Creationism AND Evolution can BOTH be correct (possibly)

[Mytical]

You really sure you want me to do that? >.>

Remember you are trying to adapt some odd 3.7 billion years worth of life for which written language only appeared around 3000ish BC or so to a story that was actually compiled by multiple people from around 4 other sources while stealing things from the Greeks to create a narrative that fit the theological agenda in the 5-6th century or about. All of which was debated and argued about for centuries without concensus ( the "official" version was typically just the one most popular with people in power and/or the one upheld by the people who killed everyone who disagreed ). Which was then translated ( incorrectly ) multiple times to the point where common beliefs of Christianity are actually entirely based on mistranslations.

Sure, as I said, it is just a random thought, not like the theory is my whole world

Now.. I seem to be missing a whole lot here. First with my theory the 3.7 billion years of the life would have been spent in the garden of eden. Since only 2 people existed in the garden, there would be no need for written language until they left the garden (and even then until the population would be big enough to call for a written language. Remember I am not touching on if the garden actually existed, but HOW it could have existed since the creation of earth. Nor am I examining if Christianity is correct or not. So, if you have some holes in the theory itself by all means, I am all ears. I think it would be an interesting topic.

[Gravekeeper]

Now.. I seem to be missing a whole lot here. First with my theory the 3.7 billion years of the life would have been spent in the garden of eden. Since only 2 people existed in the garden, there would be no need for written language until they left the garden (and even then until the population would be big enough to call for a written language. Remember I am not touching on if the garden actually existed, but HOW it could have existed since the creation of earth. Nor am I examining if Christianity is correct or not. So, if you have some holes in the theory itself by all means, I am all ears. I think it would be an interesting topic.

Well. the problem is there is no way it could have existed scientifically without getting into God intentionally decieving us to hide its exsistence. Even as you put forth it being outside of time, that wouldn't matter because of the geological and fossil record. Humans ( and every other animal, for the animals were in Eden as well ) would just suddenly appear in the fossil record all at once.

Additionally, Genesis has a narrative of family trees so to speak including lifespans. Which range from 700 to 1000 years without any rhyme or reason. This is post Eden and this plus the Bible's internal timeline are what give's Young Earther's the magic 6000 year old number. Because the chronology of Genesis starts around 4000 BC. So in order to hold up, 4000 BC is when the fossil record should suddenly show a completely inexplicably emergence of species including humans. There should also be a subsequent mass extinction of Earth around 3000ish BC ( Noah's Ark ) and all animals on Earth, us included, should be genetically traceable to Noah's family and the single pairs of animals onboard the ark. Obviously, neither of these holds up to the faintest scrutiny.

Additionally, the oldest known written languages begin around 3300 BC. Using the chronology of Adam's descendents in Genesis, this means written language would have emerged pretty early in the Genesis narrative. Mahalaleel for example lived for an alleged 895 years. 700ish of those would have been with a written language around. Yet none of these people ever bothered to write anything down despite the supposed importance of Old Testament God ( and his ever present wrath ).

And this is still ignoring the idea of Adam/Eve being immortal within Eden to begin with. Unless they were distinctly not human and bore little resemblance to us genetically, they would have basically gone insane. The human brain, regardless of health, is not meant to manage 3.7 billion years worth of memories. The two of them would be batshit insane.

If they weren't batshit insane upon emergence then they underwent a drastic genetic overhaul upon emerging from Eden. In which case they would no longer have been made in God's image as they're suppose to be.

Oh, right, and the land of Nod is not a place. It means to be nomadic. All it means is Cain wandered around.

and thats just scratching the surface of the problems me thinks. >.>

[Mytical]

A lot of your posted issues come after the exit from Eden, which my theory does not include. So I will by pass those issues, as my theory does not directly touch on that.

So I will answer in the order you listed, bypassing the parts which the theory does not touch on. The garden of Eden WAS protected from being found according to what I have read. Additionally, in case it was ever located, a fire sword wielding four faced creature was put as a guardian. So it is not inconceivable that it was hidden before that time.

As for the fossil issue, yes I will concede that the theory has that flaw. Technically it would be in the after Eden period which this theory does not cover, but I do have to concede that it would be a rather large flaw. Cool

Now the age issue. A lot of this is not covered in the theory, so how long the descendants lived and such is something left to brighter minds then I. As for memories and such. Here is something to digest. They actually would have changed a little IN Eden. Otherwise... how did immortal people suddenly become mortal? Eating from the tree of knowledge had to have caused changes in their physiology, no way around that. Lets assume that this did not happen though, and you are correct. A human brain would not be able to hold that much information. No mention of God protecting them from such, so yes, that is another flaw. ((Believe it or not, I actually enjoy when the flaws are pointed out))

As for Nod not being a place, really immaterial to this theory. Where the wives come from that were not related really isn't important in the theory.

[Bloodsoul]

Granted, when I think of evolution × Bible I think of Noah having a pair of "ordinary" wolves on the Ark who, upon emerging onto dry land, go off to have countless litters who have countless litters who, over generations, experience a much more rapid evolution to become a wider variety of wolf, dog, canine, and what-have-you.

Or… something…

[Gravekeeper]

A lot of your posted issues come after the exit from Eden, which my theory does not include. So I will by pass those issues, as my theory does not directly touch on that.

You original theory did include post Eden. Plus post Eden is important as it establishes a timeline for the exit from Eden that we can compare to actual history which illuminates all these problems ( For example, Adam lived long enough to see the advent of written language. Yet the supposed first human being ever did not bother to write anything down. ). If we're going to focus just on Eden then Evolution x Bible as a theory has already fallen apart since Eden is only a small portion of Genesis.

There are also multiple conflicting references to Eden both before and after Genesis ( like many Bible narratives much of it was inspired by earlier legends and/or outright stolen from other sources ). Plus the "original" ( ie Hebrew Old Testament that Christianity took for the Bible ) Eden differs from the Christian interpretation which came later. But for this exercise we'll focus just on the Christian Eden of Genesis then?

Which brings up even more problems to be honest. Because the Christian interpretation is based on a lot of mistranslations and misconceptions when moving around from Hebrew to Greek to English. But, anyhow...

The guardian you mention was put into place to guard the way to the tree of life from Adam and Eve. It was not put in place until Adam and Eve fucked up and were cast out. To prevent them from eating from the tree of life and gaining(regaining?) immortality. It was not to protect Eden from outsiders, it was to protect the tree from the newly cast out humanity. There was no guardian at the gates so to speak prior to this nor any reason for there to be as there should not have been anything outside the garden and if there was it raises much bigger questions.

Nod is fairly important. As is all of the post Eden narrative. Genesis also has two creation narratives as well. Honestly this whole theory is a mess, heh. If you rule out everything post Eden ( and thus the majority of Genesis ), then what exactly is the theory anymore? We're long past arguing for Bibilical acceptance of evolution based on Genesis then.

[Gravekeeper]

Or… something…

Go with or something. One breeding pair simply isn't enough to sustain a species either through survival probability or genetics. Which is kind of ultimately the entire problem with Genesis even if you accept its narrative at face value. Inbreeding just doesn't pan out well. >.>

I mean, for a modern example look at the Mormons. Specifically, the creepy polygamst ones in the US. They insisted on basically only humping each other and as a result are afflicted by fumarase deficiency ( which leads to severe mental retardation, epilepsy, you name it ). Which is normally one of the rarest conditions in the world. Prior to this bunch of idiots marrying their cousins over and over there were only 13 known cases worldwide.

Now there's 20+ cases within a few blocks of each other in one Mormon town because they refuse to marry outsiders.

[Tama]

Only one thing I have to say. In Gods image was meant spiritually, not physically.... But that still confuses me.

[Mytical]

Ok, this is going to be a lot of quoting, but since I need it to respond, going to have to do. So.. onto the replies.

You original theory did include post Eden. Plus post Eden is important as it establishes a timeline for the exit from Eden that we can compare to actual history which illuminates all these problems ( For example, Adam lived long enough to see the advent of written language. Yet the supposed first human being ever did not bother to write anything down. ). If we're going to focus just on Eden then Evolution x Bible as a theory has already fallen apart since Eden is only a small portion of Genesis.

That is sort of like saying. You can't talk about steering a vehicle unless you talk about the vehicle, the manufacturer, and the retailers that sale the vehicle. As my theory covers only how long Adam and Eve was in the Garden, and the only way it touches on post Eden is how then they started keeping track of how long they were alive.

The guardian you mention was put into place to guard the way to the tree of life from Adam and Eve. It was not put in place until Adam and Eve fucked up and were cast out. To prevent them from eating from the tree of life and gaining(regaining?) immortality. It was not to protect Eden from outsiders, it was to protect the tree from the newly cast out humanity. There was no guardian at the gates so to speak prior to this nor any reason for there to be as there should not have been anything outside the garden and if there was it raises much bigger questions.

I am aware the guardian was put in place after Adam and Eve left. Now let me see if I can understand this though. So.. the guardian would not stop other humanoids from finding Eden and regaining immortality? Hmm not much of a guardian I would say. As for not needing a guardian, with my theory that means that the universe was progressing without Adam and Eden. Which means a guardian would be needed to protect the garden from outside influence. This is of course IF the theory was not just a random thought of mine one day

Nod is fairly important. As is all of the post Eden narrative. Genesis also has two creation narratives as well. Honestly this whole theory is a mess, heh. If you rule out everything post Eden ( and thus the majority of Genesis ), then what exactly is the theory anymore? We're long past arguing for Bibilical acceptance of evolution based on Genesis then.

Actually the interesting part is where the female come from. Also, why would nomadic life be called 'The Land of Nod'? Again though, one can talk about Eden without talking about post Eden. The theory is pretty simple in my opinion. Adam and Eve existed for much longer then people thought, as before they ate from the tree they didn't know death.

[Gravekeeper]

As my theory covers only how long Adam and Eve was in the Garden, and the only way it touches on post Eden is how then they started keeping track of how long they were alive.

Well no, your original theory delved into Cain, Nod and Neanderthals post Garden. Plus like I said the post Eden narrative is critically important to placing the timeline of Eden for historical and scientific comparison.

I am aware the guardian was put in place after Adam and Eve left. Now let me see if I can understand this though. So.. the guardian would not stop other humanoids from finding Eden and regaining immortality? Hmm not much of a guardian I would say. As for not needing a guardian, with my theory that means that the universe was progressing without Adam and Eden. Which means a guardian would be needed to protect the garden from outside influence. This is of course IF the theory was not just a random thought of mine one day

If the Garden is hidden it does not need a guardian. Nevermind one as horrific as a cherub ( people definately would have written that one down ). Given the incredible life spans attested to Adam and his descendents, they clearly would remember the location of Eden. Adam also only had a leaf covering his balls when he left the garden. He would not travel far from it without any means of modern transportation. Especially given Eden would have been the primary food and water source in the area.

Actually the interesting part is where the female come from. Also, why would nomadic life be called 'The Land of Nod'? Again though, one can talk about Eden without talking about post Eden. The theory is pretty simple in my opinion. Adam and Eve existed for much longer then people thought, as before they ate from the tree they didn't know death.

Nod is Hebrew. "To wander". In the Hebrew narrative, Cain is marked as a fugitive and a wanderer by God as punishment. He is essentially exiled. As for his wife, in Judaism ( where all of this is swiiped from by Christianity ) Cain's wife is identified as his sister. So a daughter of Adam and Eve. ( Viva la inbreeding~ ). Cain's son then goes on to father 77 children. Who presumably hump each other into severe genetic maladies but are then wiped out by the flood anyway.

Honestly, this is a difficult theory to approach seriously even as an exercise in curiousity because the Christian interpretation of Eden is not accurate to the source material on its face to begin with.

[Tama]

I only read about a flaming sword turning every which way to keep people out of Eden, whatever that means. (A metaphor for lava? Who knows)

[Mytical]

There is also a guardian. However, because of my memory issues, I did get something wrong. I could have swore that the guardian was supposed to be looking four ways also, which I guess I associated with four faces. I stand corrected on that.

[Gravekeeper]

There is also a guardian. However, because of my memory issues, I did get something wrong. I could have swore that the guardian was supposed to be looking four ways also, which I guess I associated with four faces. I stand corrected on that.

Four heads to be specific. Man, ox, lion, eagle if I recall right. But thats a later depiction after Genesis. Originally they're more like a sphinx with wings for lack of a better description. Either way, horrific and suitably impressive. -.-

[siead_lietrathua]

Either way, horrific and suitably impressive. -.-

like most angelic beings. except the ones with spinning wheels. that just makes me think those ones are hip-hop wannabees.

/ot.


i think the biggest issue with trying to reconcile creation with cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution is that it will work for any creation story. If you treat the creation myths as allegory instead of fact, then they can all find things that can match up to symbolize the natural processes we've learned about.
i mean heck, i could argue the norsemen must have had it right. after all, they believed the world was born of fire and ice (could symbolize the chemical chaos of the early universe), the first creatures emerged from melting ice (the slow and gradual change of creatures from a primordial state), and the first humans were created from trees (which totally shows how all living things are related through evolution).
if it will work for any creation story, then it's impossible to determine which one is true.

[Bloodsoul]

So now I'm picturing "emerged from melting ice" as a loose call back to the end of the last, major Ice Age.

[Panacea]

A talk about a theory (I never said it was a testable or proven theory , just random thoughts in my head) of how the two various things (Evolution and Creationism) could possibly function as a whole, followed a very odd (but understandable) side path.

Mytical, you're confusing the definition of the word theory in its scientific meaning and general meaning.

In science, a theory by definition is testable because it has been tested and confirmed. Creationism is not a theory because it is not testable.

To answer your original question: Creationism and Evolution are totally incompatible with one another for the simple reason that Creationism is theology and Evolution is science. They are two totally separate subjects.

The Bible is not a science textbook. It is not even a history textbook. It is theology, full stop.

Any attempt to conflate these two subjects is pure and simply rationalizing to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

Count to one with the middle finger.

That's the best laugh I've had all week. Thank you.