"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[Subduction Zone]

Yes... you have said that before but on the doctoral level I have seen one respond with another with facts and deduction which is then refuted by the opposing view and the refutted statements were then refutted and so on and so on....

So I realize that it is still in flux.

Question is, can you admit that it is still in flux or do you have a flat-earth mentality.

That is simply not the case for evolution. There may be debates about how it happened, but no such debates on that level of if it happened. But at least you now understand how there is no evidence for your side. And since you are far closer to being a Flat Earther why the false accusation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no Biblical basis for that viewpoint. What verse are you using to support that position? Or are you just repeating something you heard?

of course there is. Most YEC's believe that Noah and his family were all that survived the mythical flood. Therefore races would have had to arisen after that event.

 

[ecco]

This Rana?

Fazale Rana - RationalWiki
Rana has a PhD in biochemistry and has published a book titled, The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry (2008), advocating creationism and denying evolution.

He pretends in his book he is a secular intelligent design advocate however Rana is a devout Christian and Biblical creationist who is one of the founders of the Reasons To Believe organisation, a Christian creationist think tank that promotes Christian progressive creationism.[1][2]
In fact, Rana's work is characterized by topics and arguments usually associated with young earth creationism.
It sounds like he is the one doing "infiltrating". Trying to infiltrate science with his nonsense.



Bottom line is, as I have often stated, people believe in science up to the point it conflicts with their indoctrinated religious beliefs. Then one of two things happen, they revise their religious views or they begin twisting science to fit their religious views. Rana falls into the latter category.

I understand.... just heap everybody under one heading so that regardless of what they say, it is irrelevant.

Can I do that to you too?

I didn't heap everyone under one heading. I heaped them under two headings: Those who believe in modern science and those who, like your Rana, believe in some 3000 year old writings.

Rana's bio states that he has published articles in peer reviewed journals. I couldn't find any. Perhaps you could.

 

[ecco]

In this case Dr Rana vs the REST OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

Citation?

Citation for what? That Rana is one of only a dozen or so PhDs in fields related to ToE, who still support biblical creation vs. thousands of PhDs who support ToE. The only other creationist "scientist" I can think of Behe.

 

[ecco]

If you believe in the genealogy, then you know that A&E were alive 6000 years ago. Just ask Bishop Ussher.

On the other hand, where is the connection between the OT genealogy and JC?
Mary begat Jesus. However, Mary was not impregnated by anyone mentioned in the OT genelogy.

You have two genealogies... one through Mary(spiritual) and one through Joseph (legal). Because it does match your parameters of interpretation doesn't mean it is wrong.

My interpretation?

Let's go back to your original post...

That is wonderful. The geneaology seems simple enough to me. It is always amazing (to me) how we can call it a "myth" and give names of the people all the way to Jesus Christ.

Please show where it is written that Jesus is descended from Joseph.

If we are to believe your tales, then we must admit that god, in the form of the Holy Spirit, raped Mary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't heap everyone under one heading. I heaped them under two headings: Those who believe in modern science and those who, like your Rana, believe in some 3000 year old writings.

Rana's bio states that he has published articles in peer reviewed journals. I couldn't find any. Perhaps you could.

Not too hard to do if one uses Google Scholar. The first one I came across was this:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bi00238a008?journalCode=bichaw

There does not seem to be anything about creationism in that one.

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1016/0014-5793(91)81141-T

Hmm nothing there either.

Oh! oh! look, we have a bingo!!

Review: Origins of Life

It is a review of a book that he wrote. Unfortunately it goes on to say:

"The errors begin immediately. There are errors of fact, logic, and scholarship. There is a standard dose of quote mining mixed in as well. The creationists' current favorite scientists to quote-mine on the origin of life are Robert Shapiro (a creationist's favorite since his 1986 book), Peter Ward (paydirt from the 2000 book Rare Earth co-written with Donald Brownlee), and Hubert Yockey (possibly the mother lode, with half a dozen citations). Origins of Life also offers ample cheap innuendo that scientists lack integrity, are "desperate," and "... are keeping quiet ..." about the so-called research failures Rana and Ross claim to expose. All this before the end of chapter 1."

It appears that he was active in the 1990's in real science, but he became a OEC sometime around the turn of the millennium. Also he does not seem to be arguing against evolution here, he is arguing against abigenesis. And as we all know the theory of evolution is not dependent upon abiogenesis.

If you wish to play here is a link to the Google scholar search. I see a reference to another creationist article in it:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,48&q=Fazale+Rana&btnG=

 

[Subduction Zone]

Citation for what? That Rana is one of only a dozen or so PhDs in fields related to ToE, who still support biblical creation vs. thousands of PhDs who support ToE. The only other creationist "scientist" I can think of Behe.

Don't forget Dembski. Of course all of these people appear to accept common descent. They simply believe that evolution could not have occurred on its own. They are closer to scientists that accept the theory of evolution than the creationists that site them as sources.

 

[sayak83]

Citation?

See below
An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views

The full survey questionnaire has the following responses, (page 11)

1)Humans and other living things have evolved over time 98%

2) Humans and other living things have evolved due to
natural processes such as natural selection 90%

3)
A supreme being guided the evolution of living things
for the purpose of creating humans and other life in
the form it exists today 8%

Thus the overwhelming scientific consensus is on naturalistic or theistic evolution and not creationism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Xian?
xian - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results

"Xian" in this context refers to the abbreviation of "Christian" using "X" for the Greek letter "Chi".
It is not the pinyin Chinese name, "Xian", aka "Xi'an".

Ref....
Xian (abbreviation) - Wikipedia
Xi'an - Wikipedia

So....how annoying was my post?

 

[Kenny]

That is simply not the case for evolution. There may be debates about how it happened, but no such debates on that level of if it happened. But at least you now understand how there is no evidence for your side. And since you are far closer to being a Flat Earther why the false accusation?

When did we start talking about evolution? I thought we were talking about Adam and Eve. Are you playing with fallacies?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did we start talking about evolution? I thought we were talking about Adam and Eve. Are you playing with fallacies?

The theory of evolution refutes the Adam and Eve myth. As a result a discussion about one often involves the other.

 

[Kenny]

My interpretation?

If we are to believe your tales, then we must admit that god, in the form of the Holy Spirit, raped Mary.

I rest my case... yes, your interpretation

Please show where it is written that Jesus is descended from Joseph.

The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.

David Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.7 Solomon Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, the Messiah.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the the Messiah, fourteen generations.

 

[Kenny]

The theory of evolution refutes the Adam and Eve myth. As a result a discussion about one often involves the other.

no it doesn't

 

[Kenny]

Citation for what? That Rana is one of only a dozen or so PhDs in fields related to ToE, who still support biblical creation vs. thousands of PhDs who support ToE. The only other creationist "scientist" I can think of Behe.

No citation... personal opinion

 

[Kenny]

I didn't heap everyone under one heading. I heaped them under two headings: Those who believe in modern science and those who, like your Rana, believe in some 3000 year old writings.

Rana's bio states that he has published articles in peer reviewed journals. I couldn't find any. Perhaps you could.

So, are you saying that if people who are like Rana who do have peer reviewed journals changes everything? Then their position of their faith is now good?

 

[Kenny]

See below
An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views

The full survey questionnaire has the following responses, (page 11)

1)Humans and other living things have evolved over time 98%

2) Humans and other living things have evolved due to
natural processes such as natural selection 90%

3)
A supreme being guided the evolution of living things
for the purpose of creating humans and other life in
the form it exists today 8%

Thus the overwhelming scientific consensus is on naturalistic or theistic evolution and not creationism.

1)

Discussion of the beliefs of scientists is based on a survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which partnered with the Pew Research Center on the survey. AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society and includes members representing all scientific fields. However, the survey of AAAS members may not be representative of all scientists in the U.S.

2 Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular),

But thank you for the site info.

 

[Thaif]

But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

Quoting an evolutionary scientist in a paragraph like this seems a little disingenuous. Like, oh wow, an evolutionary scientist doesn't believe in the Genesis account, what an astounding surprise.

 

[Audie]

Quoting an evolutionary scientist in a paragraph like this seems a little disingenuous. Like, oh wow, an evolutionary scientist doesn't believe in the Genesis account, what an astounding surprise.

He is a biologist.

You feel is seems disingenuous, Ie, false innocence, to quote him.

Is it?
Why, exactly?

What do you feel is important here, whether the person
is a Mormon, Jew, black, left handed lesbian, or, what
their reason is for some conclusion?

Would it be entirely honest and proper to doubt the quality of his
work because he is a (shudder) Christian working for a godly U?

Trinity Western University is more than a university. Driven by its mission to develop "Godly Christian leaders," TWU's goal is to inspire both hearts and minds.

 

[Audie]

"Xian" in this context refers to the abbreviation of "Christian" using "X" for the Greek letter "Chi".
It is not the pinyin Chinese name, "Xian", aka "Xi'an".

Ref....
Xian (abbreviation) - Wikipedia
Xi'an - Wikipedia

So....how annoying was my post?

I guess we could have a contest to see who can be more
tiresome, or, you can figure I started it and you ended it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess we could have a contest to see who can be more
tiresome.....

I am without peer.