Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[Fallen Prophet]

Whstevs. Word games dont amuse mr.

Proving that you don't know what you are talking about is not "word games" - but I understand why you aren't amused - it's tough being proven wrong.

 

[Audie]

Proving that you don't know what you are talking about is not "word games" - but I understand why you aren't amused - it's tough being proven wrong.

Goading does not work on me.

 

[leroy]

Apparently some immunologist has recently published a book arguing that evolution and the Christian belief that all humans descended from Adam and Eve are not incompatible.

Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution

From what I gleaned in the article, the idea is that humans descended from earlier hominids but then God also magically created Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago, and their kids Cain and Abel intermarried with other humans who had evolved naturally. So by 1CE, all living humans had some of traceable lineage back to Adam and Eve.

Personally I think this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a literal reading of Genesis. But I'm curious what you think? Especially those of you with more knowledge of evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

A) Biologically: if you go back in time you will eventually get to an individual that is the ancestor of all modern humans.

B) Theologically: At some point there was a “first human” with a soul.

It could be that both A and B are the same person.

 

[leroy]

Apparently some immunologist has recently published a book arguing that evolution and the Christian belief that all humans descended from Adam and Eve are not incompatible.

Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution

From what I gleaned in the article, the idea is that humans descended from earlier hominids but then God also magically created Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago, and their kids Cain and Abel intermarried with other humans who had evolved naturally. So by 1CE, all living humans had some of traceable lineage back to Adam and Eve.

Personally I think this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a literal reading of Genesis. But I'm curious what you think? Especially those of you with more knowledge of evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

It´s very easy to be a YEC and affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve, al you have to do is Apply the Atheist Method

1 Do not affirm nor deny anything (keep your view vague and ambiguous)

2 Avoid the Burden Proof at all cost

3 Claim that there is no evidence against your view

4 when evidence is presented, simply answer “that is not evidence” ….“these are just claims”

 

[Left Coast]

It´s very easy to be a YEC and affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve, al you have to do is Apply the Atheist Method

1 Do not affirm nor deny anything (keep your view vague and ambiguous)

2 Avoid the Burden Proof at all cost

3 Claim that there is no evidence against your view

4 when evidence is presented, simply answer “that is not evidence” ….“these are just claims”

Your reply reminds me of this classic scene:

 

[Brian2]

Not if it only comes in the form of claims that it has occurred.

Where's the actual evidence? The documented rigorous studies under controlled conditions?
Answer: there are none. It's just claims piling on, as if adding more mere claims somehow validates the original claims.

I am talking about claims that have been verified. Claims about knowing what is going on in the room or another room while unconscious.
The evidence piles up is what you should be saying.

We don't know that.
You like to believe that. Which is very different.

Also, the word "only" there, makes your claim a negative claim.
Reworded by removing the confusing bits, it would read like this: "life can not come from non-life".
This is a negative claim that you couldn't even support with any kind of evidence.

At best, you can only point at failed attempts to try and turn non-life into life and / or the lack of observation of such. But that does NOT, by any means, mean that it is impossible.

At best, it only means that we don't know.

What I said stands and if anyone changes it it should be me.
All we know is that life can come from other life. Beyond that is hypothesis.

Actually, we know for a FACT that life came from non-life.
How, you may ask?

Well, it's very simple.
Life didn't always exist. It factually had to originate at some point.
So at some point, life emerged where there wasn't any life before.

And since there isn't any matter in our bodies that isn't found elsewhere in the universe (in fact, our bodies are made from the most common elements in the universe), it's safe to assume that non-living matter at some point formed living-matter by *some process*.

Scientists working in abiogenesis are trying to find how that process works.
Creationists pretend to know that their incompatible/ mutually exclusive gods did it.

That's ultimately the difference.

One side (science) is actually working on the problem and trying to come up with a falsifiable, demonstrable answer.

While the other side (creationist) like to pretend as if they know it even before they asked the question.

Religionists used to pretend knowing such answers concerning a great deal of mysteries in the world. One by one, they were worked on by science and as it turns out, the actual demonstrable answer NEVER turned out to match the religious answer.

Jupiter and lightning bolts
Thor and thunder
Poseidon and tides / storms
Ra's chariot and the sunset/sunrise
Jawhe and humans (evolution)
...

Whenever science and religion went head to head on a particular problem concerning a phenomenon of reality, religion NEVER merged victorious.

I don't expect the subject of abiogenesis to be any different.

You talk about a difference between science and religion while at the same time it is you who is pretending to know the answer before the research is done.
You speak about falsifiable claims when the claim about life coming from chemistry and the laws of physics is not falsifiable. Trying to turn chemicals into a living thing could go on for 20000 years with no luck and yet the claim would not be falsified.
The claim is the presumption that life did not come from God.
I don't mind going beyond the science at this point because of my faith but you would deny that is what you are doing even when you claim to know the answer even now.

 

[Brian2]

All science does is eliminate a primitive, superstitious "God of the Gaps". Anyone who believes in such a God is doomed to have his faith destroyed by advances in science. I have read that Cardinal Newman said as much, over a century ago. The main Western church denominations have not taught such a view of God for a very long time.

The God of the Gaps idea seems to be being replaced by the naturalistic science of the gaps. That seems to be an area where many people live, in a world where science will one day find an answer or if not it is OK to not know, as long as we don't believe in a God we have no scientific evidence for.

 

[Brian2]

Well, if the methodological naturalistic premise works so well, maybe the ontological one might be true, too. And in that case, it would be an understatement that (wo)man does not need. God, and with it everything that is supernatural, would not exist.

So, in order to still need God, we need to make up other premises. Mainly intended to answer "why questions". Like "why are you here?", and stuff like that. However, they all tend to be question begging, and not necessary. Neither scientifically, nor philosophically.

Ergo, there is really no general need, nor ontological necessity, for a God. Or Goddesses, Or gods. That is just what some people need because they cannot bear the unavoidable consequences of mere naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

I think it needs to be remembered that science and philosophy ignore the evidences for a God. Science has no way to address them and philosophy is really seems to be just thinking and ignoring evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Only ignorant people would think that non-living dusts can transform into living human beings, especially a fully grown adult, like Adam. That’s the silly fantasy.

You are the one who claims non-living dusts can transform into living human beings without any pre existing life.

 

[Brian2]

IF is the operative word. Your NDEs are not verified. See " fantasy" Simple.

I'm not talking about seeing a bright light type of NDEs, I'm talking about the verified claims to know things that happened in the same room or somewhere else, while unconscious.

Life is only known to have come from
pre existing life. This not in dispute.

The fantasy is belief in " knowledge" that abio is impossible.
This " knowledge" that it cannot is fantasy.
It is an unadulterated falsehood to say " we know life can only come from..."

Please correct this. It is an absurd statement.

Since I did not claim that abio is impossible there is nothing to correct.
What I said was that people prefer to believe the hypothesis that goes beyond the science instead of sticking with just the science.
I don't mind doing this myself because I'm the idiot with faith.
Others who are sceptics should say "nobody knows". But that is not what happens usually except with those who realise that claiming not to know and being OK with that is really the best place to be for consistency.
But of course even these people really have a world view that is the same in probably all ways to that of a hard line militant atheist.

In the event, basic research in organic chemistry
continues and will continue to produce actual
facts and info, free of presuppostion, anecdote,
religious prejudices, and imaginary " laws" that
preclude any advances.

Well yes pure science probably won't presuppose stuff but that is not really what comes out of science and is used by atheists to show that their position is supported by science.
I hear that all the evidence points to life having come from chemistry and consciousness being a property of
matter. This is what comes from science even before any proof and these things are accepted by many people because of their particular world view.

 

[Brian2]

Presupposition City

I don't mind having beliefs, I'm OK with that even if some people are not OK with that and claim to have none when they really have beliefs.
It seems some people need "beliefs" to handle death and others need "no beliefs" to handle life.

 

[Brian2]

Assume assume
Do you understand why if there had been
a " perfect" Adam and Eve" their very first child could have had Downs syndrome?

No I don't know why and don't think that "perfect" would apply if that was the case.

 

[Audie]

I don't mind having beliefs, I'm OK with that even if some people are not OK with that and claim to have none when they really have beliefs.
It seems some people need "beliefs" to handle death and others need "no beliefs" to handle life.

Just lettin you observe thatv all this concern with presupposition looks like projection.

I dont know who " some people" are what you
suppose their. " beliefs" might be, but its just noise
here. Leave it out.

You dont seem to understand atheist thought, at all.
What seems to you is only that. Seems to you.

 

[Audie]

No I don't know why and don't think that "perfect" would apply if that was the case.

Do you not know how Downs occurs?

" perfection" is a weird thing to try to apply to genetics.

 

[Audie]

I'm not talking about seeing a bright light type of NDEs, I'm talking about the verified claims to know things that happened in the same room or somewhere else, while unconscious.



Since I did not claim that abio is impossible there is nothing to correct.
What I said was that people prefer to believe the hypothesis that goes beyond the science instead of sticking with just the science.
I don't mind doing this myself because I'm the idiot with faith.
Others who are sceptics should say "nobody knows". But that is not what happens usually except with those who realise that claiming not to know and being OK with that is really the best place to be for consistency.
But of course even these people really have a world view that is the same in probably all ways to that of a hard line militant atheist.



Well yes pure science probably won't presuppose stuff but that is not really what comes out of science and is used by atheists to show that their position is supported by science.
I hear that all the evidence points to life having come from chemistry and consciousness being a property of
matter. This is what comes from science even before any proof and these things are accepted by many people because of their particular world view.

This "going beyond science stuff " is some obsession of yours, of concern to you who knows why. It has nothing to do with research.

What " skeptic", " atheists" " militant atheists",
" hard liners" or the man in the moon has to do
with some problem you imagine science has
is a zactly zero. Waste of time to talk about it.

"Pure science" is meaningless.

Science never does proof. Your failure to even know that so- basic concept kind of brings
some doubt on your capacity to do a realistic critique of science.

If you have a beef with individuals who identify as " atheists" and misbehave, go after them.
I will help.

But your global critique of science?

Swingin' too big a loop there, Pard.
And yous a- trippin' on it.

 

[gnostic]

You are the one who claims non-living dusts can transform into living human beings without any pre existing life.

No, that's what Genesis 2 say:

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Dusts are waste, dead particles, hence non-living matters.

But since this verse seem take the place on the ground, perhaps the "dust" can be interpreted as "soil".

But even then soil are made of inorganic minerals from rocks, and there are 3 main types of soils: clay, silt and sandy soil.

These rock minerals are made of silicon, and there are many different types of minerals, more specifically silica or silicates, like quartz, feldspar or mica.

Sandy soil are more grainy, silt less granular and clay are more finely-grained. These minerals exist, because of rock being weathered, that break down rocks, into smaller pieces, possibly as the results of rain, running streams, ice (eg glaciers), winds, etc.

And these soil by themselves don't have organic materials unless some organisms (eg bacteria, plants, fungi, animals, etc) have died and decomposed, and with animals, possibly from urine, feces, skin shedding, scales or hair falling off, etc.

But, Genesis 2:7 doesn't say soil, just dust.

It is not my claim that dust transformed into man (Adam), but Genesis 2:7.

Do you believe that God made Adam from "dust of the ground"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science agrees with much of the creation story.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If evidence of spirit and even God is found it has to be ignored because of the naturalistic presumption.

No.
Instead, they would become part of the facts of reality.

If the supernatural is demonstrated to exist, it would become part of "the natural" and our understanding of reality.

The only reason why it is called "supernatural" today, is because it is indistinguishable from magic and imagination.

I will mention OBEs in NDEs where people have known what went on in other rooms and science looks for answers in the workings of the brain and ignore the obvious.

Mere anecdotes.
You might as well mention bigfoot spotters and alien abductees.

I will mention the scientific finding that life only comes from other life

Dishonest. You need to scratch the word "only".
No observation of life coming from life could ever result in the conclusion that it "only" happens that way.

and that is ignored when it comes to where life originated and it is presumed to have come from non life/chemistry.

No. What you ignore is intellectual honesty.
Life didn't exist at some point and then it did. Even creationists agree to that. Which is why they need a creation myth: to explain how life originated in the universe.

So we all agree that at one point in the past, there was no life. And at a later point in life, there was.
So, by definition, first life did NOT come from previous life, since there wasn't any.

Life from non-life is called abiogenesis.

Your abiogenesis "theory" is "god magicked it into existence".
Science's is "we don't know, let's roll up our sleeves, get to work and try to find out..."

In my opinion.

Your opinion is incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The witness of the Holy Spirit is powerful and ineffable.

I literally cannot deny it as it is surer than sight to me.

I understand that the thought that people having faith and hope in ideas that they cannot prove may seem ridiculous to you.

I don't really care.

You should care. Not about what I think, but about the fact that you believe things on bad '(or rather: no) evidence.

The easiest person to fool, is yourself.

 

[gnostic]

B) Theologically: At some point there was a “first human” with a soul.

So are you claiming there people on Earth BEFORE Adam, who were “without soul”?

If yes, then...how long have these soul-less people being around?