Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

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.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.

They don't live to be thirty-five.

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.

You've gone off on a tangent. I was explaining why abiogenesis is not "miraculous".

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.

That's right. Science doesn't even make much of an effort to convince jaywill. It's a bit hard to pinpoint him, though. Was he a hairy knuckle-dragger or a few CCs of pond scum? 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.

Your foot appears to be in your mouth up to the knee. If Mary was a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant.

You first. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, why does his geneology have to be in the Bible?

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.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?

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.

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 impact that people have does not necessarily reflect on the accuracy of their beliefs. 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. 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.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.

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.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?

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. 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.

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 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.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? Why do you find it necessary to suggest scientific explanations for miracles?