Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot?

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) do teach against evolution. Many of their children go off to college and end up rejecting Christianity. If the YEC are wrong, they are shooting themselves in the foot. The Bible might call this Millstone Theology. (Matt 18:6) Interestingly, there is nothing that insists the Adam of Gen 1 is the same as Adam of Gen 2. If they are different, that would allow for a huge amount of time between the two, allowing for evolution. If Gen 2 is talking about the advent of agriculture, it becomes surprisingly accurate. gardenofeden is my summary of Gen 2,3,4. So, is fundamentalist theology evolving to fit science? Or is it beginning to Biblically challenge wrong theology that iconoclasts hammer everyone for questioning? If so, it is not much different than many scientists receive from other scientists for their new theories.

Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Adam is the word for man meaning mankind. Male is Ish and female is Ishah. Here, Adam refers to mankind, both male and female. Notice that there could have been more than two. Using Adam for a name in Chap 2 follows a long line of Hebrew tradition of naming children according to some characteristic. Adam means red, derived from the word dam meaning blood. Edom (the same name as Adam) was so named because he had red hair. Adam might have been red haired. Adamah is a word for reddish, fertile soil. He might have the name because he was made from red dirt. There is no reason why Adam has to be the same person as Ish of 1:27.

It says "male and female he created them" Where does it say one each or two? Prior to that, it says him, but then modifies that with the specifics I quoted. It could be two as you say, or two hundred. God created man, but there is no reason that he had to limit himself to two. Gen 5:2 says the same thing, slightly reworded. Again, Adam is the first named, but The Bible allows that he might have been different from the man of Gen 1. If they are the same, then yes, God only created two, and the Bible supports the Young Earth Creationists. From my study, I believe that God created man in Africa and the Garden of Eden could only have been in Southern Turkey.

You are right, this is off the thread. My point is that teaching an interpretation that conflicts with science drives people away, shooting ourselves in the foot. Teaching an interpretation that agrees with science avoids that. This is only reasonable if the interpretation is valid Biblically. Can we stop shooting ourselves in the foot with a solid interpretation?

Delightful. It is clear from Gen 2-4 that this describes the point of domestication of wheat in southern Turkey. Therefore, either creation of man occurred there supporting the YEC, or there was a gap, and man was created in Africa. Gen 2:5 supports the gap, with the use of the word "generations." If so, Gen 5:1-2 relates to Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:3 refers to Gen 2-4. Since genealogies in the Bible frequently only mention the important people, this is an acceptable interpretation. The YEC theory conflicts with science and shoots ourselves in the foot. This theory doesn't conflict with science.

Many of you have questioned the location and the domestication of wheat. Paulk says: "I can't see any indication that it refers solely to wheat. Or even a clear indication of the location." We know that the Bible says two of the Rivers are the Tigris and Euphrates. There are two other rivers, but they may be tributaries with their own name. We also know that at Adam's time there was no plant of the field because there was no rain and no man to tend them. There were already plants according to Gen 1, but plants of the field sound like domesticated plants since these plants can't grow without man to tend them according to scientists. Adam and Eve sew clothes out of Fig Leaves and Adam is cursed to eat wheat by the sweat of his brow. We are looking for where wild wheat and wild Figs grew, and also, since tilling and cultivating are mentioned, where domestic wheat grew. If you draw lines from the Euphrates to the Tigris, along the 200 mm isohyut line to the south, and along the 500 mm isohyut line to the north, it contains all region where wild wheat
and wild figs grew together. South is too dry even for wild wheat and north is too cold for wild fig. There are very few mountains in that area, really only one, since the Mardin hills are only on the edge and rather too dry for figs. Mt Karacadag is in the center of the area and has four rivers flowing off of it, even all coming out of the same snowpack. Scientists have gone to the mountain and harvested the wild wheat and said the wheat grows so profusely that they calculated that a family could harvest enough wild wheat in two weeks to feed themselves for a year. Another group of scientists, by DNA analysis have shown that wheat was only domesticated at Mt Karacadag. Eden is even associated with Haran in two different places in the Bible. The Bible says the garden was in Eden, to the east. Karacadag is east of Haran. It is even a volcano, satisfying the passage about the fiery stones and possibly the flaming sword. For these and other reasons, I see that the Bible can only reference Karacadag as the location of Eden and it is where the first farmer lived according to both scientists and the Bible. I go into more detail in gardenofeden I find every part of the story of the Garden literally true and scientifically true.

Look on Google earth for Karacadag. It is west of Diyarbakir on the Tigris, and east of Haran on the Balikh, a tributary of the Euphrates. It is in southern Turkey. The Bible clearly states that there was no domestic plants before Adam and he was cultivating and tilling (only associated with domestication) and eating bread (from wheat) after the fall. I have shown both statements

If plant of the field is the ancient way of saying domesticated plants, or plants of the farm field then lets look at domesticated plants. Before about 9,500 BC, there was no domesticated plants and no farmers according to science. There also was a drought for 1,300 years, called the Younger Dryas that according to science was far worse than any experienced in historic times. The statement that there was no plants of the field because there was no rain and no man to cultivate the ground is exactly what scientists say. What is unscientific about that? When I look for four rivers, I invoke the science of Geography. When I look for a volcano, I use the science of vulcanology. When I look for good gold and other minerals, I look to the science of geology. When I look for Eden and Haran, I look to history. When I look for wild wheat and wild figs, I look to biology. When I look for the rainfall amounts, I access the science of meteorology. When I look at the domestication of wheat and of sheep (Abel kept flocks), I use the science of Anthropology. I have tried to explain that I have tried to keep scientifically accurate when the Bible references something. If you have questions about the science of any other statements of mine, feel free to ask.

It never mentions trees of the field just plants and shrubs, so that would allow us to look at wild figs. Further, and the start, there is no domestic plants but there are wild plants (Gen 1), and by Gen 4:2 Cain was tilling fields. At the start, there was wild wheat and at the end there was domestic wheat. Therefore, one can look at both wild and domestic. If Gen 2 is all plants, then Plants are created before man in Gen 1 and after man in Gen 2, the Bible contradicts itself. If it is only domesticated plants that are created after man, then there is no internal contradiction and also agreement with science.
As for no rain, Scientists discusses how people were harvest crops around 11,000 BC, but then the Younger Dryas hit. In the Middle East it was a drought of 1,300 years and far worse than any in historic times. There would have been years with no rain at all. I just hadn't had occasion to mention it. It is at my website: gardenofeden

I understand the Bible to be the word of God. If there is a contradiction between two passages, I look to see if there is another valid interpretation. I just wrote about the contradiction if plants are created twice. Sometimes it does take careful analysis of all the relevant Biblical passages. What may have been clear truth to the ancient writers may be misunderstood by us. That is when I look at the various ways the ancient writer used a term. With the term, "Of the field" it is sometimes contrasted with wild. Some verses use wild beasts and then beasts of the field, clearly meaning the farm animals. Yes, sometimes one has to be analytical, but the meanings show up with careful study.

Here is one statement on the younger Dryas and Agriculture
and another on the location of the first domestication
There is nothing in the Bible to say Adam was not during the drought instead of immediately after. I am willing to be wrong on that point.
Cayonu is immediately to the north of Karacadag while Abu Hureyra in Syria is close to the SW of Karacadag. Heun et al put the domestication at Karacadag and they say about 8,000 BC. Yes there is some debate about exactly when and where, but If I say 9,000 and it was 8,000 or 10,000 BC, I still gave a good approximation. The locations suggested are never far from Karacadag. Some years ago, a strong case was made for Israel, but the scientists are rejecting that as one of the articles mentions.
A dry death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/489449.stm
Professor Hillman and his team found that, as they looked through the archaeological record, the wild seed varieties gathered as food gradually vanished, before the cultivated varieties appeared. Those wild seeds most dependent on water were the first to die out, followed one by one by the more hardy ones.This was a clue to why the hunter-gatherer people turned to cultivating some of the foods they had previously collected from the wild, and prompted Professor Hillman to look at independent climate records for the period.What he found was evidence for a terrible drought: It was very sharp and would certainly have been felt within a human lifetime, perhaps even in the space of 10 or so years.Geologist call this period the Younger Dryas, a 1000-year spell of cold and dry weather with interrupted the planet’s gradual warming from the last ice age.Cayonu TepesiEmuseum – Minnesota State University, MankatoThe site of Cayonu Tepesi is located in Eastern Anatolia, which is present day Turkey. The exact location is near the northern arc of the Fertile Crescent in the Taurus Mountains foothills intermediate between Levant and Zagros on the Ergani Plain. This is the earliest Neolithic settlement discovered to date in Turkey and is believed to have been occupied from approximately 7,250 BCE to 6,750 BCE. At the time of habitation, this location was surrounded by steppe forests of oak and pistachio trees. This was a sedentary farming village which showed the earliest remains of copper metalworking. The Cayonu settlement is located not far from the city of Diyarbakir and was excavated between 1964 and 1991 by expedition teams under the leadership of Cambel, Braidwood, Mehmet Ozdogan and Wulf Schirmen. The anthropologist who receives the most credit for the excavation of Cayonu is Robert Braidwood, who also excavated other sites in the Middle East. This site is important because of it’s Neolithic age and the fact that it spanned a time when humans moved from hunting and gathering to more domestication of animals and plants.
The people of Cayonu are believed to be tribal and were the first farmers of Anatolia. The figurine of a female deity was found on this site and provides sound evidence that religion was an important aspect of everyday life. This female deity is one of the earliest traces of a cult that has come to be known as the Mother Goddess of Anatolia and the female deity has been worshiped for millenniums by the name of Cybele. The burial practices of the settlement also indicate different burial practices including interment under the house floors with special orientation differences between male and female members. Jewelry such as bone belt buckles and necklaces of stone or shell beads have been found with some of the burials. The village was dependent on wild and domesticated plants, especially wheat and barley and some hunting of large numbers of deer and aurochs. Cayonu was one of the first areas where domestication of goats and sheep occurred although a number of anthropologists believe that sheep were consistently more common than goats. It is also believed that the dog was the very first domesticated animal in the village followed by pigs, then goats and sheep.

Simple, I was connecting the Bible's statement about no rain, no farmers and no domesticated plants with Scientists statement that in the fertile crescent and possibly all of the Middle East, there was a severe drought, that there was no farmers, and that there was no domesticated plants. Then, at the mountain that fits the Biblical description of the location of the Garden, scientists say that farming started, as does the Bible. I was focusing on the accuracy of the passage. Now, Young Earth Creationists have to explain the drought also. I don't particularly support the YECs. I think that a more solid interpretation, as I have tried to do would also stop Christians from shooting themselves in the foot. I have no problem with creation over millions of years. I rather like the punctuated evolution model, first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould. The moments of dramatic change might be correlated with some creative act of God. Still, that is just speculation on my part rather than anything from the Bible. I would be happy if that is how God works, and I would be happy if the Gen 1 creation was in another way. My speculation on Gen 1 is very different from my analysis of Gen 2

These profound stupidities that the Creationists spout, such as dinosaurs coexisting inspired my study. I was truly amused when one of their evidences, the human footprints next to the dinosaur footprints in a Texas riverbed was shot down. In a drought year, the footprints dried out more and the other two toes appeared. They weren't human prints after all, they were dinosaur prints after all.
When it comes to painting people with a brush, I have seen the evidence connecting Psychiatrists, rich folks like Rockefeller and the whole state of California with Hitler's genocide. Uh Oh, I'm a Californian and the son of a Psychiatrist.
There has bee some interest in debating my ideas which I have tried to relate to the topic though it is not specifically on topic. Do you want to keep it here or start a new thread?

In message 60, I quoted two scientists and gave websites. I stated that the story of the garden was immediately after the Younger Dryas. I looked again, the Biblical passage could be referring to during the Younger Dryas. Scientists are still debating on exactly when wheat was domesticated, during or right after. Look at those two sites plus the study by Heun. They all say that it was during or immediately after the Younger Dryas and in the vicinity of Mt Karacadag. If suffering the Younger Dryas drought forced them to domesticate wheat, then for the first part, there was no rain and no farmers so there was no domestic plants.

There are various versions of your suggestion. Another is that the Ancient Hebrews wrote some generalized statements and then went back in time to fill in various details. This version is found all through the Old Testament, so we don't even have to use your separate pieces argument. In your favor is the idea that Moses collected the Oral stories that God preserved. Each of the Oral Stories starts with the phrase, "These are the Generations of." There is one of those phrases between Gen 1 and the story of the Garden. One of the problems with this being a retelling of the creation of man in Gen 1:27 is in Gen 1, Plants and then animals were created before man, and in Gen 2, man was created first. Yes, I considered it. I believe the weight of the evidence is against it, but would be happy to be proven wrong. I can't ignore a few facts that are inconvenient to a theory. I have struggled with many theories because I limited myself to theories that account for all the facts.