Lets get this straight.

Originally posted by WWindmill
The Bible is simply people's over-active imaginations which started in the creation of the world and a wwflood which never happened as anyone with half a brain can verify through science which finds NO EVIDENCE of a wwflood which would easily be found.

From there the next person came along and added to the information the last one was given until we en ...[text shortened]... ntasy called Jesus who in his super-powers defeated death so the world would become saved. LOL.

Excuse me but have you ever met, talked with or conversed with Ken Ham?

Have you ever read the book of Genesis VERY SLOWLY?

Call us when you have...



A Christ Follower

Originally posted by Nosrac
Excuse me but have you ever met, talked with or conversed with Ken Ham?

Have you ever read the book of Genesis VERY SLOWLY?

Call us when you have...



A Christ Follower

No.. Ive never met him.. does he have a really big swimming pool?

Originally posted by jaywill
====================================

You're right that we haven't observed transitions from primitive ape to human, etc... and frankly, if we could then evolution would be in trouble since darwinistic evolution states that this is impossible. We would never be able to witness such a major transition since such major transitions require many smalle here are people around today which are slightly less than a fully evolved human being?

Does this mean that a FIRST Human Being was impossible?

Pretty much. It really depends on what you specify as being "human" is. I don't think we know when the first human with our own genetic code as it is now was. They would not be very different than their parents though - so there wouldn't be an adam & eve, no.

Do you mean that the transition from pri-mate "ape" (usually the artists make it look like an ape at least) and human is so gradual that there was no such thing as Human Being # 1?

Technically, we still are primates and apes. These are categorizations that were first made by a creationist actually (before evolution was even conceived too). We still are within that category - heck, look at Robin Williams without a shirt and you'll see we still have the genes to be covered with hair.

Since this is a Spirituality Forum I would suggest that this is problem to many Christian's concept of a "first man Adam."

Absolutely. Evolution says nothing for or against the existence of god or really religion (it's not directed at religion at least), however its conclusions do contradict a literal reading of the bible.

Originally posted by WWindmill
No.. Ive never met him.. does he have a really big swimming pool?

He swims in ignorance regularly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

http://www.answersingenesis.com

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

Originally posted by Nosrac
Excuse me but have you ever met, talked with or conversed with Ken Ham?

Have you ever read the book of Genesis VERY SLOWLY?

Call us when you have...



A Christ Follower

yes, it says that incest is cool, plants are created before the sun, there is light before the sun and the stars exist and for that matter there day and night before the sun exists. it also says that some beasts escaped the flood in a boat but the kangaroos magically developed gills and survived.

you shouldn't read the genesis VERY SLOWLY. because after you read it a thousand times determined to find sense in it, maybe you will.


a christ follower that can do some occasional reasoning.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Does this mean that a FIRST Human Being was impossible?

Pretty much. It really depends on what you specify as being "human" is. I don't think we know when the first human with our own genetic code as it is now was. They would not be very different than their parents though - so there wouldn't be an adam & eve, no.

[i]Do you mean that the tr gion at least), however its conclusions do contradict a literal reading of the bible.

[/i]You mention that there is only a problem to those with a litural interpration of the bible.

Well, we all should know that there are things in the bible which are parables, analogies, and symbols. So the teaching of the bible comes accross not just in one way but in a number of ways, and sometimes it is poetic.

Now as far as a first man Adam is concerned I challenge you to prove to me that Adam is not meant to be understood as a historical figure.

Where in Luke's genealogy of Jesus back to Adam does the clock stop and we ascend into some transcendent existential realm where Adam is not communicated as a historical person?

You may say "No problem, Christian church. It is only a little minor concession about a mistakenly litural interpretation of teachings about Adam."

Sure, next you'll wink to us that it is only a problem with a "litural" interpretation that Jesus is Son of God or is risen from the dead or even that God exists at all.

"Now, don't take it too liturally. It doesn't mean that there really is a God you know?"

Adam is taught as a man, the first, made in the image of God. If you're vague and confused about it because of your devotion to Darwinism, the Bible is not.

Keep studying your science. Maybe by the time your kids are my age there will be agreement that there must have been a first human being.

But if not, I'm running with the literal side of Adam being an historical anscestor of us all and especially of Christ. Luke traces the ancestory of Christ back to Adam.

I don't believe this is a statement on the age of the universe. I think it is a statement though, on the beginning of the human race.

Some of us won't follow a "no first man" theory. If you say there is no Adam you are likely to follow shortly with "Oh, there is no last Adam either. There is no second man. There is no Savior Jesus." See First Cor. chapter 5 and 15.

And if you don't follow on down that slippery slope, I think your cousin will.

As far as a first man not existing, your evolution theory must have it wrong.

Originally posted by jaywill
You mention that there is only a problem to those with a litural interpration of the bible.

Well, we all should know that there are things in the bible which are parables, analogies, and symbols. So the teaching of the bible comes accross not just in one way but in a number of ways, and sometimes it is poetic.

Now as far as a [b]first man Adam[ As far as a first man not existing, your evolution theory must have it wrong.[/b]

Now as far as a first man Adam is concerned I challenge you to prove to me that Adam is not meant to be understood as a historical figure.

I don't care what Adam is meant to be understood as. I'm not trying to make the bible fit reality nor am I trying to make reality fit the bible.

Adam is taught as a man, the first, made in the image of God. If you're vague and confused about it because of your devotion to Darwinism, the Bible is not.

Wow.. I don't have a specific devotion to darwinism. Darwinism is not a religion for me and it has nothing to do with faith. If you think that the reason why I don't believe the bible happened is because of some devotion to darwinism then you don't understand me at all.

There are many christians who believe many different things.

I have met many christians who don't believe that Adam was an actual person. I don't care about trying to tell you what the bible is supposed to teach or what it isn't outside of what I know.

I don't have any argument with you about what the bible teaches because there are many people who have various beliefs. I think some of the bible is at least based on historical facts but there are a lot of things that are simply allegorical, fictional and exagerated. That's my opinion only.

Keep studying your science. Maybe by the time your kids are my age there will be agreement that there must have been a first human being.

Can you please cut the condescension? I mean really. I know I've contradicted your beliefs, but I haven't disrespected you at all and I definitely haven't done anything to deserve such disrespect.

Some of us won't follow a "no first man" theory. If you say there is no Adam you are likely to follow shortly with "Oh, there is no last Adam either. There is no second man. There is no Savior Jesus." See First Cor. chapter 5 and 15.

I already don't believe there is a savior jesus. He may have existed, but I don't see him as being any more of the son of god than I am. There is no slippery slope to go down.

As far as a first man not existing, your evolution theory must have it wrong.

Well, you seem to believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god. That's your perogative and your faith that you believe that if it contradicts the bible then it must be wrong. I have no problem with that as long as you acknowledge that it's faith and not science. Science is about determinations based on evidence and that's not happening if it's restricted to having to confirm what's in the bible (or any book).

Science should and can not be restricted by any dogma, religion or other philosophy.

Originally posted by jaywill
[/i]You mention that there is only a problem to those with a litural interpration of the bible.

Well, we all should know that there are things in the bible which are parables, analogies, and symbols. So the teaching of the bible comes accross not just in one way but in a number of ways, and sometimes it is poetic.

Now as far as a [b]first man Adam[ ...[text shortened]... As far as a first man not existing, your evolution theory must have it wrong.

the problem with those that take the bible seriously and literally is that they claim to be making science, but all of their answers come from bible verses.

i don't know about you YEC's but real scientists question everything first and look for proofs in more than one source. it is like watching only foxnews and taking all other news as false if they contradict with fox.

if you ask a YEC why does he think the earth is 6000 year old he replies, the bible says so. if you ask why do they believe the bible, they say it is the word of the one true god. if you ask how they know it is the word of god they answer "the bible says so". How can they not see the vicious circle is beyond me.

and apart from answering everything with the bible says so they actually look for patterns in the world that may fit the bible. i don't know if you remember the toddler toy where you had to push different shaped blocks through likely shaped holes. the cube doesn't go through the round hole but with sufficient force, it will. likewise they forced the grand canyon as a irrefutable proof the flood happened()🙄

you mention adam as an historical figure. shouldn't there be other historical sources mentioning him? all of mankind perished in the flood and only noah survived. how come only the son from which the jews descend remembered to pass down the knowledge of adam and god?