Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot?

Where does it say "Adam" in Gen 1?

Oh I see...You're pushing The Gap Theory.There's problems with that one...Too bad its off topic in this thread. We've dealt with it in another with ICANT but I can't find it right now.It goes something like this:If you look at Gen 5:

quote:

---

Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

​

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

---

This is the same Adam as Gen 1 (and I think it even uses the same Hebrew word)Its Obvious that the Adam in Gen 4 is the same as the one in Gen 2, because its the same story continuing on.At the end of Gen 4:

quote:

---

25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

​

26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

And back to Gen 5 again:

quote:

---

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

​

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

​

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

---

So in order for The Gap Theory to hold, there has to have been 2 Adams who each had a son named Seth who each had a son named Enos.Not very likely...It makes much more sense for them to be the same Adam.But lets not drag this thread further off topic by continuing to discuss this here.Maybe you or I could find the appropriate thread if you want to discuss it further.

From Message 32It doesn't have to be two. Its talking about the Adam in Gen 1 where it could just mean "mankind".It uses the same Hebrew word and even has the same context...Gen 1:

quote:

---

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

​

28 And God blessed them,...

---

and Gen 5:

quote:

---

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

​

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

---

Its obvious that they are referring to the same thing. How can you maintain that in light of the above? If you read the Bible literally, and assume inerrancy, then it does support a young Earth.From Message 33As long as I, or we, keep it tied to the original topic then it'll be okay. Right. But then you're twisting God's Word into something else and either no longer reading literally or no longer maintaining inerrancy so you're shooting yourself in the foot in that regard. No, either way you go about it, you are shooting yourself in the foot with believing in Creationism that derives from a literal and inerrant Bible.

That, or the actual truth is that the Bible is not literal and inerrant. Or is that impossible? Let me get this straight... So theres two different creations, we start off with one creation in chapter one and then go to another creation for Chapters 2, 3 and 4, then back to the first creation for the first 2 verses in Chapter 5 and then back to the other creation again for the rest of Chapter 5.Seriously? That is the sort of mental gymnastics I have to maintain in order to not shoot myself in the foot!? That, in itself, is shooting yourself in the foot.One thing we can tell from your theory though, is that god did a terrible job at getting his story across. If these are literaly his words, what kind of bumbling moron does it make him that he can't get the strories straight? Or maybe he's a mean old trickster who did it on purpose just to be confusing?

Why invoke science here?I mean, what's the point to relying on science for some parts but totally ignoring it in others?Here you say: Which is totally unscientific, so why even bother with the science in the other part?You're shooting youself in the foot again.