There is hard evidence that original sin exists – namely, that all men die. But you are a naturalist and so are unable to believe that death was not in the original design and only later made its entrance due to one man’s disobedience, which God decided to hold us all responsible for:
“For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
So with the discussion of original sin, you have walked to the edge of a precipice, one which your blind scientism cannot investigate or come to terms with even if it could investigate because it is unable to believe that which it cannot discern with the senses.
I am trying to say that you cannot go there because you are unqualified to go there. You think science has made you whole, but there is a realm where science fails you, and you have just arrived at that realm. In truth, you are stunted and not whole at all. But you will not hear me or anyone else on this matter though they tell you the truth.
Could it be that those who cannot hear the answer to a specific question are not qualified to even ask it? But here is the answer anyway → you will die as will everyone else, and there is your proof that original sin exists.
Not my idea. You will have to make inquiry at the source.
If other people did exist – and that is a big “if” – then as each federal head disobeyed, God would impute their disobedience to the entire family, clan, tribe, all descendants under that specific federal head.
Now enter Adam and Eve to the discussion. Whereas Adam and Eve were the last holdouts against sin, and whereas they were the originals in the form of God, then only when they [finally] sinned did God consign – literally and without exception – ALL over to sin.
Of course nobody inherited anything from Adam because Adam is just a character in an ancient mythological story. This is the simplest explanation of Adam, a fictional character in a fictional story.
I didn’t know about this article until a few days after it was posted, when a friend drew it to my attention. I was wondering why there was a sudden increase in traffic on my blog for one day.
Must of been something you said. I guess he doesn’t first flagg! Gee when a fellow evolutionist athesist is flagged there must ne a nerve hit. do you remember what it was? can you repeat it! Was he right? I was banned there too but, as i dimly remember, a conservative political opinion and not a creationist one. Vaguely remember however.
Is Quasi-scientific a different species that pseudo-scientific?? Wonky? I never heard that word before? Is it Yiddish?
EVIDENCE? Since when was evolutionism based on evidence, or biological scientific evidence?!
On a Wonky quotient scale that beats the cake.
All publicity is good publicity however.
in all these things how come its not pointed out that rejecting genesis is rejecting, for many, a religious belief? So breaking social contract not to attack other faiths unless advocating another faith??
I’m not saying for silence but if they can attack you in the media then how can you be denied to defend/advocate your position? Yet if you do they say WE don’t allow religious advocacy in secular medias.
Who is running things??
The main point Coyne and others seem to miss is that GAE is no different than other faith based beliefs found in Christian theology. We would all agree that the Resurrection would be a miracle and break scientific laws, but there is also no evidence we have to say that it didn’t happen. The same for GAE.
Josh isn’t trying to prove that Adam and Eve are a scientific reality, only that they aren’t ruled out by scientific evidence like other models, such as Adam and Eve being the recent sole ancestors of all humankind. If there were a single couple created de novo in the last 10,000 years, could we detect that event with the scientific evidence we have? Nope, we wouldn’t have a chance of doing so with what we have now. That’s all there is to the scientific side of the debate. The rest is theology.
