|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3466 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Why are the issues which make Joseph's ancestory irrelevant if Mary was a virgin ?
Do you know how babies are made? Seeing as Joseph wasn't the one who knocked up Mary, he's not the father of jesus and thus his ancestry is irrelevant.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Do you know how babies are made? Not completely. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
If belief has nothing to do with it then why are you trying to persuade me to come over and believe like you, that no Adam ever lived? I am trying to persuade you to look at the evidence.
In some many eloquent words you admitted probably, you cannot prove no Adam ever lived. Burden of proof fallacy. Your logical fallacy is burden of proof
I have just gone back through every post I wrote on this discussion to see where I used the words either "prove" or "proof". I look back and I see you making claims that certain things are true. I am asking for evidence to back those claims. If you have none then just say so.
But if you continue to insist that I also should not believe it, I ask you for your sure knowledge that if has to be not believed. I am simply asking why anyone should believe in something that has no evidence to back it up.
Neither one of us has absolutely undeniable proof for our beliefs. I have smoking-gun evidence that modern humans share a common ancestor with chimps. This evidence is found both in our genomes and in the fossil record. The difference here is that I can back up my claims with evidence. You can not.
I don't agree there is no evidence. Then what is the evidence?
Do not now nor ever have in this discussion claimed I can prove "the first man Adam". When you demand that others disprove your claims without offering evidence of your own, that is the burden of proof fallacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
When you demand that others disprove your claims without offering evidence of your own, that is the burden of proof fallacy. I gave you my main reasons why I went from skepticism concerning the history of the Old Testament to believing it. You do not want to accept my main reasons. What can I do about that ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There could not be a first man because he would have no womb to come out of.
That is true unless special creation was involved. Well there you go. You're willing to deny a basic known fact of biology to uphold your preferred version of reality. And you're willing to do this based on your own interpretation about what a book says that a guy said about a myth because you think that him mentioning the myth means that he thought the myth really happened. You don't see any issues with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I gave you my main reasons why I went from skepticism concerning the history of the Old Testament to believing it. You do not want to accept my main reasons. What can I do about that ?
Do you admit that your beliefs are based on faith and not evidence? Do you also admit that when you ask others to disprove your claims without offering evidence yourself, that you are committing the burden of proof fallacy? "Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Do you admit that your beliefs are based on faith and not evidence? I don't think you understand what faith really is. I think you think faith is gritting your teeth, clinching your fists, squint your eyes and like the lion in The Wizard of Oz, saying " I DO believe!! I DO believe!! I DO, I DO, I DO believe !!" I think you maybe view my faith in God's word as sheer strenuos will power. When you come up with something so unquestionably making it too unlikely that there could be a first human being, I'll let you know. You have some theories. You tendered some. And I responded that its not enough for me to move to a position that Jesus was deluded or lied.
Do you also admit that when you ask others to disprove your claims without offering evidence yourself, that you are committing the burden of proof fallacy? No. I didn't watch your link. But it seems that some people always want the theist to do all the heavy lifting on burden of proof as if you made no claims. Consider that you also made claims. I think man is unique. Man alone has a sense toward reaching out to God. If someone could show me that any animal has this sense of the divine as to search or reach out to God, I might consider human beings not unique on earth in that regard. I don't think any animal has a human spirit that longs for God.( I do not mean a human soul. I mean a human spirit. There's a difference). I doubt that this characteristic of man gradually faded into being as he transitioned from some OTHER animal. You go ahead and believe that if you think you have evidence. A first man with a spiritual capacity makes a lot of sense to me.And as I said many times, if it is good enough for Jesus Christ, I will believe it. I do not think my salvation depends upon this. But it makes the Bible make more sense. You don't care about that maybe. But I care about that a lot. For the big questions of life I rely on the Bible. I think what you want is evidence which excludes anything written in the bible. If I was a biologist, and if I could afford to pursue scientific areas of interest I would look into something more sudden to explain where new species came from. That's what I would research - maybe something more like what Gould called Puntuated Equilibrium. I once read something about a theory of cataclysmic earth events which may have caused sudden changes in the gamuts. I think an all-encompassing gradualism as a theory will soon be replaced.
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell Nice. They asked Betrand Russell how life looked to him after his son had died.I heard he said "Pretty dark." Maybe he would have not found life to eventually be so dark had he dropped his Atheism for trusting in the Son of God as I have learned to do. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
And I responded that its not enough for me to move to a position that Jesus was deluded or lied. You forgot about the scenario where you're just misunderstanding him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You're willing to deny a basic known fact of biology to uphold your preferred version of reality. I believe that there are occasions when scientists can correct something that a Christian believes in error. What is your FACT that you think I am suppressing ? It isn't that you know for FACT that Adam never was the first man, I think. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What is your FACT that you think I am suppressing ? Men are born out of wombs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Men are born out of wombs. 1.) Men are born out of wombs 2.) Adam (if he existed) was a man. 3.) Therefore Adam (if he existed) was born out of a womb ? Is that your line of reasoning ? Well, I don't agree that the first man could not be an exception if it serve the Creator's purpose to make Adam another way. This should not be hard for a Being whose know-how is 1,000 octillion trillion times greater than all the accumulated scientific knowledge on earth since man existed. Eve was named "the mother of all living." That must be your first human womb. Do you consider it a small thing that Jesus Christ seems to have regarded Genesis as history ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You forgot about the scenario where you're just misunderstanding him.
I've consider that. And that is always a consideration as I progress through the years studying the Bible. But some things are repeated from more than one angle. This repetition tends to suggest that I didn't get His teaching wrong on the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Men are born out of wombs.
1.) Men are born out of wombs 2.) Adam (if he existed) was a man. 3.) Therefore Adam (if he existed) was born out of a womb ? Is that your line of reasoning ? More like: 1) Men are born out of wombs.2) Adam wasn't. C) The story of Adam is a myth and didn't really happen. Ya know, the story has a talking snake in it too... Its obviously not a for-real story.
Well, I don't agree that the first man could not be an exception if it serve the Creator's purpose to make Adam another way. I'm not saying that God couldn't have created the first man. I'm saying that you're denying some basic known biology. And further, that your reasoning for doing so is too thin and weak to support such a blatant denial of something so basic and known.
Do you consider it a small thing that Jesus Christ seems to have regarded Genesis as history? I'm not convinced that he did regard it as history. I think he just used a story that his audience was familiar with. Kinda like if I said something about Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father.
I've consider that. And that is always a consideration as I progress through the years studying the Bible. But some things are repeated from more than one angle. This repetition tends to suggest that I didn't get His teaching wrong on the matter. Repeated where? Within the synotpic gospels? Those are just telling the same story. Heck, let's look at your passages:
quote: Jesus is just reiterating what his audience knew of as what Moses had written for them. That isn't necessarily saying that the events actually happened.
quote: If you change that too: "Haven't you seen, that Darth Vader is Luke's father", then you can see that it is not necessarily saying that the things actually happened.
quote: That one's a real stretch to take him speaking generally and then say that he must not only be directly reference Genesis, but also that he must have taken it as actually happening. Do you have any other passages where Jesus seems to be taking Genesis as actual events?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I don't think you understand what faith really is. I think you think faith is gritting your teeth, clinching your fists, squint your eyes and like the lion in The Wizard of Oz, saying " I DO believe!! I DO believe!! I DO, I DO, I DO believe !!" I think you maybe view my faith in God's word as sheer strenuos will power. When you come up with something so unquestionably making it too unlikely that there could be a first human being, I'll let you know. You have some theories. You tendered some. And I responded that its not enough for me to move to a position that Jesus was deluded or lied.
I guess I will have to ask again. Do you admit that your beliefs are based on faith and not evidence?
No. I didn't watch your link. But it seems that some people always want the theist to do all the heavy lifting on burden of proof as if you made no claims. It's not a video, so it doesn't require watching. It is just a few short sentences. "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. " You are making a claim. You are claiming that there was a first man. Therefore, it is up to you to support this claim. You have the burden of proof, not I.
I think man is unique. Man alone has a sense toward reaching out to God. If someone could show me that any animal has this sense of the divine as to search or reach out to God, I might consider human beings not unique on earth in that regard. First, you need to show that there is a God.
I don't think any animal has a human spirit that longs for God. Second, you need to show that humans have spirits.
A first man with a spiritual capacity makes a lot of sense to me. An argument from common sense is also a logical fallacy: A List Of Fallacious Arguments
And as I said many times, if it is good enough for Jesus Christ, I will believe it. Even then, you only have claims that this is what Jesus of Nazareth believed, and there is no evidence that Jesus actually ever said that, or that there really was a Jesus.
I think what you want is evidence which excludes anything written in the bible. What I want is the evidence that backs your claims. Have any?
If I was a biologist, and if I could afford to pursue scientific areas of interest I would look into something more sudden to explain where new species came from. That's what I would research - maybe something more like what Gould called Puntuated Equilibrium. During your education you would learn that Punctuated Equilibria still uses the evolution of one species to another through evolutionary mechanisms over hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
Nice. They asked Betrand Russell how life looked to him after his son had died. I heard he said "Pretty dark." Maybe he would have not found life to eventually be so dark had he dropped his Atheism for trusting in the Son of God as I have learned to do.
Bertrand Russell, like many atheists including myself, preferred the truth to comforting lies. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024