From time to time, I've heard people quibble at Adam naming all the kinds of animals in an afternoon.
Well, consider the following links to articles about so-called 'savants'. People of seemingly extraordinary mental powers, who also appear to have a level of intellectual disability. This is not to say anything but the human mind can exercise vast capability.
If Adam was without the limitations of the fall that we have inhereted, I see no difficulty with him doing as the scripture indicates.
Mathematical and language genius
Musical genius
'Savant' profiles.
Given that today's generation are descendants of Adam, bearing a build up of mutations since the Fall, then it is fair to say Adam was the 'Rolls Royce' of humanity.
ReplyDeleteNeil
Too true. Most discussion that thinks that early man was primative starts with its foundation in Darwinistic doctrines of progress from bad to better; not with the Bible's idea that it runs the other way!
ReplyDeleteWhich prompts the question ... Just what capacities would Adam have had if he did not sin?
ReplyDeleteNeil
Well, if the resurrected Jesus is the last Adam, what Jesus was capable of may give us some insight.
ReplyDeleteIf only I had faith the size of a mustard seed!
ReplyDeleteBut then, from where I presently sit i.e. looking through a glass quite dark, I'm uncertain just how the capacity I would have would be put to use.
Neil
The quibble also fails since we don't know how many he needed to name.
ReplyDeleteJase, that is true. Objectors to the Biblical Creationist position often make the mistake of inflating the number of creatures there.
ReplyDeleteNeil
...with its foundation in Darwinistic doctrines of progress from bad to better; not with the Bible's idea that it runs the other way!
ReplyDeleteEvolution doesn't say that at all. Yet another example that one of the prime reasons for your objection is that you don't understand it.
Healy? I thought you were dead.
ReplyDeleteIs it really you?
Neil
Healy obviously believes it better to be an amoeba than a man or a mouse.
ReplyDeleteYes, I somewhere I heard it said that evolution was lower life forms evolving into higher life forms through natural selection viz. survival of the fittest.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Healy Hatman has heard otherwise (or has written his own manual). Perhaps Healy Hatman will enlighten us?
Sam Drucker
That couldn't have been Healy. It must have been a ghost because there is no substance to the apparition.
ReplyDeleteNeil
Hmm! Doesn't seem to be much scope for intelligent conversation there then.
ReplyDeleteSam Drucker
Healy, old son, check what Gould (Stephen) said, for example, that evolution had more to do with Victorian attitudes to progress than anything to do with science per se. Or more or less.
ReplyDeleteBut on the other hand, what you say, from an evolutionary perspective is probably right in a way: all organisms are equal (equally bits of organised matter) and all equally just dirt, so axiomatically there is no good, better, best.
But, good to see you are back.
Just wanted to let you guys know I am not dead either :)
ReplyDelete... and that I will be posting something soon that deals with this common objection and many others that Sandy Grant mentioned in his October 2006 The Briefing article and a subsequent rejoinder he sent me following my critique of his article.
It'll be on my new site in a couple of days.
Blessings,
Duane
http://aristophrenium.com/
Thanks Duane.
ReplyDeleteSam Drucker
Ah, yes, Sandy Grant. What can I say? Sad, very sad, indeed.
ReplyDeleteSad as in "SAD", I suppose you mean? ;)
ReplyDeleteHey, the post is up now if you're interested?
http://aristophrenium.com/duane/the-meaning-of-day-in-genesis-1/
Thanks Duane. I'll have look and post a comment if I have anything to say.
ReplyDeleteSam Drucker