RTB and the Genealogical Adam

I acknowledge that it doesn’t REQUIRE a direct act of God…

But I just posted this thought in another posting:

Peaceful Science loses the whole Peaceful thing if we say, there is no requirement, and so we REJECT Special Creation for the de novo couple.

The whole point of this project is the realization that de novo special creation of 2 humans can fit if desired by the YECs or Old Earth Creationists.

And that’s the whole point. But at the same we allow for pure Evolution folks to dump the special creation in personal reference to their own beliefs if it makes them uncomfortable.

Yes, but what does the text actually say, and what does it actually mean? Unity in that will promote a real peace, not just a comfortable truce.

We can’t move them to what it actually means. If we could … we would have by now.
And if there was literally no other way … I suppose we would keep trying.
But that’s not the call…

Swami and I are both convinced that by creating the OPTION … we can forget about what the text really SAYS…

Why?

Because really devoted Evolutionists don’t take the Bible that serioiusly any way. I’m a Unitarian Universalist. Do you think a UU’re is going to out on a limb for something written 3000 years ago? Hardly.

So the only people who really CARE what they perceive is written in the bible are the Creationists, a few calvinists… and few fellows like you.

And since we are providing the option to personally dismiss special creation … I don’t see that you need to fuss over any of it. Nobody can MAKE you a Creationist.

I do not think in a utilitarian fashion about what I see, literally, as God’s revelation. You’ll have to allow me this, apparently, eccentricity. Because now I know you really need me to be this way, in the first place. God has put stranger people together than you and I. Cheers!

1 Like

It is absolutely allowed… as long as the YECs/OECs are allowed to have their inspiration as well…

Yes; and I’ll keep working on them… and you. God is real, and communicated with us (and still does) in the text. You might be surprised at the degree to which Josh finds an affinity with this stance.
@swamidass , any comments?

1 Like