|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3497 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
faitheist writes:
Creationists do believe in extrememly rapid evolution from a "super-genome" which contained every possible characteristic. "All cats came from two cats" after the Flood and so on. I'm not clear on whether or not that was happening before the Flood - and if not, why not. A&E couldn't have been all races. A&E's descendants would have had to evolve, in 6,000 years. The races supposedly came from Noah's three sons, Shem (Semites), Ham (black folks and probably various shades of brown too) and Japheth (white "Aryan" supermen). I'm not clear on why that began only after the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
jaywill writes:
They don't live to be thirty-five.
Tell me. Why don't we elect a German Shepherd dog for president ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
Abiogenesis by some as yet undetermined mechanism is less miraculous because we are only looking at known processes which can be tested in the lab. Unless God can be tested on the lab bench and His methods tested and repeated by us, your scenario is necessarily more miraculous and less scientific.
I think abiogenesis in this proposed manner would be no less miraculous than God forming man from the dust of the ground and breathing the breath of life into his nostrils and man becomming a living soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
You've gone off on a tangent. I was explaining why abiogenesis is not "miraculous".
Are we diminished if our Creator has revealed some things to us that we might not yet be able to know UNLESS God had told us ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
It's as much a "scientific fact" as gravity or (micro)evolution; it's what all of the evidence points to. My point - again - which you keep ignoring, is that abiogenesis and (macro)evolution are scientific and "God did it" is not. You're welcome to throw science out the window if you want to. Just don't pretend that your non-science is science.
But you do not know for a scientific fact that there was not first human being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
That's right. Science doesn't even make much of an effort to convince jaywill.
There is no science theory that compels me to have to acknowledge.... jaywill writes:
It's a bit hard to pinpoint him, though. Was he a hairy knuckle-dragger or a few CCs of pond scum?
If you hold to common descent you have a adam of sorts. jaywill writes:
I'm the first one to agree that individual scientists are not perfect. I'm as skeptical about science as I am about anything else. Objectivity is not an individual endeavour; it requires peer review.
The white coated purely objective scientist is largely wishful thinking. Not totally so, but more so than a lot of you skeptic types would like to admit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
Your foot appears to be in your mouth up to the knee. If Mary was a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant.
Considerations to Joseph's (the legal father) ancestral line and Mary's (the virgin mother's) ancestral line account for the discrepencies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
You first. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, why does his geneology have to be in the Bible?
ringo writes:
Explain why. Your foot appears to be in your mouth up to the knee. If Mary was a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
You keep asking for proof of negatives. If you claim that Joseph's ancestry is relevant to Jesus, the onus is on you to back up that claim. Why are the issues which make Joseph's ancestory irrelevant if Mary was a virgin ? How is Joseph's ancestry more significant to Jesus than Matthew's ancestry? Or Mark's? Or Luke's? Or John's? Or anybody else's?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
From a Bible study standpoint, the answer to the question is obvious: Yes, according to the story we are all descendents of Adam and Eve. My entry into the discussion was mainly about Bible Study and Bible reasons for holding that an understanding of the Bible includes that Adam was the first man God created. From a Bible study standpoint the question is a waste of time. It's like asking from a Treasure Island standpoint if Long John Silver was a pirate. Yes, he was. From a reality standpoint there may be some value in discussing whether Long John Silver and Adam and Eve were real people or fictional characters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
Actually, the impact of people who believed in His life was substantial. So was the impact of Genghis Khan, who believed in other gods. So was the impact of Alexander, who believed in other gods. The cataclysmic impact of this man's life and words on human history is exceedingly powerful. The impact that people have does not necessarily reflect on the accuracy of their beliefs.
jaywill writes:
I've never said that the Bible was a waste of time. I said that it's a waste of time to discuss whether or not we are all descendents of Adam and Eve.
That's curious for someone finding the Bible a waste of time on various subjects jaywill writes:
You've already demonstrated poor reading comprehension in this very post. I don't think I'll take your word for what "reads like" fiction and what doesn't. The New Testament doesn't read anything like Treasure Island. One is obviously a good story of fiction and the other is four biographies (three by eyewitnesses) of someone you'd be a fool to surmise never lived. And you'd be a fool to assume that the gospel writers actually lived just because their stories say they did. Treasure Island has exactly the same basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jayill writes:
The rise of cults in a short period of time is no unusual phenomenon. Often people are just itching to throw away their old beliefs and exchange them for new ones. That's a characteristic of belief versus knowledge. But then you'd be hard pressed to explain the whole rise of the Christian church from the Jewish nation in such a brief time. Otherwise, you've really said nothing to address my post. Try again: The impact of people who believe in XYZ does not correlate to the truth value of those beliefs. Examples given: Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great. Their impact on the world does not prove their beliefs were accurate. Why does the impact of Jesus' followers suggest that their beliefs were accurate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If you don't take evidence seriously, that's on you. It doesn't matter who is providing the evidence. It doesn't matter if his attitude is bad. Only the evidence matters.
And you wonder why we dont take your evidence seriously? Phat writes:
That's a good example. Taking Adam and Eve seriously is very much like taking phrenology seriously. The True Believer will ignore all evidence in his efforts to take it seriously.
It would be the same as if we took phrenology seriously!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
How did you fail to detect the talking snake? There's nothing historically fuzzy about it. It couldn't read more like fiction if it had a flashing neon sign that said "Fiction! Fiction! Fiction!"
I cannot detect anywhere in Genesis or elsewhere where it speaks of Adam and the clock stops and the reader is lifted up into some philosophic mythical realm in which Adam as history is made fuzzy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
I agree that Moses (or whoever wrote the Pentateuch) wasn't simple-minded. I'm sure it never occurred to him (them) that anybody else would be simple-minded enough to take the talking snake literally. There is too much more realism and even technical detail in the five books of Moses to suspicion Moses of being too simple minded to realize the atypical characteristics of the account. And if they meant the Adam and Eve story to be taken literally, why did they "correct" it with the generic "man" in Genesis 1?
jaywill writes:
Why do you find it necessary to suggest scientific explanations for miracles?
Why couldn't God cause a space - time warping object to enter the solar system doing weird things with the curvature of space and sunlight ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024