A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

A good resource; I appear to be close in thinking:

Amazon.com

I hope the book is showing in the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Account-theological-historical-scientific/product-reviews/1921643919/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

 

[Sereni-tea]

Common sense reading and considering custody. Adam talked with God in Eden. What did they talk about? Humans are curious. Why were there stars at dusk? Why did he want to lay with Eve so often? How could baby giraffes possibly survive?

They want answers and have huge memories.

Please show against that.

It doesn't work like that. You have made the assertion and have to produce evidence to support it. So far all you have is speculation.

 

[Sereni-tea]

“0ne chance of a more developed polypeptide occurring out of the number of electrons in the universe!” Evolution is such blather.

Creation ministries.com: industrial chemist shocked by evidence for a young earth and creation. 26th min. YouTube.

I have said multiple times that I am not an advocate for evolution. So don't bother bringing it up.

 

[EarlyActs]

It doesn't work like that. You have made the assertion and have to produce evidence to support it. So far all you have is speculation.

It doesn't work like that. Two people had custody before the cataclysm. One went through the cataclysm which eliminated anyone and any other records. It was then a very short time before the recitation was a part of a tribal identity. What is speculative about that?

If you saw Maloney's MOSES DILEMMA, you would see three "world renowned" text professors, from Tel Aviv, Oxford and U Toronto, unable to answer Maloney's questions on Joseph's 'capture' of said tribes heritage. All they had was speculation about a late-dated unknown temple priest scribe. Their fav German archeologist buried the evidence of semitic people living in Goshen; I mean refused to excavate it under Goshen when discovered. It is now public record that all these text experts have been working from that suppressed body of information. What is speculative about that?

 

[EarlyActs]

It doesn't work like that. You have made the assertion and have to produce evidence to support it. So far all you have is speculation.

So your claim to know "how it works" is your evidence that the first human was not curious about stars at dusk, the delight of a man laying with a woman and the feasibility of a baby giraffe surviving birth? Got it. That is not how it works.

In which case, why are you involved in this topic at all? There is then nothing to work with either way! Or are you just reporting that there is no work to be done?

Obviously the reason appears to be to help modern text scientists feel important and exclusively authoritative about their speculations. But they do things like suppress Cassuto for a couple decades and then laugh about the fact that they did so in their 'labs.' This is public record by a former member of U Toronto's semitics staff. And the above German archeological suppression which took decades of misunderstanding to undo. And suppress dissent like Pellegrini and Bretz about geology when it breaks the conventional geologic narrative, which is public record.

We don't have evidence of names of animals chosen by the Adamic tribe, but we have the record that they did such naming. Likewise on everything else cultural which the tribe did--art, mining, music, city formation, geographical organization, etc etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

Back to your C14 statements, Dr. Ross clarified that microbes would not be 'life' as Gen 1 refers. "It doesn't think in terms of microscopes." Does the presence of microbes supply the C14 that is detected by newer instrumentation that you mentioned, spanning 2-3x the usual 23K?

 

[Sereni-tea]

So your claim to know "how it works" is your evidence that the first human was not curious about stars at dusk, the delight of a man laying with a woman and the feasibility of a baby giraffe surviving birth? Got it. That is not how it works.

Thanks for twisting my words. You know that had nothing to do with my response you are referring to.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Back to your C14 statements, Dr. Ross clarified that microbes would not be 'life' as Gen 1 refers. "It doesn't think in terms of microscopes." Does the presence of microbes supply the C14 that is detected by newer instrumentation that you mentioned, spanning 2-3x the usual 23K?

I have no idea why you are referring to microbes.

Do you know how carbon-14 is formed? It is formed in the upper atmosphere by radiation hitting nitrogen and combining with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. It is then aborbed into plants during photosynthesis which in turn is eaten by animals. When the plant/animal dies, it not longer absorbs radioactive carbon dioxide and the carbon-14 levels begin to drop as it decays.

I don't know where you got the 23K range from but I am informing you of what the current accepted range is - 50K, but some very specialised labs can get closer to 80K.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Two people had custody before the cataclysm. One went through the cataclysm which eliminated anyone and any other records. It was then a very short time before the recitation was a part of a tribal identity. What is speculative about that?

What is speculative is ... well everything. The Bible says nothing about a chain of custody. So instead of speculating, why not start with what we do actually know:

We know that neither Adam, Noah, Abraham nor Joseph wrote Genesis.
We know that a lot of the material in Genesis aligns well with the ancient near eastern culture, ancient views of the cosmos, covenants, slavery, etc.
We know that the material in Genesis 1-11 bears a many similarities to other ancient near eastern texts (e.g. Egyptian and Babylonian creation accounts, Gilgamest epic, etc) but there are also many key differences which sets it apart and presents the text as a polemic against the beliefs of Israel's neighbours.
The genre of Genesis 1 is not a straight-forward historical account, but contains a lot of literary devices - as I have quoted elsewhere "Genesis 1 … is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose."

These things matter; they are part of the context of the text. When you ignore them and try to put them in a different context (e.g. modern day scientific context) you will end up with confused ideas that simply don't work.