Original Sin, the basis for Christianity?

[YinYangMom]

-YingYang

Can I convince you that the Bible is made up?

Never.

Haha! See!? You just revealed another contradiction! Nice job. If God had created us in his image and likeness, we would not have disobeyed right? But we did! So we must not have been created in his image and likeness, right!? RIGHT!?

Wrong. There’s no if about it. He did create us in His image and likeness therefore there can be no evil within us. We invite evil into our lives through our choices.

Then what did eating the fruit do? Nothing. We were already knowledgable of good and bad, evil. And since God created us sinners, the concept of him creating us good, and it’s our fault there is original sin, is stupid.

Stupid is a value judgement you place on Truth.
That’s your prerogative, but the Truth remains the same.
All Eve and Adam knew was that God told them **not **to eat of the fruit, and that if they did they would be doomed to die, it would be a bad thing.

Again, I go back to the Let’s Make a Deal example…
one doesn’t need to know the specifics behind any option in order to have the ability to choose one of those options.

It was enough that Eve and Adam disobeyed God’s expressed order to allow evil to enter into paradise.

Oh, so sex out of marriage is only evil if you think it’s evil? Remember, personal ideas doesn’t affect truth. Remember, you said earlier that they became aware of their nakedness and were ashamed once they ate the fruit. Yet you still try to hold that they were not aware of evil until they ate, but were aware of sin. So why weren’t they ashamed of their nakedness before they ate?

They weren’t aware of sin. They were aware that God told them not to eat of the fruit of a particular tree and that if they did they would be doomed to die.

After they ate the fruit the rest was revealed to them. Pandora’s box was open. The rose colored glasses they viewed the world with were removed, and so on. Have you ever had an ‘a-ha’ moment? You could cognitively know something but until you actually experience that something you aren’t able to appreciate the depth and breadth of that action - the consequence you ‘knew’ about all along takes on an entire new form - it has a deeper meaning. As with the toddler. Mom tells him don’t touch the flame or you will burn and that would not feel good, it would be a bad thing. Great. He knows from that point on that touching a flame would be bad. But until he actually does it he doesn’t know what ‘bad by flame’ really meant.

What in the world does that mean? They can reject or accept the substance but they cannot deny it? They can very well deny it. And the people who “authenticate” them don’t have any experience of it. They just think about it, if it could have possibly happened. They take into consideration the person’s “goodness or holyness,” and if they are holy or innocent people, and if it seems the vision has some purpose, they accept it. It’s not definite or based on any “evidense” other than what the person says.

Actually authentication is more than an investigation of the visioneer’s holiness. There are many scientific and psychological tests involved. Still one is free to accept or reject the outcome of those scientific determinations.

You cannot hold each of these ideas and still be consistent.

1. God created everything good.
2. God created man with free will.
3. God did not knowingly create evil deeds.
4. Adam and Eve brought about original sin and evil.

You are correct because they are inconsistent.

1 and 2 are true (keep in mind he gave free will to the angels, too).
3 doesn’t even belong since God is incapable of not knowing anything (He’s the origin of everything).
4 Adam and Eve committed the First Sin (that’s why it’s called Original Sin) and through that action introduced evil to the world.

 

[YinYangMom]

Evil is not a “thing” - it is simply the absence of good.

It results in tangible consequences, but evil itself is literally nothing - it is an absence where there should have been something there.

Boy, it’s good to find out I’m not the only one who learned that concept of evil…
do you by any chance recall where you picked that up?

It’s been with me for so long now I can’t even think of where to turn to find the source of the teaching.

Since you also hold that understanding, obviously I didn’t make it up myself. What a relief!

 

[jmcrae]

Boy, it’s good to find out I’m not the only one who learned that concept of evil…
do you by any chance recall where you picked that up?

I learned it from Father Alex, in my very first Catechism class, back in 1985. I’m pretty sure this is also explained in the Catechism, but I don’t know the paragraph number off hand.

 

[Hubriss]

Wrong. There’s no if about it. He did create us in His image and likeness therefore there can be no evil within us. We invite evil into our lives through our choices.

-YingYang

That’s not what you were talking about in the statement I quoted. You said, “Since God created us in his image and likeness, disobedience would not be in the genetics.” But we DID disobey, so disobedience must be in our “genetic makup” (actually disobedience has very little to do with genetics, especially if you believe we have complete and total free will. I don’t believe our free will is 100% but that’s another discussion).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubriss
-YingYang

Can I convince you that the Bible is made up?

Never.

-YingYang

Well… why? If you’re never willing to admit you’re wrong, you’ll never learn anything. Plus, you have to believe much of the Bible is made up unless you believe it word for word. And I’ve heard all fundamentalists are Protestant…

Stupid is a value judgement you place on Truth.

-YingYang

Heh, well that sounds like a propegandist statement. Tell me, why do you seem to insist on believing the Bible so blindly? Without questioning it?

They weren’t aware of sin. They were aware that God told them not to eat of the fruit of a particular tree and that if they did they would be doomed to die.

-YingYang

And disobeying him would be a sin! DUH!! God didn’t just make them aware, he told them not to eat it.

Actually authentication is more than an investigation of the visioneer’s holiness. There are many scientific and psychological tests involved. Still one is free to accept or reject the outcome of those scientific determinations.

-YingYang

Scientific? They’re biased, they’re not scientific. They have a preconceived notion that there is a spiritual or godly world.

3 doesn’t even belong since God is incapable of not knowing anything (He’s the origin of everything).

-YingYang

Woops, dangit, that was a mistype. The third one should be 3. God is all knowing.

Evil is not a “thing” - it is simply the absence of good.

It results in tangible consequences, but evil itself is literally nothing - it is an absence where there should have been something there.

In most cases, evil certainly isn’t an absence of anything. It is the commiting of an evil act. You can make neutral choices dealing with neither good or bad, “Do I want to watch TV? Or go on the computer?” There’s no clear and present “good” permeating through the situation, yet it is not considered evil.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Oh, but we do accept it, every day and in every way. His gift would be life, and we live it every day. If we “accept” the “gift of grace,” we refuse some other gifts to us. We are driven by our mind and bodies. The only way we can “refuse” a gift, would be to destroy or damage other life.

which we do by sinning. ##

Allow and Permit are exact synonyms.

Ultimately no reason.## There is an excellent reason for our creation - which is, that Jesus Christ may be glorified in all things, and His Holy Will be more and more accomplished by the spread of the Reign of His Heavenly Father; the Reign, Kingship, or Kingdom of Heaven/God mentioned in the Bible

Our sole reason to be at all, is Jesus Christ - because everything in the entire universe, visible or invisible, is designed to show forth His Majesty & Glory & Goodness, and all that He is, & has done. All things exist for Him, and “in Him all things hold together”. No creature has any meaning at all except in relation to Him, for all things have been created by Him and for Him:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.

What is the meaning of life ? Jesus Christ, and Him alone. He is the Living Word through Whom His Father created all things, so nothing can possibly make any sense at all if separated from Him. ##

 

[jmcrae]

In most cases, evil certainly isn’t an absence of anything. It is the commiting of an evil act. You can make neutral choices dealing with neither good or bad, “Do I want to watch TV? Or go on the computer?” There’s no clear and present “good” permeating through the situation, yet it is not considered evil.

Evil actions are the consequence of the lack of something in the soul - usually faith, hope, or charity (by which I mean selfless love: I’m not referring to the other definition of charity - giving free stuff to the poor - although that sort of charity is certainly a very typical consequence of the sort of charity that I’m referring to).

Suicide, for example, comes about because of a lack of hope.

Violence toward others (and the sorts of things that lead up to violence, such as theft, gossip, lying, etc.) comes about because of a lack of charity.

Heresy/apostasy is the direct result of a lack of faith.

Does that help you?

 

[ribozyme]

So what if Adam and Eve weren’t real people? What if the scientists are correct by stating that humans evolved? So where does original sin come to play if evolution is true?

 

[Saint_Sinner]

So what if Adam and Eve weren’t real people? What if the scientists are correct by stating that humans evolved? So where does original sin come to play if evolution is true?

Why do you believe that if evolution (a material process) is true this makes the existance of ‘Adam and Eve’ impossible? These thoughts don’t seem to jive.

 

[Damascus]

Can someone answer this for me?

I admit- I did not have time to read all these posts —

Can someone explain how a God She can beget? does this not contradict the Trinity somehow?

Why dont we pray the our Mother?

I am just wondering when it became acceptable to use this innocent “pronoun” of She in terms of God…

Please explain this to me…

How can a She beget? And if you are going to limit God by reducing God to He/She terms… Um, that is human thinking - now you are reducing God to our level!

Is this Blasphemy? I dont see this in the CCC! And I think this is pure liberal gender inclusive hogwash.

God revealed himself as the Word in Jesus Christ the Bread of Life and guess what - Jesus was a HE.

Please help me understand this innocent “pronoun”

 

[jmcrae]

Why do you believe that if evolution (a material process) is true this makes the existance of ‘Adam and Eve’ impossible? These thoughts don’t seem to jive.

Because if macro-evolution is true (don’t worry - it isn’t; at least not the Darwinian kind) then there cannot have been any distinct “first humans” - rather, there would have been a gradual process where some non-humans began to gradually acquire human-like characteristics, with no distinct “first” in the bunch. After all, something that is distinctly non-human cannot give birth to someone who is distinctly human. (I think that both science and religion agree that like must beget like.)

Our humanity consists in both body and soul. The soul is the life of the body. A human body that does not have a human soul is not an animal - it’s just dead. Human beings are unique in that we have spiritual souls - that is, they can continue to exist even apart from the body, after death. (This situation is temporary, though - eventually we will be reunited with our bodies, at the Resurrection.)

Genesis records that God created each creature according to its kind. After that, we see what is called “micro-evolution” or adaptation of species. Adaptation of species is not the same thing as evolution, however. Adaptation of species means that we have different colours of skin and eyes, and different heights, etc., but that we remain the same kind of creature throughout.

The theory of evolution proposes that our ancestor was a microbe of some kind, rather than Adam. Under the theory of evolution, there could have been no “first man” and indeed, human beings could be evolving from non-human species, even until today.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Can someone answer this for me?

I admit- I did not have time to read all these posts —

Can someone explain how a God She can beget? does this not contradict the Trinity somehow?

Why dont we pray the our Mother?

I am just wondering when it became acceptable to use this innocent “pronoun” of She in terms of God…

Please explain this to me…

How can a She beget? And if you are going to limit God by reducing God to He/She terms… Um, that is human thinking - now you are reducing God to our level!

Is this Blasphemy? I dont see this in the CCC! And I think this is pure liberal gender inclusive hogwash.

God revealed himself as the Word in Jesus Christ the Bread of Life and guess what - Jesus was a HE.

Please help me understand this innocent “pronoun”

OTOH, all language for God is insufficient - OTO, Jesus reveals His Father to His disciples as…His Father. And Jesus’ experience & word & life & proclamation & values & priorities, the whole of what Jesus is & does & says & has done, is the measuring-rod, the canon, for the whole of the life of His Church.​

He is a prophet, but more too. He is not one prophet or holy man or sage among many, but the One to whom they all point & to whom they bear witness - He has access to the inmost secrets of God, and is the Wisdom by Which the Father created the universe and all that is in it. IOW, the Cosmic Christ, the Christ of Faith, the Jesus of History, are one and the same person. And this is the man who tells His disciples how they are to pray. And He calls God “Father” - because He is His Son. Sons tend to know who their fathers are, if their fathers are even remotely worthy of the name of “father” - Jesus knew His.

If we imply Jesus did not know from Whom He came, we are in effect claiming not to know Him, because his opponents said “…but this man - who knows where he comes from ?” Jesus’s consciousness of His Sonship is fundamental to the question of Who He is. He reproaches the Jews in John’s gospel for claiming to be sons of Abraham, while not having the faith that Abraham did - He disallows & denies their claim. If He did not know Whose Son He was, then He is as ignorant of His own character and origin as they are. If we are His, His Father is our Father - He opens up His unique awareness & His unique Sonship to those who do the Will of His Father Who is in Heaven - this means nothing, if He is ignorant of Whose Son He is.

However “sexist”, “unfair”, “discriminatory” & so on it may be to us, we have to accept that He knew His origin. I think it is a good sign that He causes offence, because His Gospel is exceedingly offensive. It is not good to be hurt, but it is good to have the capacity to realise that we are, because then we can ask ourselves whether what is hurt is anything but the egoism & hard-heartedness from which He comes to redeem us - we all have it, and all of us need healing. Biut it cannot be healed, if it is allowed to live on in us, whether by our taking offence at the word “Father”, or at any other of His words & doings.

There are real evils, which we *must *rebuke - but it is far from clear that this is one of them. Anything can look “unfair” - if we see it that way; anything in which one person is different from another can cause envy, ill-feeling, & covetousness, simply because creation is arranged not around us, but around Christ. Something is very wrong indeed, when we start altering the Bible to make it say what we want to be told or to hear - it must be left to speak unmuzzled by us, otherwise it cannot rebuke our dullness of mind & heart. Jesus is wholly different from, wholly “other” than us - He is holy, because He is the Son of God in an uniquely full manner & sense. Which can lead us to try to kill him out of envy & fear - that does not stop His being different; it merely shows us up. And that “difference” of His includes His knowing Who is His Father.

The Jews found the notion of a “crucified Messiah” - “Christ Crucified” in 1 Corinthians 1.20-23 - a stumbling block; we today have stumbling-blocks; such as calling the Father of Jesus “Father”. ##

 

[Damascus]

OTOH, all language for God is insufficient - OTO, Jesus reveals His Father to His disciples as…His Father. And Jesus’ experience & word & life & proclamation & values & priorities, the whole of what Jesus is & does & says & has done, is the measuring-rod, the canon, for the whole of the life of His Church.​

He is a prophet, but more too. He is not one prophet or holy man or sage among many, but the One to whom they all point & to whom they bear witness - He has access to the inmost secrets of God, and is the Wisdom by Which the Father created the universe and all that is in it. IOW, the Cosmic Christ, the Christ of Faith, the Jesus of History, are one and the same person. And this is the man who tells His disciples how they are to pray. And He calls God “Father” - because He is His Son. Sons tend to know who their fathers are, if their fathers are even remotely worthy of the name of “father” - Jesus knew His.

If we imply Jesus did not know from Whom He came, we are in effect claiming not to know Him, because his opponents said “…but this man - who knows where he comes from ?” Jesus’s consciousness of His Sonship is fundamental to the question of Who He is. He reproaches the Jews in John’s gospel for claiming to be sons of Abraham, while not having the faith that Abraham did - He disallows & denies their claim. If He did not know Whose Son He was, then He is as ignorant of His own character and origin as they are. If we are His, His Father is our Father - He opens up His unique awareness & His unique Sonship to those who do the Will of His Father Who is in Heaven - this means nothing, if He is ignorant of Whose Son He is.

However “sexist”, “unfair”, “discriminatory” & so on it may be to us, we have to accept that He knew His origin. I think it is a good sign that He causes offence, because His Gospel is exceedingly offensive. It is not good to be hurt, but it is good to have the capacity to realise that we are, because then we can ask ourselves whether what is hurt is anything but the egoism & hard-heartedness from which He comes to redeem us - we all have it, and all of us need healing. Biut it cannot be healed, if it is allowed to live on in us, whether by our taking offence at the word “Father”, or at any other of His words & doings.

The Jews found the notion of a “crucified Messiah” - “Christ Crucified” in 1 Corinthians 1.20-23 a stumbling block; we today have stumbling-blocks; such as calling the Father of Jesus “Father”. ##

Thank you so much for helping me understand this in a more educated way.
I was working off a gut instinct- and just the simple fact that I never heard the Early Fathers speak this way, or anyone else except my liberal Priest do this-
Thanks. It makes sense.

 

[YinYangMom]

That’s not what you were talking about in the statement I quoted. You said, “Since God created us in his image and likeness, disobedience would not be in the genetics.” But we DID disobey, so disobedience must be in our “genetic makup” (actually disobedience has very little to do with genetics, especially if you believe we have complete and total free will. I don’t believe our free will is 100% but that’s another discussion).

You answered correctly. Disobedience has nothing to do with genetics.

CHOOSING is in our genetic makeup…that’s the FREE WILL…the ABILITY to CHOOSE.

That we choose **right **or wrong is the result of exercising our free will.

Eve and Adam didn’t choose to disobey. They chose to eat a piece of fruit. Period.

That they knew eating the fruit was something God did not want them to do is what made the decision wrong.

But they didn’t eat the fruit because they knew God didn’t want them to do it. They didn’t set out to destroy themselves or to stick it to God by doing exactly what he said not to do. If that had been the case then that would support your argument that evil was already within them before making that decision. But the fact that wasn’t the case refutes your argument.

What happened is they were tempted by Satan and they succumbed to the temptation. We are always tempted, and that in itself is not sin, nor is it evil. We can wrestle with thoughts and desires, wrestle with options to say yes, no back and forth as long as it takes for us to finally make a decision. It’s when we exercise the choice - take action - that a good or bad judgement can be place on that action.

Well… why? If you’re never willing to admit you’re wrong, you’ll never learn anything. Plus, you have to believe much of the Bible is made up unless you believe it word for word. And I’ve heard all fundamentalists are Protestant…

Oh, I’ve admitted being wrong on these boards in the past. It’s one of the reasons I am a forum supporter…the people here have helped me understand the error of my reasoning on some rather key issues - including those of artificial birth control and the legality of abortion.

Heh, well that sounds like a propegandist statement. Tell me, why do you seem to insist on believing the Bible so blindly? Without questioning it?

It’s because I have questioned the authenticity of the Bible that I’ve come to recognize it for what it is - and thus trust it. The Bible is not made up. It is inspired. There is a difference and historical evidence supports the inspired explanation.

For the Bible to be made up, that would mean one person had to come up with the basic premise of the entire book on his own, he would then have to share it with others, get them to accept it, and get them to write their portions in accord with his original theme. Now considering most of the books in the bible were written at different times, in different regions, and by people whose paths wouldn’t have crossed the conspiracy theory approach to viewing the bible has no supporting evidence. There was no rapid transit or mass communication, let alone time travel, to allow these authors to make a conscious effort to put forth the ideas of one human. This is particular evident when you recognize the Old Testament was written loooong before the first book of the New Testament. It took Jesus’s walking on the earth and teaching the twelve to get humans to understand the purpose of the Old Testament Scriptures - to get them to tie the events of those stories to what was going on there and then, and even into the future. Even that didn’t ‘gel’ with the Twelve until Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon them to reveal the connections.

Nope. The bible is inspired, and as such it is written in various styles for various audiences. Some parts are to be taken word for word, others are not, this is why we need the Catholic Church to help us understand the teachings expressed through the Bible.

 

[YinYangMom]

And disobeying him would be a sin! DUH!! God didn’t just make them aware, he told them not to eat it.

Telling them not to eat that fruit was making them aware. It is the same action, not two separate ones.

You still do not respond to the Let’s Make A Deal scenario…why not?

It doesn’t matter what is behind which door in order for the contestant to have a choice to make. The free will exercised has only to do with being in a position to make a choice and then making it by acting upon that decision.

The contestant sees 3 doors. Knows nothing about what’s behind them yet has to make a decision. They think about it and think about it, but it isn’t until they decide on door #2 that the choice is made, and it isn’t until they say “I’ll take door #2, Monty” that an action is taken upon that decision. Once that happens the door is opened to reveal the consequence of that choice.

What made Eve and Adam’s decision fatal is the fact that God told them what was behind one of the doors. If he had never said anything about that particular fruit then had they eaten of it the consequences would have been quite different.

Scientific? They’re biased, they’re not scientific. They have a preconceived notion that there is a spiritual or godly world.

Actually, they tend to select non-believing scientists to participate in the studies, the results of which are then reviewed by experts within the church. But, most certainly, the studies are not done exclusively by believers.

In most cases, evil certainly isn’t an absence of anything. It is the commiting of an evil act. You can make neutral choices dealing with neither good or bad, “Do I want to watch TV? Or go on the computer?” There’s no clear and present “good” permeating through the situation, yet it is not considered evil.

No.
It’s do I watch TV or not.
Do I go on the computer or not.
It’s not do I watch TV or play on the computer.

As for the clear and present good…
Here’s how that plays out:

Do I watch TV or not.
I say no. ok.
I say yes. ok

Either decision is has neither good or bad consequences.

Now, what do I watch?
I flip the channels and it rests upon the Playboy Channel.
So I am presented with a choice:
Do I watch this channel or not.
I say no.
that decision is good. I would then walk away, or turn off the TV or change the channel…but whatever I do would result in the Playboy Channel no longer being within my view thus removing myself from the temptations of the flesh.

I say yes.
that’s bad. I would sit there and allow my mind and my body to get caught up in the images which would conjur lustful thoughts in my mind.

Now, as a Catholic, I would know that the church expressly teaches we are not to expose ourselves to such images **and **I know why she teaches that, so when I made that decision to watch the channel I committed a mortal sin which will be fatal if I should die of a heart attack while on the couch.

But as a non-believer or perhaps from a religion/philosophy which does not teach about not watching such things, then the person choosing to watch does not commit a mortal sin. They did not have knowledge of it being wrong, nor did the know why it was wrong so they could not have chosen to do ‘wrong’.

Does that mean the choice was not wrong after all? no.
The consequences of choosing that station remain the same. The person will find themselves stimulated by the visuals. The images will still lead that person to not value the dignity of the human person. It may even motivate the person to act on the stimulation by engaging in sexual relations without love or intimacy involved.

 

[ribozyme]

You answered correctly. Disobedience has nothing to do with genetics.

CHOOSING is in our genetic makeup…that’s the FREE WILL…the ABILITY to CHOOSE.

That we choose **right **or wrong is the result of

Care to pin-point the gene(s) in our genome that allows us to choose? Where are the genes that allow free-will? What chromosomes are they located on?

 

[YinYangMom]

So what if Adam and Eve weren’t real people? What if the scientists are correct by stating that humans evolved? So where does original sin come to play if evolution is true?

Scientists have been gifted with the ability to envision explanations for what is observed around them.

That science cannot prove the existence of Adam and Eve does not mean Adam and Eve did not exist.

Science itself is a guessing game.
A question must first be formulated.
A guess of what the possible answers could be has to stated.
And then they use what tools and resources are available to them at the time to see which of the guessed answers hold up and which do not.

Evolution is one theory. Some scientists are spending their energies supporting or disproving that theory.

Other scientists are spending their energies supporting or disproving the Geneis theory.

The thing to keep in mind is that all of the exercise of science is based upon what God wishes to be revealed to mankind at any given point in time and through which method.

He uses prophets to reveal Truth.
He uses the written word to reveal Truth.
He uses His church to reveal Truth.
He uses science to reveal Truth.

That a scientific theory at any given point in time renders itself to be true is only because it is. Is it the whole truth? sometimes yes, most times, no. Each piece of truth lends itself to further questions, further hypothesis, further testing, further understanding. Thus we have the entire field of science.

Einstein didn’t come up with his theories all by himself.
The theories were revealed to Him by God.
God also moved and enabled him to substantiate those theories and share them with all mankind all for the benefit of mankind coming to know and understand Him better.

The same goes for scripture. The authors did not conjure up the stories from their own thoughts. God revealed to them what He needed them to know and He moved them to write what they did so that you and I today would still have access to His words - so that we could come to know Him.

 

[YinYangMom]

Care to pin-point the gene(s) in our genome that allows us to choose? Where are the genes that allow free-will? What chromosomes are they located on?

I would submit it could be supported scientifically by those who study those things - should God desire it to be so. Of course, that wouldn’t be me. It seems to be your field of study, so you probably already have more of the answer than I could provide.

It would seem to me the fact that brain surgery exists, is evidence that science is coming closer (if it hasn’t reached it yet - I honestly just don’t know). As neurologists have explored the brain they’ve found the exact location of those areas which affect our abilities to laugh, cry, see, to wiggle our fingers and so on. Ask a brain surgeon if they’be found the location where a person’s reason is affected. Can they make a person say yes when they mean to say no? Can they inhibit a person’s brain so that a decision can’t be made at all?

If they’ve found the location of that in the brain, then the geneticists should be able to find that combination somewhere in the DNA. Whether or not geneticists have begun looking for that already, I don’t know.

Remember free will is the term we use to indicate recognizing choice. Without choice, there is no will to be exercised - freely or unfreely.

Animals and insects and trees do what they do because they are hardwired to do them when they do them. “Choice” does not exist for them, thus we know they do not posess will - let alone free or not. We are different. We know this because we see we do not act like everything around us. Science attempts to explain why not.

 

[ribozyme]

Evolution is one theory. Some scientists are spending their energies supporting or disproving that theory.

Other scientists are spending their energies supporting or disproving the Geneis theory.

What scientists? Care to give me a biblography of papers published in scientific journals about scientists who have conducted work regarding the “Genesis theory.”

Do you know what the word “theory” means in science?

That a scientific theory at any given point in time renders itself to be true is only because it is. Is it the whole truth? sometimes yes, most times, no. Each piece of truth lends itself to further questions, further hypothesis, further testing, further understanding. Thus we have the entire field of science.

.

Correct, but a scientific theory is considered reliable (but not necessarily correct) because it explains the *existing *data extremely well. For example, the theory of relativity displaced Newtonian mechanics, Newtonian mechanics statisfactory explained previous data, but relativity explained the new data in a way that is consistent with the observations. Evolution could be disproven in a few ways; for example, the discovery of fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, but no such data has appeared. Evolution is supported by a majority of evidence; it has not been proven (proof is only in mathematics and in liquor), of course, but a preponderence of evidence supports it. But are they any observations consistent with the Genesis account and inconsistent with evolution?

 

[YinYangMom]

What scientists? Care to give me a biblography of papers published in scientific journals about scientists who have conducted work regarding the “Genesis theory.”

If you wish to know those things, then feel free to google it.
I have no desire to read up on extensive scientific works. I certainly appreciate science and consider those in the field special agents of God. But that wasn’t His design for me so I respectfully stick to my own areas.

Do you know what the word “theory” means in science?

I know what it means in English. Does it have a different meaning in science? If it does, I wouldn’t expect to know it since that’s not my field of study.

Correct, but a scientific theory is considered reliable (but not necessarily correct) because it explains the *existing *data extremely well. For example, the theory of relativity displaced Newtonian mechanics, Newtonian mechanics statisfactory explained previous data, but relativity explained the new data in a way that is consistent with the observations. Evolution could be disproven in a few ways; for example, the discovery of fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, but no such data has appeared. Evolution is supported by a majority of evidence; it has not been proven (proof is only in mathematics and in liquor), of course, but a preponderence of evidence supports it. But are they any observations consistent with the Genesis account and inconsistent with evolution?

“That no such data has appeared” still doesn’t mean no such data exists, correct?

If/when God wants the evidence to appear, it will.

Same with the Genesis account. Theoretically I would not expect any evidence to ever appear supporting the theory because according to the story all that was wiped out in the flood of Noah. But that’s not to say it doesn’t exist, especially since it takes place on this same earth. It’s got to be somewhere. Still, man will only come across it if God wishes it to be revealed in that manner.

Apparently for now, He’s satisfied with revealing man’s history through scripture and by His coming down to earth to teach it to us Himself. Works for me.

 

[Hubriss]

Ok. I gotta go to school right now but I’ll respond to your posts later today hopefully.