Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fall of man"

Latest revision as of 00:52, December 12, 2009

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

even though evolution is wrong, shouldn't we at least include their viewpoint, fair is fair, we aren't biased like Wikipedia is.

Thanks for your thoughts, but that's not the evolutionary viewpoint. Biologically, the concept of "primitive" has little meaning. If we go by sophistication then plants are the ultimate life form having a much more complex genetic structure. And the social evolution part is even worse and is by no means agreed upon among historians. Only a small subset pushes it, but it is included in this article as having equal merit with overall scientific evolutionary theory, which isn't true. I hope this explanation is helpful for why I removed it. If you believe we should include an alternate perspective, we'll have to rewrite it. Learn together 12:34, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Fall of man = Christian?

I'm pretty sure almost every culture has some sort of fall from grace myth... Barikada 22:14, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Citations?

This article lacks citations, and I don't think that a blanket reference to "God" or "the Bible" is enough. For example, Genesis 3, which describes Eve's actions, the Tree of Knowledge and God's reaction, does not mention Sin. Also, the Young Earth Creationist remarks about genetic dating and mutation surely are not directly Bible-based - I don't think the Bible even mentions the word "mutation". I also don't think that the Bible ever explicitly states that the fall caused a gradual decline in human lifespans - it definitely doesn't do so in Genesis 5-11, where the patriarchs' lives are listed. Thus, we need better references, both to the specific parts of the Bible used to support the details of the account of the fall of man, and to secondary literature for the interpretation. Yoritomo 19:26, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Perhaps you should look at the two thousand years of Christian scholarship available to you. Or the ample information provided by creation scientists on genetic degeneration. DouglasA 19:28, 11 December 2009 (EST)

If I knew where to look for the details, I'd add references myself. But unfortunately I don't; that's why I looked up this article in the first place. I'm sure other editors are more knowledgeable about theology than I am; why is asking them for better citations discouraged? Or do you honestly expect every reader to know Christian scholarship in sufficient detail to know where the article's content is derived from? Yoritomo 19:38, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I'm sorry you weren't received better. Yes, I agree, we need more references than we had. I just added references for the main account; I'll try to add more to support the more minor points (e.g. mutations, lifespan). --EvanW 19:52, 11 December 2009 (EST)