"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

Question is, can you actually present any evidence?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How many viewpoints are there on how we have what we see? We all see the evidence, but the viewpoints vary depending on what they use.

However, all interpretations are not equal.

Then it isn't enough to say "I have a different interpretation of the evidence", correct? You actually have to show how that interpretation fits with the evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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's like citing flat-earthers to make the claim that the shape of the Earth is still in flux.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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?

What matters is the science they publish in peer reviewed journals, not their beliefs. If they haven't published any science supporting ID/creationism, then it really doesn't matter.

 

[dfnj]

That looks like evolution belief is going up.

Imagine this was our Miss USA answers from several states some years ago.
Apologies, if you belief in creationism you can just say beautiful women can have looks and smarts as well.

Beautiful women speaking out against evolution seems hypocritical because obviously their mutated genes giving rise to their beauty are benefiting from the increase of attraction by males, thus, proving evolution is true!

 

[Audie]

However, if he did state that he would be a YEC even if all the evidence is against it, I would applaud his moral honesty.

Saying you cannot accept evidence because of your religious beliefs is far more honest than saying there is no evidence.

"Moral" honesty? As separate from integrity, intellecgtual
honesty? How do you do that?

Wouldst applaudfor moral honesty the bank robber who says
he did it, but is not about to stop robbing banks?

I suppose damning with faint praise is better than no
applause at all.

Integrity needs to cover more than one narrow sector of
ones's attitude and behaviour to be praiseworthy, imho.

Regardless of that, the larger topic is, at heart, the matter of
whether one can hold yec views while being well informed
and intellectually honest. I say it cannot be done

W/0 intellectual honesty, science is nothing, or worse than
nothing. The scientist who is without integrity is not much
of a man, or a scientist.

The below wont actually do as a definition of intellectual dishonesty, but
is a good example.

(Did he state? Did he ever!)

I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.”

 

[Audie]

Amen

What is you amening?

 

[Skwim]

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.

And you know he's an "evolutionary scientist" because, ______________________________________________________________ . And, of course, you're missing the point of the article entirely: Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve.

But whatever.

Welcome to RF.

.

 

[sayak83]

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.

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.

Anybody who isn't a member has stopped doing science (maybe gone to industry etc. ) Almost every active scientist in US is a member, so too many scientists worldwide. Its the worlds largest Scientific society and the most representative. Thus sample surveys from AAAS will reflect current scientific consensus extremely well.

Regarding beliefs. % of atheists and agnostics among scientists in general are much higher than the general public. AAAS members simply reflect this fact.



http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023116664353

See figure 2.

 

[Audie]

And you know he's an "evolutionary scientist" because, ______________________________________________________________ . And, of course, you're missing the point of the article entirely: Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve.

But whatever.

Welcome to RF.

.

Sheesh, just what I said, but with a whole lot fewer words.

 

[Kenny]

Denying the obvious won't make it go away. Of course it refutes that silly story. We know that there never were only two people.

I can only assume that you haven't stiudied much in reference to this particulat subject, otherwise you would have referenced the gap theory that has began in the late 18th century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can only assume that you haven't stiudied much in reference to this particulat subject, otherwise you would have referenced the gap theory that has began in the late 18th century.

Ken, since you are constantly shown to be wrong you should be the last one to make this claim.

And there is no such thing as "gap theory". That is a misuse of the term "theory". Tell me, what reasonable test could refute it? What predictions have been made using "gap theory"?

 

[metis]

I can only assume that you haven't stiudied much in reference to this particulat subject, otherwise you would have referenced the gap theory that has began in the late 18th century.

Sorry but I wasn't born back that long ago, plus my wife says that the "gap theory" isn't a reference to evolution but is a reference to the distance between my ears.

Hmmpf, goes to show you just how wrong you are!

 

[Audie]

I can only assume that you haven't stiudied much in reference to this particulat subject, otherwise you would have referenced the gap theory that has began in the late 18th century.

There are always other possibilities, like that he hoped we didnt have
one of those here.

I'd bet at least $1.98 that he knows about "gap theory".

So are you a gap theory person?

 

[Audie]

Ken, since you are constantly shown to be wrong you should be the last one to make this claim.

And there is no such thing as "gap theory". That is a misuse of the term "theory". Tell me, what reasonable test could refute it? What predictions have been made using "gap theory"?

Well, I can tell you one, about the ice in Antarctica. Two actually.

As it predates the "flood", by many tens of thousands of years, of course
it is older than t he 6000 yrs ago poof of the yec.

So- two predictions. First, that the ice was lifted by the flood, but stayed
in place held there by circumpolar current.

Then, it just settled right back down.

OR

The ice is frozen, stuck down on bedrock and simply stayed underwater
for the duration.

Evidence? Some dust was found at about 3000 yrs ago, a suitable dare
for the flood. That proves there was a world wide flood, prediction validated.

See "Poe's law" if you dont believe me.

 

[exchemist]

"According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.

Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.

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."

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."
source​

So, is there a real change a-brewing here or not?

.

I find this theologically interesting in that I was a bit shocked to discover, a few years ago when my son was preparing for his first communion, that belief in a literal first human couple still seems to be part of Catholic doctrine. As most people know, Catholicism has no problem with evolution or the age of the Earth etc and treats the Genesis accounts as allegorical. But it seems the Church is still hanging onto Adam and Eve, due to the theology of The Fall and Original Sin. I don't really see the need for this, as I was brought up by my local parish priest to see original sin as the inherent tendency of Man to do evil, in spite of having reached moral awareness (by allegorically eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil). So why the need for a literal first couple to have committed an objective sinful act?

Surely the whole story is a lovely poetic allegory of the mixed blessing of moving from animal, or childlike, innocence to knowledge and the limitations of human frailty?

Anyway, if the evangelicals manage to accommodate science in respect of Adam and Eve then good for them!

 

[Thaif]

And you know he's an "evolutionary scientist" because, ______________________________________________________________ . And, of course, you're missing the point of the article entirely: Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve.

But whatever.

Welcome to RF.

Ahh, perhaps I mis-interpreted his bio?

Dennis Venema
Professor of biology at Trinity Western University
Dennis writes regularly for the BioLogos Forum about the biological evidence for evolution.
Dennis Venema

 

[ecco]

Regardless of that, the larger topic is, at heart, the matter of
whether one can hold yec views while being well informed
and intellectually honest. I say it cannot be done

You should address that comment to people like KenS

 

[RedDragon94]

So, is there a real change a-brewing here or not?

I'd say yes. Science contradicts the literal account of creation in Genesis, so Genesis must be re-interpreted.

 

[Estro Felino]

I find this theologically interesting in that I was a bit shocked to discover, a few years ago when my son was preparing for his first communion, that belief in a literal first human couple still seems to be part of Catholic doctrine. As most people know, Catholicism has no problem with evolution or the age of the Earth etc and treats the Genesis accounts as allegorical. But it seems the Church is still hanging onto Adam and Eve, due to the theology of The Fall and Original Sin. I don't really see the need for this, as I was brought up by my local parish priest to see original sin as the inherent tendency of Man to do evil, in spite of having reached moral awareness (by allegorically eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil). So why the need for a literal first couple to have committed an objective sinful act?

Weird...my first Communion was in the 90s and I clearly remember my catechist teacher speaking of Adam, Eve, Noah and many others as mythological figures.
Besides in catechism class we were even discouraged to read the Bible...(as if we had read it..lol)