Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

The prospect of judgment rather than dissolving into the oblivion of non-existence in the dust, persuades some people to consider Christ's words of salvation.That certainly is not the basis upon which all believers in Christ have come to Him. There are many reasons someone will reach out and experience Jesus.Why I take His words seriously is because the same mouth which spoke such words of greatest mercy, comfort, love, forgiveness, and grace also spoke the most fearsome words concerning judgment.What words of longsuffering, patience, kindness proceeded from the mouth of Jesus Christ. And from the very same mouth - the sternest warnings of eternal separation from God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think you could benefit from an anthropology course in comparative religions.

That would be good. I barely have enough time though, to explore the exhaustless mine of the "unsearchable riches of Christ" in my Bible.But I have been doing some reading today on ring species and what IS species anyway. Seems not easy to nail down definitely.So you think becomming a human was so very gradual that there could not have been #1 man and # 1 woman ?On one hand I am scolded that through observation we learn that all the humans we know came about from wombs. It puzzles me why the same consistency is not applied to the observed history that they all came from human wombs.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Perhaps you wouldn't learn anything after all. No, it is not. But speciation can be observed in ring species in that each group along the ring can interbreed with its neighbors, but the far ends of the "horseshoe," where they back come into contact, do not freely interbreed in nature. That is not to say they can't be forced to interbreed in unnatural conditions, but they do not freely interbreed in nature.I think this is a good illustration of speciation. The same differences that we see in ring species because of geographic distance and isolation are what also occur with temporal separation. Evolution occurs within populations, and generally with a clinal distribution. That is, a population changes gradually over time. Like a ring species, it is possible to see the changes when one looks at distantly separate individuals, but not so easy to see changes of adjacent individuals. See my previous response, above.You want to say that there was a single first man and woman because the bible says so, and because of that you are willing to ignore what the real world evidence shows.How much evidence are you willing to deny to do so?

quote:

---

"So you think becomming a human was so very gradual that there could not have been #1 man and # 1 woman ?'

---

It seems to me that if one believes, as I do, that the universe and our planet are several billion years old, which is what scientific evidence points to, it's easy to conceive of our ancestors evolving over millions of years to become 'us', that the idea of 'man' is just how we perceive ourselves now. We are the most evolved primates, and judging from what I read in the news, we still have a long way to go.So, no, there was never a first man or woman.If on the other hand, if one believes that the earth is just a few thousand years old, it becomes impossible to believe anything but the Adam and Eve story. But then you also have to believe, for instance, that Noah somehow rounded up a male and female wallaby from my neck of the woods and made sure when the Flood was over, that he took them, and all other Australian marsupials, back to the Australian island continent (without any accidental breeding on the long journey home) so that today we ONLY see wallabies, kangaroos, koalas, wombats etc., in Australia.As much as I'd like to believe in an all powerful father-figure god who is going to grant me eternal life when I die, I simply can't. I'd be untrue to my highly evolved self if I ever said I did.

I believe a person of incredibly high degree of moral goodness, insight into human nature, and selfless dedication to service of mankind - Jesus Christ, is part of the real world. I believe this man is historical.And I have to really consider what He spoke and what was spoken by those He commissioned to take the Gospel to the world.Maybe what we see in the fossil record we misinterpret. What do these fossils really prove ? What do they REALLY prove that is hard to reasonably discount ? Here is what I think the fossil record probably proves. There use to be some living things that existed on this earth which apparently are no longer living on the earth ... period. Eventually, we all will trust someone and what they have told us.Three hundred years ago you might have said "HOW Much evidence are you going to deny ?" when it was commonly believed that maggots arose spontaneously from dead organisms ?About 150 years ago you may have asked "How much evidence are you willing to deny ?" when it was commonly held that the universe was eternal - always existing.Your question to my purposes amounts to "Are you willing to imagine a man before Adam, or that Adam is a mythical and fictitious matter ?"I think to honestly answer your question with all candor it may depend on if receiving such a concept decreased my enjoyment of Christ. It may not have any effect. But if it diminished my experience of Christ, I would think that something is wrong with the concept.If a concept tends to water down my thirst for God's presence and my enjoyment of living through Him, something must be wrong with the concept.Now a question for you:What science experiment would you invent to prove that only the scientific method can lead us to know truth ?How would you use science to prove that science is the only way we can know truth ? How would you do so without circular reasoning ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There's your problem right there.

Some may consider this a problem. But I think it reveals a "holistic" realization of reality. This may not be the word I am looking for. But what I mean is that the real big questions of life are a matter of my whole being - not JUST my mind, not JUST my emotions, not JUST my choice of what I want to believe.All these factors working together for my whole humanity are involved in the real big questions of life to me.Someone could persuade you that it was right to torture a baby for fun, with enough eloquence and intellectual fire power. But parts of my being just know that it should not be so.The things we see in nature we must interpret. Our interpretation may be in error. In this case it is for me questionable. And there are other areas of my total humanity that I need to consult to decide what it is I will believe.There are some things in the Bible I may wish were not true. But on a holistic level involving my whole humanity, I think I better believe them. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If a teaching cools down my love for God, waters down my thirst to depend upon God, and quenches my thirst for Jesus Christ -SOMETHING must be wrong with the teaching.If it enceases my love for Christ - it is at least safe. There may be problems with its total accuracy. But at least it is not harmful.Don't jeer. Many people disdain a concept that makes them feel their own personal egos are not the center throne of the whole universe.Some people cannot accept an idea that stifles the amount of money that is going into their wallets. They think something must be wrong with it if it interferes with the amount of money flowing to them.With me the determining factor is how much God is flowing to me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am not among those who feel that the age of the creation can be deduced from anything written in the Bible. And it has been remarked that the most militant evolutionists can sometimes be YECs who invoke the method with great vigor after the flood of Noah.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I would look at results. In the past few hundred years the explanations provided by religion have not produced accurate results, while the explanations provided by science have led to ever more accurate results. Just look at a list of the things once explained as the result of deities that are now better explained on the basis of natural causes. And just look at some of the claims made by religions that have been shown to be incorrect. Two of the biggest goofs are a young earth and the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.And I would not be looking for "truth," whatever that is:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

And the results would be judged against real-world evidence.You also note: I would suggest that our current explanation is more accurate than the previous one. If (WHEN!) there are further changes in the future, following the scientific method will give us still more accurate explanations.And how do we judge the accuracy of a scientific explanation (also known as a theory)? We test it against real-world evidence.To summarize, over the past few centuries the explanations provided by science have withstood the test against real-world evidence far better than the explanations provided by the 40,000+ worldwide religions, denominations, sects, etc.

I wasn't jeering, nor do I think my ego is the centre of the universe. What I meant was that you seem to have shut yourself from any truth other than the one you were told was the true truth. Being anything but open to any possibility makes it difficult to find the truth.I'm open to anything. My reasoning powers tell me that the bible is a book of ancient myths that were appropriate at the time of their writing, but if any can prove to me that I'm wrong, that there is a real hell and a real heaven and that simply saying 'I believe' will get me to the right place, I will certainly give it some serious thought. In the meantime, I'm happy to accept that when my time is up, I will going back to wherever 'I' was before my conception. I have no bad memories of that place, I'm not afraid of that place.As for being a good person on the planet, I believe that it is hard-wired into most of us to be good. Survival of the fittest includes being good, being compassionate, taking care of one another, helping others ... it's good for the species as a whole. We wouldn't be here if it were otherwise. There are aberrations, of course, because wiring and chemistry can be imperfect, but overall, we're good, as are the other animals on the planet. We don't really need a handbook on how to behave, it's built into us.

Do you believe that this is a true statement ?
Do you feel that this is a statement of truth ?How the universe works is important to many of us.
WHY it is here is important to people too.Physics can tell us a lot of HOW things work.
Some of us want truth beyond the material mechanism.Now Stephen Hawking referred to science unlocking "the mind of God" (though I hear Hawking is an atheist). And Einstein also said he wanted to know the mind of God.How about we take the words of a man who not only proclaimed to know the mind and will of God His Father but ACTED accordingly to the amazement of the world ? While Einstein says he longs to know the mind of God, I think I should heed someone like Jesus Christ who poured out His life's blood to the uttermost to demonstrate what the mind of God His Father was. I agree. And I am cautiously aware that maybe the concept of a first man may after all be a scientific consensus, albeit reluctantly, someday. Science rests on something like a "faith" in the scientific method. And it is noteworthy that it flourishes in a culture that included a belief in a God of laws which has a logical creation which men can intelligibly unlock as to its mechanisms.Think of the great discoveries which were pioneered by theists who thought of God as a designer of the universe -Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)To name some. Divisions among denominations doesn't prove that theists have not signigicantly contributed to modern scientific understanding.And I did not see in your response anything that negates that the scientific method rests on beliefs which cannot themselves be proved BY the scientific method. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Regarding my quotation about truth in science. That's from a CalTech physics website. I added the phrase "or science" that appears in brackets. And yes, I think that statement is accurate (note: accure, not "truth," "Truth," or even "TRVTH".That quotation says, in part, "Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding." I think the claims made by religious groups that they each have the "truth" (all 40,000+ religions, denominations, sects, etc.) are sufficient to cast doubt on all of them. Makes no difference. A similar list of great discoveries by atheists could be found.I note that your list includes Galileo. Regarding his heliocentric views, you should mention that he was ordered by the Inquisition as follows: Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life! At that he fared far better than Giordano Bruno, who just a few years earlier was burned at the stake for the same views. I don't know how Copernicus got away with his heliocentric discoveries in the first place--must have had a better lawyer or something.In summary of your list, I suggest that a lot of the great discoveries by theists were made when they ignored the church more so than when they followed it. If you were more familiar with the scientific method you would know that science does not deal in "proof" any more than it deals in "truth."Science seeks the best explanations it can find for the real world, and it bases those explanations on real world evidence. If something is claimed that is outside of the real world, science does not address it because there is no evidence against which those claims can be judged. If you claim there are pink unicorns around, what instrument or other method can scientists use to evaluate that claim?And there is where you can contribute: provide evidence that others can judge for the claims you make.

I am aware of the persecution he suffered. I am also aware that he was also favored by some of the Catholic clergy.I am also aware that it was a Catholic priest degreed in science who used Einstein's calculations of Relativity to first propose an expanding universe from a infinitesimal point leading to the big bang theory.I think the blame game here is not that useful. Sure there are bad churchmen who opposed the advance of science. And sure there were atheist scientists who performed horrible experiments on human beings in pursuit of eugenics.Its getting real late now. And any replies will probably come out in piece meal. But I think you got me to admit that with the big questions of life I am reticent to adopt a theory that interferes with my communion and fellowship with the living God.For instance - with the big questions like "Will those who committed such abominations as the Inquisition or the Nazi and American experiments with eugenics go peacefully into the dust with no real accountability ?"In the grand evolutionary scheme I would have to believe that the answer is yes. As Adolf Eichmann said - he would jump into his grave laughing about what he got away with in the Holocaust.In the teaching of Jesus Christ, no one is getting away with anything. There is a last judgment. The Inquisitors and the crackpot atheist scientists who performed horrible experiments on Jews will at the end stand before God.I think the latter is believable, preferable, and backed up by One whose righteousness, authority and power demonstrated that it is apparently going to be the case. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.