Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

I accept that Darwin certainly didn't invent racism.
I accept that maybe the title of his book was hype that the publishers desired in order to sell it. Publishers do that. I don't know if that was the case.I accept that slavers drew from the Bible - ie. the cursed black race, etc. (though they had to torture interpretation of Genesis to do so).I do not accept that either the biological or social concepts of Darwin are innocent in the barbarism of genocide. The social Darwinism was based on the biological concepts. Any attempt to distance the biological from the application of the concepts to the "human" animal I dismiss.If you want to say other factors influenced the Eugenics movement, I can agree. If you want to say Evolution theory had nothing to do with it, I disregard that as revising history.In Origin of Species Darwin may not have written explicitly much on Racism. But he had more to say in latter writings -Chapter 7 The Descent of Man had arguments in favour of, and opposed to, ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species--Sub-species--Darwin's quotes on race and slavery are mixed and not always without consideration to the slave. He does not always come across as a bigot. As a scientist though he thought he should have a heart of stone.Here he is human -

quote:

---

What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character.

---

By modern standards I think he appears chauvinistic. But the ideas he spawned people ran with with all the viciousness evil can muster.Darwin on race and slaveryDistancing Evolution theory totally from Eugenics is futile, IMO.

I don't rule out completely changes within species. I really have a suspicion that the aspect of the theory which should be given more attention to is something that suddenly alters organisms to more explosive appearance on earth.All-encompassing grand gradualism from below that bacteria to a long rise to the present biosphere - without goal, without a plan, without guidance? I don't think so.Animals lived. They no longer live for some reason. If they are ancestors to modern animals, I would look in the direction to sudden alterations of some kind. Long steady gradualism, I don't think occurred.But, hey, to criticize evolution is to not understand evolution here. So ...Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

" ... The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. " What did Darwin mean ?"If Evolution is true then racism is valid because some races will have evolved further than other races. This is clear in Darwin's second work Titled "The Descent of Man" , where one entire chapter was dedicated to The Races of Man. - one Jeffd_57 from a discussion -From The Descent of Man

quote:

---

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between .... or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178). "

---

[My bolding]A few pages latter Darwin continues to discuss races of humans -

quote:

---

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."

---

One Jeffd_57 contributes:

quote:

---

While Darwin may have maintained an outward concern for social justice, Thomas Henry Huxley, a close personal friend of Darwin’s and an indefatigable champion of evolution (who frequently referred to himself as Darwin’s Bulldog) observed: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average ***** is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites" (1871, p. 20).

​

The point is obvious: if man evolved, then so did the various races.

​

But more than that, Darwin and Huxley argued further that the Caucasian race was farther along in the evolutionary process, and thus superior to all the other races.

---

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2008042820293...Darwin's hierarchy of races discussed from about 29:00
on "Darwin Day"Speakers says the distancing of Darwin's ideas from racism came from younger (not older) geneticists after the Holocaust when the horror of the ideas of race superiority could no longer be tolerated.Start at 29:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS6Volcb5LYEdited 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.

Some general comments.I am presently reading Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.My referring to what someone said in discussions on the Internet about Darwin is no different from those referring me to what someone else said on talkorigins.org (?)I notice that the usage of the word "race" in Origin, as far as I have read, is in relation to animals. But from what I can see in Descent of man race continues to be used in reference to people.In other words, yes, in Origin Darwin, so far as I read, uses race for lower animals. I don't buy that he did not use "race" when latter referring to the human animal as it were.The panel talk from Cornell University contained information which I have no reason to doubt, that he considered all men of one species but did regard hierarchical distinctions of races.Whoever said there is nothing about racism in the Theory if Evolution is acting as if there is a monolithic statement somewhere like a creedal formulate. I agree lots of things may not be said in such a definition or general description. I don't take seriously that Evolution thinking has never had any room for concepts of race superiority / inferiority.I notice Darwin constantly refers to native peoples as "savages". But we here in the US can push a button and instantly slaughter millions of people in a city in 20 seconds. And that is not "savage" ?Until I complete my reading of Origin of Species I probably will have no more comments about that particular book. My main purpose here was to study the Bible. The Bible reveals Adam and Eve as the parents of all of us.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.The flow of history from events in the life of Adam and his wife is rather seamless down to Abraham. I believe it. If you don't believe it then you just don't. I'll run with a FIRST man and a FIRST woman among human beings, hand waving about other theories and how convincing the "evidence" to the contrary is, not withstanding. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

erased. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The speaking serpent -Now some will see flashing lights "Fiction, Fiction, Fiction". But others see "Supernatural, Supernatural, Supernatural".What I see is that God has purposely done or allowed things to occur in the beginning of human history so that all could understand that our beginnings here on this planet are ROOTED in the supernatural.Now I sympathize with some who at first glance take this account to read like a comic book. But I eventually realized that the simplicity of the story should not be mistaken for naivete.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. Is this the same writer describing the measurements of the tabernacle like it was an Microsoft operating system in minute technical details?I regard the account as very wise of God. To communicate to the maximum number of people in all times, cultures, and places on earth through different millennia, He has to get through some basic universal aspects of man's origins.1.) In the origin of man there was a counter intelligence operating to derail the purpose of God.2.) In the origin of man though he was placed in a paradise situation there was nevertheless something evil left over against which man was to be on guard.3.) In the origin of man all man's troubles came from the source of disbelieving the WORDS of God to man - words of preparation for man's existence.4.) In the origin of man, man had a free choice to either listen to God or listen to one who was opposed to God. An opposer who sought to include humanity in its opposition party against God.5.) A WAY, any WAY other than God's way will lead to sin and death.I do not understand everything about this speaking serpent. But I notice that very many miracles of the Bible come in matching pairs. It is as if God is saying "That's right. You heard Me right - a talking serpent. And to match that perculiar matter here in Numbers I give you another miracle of a talking ass, Balaam's ass."The miracles of the Bible often come in pairs as a dual match. Ie. Like Joshua's long day with Hezekiah's sun dial moving backwards.My opinion is that the Creator and God of creation is caused the initialization of human life on earth to be accompanied with obviously artypical miraculous details. The greatest number of people spanning the greatest span of mental ages, can see something of man's origins being grounded in supernatural matters on this earth.A last word. In the case of the pair of unusual astronomical occurrences ( Joshua's long day and Hezekiah's back moving sun dial) it surprises me that on this side of Albert Einstein's science we would think these as impossible.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 ? This side of the discovery of black holes I don't think these astronomical phenomenon would be hard for God to orchestrate for His own purposes.

The continued existence of the nation of Israel is a factor leading me to believe what is written in the Bible is trustworthy.I mean the Jews had been persecuted for seven hundred years by Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians and then Greeks and the Romans. Many Jews had been scattered and lives as captives in these other nations.We still amazingly see Jews today. But in comparison where are the Hittites, Perizzites, Ammonites, Assyrians, Jebusites, Philistines, Amalekites, Persians, and Babylonians of those living in ancient times ? These people largly got captured, intermarried, and lost their national identity.The existence of Jews, the reformation of Israel, their book the Tenach, are contributing historical factors for believing what is written there about them and of mankind in general is believable.That is also to include the coming of Jesus according to so many messianic prophecies plus the integrity of His life, words and explanations of human life. It is enough. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What indications do you have in the writing that he didn't expect anyone to take it seriously ? You imagine someone's need to "correct" something. Genesis 5:1,2 makes it clear that the two accounts are about the same man - "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God."(v.1) (See Genesis 1:26). "Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name Adam, on the day when they were created." (v.2) (See Genesis 1:26,27).In case anyone is confused chapter one and chapter two are about the same man told from two different angles of interest. I don't know how God accomplished it. My point is that it should not be that hard to believe that a Creator could easily have the power to do so.Joshua's army had rocks falling from the sky at one point to assist him in his defeating of the Canaanites. Could have been pure miraculous, could have been a meteor shower. Could have been some of both.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

An Archeological diversion.Apologetic Conference Canada of 2011, Dr. Steven Collins "Confirming the Bible Through Archeology"This particular hour is dedicated to Sodom and the cities of the "plain" [or circle] in Genesis.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlYSOSNiDLQAnyone who does not have the patience to sit through the entire long lecture but wants to make a comment, I'm not interested. Sit through the entire lecture from start to finish and I'll read your comment.PS I am presently reading from cover to cover "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin as challenged during this discussion. I will oblique this criticism.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Steve didn't have the equipment physiologically to produce children. Eve did.
Eve was created physically to be oriented towards coupling with a male.
Adam was created physically to be oriented towards coupling with a female.Of course this obvious fact is lost on some people. While they scream about evidence the evidence of the physiology of their own bodies was designed for orientation to the opposite sex alludes them.Sexual greediness is a huge reason why some people muster all their intellectual energy to dismiss the Bible. Its too bad they don't instead come to get to know the God who created them and designed them and loves them.

Wisecracks may cause me to write something useful. You asserted some stuff which in your opinion is right. And I put a link to the discussion of modern archeology which argues for the validity of Genesis 19 which did happen. By implication Joshua and Judges I would be inclinded to take seriously. Yes, you made some assertions which I reject. Assertions which I believe are wrong and may one day be provable with the tools of science to be wrong.A review was not necessary to me. The link on modern excavation of the cities of the plain, including Sodom, encourage me that Old Testament, so heavily based on realistic geography, is true in its accounts.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlYSOSNiDLQEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My corrected typo. I meant Genesis 19. And while I have no archeological proof for everything I read in the Old Testament, I submit this example as a representative case.As for the children of Adam and Eve marrying their near relatives? That should be a no brainer. Obviously that is what God had to allow for in the beginning of the human race.Though Genesis only mentions Cain and Abel and Seth by name it also says "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years, and he begot more sons and daughters." (Gen. 5:7) They were enter marrying among their early human relatives.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Troy existed, why don't you put the same belief in the Homeric stories?

---

I don't have a strong reaction for or against the Homeric stories. Could be something there based on real history.The Homeric stories don't touch anything of a sense of destiny with me in terms of my relationship with God.The first time I remember voluntarily opening up a Bible at random and just reading, for some reason it touched my "me-ness" in a deeper way. I think I recall opening up to the middle of the book of Isaiah. After a number of lines, I closed it. Something authoritative about it seem to touch me as Someone speaking to my personal life.There are multitudes of stories from the ancient world that are simply unconsequential to my person. The Bible is writing that I have to decide on in my relationship with God.

quote:

---

You see, this one of the logical fallacies I mention. The argument has no validity. Harry Potter must be factual since London is in it. We know London exited and exists so therefore it should be more factual than the bible. The argument is ludicrous and ridiculous.

---

How come there is 1,000 times more energy and time mustered by intellectuals against the Bible than against say Harry Potter ?You say "They are just about the same." But I know plenty of websites launching all out intellectual war against Genesis or the New Testament. Where is "The Harry Potter Delusion" book selling by the millions ? Where is "Harry Potter is Not Great" best seller ?Sure I can say that the sun in the sky is a light just like the screen on my cell-phone. Yes, they are both lights. Somehow the differences are extensive, even great.The Bible is a book like the Iliad is a book. I can put both on my bookshelf. Both can collect dust. Both have title pages and page numbers and may indicate where the printing was done or who the publisher was.But one book causes me to have to consider my ways before an Ultimate Truth. The other doesn't have that effect.Somewhere in the book of Jeremiah God tells Israel "Is not My word like a hammer, that breaks the rocks in pieces?"

quote:

---

"The prophet ... and he who with whom is My word, let him speak My word faithfully.

​

What is straw to the grain? declares Jehovah. Is not My word thus - like fire, declares Jehovah, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (See Jeremiah 23:28,29)

---

You asked about me. And the Bible has an effect on my conscience and heart which lots of great books, good books just do not have, though they be a good read.And His word also feeds something deep in me that no fiction ever does in the same way, though it may be enjoyable to read. I'll work on logical weaknesses. But you know an Argument from Authority is a logically weak argument by debating standards. A logically weak argument may still be true.Maybe you could work on your unrealistic comparisons down to one a month. Ie. Homeric stories and the book of Genesis.Can you name me another book in the world ( I mean one, not a combination) which in as many words as can be found in the first 10 or 11 chapters of Genesis tell us this many vital things about the world -1.) The origin of the universe
2.) The origin of life on the world.
3.) The origin of the seven day work week.
4.) The purpose and origin of human beings.
5.) The history of the first human family.
6.) The initial relationship of man with his Creator.
7.) The origin of the death of people.
8.) The origin of the institution of marriage.
9.) The origin of the first worship of God.
10.) The reason for the first murder.
11.) The origin of domestic animal keeping.
12.) The origin of nomadic life.
13.) The origin of metal work.
14.) The origin of musical performance.
15.) The history of the first human city.
16.) The origin of the diversity of human languages.Can you indicate ONE ancient or modern writing which in as many words as the first 11 chapters of Genesis tell us as many vital points of interest about the earth and mankind ?Don't reach for Aesop's fables or Huckleberry Finn.
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.

The talking snake communicates to people down through the ages that besides man there IS an intelligence which is subtle, sneaky, twisting God's word, getting us to doubt God's hearts, suspicioning us of God's good heard toward us, and slandering God's motive of utmost love and care for His creature man.Yes, everyone knows that a serpent is not supose to talk. And I have not yet figured out why Eve was not surprised. Someday I hope to know.However, critical underlying truth is conveyed. Trouble with mankind began when what God said was twisted and combined with a lie. Trouble with mankind began when man took in the thought that God did not have man's utmost benefit in mind.It is also highly possible that we are only TOLD certain details about what happened which are critical to know the history. It is possible that many other things were going on which we are not explicitly informed of.You go ahead and have your good chuckle about that detail. I am paying more attention to other things.1.) Why was a lying intelligence there ?
2.) Why does it seem to possess previous experience with death ?
3.) Why did it initiate its attack firstly through the woman to get to the man?
4.) If it KNEW Adam would die WHY did it WANT Adam to die?
5.) Why did it insituate that God wants no competition ?
6.) Why was it given NO promise of salvation as Adam and Eve were given?
7.) What does it mean for it to expect to have its head crushed?
8.) What does it mean that it will bruise the heel of the Crusher?
9.) What are the deeper significances if any of it being condemned to eat dust?
10.) Why does it totally disappear from the remainder of the Old Testament.
11.) What would have happened if Adam had first taken the tree of life, as far as the lying serpent was concerned?
12.) How come some people when you study the Bible with them SOUND so much like the serpent in Genesis ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You misconstrue my words. I said there is AN intelligence besides man. In other words MAN'S intelligence is not the ONLY intelligence in the creation. That is a ironical statement for a man who seems hell bent on wanting to CHOOSE not to come to God's salvation.Isn't it the terror of losing your freedom the main reason for all your arguing here over the years? "Don't mess with my CHOICE" you are screaming out. It seems your free will is what you spend you energy on protecting.But you prefer that God had made you a robot with no choice ? You say the trouble is that God made them with an ability to choose. This intelligence you say, God put within them. And He was wrong to have done so.It sounds like you simply want your analysis to come out so that God is to blame for everything.Had Eve realized that what happened to them was GOING to happen to them, I don't think she would have fallen for the LIE.To grow old from such a youthful and pristine perfection, losing a son to murder and another to exile in the same moment, was heart breaking. Can you see the couple kneeling before the bloody corpse of their child Abel? Can you feel the heartbreak they must have had at the realization of what they led their family into? And at the same time another son fled away forever, a wanderer frightened for his life.As sins became manifested, and disharmony, family decay, dysfunction, old age, encreasing weakness and anxiety and finally death ... had she known that the LIE "you will not surely die" was not worth all this. Depends on whose Bible interpretation you follow.This requires more discussion. Briefly, Paul said "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin ..." My opinion is that there must be some parameters on what is meant by "the world". It may mean Adam's world. It may mean the world that was prepared for Adam.What if there was a previous world that was prepared for another being before Adam was created ?Did you notice that Noah coated the ark with pitch in Genesis 6:14 - "Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make rooms in the ark and shall cover it within and without with pitch." That is a petroleum product related to OIL. And OIL is related to dead organic material. And before the flood of Noah there was apparently oil or pitch in the ground.That is all I would say now. But "the earth was was waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep" in Genesis 1:2 strongly implies a previous judgmental overthrow from God of another world before the six days to commence.Death could have been known in that previous pre-Adamic world. And the serpent had previous experience with it. The carnivorousness of animals is said not to have commenced until AFTER the flood of Noah.Compare Genesis 1:29,30 with Genesis 9:1-4. I do not claim to understand this totally. But we know that in the restoration it is promised that the lion and the bear will eat straw like the ox (Isaiah 11:6-8)

quote:

---

"Righteousness will be that which girds His loins, And faithfulness will be that which girds His hips.

​

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb;
And the leopard will lie down with the kid,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a young boy will lead them about.

​

The cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together;
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child will play by the cobra's hole,
And upon the viper's den the weaned child will stretch his hand.

​

They will not harm nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, as the water covers the sea.

​

And in that day the root of Jesse, Who stands as a banner to the peoples - Him will the nations seek, And His resting place will be the glory."

---

In this remarkable transformation of nature we apparently have a restoration to the Edenic condition before the animals were carnivorous.I have to consider these things as a serious Bible reader, though I do not have all the answers.That is all I can respond at this time. Aside from being warned that to eat of the tree of knowledge would cause them death, I see no other warning or indication that they should expect to live for a time and then die.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.