So you oppose efforts to demonstrate that the special creation of Adam and Eve can be a viable belief for today’s Christians?
Greg, Are you even able to correctly describe a GAE scenario?
2 Likes
Offspring of Adam and Eve created in Gods image cohabitate and mate w man not made in Gods image who evolved via disease ridden natural evil destruction of the weak and chance selection of the strong evolutionisn. Question now becomes, who is genetically more of Adam and more of evolution? Additionally, it attempts to marry the christian worldview w an atheistic based worldview. This in insulting to the very God who gives new life and who puts love in our hearts for fellow mankind. How is a manmade idea conducive to true gospel empowered escape from sin and sinfulness of not valuing and loving neighbor regardless of nationality, i dont know.
Greg, Greg, Greg, poor Greg:
-
Genesis 2, which describes Adam and Eve, makes no mention of being made in God’s image.
-
Genesis 1, which does mention God’s image, is the chapter that discusses humans without Eden and without the Tree of Good and Evil.
Genesis 1 and the chapters about Cain being married and building a city (for 3 people?) are the warrants for the pre-Adamite population (made in God’s image via Evolution).
Maybe you’ll get it right next time.
2 Likes
Not even that, he built the city for himself.
I will keep this in mind. Thanks George
Of course, I was being ironic.
The Genealogical Adam scenarios usually detail this text as an indication that Cain, and his family, were now living amongst the pre-Adamite population (created through evolution, but with the image of God)! And that the city had plenty of people moving in.
1 Like
That’s a scenario I can agree with. And, really, the only scenario that is, with or without evolution and 6000 year old earth, plausible.
Yes, I think that even in YEC scenario, the only possibility is existence of pre-adamites.
That is not what the GAE is, for the record. Argue against strawmen all you need, but don’t conflate them with me.
2 Likes
Yes. Have you noticed that you are trying to misrepresent my cautions about labeling people as cautions about labeling in general, in this case operations?
In what world are operations and people synonymous?
Racism is an obvious example.
Again, I’m saying that labeling ideas is preferable to labeling people. The title of this thread is an example of unproductive labeling of people.
Do they rejoice together in your chosen church on Earth?
What about all the gay, transsexual, and intersex people? What happens to them in heaven, according to your beliefs?
1 Like
In what world is it possible to talk about BioLogos, and have you accuse the speaker of labeling PEOPLE instead of an organization?
Gotcha
1 Like
George, the context is the title of the thread.
I would have assumed that until you started throwing your net pretty wide.
So… now you just don’t want anyone characterizing Tim Keller (or any other individual), right?
It’s not nice to say Tim Keller (or any other individual) is not an Evolutionary Creationist? Is that what you are trying to say?
No, it’s not. Racist communicates quite well. Those who are racists and falsely perceive that other races are less worthy because of their race are mislabeling by the labels they apply. That is well understood by those who are not racists.
1 Like
George, why don’t you reply to what I wrote, instead of misrepresenting it and writing pages attacking your straw men
What I wrote was clear:
Isn’t that context clear to you, George?
Yes, it is. Let’s go back to the claim that you’re making:
It is, and using racial labels for people is an example of that that does not promote understanding. “Tim Keller is not an EC” does not promote understanding. Putting labels by names at the top of comments does not promote understanding.
Discussing ideas promotes understanding.
And let’s not forget, despite all your arguments, using the label “motor” for the bacterial type I flagellum did nothing to promote your understanding of how it transduces energy to motion, something that all motors do. You couldn’t even offer the tiniest hypothesis. 
Um, it is by moving electrical potential differences – protons, in this case, not electrons – but it is still a motor turned by electrical force. Laugh yourself silly.
The discussion is about getting the labels, or nuances thereof, correct. Putting labels, even incorrect labels or misunderstood ones by names at the top of comments does promote understanding by promoting discussion. It rather succeeded in that, didn’t it.
1 Like
That context is pretty clear NOW.
You spent a lot of time and energy, unnecessarily complicating things with sweeping generalities about “tribalism” and tons of hooey that just made it impossible for your simple message to be understood as a small message, rather than a trap for future discussions.
Now that we are focused just on good ol’ Tim Keller … what exactly is wrong with saying “he is not an Evolutionary Creationist”?
Does he say he is, and someone is denying him?
Or does he say he isn’t, and someone is saying that he is one?
Since I have absolutely no idea what the context is for the thread’s title, I had no previous context to inform me of what kind of “tribalism” you were worried about.
1 Like
You’re projecting.