Re: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

Hi D.F.,   D.F. said: Our bones may account for the calcium carbonate, but I don't think we can account for the amount of hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon in our bodies from what we can call dust. There also usually seems to be more iron in normal dust than found in our bodies.  Are you assuming the similar element proportions should be found in order to make a literal claim?  I am impressed if it is even close.  Can I infer this from what you have said?   I tend to favor that this dust might have been more of an ooze, but I won't push this thought, of course. :) It's true that we are the debris of vanished stars, but that debris has been sorted into some different concentrations. Yes, we are stardust, excluding the hydrogen (helium, too, if we had any).  Just a nit, but most of our elements are from the furnaces of stars that are likely still around.  Only a small percentage comes from supernova.  Guesses for supernova contribution range from 1% to 10%.   I don't think any scientific paper has been done on this idea.   ... And the attempt to identify the water or creation with the accretion disk of what will become planetary systems seems to me to be really reaching. M-Genesis seems to me even less relevant than Dick's attempted unification. Thanks Dave, I actually do appreciate anyone's comments regarding M-Genesis.   It may not be too many years when from now when astronomers will inage some of these blue disks.  [The necessary nearby stars produce great glare, but new techinques exist now that can block this problem.  Better techniques are coming.]   The evidence certainly suggests they are there, but I can't say if someone like Moses would have indeed used "waters" as his descriptive word for a rich blue and vast flat disk.  Fortunately, there is stronger evidence for some of the other ideas within M-Genesis. For instance, the discovery this year of a protoplanetary region within a disk that clearly looks like a void and the object would be without form due to its dust shroud.  M-Genesis certainly deserves no bandwagon, but scientific scrutiny performed on it might prove it to be a plausible alternative literal view.  Since it claims to be concordant with modern science, it might deserve such attention.  Coope Dave (ASA)   On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:06:41 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes: I may have asked this before, so please excuse me if I’m repeating myself.   I think I just realized that it is inconsistent to believe in both biological evolution and a historical Adam.  Here’s the logic- please comment:   1. Genesis 2 says God made man (the first human) from the dust of the Earth.  Either this is literal or figurative. 2. Genesis 2-3 says this first man’s name is Adam, and gives a story of the fall.  Either this is literal or figurative (talking serpent, tree of life, etc.).   To believe in evolution and a real Adam, it would require that item 1 is figurative, since we know that Adam was not made from the dust of the ground literally.   To believe in evolution and a real Adam, that would mean item 2 is taken literally, since it it the story of a real person.   So here we have a passage where some of the critical components are taken figuratively and some literally, with no hints from the text itself which is figurative and which is literal.  Since there are no hints, it would seem reasonable that both must be either figurative or both literal, so in that case, one can’t both believe in evolution and a literal Adam and still be consistent.   Did I miss something?  People who go for biological evolution and a real Adam are Dick Fischer and M-Genesis adherents, I think.   Reference: Gen 2:7 KJV:  7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.   …Bernie   ____________________________________________________________ Boost your online security with a personal firewall. Click here!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 31 20:49:54 2008