Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Universal Moral Law & Devolution since the Fall
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 106 of 189 (348723)
09-13-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by mjfloresta
09-13-2006 12:35 AM


Re: a more reasonable answer ....
And, when I read what is written, I agree with Jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by mjfloresta, posted 09-13-2006 12:35 AM mjfloresta has not replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5993 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 107 of 189 (348736)
09-13-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by robinrohan
09-13-2006 10:54 AM


Re: mjfloresta
Sorry, I was in the proccess of doing it last night (this morning actually) but I was running on too little sleep so that didn't happen. I'm working on it now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by robinrohan, posted 09-13-2006 10:54 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 108 of 189 (348883)
09-13-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by purpledawn
09-13-2006 8:52 AM


Re: No Sin Before Eating Forbidden Fruit
One thing I kinda knew, but didn’t realize as much until reading this thread, is how unsupported by genesis or the OT the idea of the fall is (the idea that adam's actions caused death to corrupt the whole world and caused everyone to be guilty of sin). Paul certainly argues for the doctrine of the fall, but it looks like an invention of Paul. Do we have any pre-Pauline source that so clearly expounds the fall? I know that modern Jews didn’t have such a notion - they see the act of adam as just something that happened, and only affected Adam.
On reading Gen 3 again, it really does read like a “just so” story - see Just So Stories - Wikipedia. There is no mention of the fall (the idea that this sin is passed on). There is a chapter title in my NIV for Gen 3 that says “the fall of man”, but as we know, those chapter titles were added to the Bible in the 1800’s, so they don’t reflect the original meaning.
The fall has had enormous influence in our western views of the human. One of the main founders of Protestantism, John Calvin, says this:
quote:
the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design any thing but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.
Book 2, end of Chapter 5;
What a vicious way to see all of humanity! I think that if I held such a depressed view of humans, then maybe I’d see mass murder as a good thing. How could someone work for a better tomorrow for our children if one saw them all as this depraved?
Maybe the whole idea of the fall was invented so as to give Jesus something to have died for? After all, the early Christians knew that Jesus died, and this may have supplied a reason (albeit a poor one) why that death may have been needed.
Have a fun day-
-Equinox.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2006 8:52 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-14-2006 5:03 AM Equinox has not replied
 Message 112 by purpledawn, posted 09-14-2006 7:23 AM Equinox has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 109 of 189 (348884)
09-13-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
09-12-2006 10:20 PM


OK, then, what about Gandhi? He certainly knew about Jesus, and certainly stayed hindu, and certainly followed 5-10 while ignoreing 1 -4, the more important ones.
You also didn't respond to my observation that you were saying that yahweh was an impotent god (well, other than the mary incident).
OK, back to our main topic. Faith suggested that it may be a good idea to check for testable predictions of the idea that there has been a general degradation since a purported fall, around 6,000 years ago. I said I'd get back to that. Here it is.
Such a general degradation across genomes, including both human and animal life (not to mention other kingdoms), should be detectable.
The most obvious thing to test are direct samples of ancient vs current DNA. While DNA does generally decay quickly, we do have samples that have survived. Here are some:
1. Neanderthal DNA. We have some Neanderthal DNA. While a number of dating methods put Neanderthal DNA to between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago (depending on the sample), creationists usually claim that Neanderthals are normal h. sapiens who died in or before the flood. If so, then they are at least 4,500 years old. Using the creationist number, they had only 20 to 1500 years of degradation, compared to 6000 for humans today. Thus their genomes should have only a tiny fraction of psuedogenes and junk DNA. To try some numbers, we need to know how degraded we are today. I don’t know what a creationist would say, but from the claims of people like Faith, I think they would say a high number, since they feel we have degraded a lot since the fall (otherwise it’s a pretty wimpy force of sin and death). So lets say we have only 40% of our good genome left. If that’s the case, then we’ve degraded 60% in 6000 years. If the degradation is linear (again, big guess), then that’s 1% loss every century. So a Neanderthal genome should have around 0 to 15% degradation.
Such a huge difference would jump out to any geneticist looking at Neanderthal DNA. Since numerous studies have been done on Neanderthal DNA, It must not be there. The researcher couldn’t hide it since other people have seen Neanderthal DNA, and more importantly, they wouldn’t want to, since such a find would gain them instant fame. Even if someone were willing to hide data if it favored creationism, they still wouldn’t hid this since it can be interpreted other ways.
2. DNA from other ancient animals. We have a huge amount of insects in amber from what creationists would consider pre-flood times. The same math from above applies here, as well as the same logic.
3. Frequency of disease in the fossil record. Many diseases leave visible signs in bones. Diseases have been shown in fossils across the board, regardless of age. I don’t know that a quantified study of diseased fossil frequency has been done, but since a degradation from the fall until now should show a big difference, such a trend should stick out like a sore thumb, and I’m sure it would have been found if there.
4. Spina bifida in Neolithic England. The barrows around Stonehenge and similar Neolithic religious monuments are dated to around 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thus they should have around half of the degradation we have. Note that creationists generally agree with those dates, since we have roman and other records showing that refer to them as past civilizations. The bodies in the barrows have a hig proportion of Spina Bifida (a birth defect). If there has been degradation since the fall, then ancient birth defects should be much lower, not much higher.
5. Human age at death over the millennia. We have human fossils all over the ancient time frame, and the age of a human fossil can be estimated from bone growth and bone changes. These fossils do not show that ancient people lived to anything near the ages in Genesis. Instead, they show a steady life expectancy, with variation from time to time due to things like food supply. Of course, one could argue that the bone changes that we use to determine age at death simply happened later, which could explain it, but would require that kids lived to, say, 50 years and were still kids, which seems difficult on the parents.
6. Wooly mammoth frozen bodies. It has been shown that sperm frozen in animals who have been frozen whole is still potent even after a few years. This work has encouraged people to think about using frozen mammoth sperm or eggs to breed or clone a mammoth. The DNA of mammoths has been compared to modern elephants to find differences. If the degradation hypothesis is true, then the mammoths would show little degradation , and the elephants a lot as per the math above. Such a difference would again stand out like a sore thumb. No such difference has been found.
7. Dendrochronology. Dendrochronolgy, as we know, is the method of counting tree rings to look at their growth in ancient times. Tree ring series go back 10,000 years in some places (I haven’t heard how creationists explain this - maybe a good new thread topic). (Also - what do creationists say about the flying sword mentioned in Genesis 3? Where did it go? Why can’t any skeptic just go and look at it?) Anyway, with better health, trees are known to grow more, giving wider rings. If there has been a general degradation, then it would be easy to see this in the tree ring series, which would show better health in the past, esp 6,000 years ago). They don’t show this however - they show the same amount of health (with variation) today, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 3,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago, 9,000 years ago, etc.
Well, 7 is the holy number according to the numerology soothsayers of the Bible, so I’ll stop there. Just a little thought brings more of them to mind (such as how long kings lived in Chinese records, which go back 4,000 years). In all of these cases, it is possible to test the predictions of the degradation hypothesis, and the predictions don’t match the data. Maybe a good way to explain this is to say that God reached in and altered each piece of this evidence to deceive those he’s already decide to burn in hell, just as “Paul” says he would in 2thes2:11?
Take care-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 09-12-2006 10:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-14-2006 3:54 AM Equinox has not replied
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 11:26 AM Equinox has replied
 Message 163 by Jazzns, posted 09-20-2006 11:36 AM Equinox has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 110 of 189 (348992)
09-14-2006 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Equinox
09-13-2006 5:36 PM


7-step reality check
Well done. Thanks, equinox, for taking the time.
Have you posted some of this material to the 'barrier to macroevolution' thread? The cause of demonstrating a barrier has already been spectacularly lost,as you can imagine. The 'degradation' fantasy has now been rushed in to rescue the thread. It would be helpful for some individuals there to confront the reality check you offer here.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Equinox, posted 09-13-2006 5:36 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 111 of 189 (348993)
09-14-2006 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Equinox
09-13-2006 5:29 PM


Re: Fall, Flood, and Freight
Equinox:
On reading Gen 3 again, it really does read like a “just so” story - see Just So Stories - Wikipedia. There is no mention of the fall (the idea that this sin is passed on).
Thanks for the link.
No, 'original sin' is not in the Bible. Like the 'Trinity' it is a concept that developed later in Christian theology. (Judaism has had the book of Genesis a long time, but has never taught 'original sin.')
There is a chapter title in my NIV for Gen 3 that says “the fall of man”, but as we know, those chapter titles were added to the Bible in the 1800’s, so they don’t reflect the original meaning.
The NIV headings are more recent than that. They date from the 1970s. They were inserted by the NIV's team of (evangelical) translators.
Maybe the whole idea of the fall was invented so as to give Jesus something to have died for?
I don't think there's any question the expulsion from the Garden got blown into a 'historic space/time Fall' through the efforts of Christian theologians through the centuries to magnify the importance of the crucifixion.
'Testimony' stories have always been a staple of evangelists. The genre consists of presenting a Before & After picture. The effectiveness of a good 'testimony' story depends on making the Before side of the picture look as bleak as possible so the After side glows brighter by comparison. The uglier Christian evangelists could make the pre-Christian cosmos look, the brighter the post-Christian cosmos appears. The pressure on them to dramatize the difference was great, too, when you consider the fact that none of the great moral concerns of humankind really underwent a sea change after the first century. Christ came and went, but mortality, violence, disease, war, suffering and immorality all continued. Most embarrassing to the cause: even Judaism continued.
Among pseudoscientists, of course, 'The Fall' serves as a catch-all explanation for everything in the universe that doesn't seem very intelligently or benevolently designed. They freight the Garden story, like the story of The Flood, with loads of fanciful propositions affecting genetics, evolution, geology, speciation and a host of other phenomena. This is cargo the stories were never meant to carry. Small wonder they creak under the weight.
Biblical literalists do as much violence to the texts they claim to revere as they do to the scientific method.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Equinox, posted 09-13-2006 5:29 PM Equinox has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 112 of 189 (349011)
09-14-2006 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Equinox
09-13-2006 5:29 PM


Re: No Sin Before Eating Forbidden Fruit
I agree that the Adam and Eve story is a type of "Just So Story".
The Book of Enoch seems to be the source information for the fall doctrine and St. Augustine's ideas on Original Sin apparently dominate the teachings today.
Enoch was supposedly written about 2BCE, so it came before Christ; but it is interesting how nonscriptural writings can affect relgious doctrines.
quote:
What a vicious way to see all of humanity!
Yep, but not all cultures had that idea fortunately.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Equinox, posted 09-13-2006 5:29 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 189 (349039)
09-14-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Equinox
09-13-2006 5:36 PM


OK, then, what about Gandhi? He certainly knew about Jesus, and certainly stayed hindu, and certainly followed 5-10 while ignoreing 1 -4, the more important ones.
Gandhi couldn't have been saved because he didn't believe in Christ as savior. To have heard of Christ and rejected his salvation takes one out of the category of righteous Gentile. It's about what you do with the light you have, and Gandhi had a lot of light that he ignored.
You also didn't respond to my observation that you were saying that yahweh was an impotent god (well, other than the mary incident).
I said God is sustainer and protector of even his human creation that spits in his face and you call God impotent for that. Such comments don't deserve a response; I ignored most of your post for that reason.
OK, back to our main topic. Faith suggested that it may be a good idea to check for testable predictions of the idea that there has been a general degradation since a purported fall, around 6,000 years ago. I said I'd get back to that. Here it is.
Such a general degradation across genomes, including both human and animal life (not to mention other kingdoms), should be detectable.
The most obvious thing to test are direct samples of ancient vs current DNA. While DNA does generally decay quickly, we do have samples that have survived. Here are some:
1. Neanderthal DNA. We have some Neanderthal DNA. While a number of dating methods put Neanderthal DNA to between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago (depending on the sample), creationists usually claim that Neanderthals are normal h. sapiens who died in or before the flood. If so, then they are at least 4,500 years old.
I need to read more about Neanderthals but I'd guess that they were post-Flood human beings myself since so much evidence of them has survived.
...So lets say we have only 40% of our good genome left. If that’s the case, then we’ve degraded 60% in 6000 years. If the degradation is linear (again, big guess), then that’s 1% loss every century. So a Neanderthal genome should have around 0 to 15% degradation.
Such a huge difference would jump out to any geneticist looking at Neanderthal DNA. Since numerous studies have been done on Neanderthal DNA, It must not be there. The researcher couldn’t hide it since other people have seen Neanderthal DNA, and more importantly, they wouldn’t want to, since such a find would gain them instant fame.
Googling the Neanderthal genome got me the information that so far they've sequenced 0.03% of it, not enough to make any pronouncements about its character. Also, the DNA is so fragmented and corrupted by bacteria that there would be no way to judge the size of the genome or of the junk DNA at this point.
2. DNA from other ancient animals. We have a huge amount of insects in amber from what creationists would consider pre-flood times. The same math from above applies here, as well as the same logic.
Well, what does the DNA from these insects look like? Math isn't important, but the genome could be interesting.
3. Frequency of disease in the fossil record. Many diseases leave visible signs in bones. Diseases have been shown in fossils across the board, regardless of age. I don’t know that a quantified study of diseased fossil frequency has been done, but since a degradation from the fall until now should show a big difference, such a trend should stick out like a sore thumb, and I’m sure it would have been found if there.
Why would it stick out? What's the condition of the dinosaur skeletons? They look pretty healthy.
4. Spina bifida in Neolithic England. The barrows around Stonehenge and similar Neolithic religious monuments are dated to around 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thus they should have around half of the degradation we have.
Note that creationists generally agree with those dates, since we have roman and other records showing that refer to them as past civilizations. The bodies in the barrows have a hig proportion of Spina Bifida (a birth defect). If there has been degradation since the fall, then ancient birth defects should be much lower, not much higher.
How much junk DNA do they have? The presence of a disease isn't a problem. Diseases started appearing soon after Adam and Eve I would suppose, certainly in some lineages. It's a matter of numbers. The righteous patriarchs of Genesis 5 lived hundreds of years but that doesn't mean the line of Cain fared so well, or other children of Adam and Eve.
5. Human age at death over the millennia. We have human fossils all over the ancient time frame, and the age of a human fossil can be estimated from bone growth and bone changes. These fossils do not show that ancient people lived to anything near the ages in Genesis. Instead, they show a steady life expectancy, with variation from time to time due to things like food supply. Of course, one could argue that the bone changes that we use to determine age at death simply happened later, which could explain it, but would require that kids lived to, say, 50 years and were still kids, which seems difficult on the parents.
I would guess it's a matter of numbers. There aren't that many fossilized human remains. Parts of the human race certainly degenerated rapidly, living very primitive lives in caves in Europe for instance, under difficult conditions -- that would probably have been after the Flood though.
6. Wooly mammoth frozen bodies. It has been shown that sperm frozen in animals who have been frozen whole is still potent even after a few years. This work has encouraged people to think about using frozen mammoth sperm or eggs to breed or clone a mammoth. The DNA of mammoths has been compared to modern elephants to find differences. If the degradation hypothesis is true, then the mammoths would show little degradation , and the elephants a lot as per the math above. Such a difference would again stand out like a sore thumb. No such difference has been found.
Again, they also haven't yet made a lot of progress in reconstructing the genome.
7. Dendrochronology. Dendrochronolgy, as we know, is the method of counting tree rings to look at their growth in ancient times. Tree ring series go back 10,000 years in some places (I haven’t heard how creationists explain this - maybe a good new thread topic). (Also - what do creationists say about the flying sword mentioned in Genesis 3? Where did it go? Why can’t any skeptic just go and look at it?) Anyway, with better health, trees are known to grow more, giving wider rings. If there has been a general degradation, then it would be easy to see this in the tree ring series, which would show better health in the past, esp 6,000 years ago). They don’t show this however - they show the same amount of health (with variation) today, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 3,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago, 9,000 years ago, etc.
The tree rings have been discussed many times at EvC. There are various theories about them.
Well, 7 is the holy number according to the numerology soothsayers of the Bible, so I’ll stop there. Just a little thought brings more of them to mind (such as how long kings lived in Chinese records, which go back 4,000 years). In all of these cases, it is possible to test the predictions of the degradation hypothesis, and the predictions don’t match the data. Maybe a good way to explain this is to say that God reached in and altered each piece of this evidence to deceive those he’s already decide to burn in hell, just as “Paul” says he would in 2thes2:11?
You are making premature claims based on very very incomplete data.
Also, records of kings and dynasties in all cultures are exaggerated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Equinox, posted 09-13-2006 5:36 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Equinox, posted 09-14-2006 2:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 114 of 189 (349073)
09-14-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
09-14-2006 11:26 AM


OK, so your just and fair yahweh tortures people like Gandhi and Anne Frank for eternity, while mass murderers like Jeffry Dahlmer and Musolini watch with joy? Forgive me for not praising yahweh, who makes Saddam look like a nice guy.
quote:
I said God is sustainer and protector of even his human creation that spits in his face and you call God impotent for that. Such comments don't deserve a response; I ignored most of your post for that reason.
Good people and bad suffer alike. We both know that there are many despots living lives of luxury, and good Christians suffering terrible misery. Pretty pathetic protection. The fact that you don't have a good answer is not a reason to say a comment doesn't deserve a response.
quote:
Googling the Neanderthal genome got me the information that so far they've sequenced 0.03% of it, not enough to make any pronouncements about its character. Also, the DNA is so fragmented and corrupted by bacteria that there would be no way to judge the size of the genome or of the junk DNA at this point.
Um, no. We have a million base pairs, which is 0.03% of the 3 billion in the whole genome. Sequencing it is not the same as simply having it. We can tell a lot from that. Imagine you had a 3 billion word encyclopedia, and you had 1000 random words from that. you'd be able to easily tell if it were in chinese vs. english, and it's quite unlikely that if it were as radically different as you need it to be, that we couldn't tell from this much information. Plus, when the whole sequence is finished in a few years, will you give up on creationism if it is the same?
quote:
Well, what does the DNA from these insects look like? Math isn't important, but the genome could be interesting.
Like today's insect DNA. If it didn't there would be a huge amount of discussion as to why genomes are degrading.
quote:
Why would it stick out? What's the condition of the dinosaur skeletons? They look pretty healthy.
as I said, disease is found just as in modern animals. The frequencies appear about the same.
Here is a passing mention of it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190356,00.html
Note that it is so common they can have a whole course on it and use it to learn about modern disease.
quote:
The presence of a disease isn't a problem. Diseases started appearing soon after Adam and Eve I would suppose, certainly in some lineages.
OK, do you see why this looks like moving the goalposts to me? First it you claim a steady degradation since the fall, and now instead you claim that it was nearly instantaneous in some lineages, with hardly any degradation since then? What possible evidence could disprove your hypothesis?
quote:
I would guess it's a matter of numbers. There aren't that many fossilized human remains.
again you talk about something you don't know about as if you knew what you were talking about. there are hundreds of human fossils. It is a matter of numbers - simple statistical numbers.
quote:
Again, they also haven't yet made a lot of progress in reconstructing the genome.
and again, you don't have to sequence the genome to know about how big it is or to start comparing genes or stretches of DNA. The mammoth genome need not be sequenced to see how similar it is to the elephant one,and to see that it is not "less degraded". But I guess that means that mammoth degradation all happened right at the fall, or at least happened to do so in every lineage we have sample from?
OK, I'll look into the tree ring threads.
quote:
Also, records of kings and dynasties in all cultures are exaggerated.
including the chronicles?
Take care-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 11:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:44 AM Equinox has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 115 of 189 (349211)
09-15-2006 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
09-12-2006 11:01 PM


Re: inclination = deed?
umm no they are not they are not related at all, do the muslams believe it? do the jews?
no they do not neather have that concept and point it out to me where genesis says all people are born with the stain of adams sin on them?
you can't because its not part of genesis its from some guy nearly a thousand or so years later that even he wouldn't think its true eather
we sin, this is the concept of the jews it is not brought on by some ancster, but from what we do as a part of being human
i guess you don't trust the authors of genesis then?
you only trust what some folks in a meeting thought mattered?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 09-12-2006 11:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 116 of 189 (349216)
09-15-2006 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Righteous Skeptic
09-12-2006 11:13 PM


Re: inclination = deed?
What? The Fall has everything to do with original sin.
let me explain, i think it was late when i wrote that not sure though, what i mean is only christians have original sin, the authors do not show a concept of this at all, unless you can show it without imposing a thousand years of evolving christian belief on it, very hard to do i would think but possible
where in genesis does it speak of adam's decendents being born with adams "transgression" on them?
or evidence of immortality before the fall or animals eating plants, genesis doesn't show this at all and i have read it at least hmm 50-60 times now?
Original sin is what is in every human being from birth, the natural sin that is in us all. This sin came through Adam, the process of sin coming into the world through Adam is called the Fall.
If you want to read the rest of the passage for context,
yes and how do we know paul isn't talking out of his bum?
i don't take pauls word over genesises word at all
he didn't live in the time of the authors when they wrote it anymore than we did, so why is what he says anything but what he thinks of it?
i guess they let anyone into the bible these days..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Righteous Skeptic, posted 09-12-2006 11:13 PM Righteous Skeptic has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 189 (349217)
09-15-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Equinox
09-14-2006 2:20 PM


... We have a million base pairs, which is 0.03% of the 3 billion in the whole genome. Sequencing it is not the same as simply having it. We can tell a lot from that. ...Like today's insect DNA. If it didn't there would be a huge amount of discussion as to why genomes are degrading. ...as I said, disease is found just as in modern animals. The frequencies appear about the same. ...you don't have to sequence the genome to know about how big it is or to start comparing genes or stretches of DNA. The mammoth genome need not be sequenced to see how similar it is to the elephant one,and to see that it is not "less degraded". But I guess that means that mammoth degradation all happened right at the fall, or at least happened to do so in every lineage we have sample from?
If the ancient and modern genomes really exhibit no differences I'll have to give up my theory about how they should. Creationism doesn't stand or fall on my theory about the genome.
However, since so far all I have is your assertion for this, I'd really like to read a good discussion of what the ancient genome looks like and how it does or doesn't differ from today's.
Also, records of kings and dynasties in all cultures are exaggerated.
including the chronicles?
All are exaggerated, except of course, those in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Equinox, posted 09-14-2006 2:20 PM Equinox has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by ReverendDG, posted 09-15-2006 1:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 128 by Equinox, posted 09-15-2006 12:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 165 by Equinox, posted 09-21-2006 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 118 of 189 (349218)
09-15-2006 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
09-13-2006 12:17 AM


Re: inclination = deed?
Rev DG said it was new to him that there's any connection at al
ok where did i say this? i said they are not synonymous if you read genesis without reading paul and luther and calvin and any nutjob theologan who claims original sin is real into it
its not new to me at all i've it read a lot of things on it and i've read lots of things written by the jewish people - who it was written to
who do not believe the christian view at all, for good reason

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 09-13-2006 12:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:58 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 119 of 189 (349219)
09-15-2006 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
09-15-2006 1:44 AM


All are exaggerated, except of course, those in the Bible.
yes because if something isn't perfect it makes the important stuff meaningless!
i mean all that spiritual truth and how you should follow god and love people and faith in god is meaningless if some guys story in kings or judges isn't exact!
what kind of faith is that? thats the weakest faith i've ever heard of

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 189 (349222)
09-15-2006 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by ReverendDG
09-15-2006 1:45 AM


Re: inclination = deed?
Rev DG said it was new to him that there's any connection at al
ok where did i say this?
Well, you said it in Message 84 but maybe I misunderstood:
I'm starting to think that christian fundies equate "The Fall" with original sin, rather than realizing that the fall has little to do with original sin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ReverendDG, posted 09-15-2006 1:45 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ReverendDG, posted 09-15-2006 2:20 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024