Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

This goes into "what is the church?" What is organized religion? Do I blame Jesus for what some people did waving the banner of Christianity.I think your quip amounts to mostly bias. Some atheists need that to rationalize that Science is Verses God. So they play up the dichotomy. Richard Dawkins is a big one on that.Besides, Jesus predicted the degradation and perversion of the church into a worldly power in Matthew 13. He gave us heads up that many bad things would follow by those attempting to hijack the Gospel to secure worldly political power.So your argument to me, argues FOR Christ's veracity rather than against.I'm sorry Coyote, but you have to work really hard to get me to regard something else as of more value that Jesus Christ and the word of God.I said for "the big questions" I have to believe Christ's person and words.
"No man ever spoke as this man." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The mathematical sciences certainly deal with proofs. And I think I would have to say proofs of theories are generally sought Well, this is arguable. Robert Gastrow said the what he or anyone else would have to call supernatural forces at work, now, since the discovery of the big bang, is scientifically proven.This scientist who sat in the chair also occupied by Edwin Hubble, reasoned that it space, time, energy and matter came about in the big bang, it follows that nature came about at that time. Therefore the cause of the big bang, had to have been supernatural.Listen carefully what I said. Jastrow stated that the tools of astronomy and astrophysics have proven that supernatural forces had to be at work in the creation of the universe. " Supernatural forces " - that's all he admitted. I don't know. I have never been concerned about unicorns.You could always get an imaginative artist to draw you a pink unicorn just as easily as to draw you a hairy half ape looking monkey man. Is the latter less imaginary ? I think not. I'm thinking on it. Now a question - Does the absence of evidence PROVE the evidence of absence ?Could it be the case that there is no evidence for macro evolution yet macro evolution did take place ? I think the answer is yes.Conversly, it is possible that a first man and woman did exist and we have no evidence of it. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.And it late - another antidote for you - " The world of matter is not the only world that matters."Goodnight forum.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I've lost the plot here a bit.What is it that makes you disbelieve evolution - it's not your knowledge of it because you have none - is it that you have to believe the Adam and Eve story? If so do you believe that everything in the OT is literally true?You say you're not a YEC, do you therefore accept the scientific consensus on the age of the earth and universe?

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.Then I delved into some science aspects of it because on science grounds some posters objected.Then we skirted on whose " burden of proof " it should be, and how little I understand evolution, etc. It seems that "You don't understand evolution" is something I will hear people tell me for the rest of my life. One never "understands" evolution until one agrees that macro evolution is a historical fact.Some posters succeeded in encouraging me to read more or something called "ring species." And several other tangents came and went. There may be something to evolution but not as much as evolutionists like.
As for OT, I gradually came to believe it when I observed what was Christ's attitude towards the Hebrew Scriptures. I was skeptical at first. Eventually, I decided that if Jesus took OT history seriously, I should also.Now I will repeat what I wrote before. If I was a professional trained Biologist researching the development of living things I would spend time exploring something like punctuated equilibrium or another theory to compete with an all encompassing gradualism.If I were a scientist I would not spend more time beating what I think is a dead horse. Maybe there is something there like cataclysmic events which somehow shift the nature of animals more suddenly. I don't think the universe is only 6,000 years old.
I think an unspecified ancientness to creation makes more biblical sense.
As I read YEC, OEC, and evolutionist arguments I consider them on a case by case basis. I don't wholesale dismiss anyone totally. They all can contribute some good points.For the big questions of life, I am running absolutely with Jesus the Son of God.

quote:

---

Why I Am Not An Atheist - J.P. Moreland Phd. debunks the view that the more scientific you are the more likely you are to be an Atheist.

​

Myth - " If common people just KNEW what the learned people know they would all have to drop their belief in God, because it is a matter of faith and not reason."

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB_n9QCi6Gc

---

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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.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.

Only for as long as you actually don't understand it. You have never formally studied it have you? Your problem is simply that you just don't have the first clue about it so the things you think are part of the theory of evolution are actually not. Which is just plain weird. You should start by understanding that the term 'macro-evolution' is not a particularly useful or used term in biology. I'd never heard of it until I started talking to creationists. There is no difference between micro and macro-evolution; the processes are the same.After that you need to come to terms with the plain fact that evolution is settled science and has been for over 100 years. Literally millions of biologists have worked on the theory in one way and another - there's simply no way that it's going to be found wrong now, there's mountains of corroborating evidence and none to confound it. You're objections are not founded on facts, simply biblical dogma. Lots of people have studied punctuated equilibrium, there's nothing in the idea that there are periods of rapid change followed by periods of stability that is a problem for evolution. Nor is there a problem with some forms of rapid change; plants can change within a generation by duplication their genomes. But it's not possible to change dogs into horses or whatever else you seem to want evolution to be able to do. It's not a matter of what evolutionists like, it's simply what is. If evolution was different biologists would report and study that. Science isn't making stuff up to annoy creationists, it's a study of reality.

Its a theory about history (pre-history actually) or what occured in the past.You want to believe that a un-intelligent, goal-less, cascading of mutations tumbled randomnly down the eons to "selecting" its way arrived at the complete biosphere we see around us ? You go ahead and believe that.David Berlinsky's comments on the process are interesting.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLMEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's cobblers. It's happening today, at this moment to every living organism on earth - we can see it happening and use it to develop modern drugs. You get to choose what to believe, but you don't get to choose what's real. You're ignoring reality because of a dogmatic, un-evidenced belief. You don't have to you know, hundreds of millions of Christians accept evolution.

If you want to believe "reality" includes that a mindless, random, series of trillions of accidents weeded out harmful ones and selected its way to produce every living thing you can see in the mirror and right outside your door - the bugs, the trees, the birds, the grass, including the microscopic organisms in the water - you go on and believe that as reality.I don't have enough faith to believe that. The inner workings of the living cell makes it too unlikely to me. Maybe scientists can salvage what aspects of the theory are valid.I honestly don't think it is going to survive intact deep into the 21rst Century. I think like Marxism and Freudian Psychoanalysis it will be discarded as the third great mystery religion of the 19th century. (I'm paraphrasing a comment of Berlinsky).If I push a grand piano down from the top of Mount Washington and watch it tumble and crash over the rocks, I expect a horrendous cacophony of noise to follow. If I follow it all the way down the slopes, cliffs, and rocks down to the bottom of the mountain, I do not expect it to be sounding out in perfect harmony and counterpoint Bach's Well Tempered Clavier - Book #1.No, not without intelligence. Not randomly. Not without design. And not as a result of a trillion fortunate accidents among a trillion squared more unfortunate ones.The issue now is evidence for a common set of parents for all mankind. I think there is for starters only one race of people really. Someone recently wrote to me:

quote:

---

The human genome project has proven that there is only one race. However, we have Australian [A]boriginals, African [N]egroes, European Caucasions, Asians, American Indians, [N]egritoes (Pygmies). We can no longer talk race, since there is only one race.

---

[my edited in caps on Aboriginals, Negroes, Negritoes, and Pygmies]Paul under inspiration - " And He made from one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, determining beforehand their appointed seasons and the boundaries of their dwelling, that they may seek God ...." (Acts 17:26) I think that confirmation of modern science leans towards all humans being channeled to one parental entry point into the world rather than different parents in parallel.I don't think it is so hard to conceive that two original human beings are our furthest back ancestor. And when when you get into degrees of mature humanity among different "races" or arguing about who was first and who was a late comer, you get into some potentially nasty attitudes between peoples.Of course you can get nasty religious attitudes between people also. In coming days I will consider what more scientific evidence there is out there.I think there is evidence that the Bible is a communication from God who would know all the facts. We have here a consistent library of books written over 1600 years by 40 diverse people. The unity of such a writing over so long a time is unique. I include the divine characteristics of the book in adopting my attitude toward life's big questions.If it comforts you to say I m a slave to dogma, that's fine with me. A dogma can be about what is true sometimes. I think you seem to have your religious devotion to a troubled evolution theory which you have extrapolated from micro evolution examples way beyond reasonable bounds, imo.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Look, i really only have one thing to say to you - please, either study evolution properly so that you know what scientists say it is and what it does or shut up about it and stick to your churchgoing and do something useful for your community.Googling around creationist websites looking for things that you think contradict evolution is not trying to understand it. Once you properly understand it, you can at least talk about it in a sane way even if you don't accept it.You have no idea how foolish you sound - go away and have a think about it.

You think that just because on some minor point here and there you can successfully argue about the behavior of some amino acid or other minutia that you have the rational high ground on evolution.The big picture is clear to me. Yea, on some minor points here and there you can dazzle me with your more familarity with evolution theory.By the way, if you want to talk about sounding foolish, I'll remember your tag id and point out how foolish you sound to more astute Bible students. I'll be examining your comprehension of the Bible. And when you make some comment that I find rather stupid in its comprehension of the Bible, I'll point it out to you in turn.Hundreds of millions of Christians accept Evolution ! So what ? Millions of Christians accept the worship of Mary too.Tangle, the subject here is "Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?"Do you KNOW that we are NOT ?I'd like my next science read to be "Signature In The Cell" by Stephen Meyer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zMEdited 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.

Yet another example of you simply believing the falsehoods taught in the Christian Cult of Ignorance. While the first statement is true (it is only the Christian Cult of Ignorance that does not accept that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY explanation known) there is almost NO Mary worship in Christianity. If you were not so ignorant of Christianity or had ever actually read the bible you would know that.

I would agree. Some Bible students might not agree. I think this is what there. No it is not. History in the western world has been divided up into Before Christ and In the Year of Our Lord - BC - AD.The cataclysmic impact of this man's life and words on human history is exceedingly powerful. And a few of us in two millennia have decided to examine what He taught and apparently believed. Its not at all a waste of our time.You have some kind of religion, though I cannot seem to figure out what it is. But you continuously seem incapable of developing your ideas completely void in references to the Bible.That's curious for someone finding the Bible a waste of time on various subjects 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.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You before boasted how devout you are as a Christian. So you apparently want to be considered in the "Club." Right! And Snow White was Nigerian. You're in Junior High schoolyard mode again.

If it was a minor point here or there, no-one would quibble - I'm very, very far away from having proper knowledge of it. You however, haven't the first idea about it. And I do mean that - the things you've said demonstrate that you don't understand even the basics and it means that you are saying things that are ludicrously false. You won't find me talking much about the bible, I have very little interest in it. Of course we're not descendants of Adam and Eve, quite apart from evolution proving it to be wrong, it's just a bloody fairy story. It amazes me that grown-ups can believe in such nonsense.