being inside meant humans was safe
kadame will have none of that, the pre-Adamic humans lacked 'spirituality, ability to love GOd and to relate to him' otherwisde they was as human as herself.

is it too farfetched to wonder if some of this pre-Adamic homo sapiens, humans in all ways EXCEPT spiritually may have survived to date?
How would I tell them apart from men? :o
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #116 on: September 18, 2014, 07:11:56 PM »
kadame believes Adam was created from pre-existing homo sapiens, animals which were not quite human.

Here comes the flood in Genesis 6 and Noah is aksd to save animals by making an ark
Noah herds a pair of the homo sapiens alongside other animals
You may protest that homo sapiens were humans and Noah,wife and kids being inside meant humans was safe
kadame will have none of that, the pre-Adamic humans lacked 'spirituality, ability to love GOd and to relate to him' otherwisde they was as human as herself.

is it too farfetched to wonder if some of this pre-Adamic homo sapiens, humans in all ways EXCEPT spiritually may have survived to date?
How would I tell them apart from men? :o
How do you know they were still there at the flood?

Offline bittertruth

  • Moderator
  • Superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 242
  • Reputation: 443
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #117 on: September 18, 2014, 07:12:47 PM »
But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Kababe,
The Sun is moving  and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place.  So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".
Prov 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life

Offline vooke

  • Moderator
  • Enigma
  • *
  • Posts: 5985
  • Reputation: 8906
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #118 on: September 18, 2014, 07:13:26 PM »
Intelligence by your own definition is defending your position. That's all am looking for. Either that or you abandon it.
Find the dust creatures first then we can discuss them. As it stands your fantasies don't make much fodder for discussions. Not ones I care to participate in anyway.

Your bullying tactics, you've tried them all over, basically trying to throw insinuations of a lack of intelligence or faith on my part, as if such a judgment from you has weight. You don't read Genesis, I see.
2 Timothy 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Offline Kababe

  • Moderator
  • Mega superstar
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Reputation: 5
Re: An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet
« Reply #119 on: September 18, 2014, 07:14:22 PM »
But when it was known that the sun doesn't move, the interpretation became the phenomenological language, descrping appearance not actual reality. The reality was that time stood still. That's the general way.
Kababe,
The Sun is moving  and infact orbits around the center of the Milky Way. the sun takes 225 years to take a revolution around our galaxy, which is called a cosmic year. Thus, it is seen that the sun definitely moves from its place.  So whether the Bible is taken literally or in whichever sense, fact remains the "sun stood still".
bittertruth, how would the sun stopping in its route around the milky way have been in any way helpful for the Israelites?? Swali tu.