taking away the Adam and Eve story takes away the rationale for the messiah
As the "savior" yes, dear Nick (again, peace to you!)... which is what most tend to think of when they hear the word "messiah." For me, it means "chosen/anointed one." I believe, therefore, that he still would have been appointed/chosen... anointed... to be king over the physical realm... and thus, mankind... including Adham. I mean, he was "Prince of princes," even long before Adham ever sinned. It was just in the spirit realm. Where he had his early authority. Now, ALL authority has been given him... in heaven AND on earth (get that? ). And not because of Adham's sin. Because he would STILL have inherited the kingdom... at some point. Because he is the SON. Adham's sin only created a situation where what Adham lost had to be repurchased. Had Adham not sold his progeny FOR his sin... there would have been nothing TO buy back... and thus, no need for a savior. My Lord would have simply inherited the kingdom... as God's chosen One (messiah)... when the time for him to do so arrived.
So, no... no need for a savior... but he still would have been Prince... even over the prince that would have been Adham... and any subsequent princes arising from Adham's offspring.
Which is why you used the expression "Uh-Oh" - nobody uses that when they think something is wrong or bad.
You mistake what I thought was "bad" here, dear JIFB (and peace to you, as well). I don't have a problem with science and if you've read some of my posts you would see that. I was referring to the "mistake" made by NASA... due to the imperfection of man. They got everyone all up in arms over a forthcoming "announcement" as to potential life on other planets (which I personally don't dispute and would LOVE for science to prove it!)... but their experiments may not show that at all. The "uh-oh" was that they GOT everyone all "twitterpated," as I said... apparently prior to a full peer review... which would have shown that perhaps the experiment was flawed. I am sure you would agree, they've made... a mistake. I said "uh-oh"... to show, that like those who make similar announcements on behalf of religion... humans... are "human." That was it and was all. Neither religion NOR science is "perfect" because, as I stated, both are at the mercy of earthling man. I said "uh-oh" because... like religion... there are things touted by science as "true" today... but really is NOT true, and so is not "true" tomorrow. Like "new light."
Yes, science can absolutely be refuted. So can religious beliefs which are supposedly premised on what's written in books... that is not. Or not... but is. A whole of lot of religious people base their "faith" on what they THINK is written... when it not at all. As I stated, I don't put more faith in religion than I do in science. But I DO put more faith in Christ the Holy Spirit than I do in science. And in religion.
What the article really shows is the process of discovery.
Indeed. Which "process" NASA seems to have overlooked. Funny thing: knowing God has a process, too, which many... including many who profess to believe I Him... overlook. I personally see no difference. In science, you put things through a series of "tests" that prove a theory/hypothesis. With God... you put things through Christ... which proves His existence. Again, I see no difference. I respect science's process; however, I do not expect science to respect God's. That's because science is limited to the physical realm. God... is not. Sorry.
(Oh, and the WTBTS calls that "process of discovery"... tacking.)
If you were to use this process to examine what you think are visions or voices from your lord, and the process presented extensive evidence that you were only experiencing effects of a medical condition - you would refuse to believe it.
No, actually, I would believe it, if such process presented such evidence. Problem is, this process wouldn't prove what you believe here... OR what I believe. Why? Because to prove what I believe is a different process. Now, if you were to use the process I have shared to examine what I know to be visions from... and the voice of my Lord... and the process presented "extensive evidence", albeit evidence of a SPIRITUAL nature and not a physical one... but such that you realized I did NOT have a medical condition... you would still refuse to believe IT. Again, I see no difference. What I see is that you wish me to use YOUR process to prove MY belief... but won't consider using MY process to prove it. You want to accuse ME of being "closed-minded" as to your process... but seems to me that you are JUST as closed-minded to mine. Yes?
However, you, along with countless other believers in personal revelations... will likely never use a scientific method to prove it's not a medical condition.
Actually, you're a little off there. Science recently proved (well, in the last 10 years) something I've shared here before: how the creation came into existence. I posted that about 4-5 months ago. No one wanted to "go there" with me, though. No one said a thing. Not one thing.
But what I see - is that religous believers of all sort, love to jump up and shout anytime a scientific theory or discovery is later changed or shown to be incorrect.
Obviously, you don't visit this site that much. 'Cause there's a whole lot of atheists who "jump up and shout" every time a religious doctrine is later changed or shown to be incorrect. I personally don't discriminate. Although I don't jump up and shout, per se, I will comment on it. Either way. Science OR religion. Because I am an equal opportunity dissenter... of both, where warranted.
Of course that's the whole point of the analytical process - and the scientists accept that - even if it proves incorrect something they once deeply believed was correct.
I agree with that, but I think doing that with religious beliefs poses a problem for the religious: they're accused of "changing" the "truth." Now, that really is what's going on... but that's also true of the science world, too. I mean, if you say it's true today... whether it's science OR religion... and then change it... well, same thing. Either it was true then and isn't now... or it's true now and wasn't then. Whether it be the results of a scientific experiment that is published at the truth... or a religious doctrine based on some interpretation which is touted as the truth. Yes? So, again, I see no difference.
Now, if science said what it said, acknowledged its errors, and changed it's assumptions... while refraining from pointing the finger at religion... then THAT would be "different," IMHO. But the same thing for religion: if religion believed what it believed/taught what it taught, acknowledged its errors, and changed its understandings... while refraining from pointing the finger at science... again, different.
But neither do. Which is why I consider BOTH to be rife with hypocrisy and so, as I stated, something I personally want no part of, at least not as a vocal "follower" or believer of the particular pole.
Hmmm. Maybe it wasn't my fault, after all.
No, it was your fault, dear Nick - LOLOLOLOL! So go ahead and own it... and apology accepted - LOLOLOLOLOL!
Peace, to you both!
A slave of Christ,