DrW wrote:
In other words, you still don't get it.
i do get the irony in your screen-name being "Dr".
But thanks for conceding the point made.
You are still talking about the date that Eve plucked the apple from the tree in the Garden of Eden.
no, you are.
I find, as does the church, the date inconsequential. An exercise in academics, but not one of Gospel importance.
Perhaps it would help if you stepped it up a notch and tried to answer the questions that have been put to BCSpace on this thread (questions which he has so far declined, or been unable, to answer).
or had good cause to not answer, such as tossing pearls among swine.
If you believe that Garden of Eden myth, as you clearly do, can you come up with a natural history and populations genetics time line that fits Adam and Eve in with real world archeological and genetic data?
why would i want to?
The simple answer is yes i can. People are all around. We know that people today came from people yesterday. It is a reasonable conclusion that there were "first" people.
Given that the science of archaeology recognizes that written documents are acceptable forms of "evidence", the scriptures are valid sources of evidence, even without external corroboration.
Genetic variation only occurs in about 10 percent of every human genes...the remaining 90% is identical.
However, more revealing is that you are obviously insisting that a "natural history and populations genetics time line" are what is required for something to be "true"...especially something so historically distant as Adam and Eve.....yet you have no evidence to draw such a conclusion. I posted before that religious folk tend to recognize
how science works, but some people, such as yourself, insist on how science
has to work.
Robert May (evolutionary biologist), President of Britain's Royal Society stated in 2001
"We share half our genes with the banana" - but genes only make up 2% of human DNA.
The imposition of the scientific method onto religion is a long running fallacy, and inadequacy, of many critics and atheists. The paradigms involved are as apples and oranges.
While one may be content with reducing human existence to complex series of chemical reactions loping around in a bag of skin, imprisoned by the physical laws of the universe, i can not deny the evidence which clearly contradicts that conclusion...the simple fact that a person can choose "otherwise".
More importantly, do you really think that someone who believes in the Garden of Eden myth can really refer to themselves as educated?
obviously i do. the overwhelming majority of scientific, academic, philosophical, theological, and artistic knowledge, invention, and discovery was founded on the work and insights of men and women who had religious beliefs...they may have been at odds with an organized church at one time or another, but all professed a belief in God, and most believed in the Garden of Eden. Just because you have an incorrect notion of God does not mean that everyone else does.
A person who does not recognize this simple truth is inadequate for any sincere discussion on this topic and exposes their rather myopic view of human history and intellect.
And by the way, as I recall, you were one of the folks who had no clue about why rainbows would have been around before the time of the mythical global flood of Noah.
no, i have a clue as to "why" they might have been...there is just no empirical evidence proving that they were...and certainly no evidence that contradicts the archaeological evidence that God created them.