A question about Adam and Eve.

[Athena]

Quote by: Chimera Don't take it literally.....But if you did take it literally.....You ask where is the evidence that God intervened in preventing genetic malfunctions.....Well 1. The bible doesn't discuss genetics so it woldn't be there....2. The fact that it didn't happen? There aren't dates given...

You inspired an idea. How about the angels that made women pregnant?
And the giants that were on earth, interbred with human females. That must be how we got genetic diversity. What do you think?

[nerdvincent]

[quote=phoenix_fire;448351]Quote:
We may all be descended from a single African woman - dubbed Mitochondrial Eve - within the last 200,000 years. Male Y-chromosome DNA hints at a single male progenitor, too. Fewer than 50 people could have given rise to the entire population of Europe, experts believe.

Instant Expert: Human Evolution - 04 September 2006 - New Scientist Environment

Interesting, hmm? QUOTE]

What is more interesting is that the whole article approve the theory of evolution.
Read the article about Mitochondrial Eve and you will understand that the term is a modelisation, an entity predicted by the theory of evolution and so the contrary of a pro-biblical argument. We named it after Eve in honour of the creationist theory, just like we name asteorids after Galileo or grammar school after JFK. It's the only remaining of it in the scientifical world...

[phoenix_fire]

I did actually read the article. Whenever someone talks about all people descending from a single pair, nonbelievers automatically assume that the idea is a ridiculous superstition. Since most people who claim to be persuaded only by hard science seem to take evolutionists at their word, I figured it would be an article to prove the point of humanity descending from only two people that not even the most dedicated anti-theist could call Christian-biased. I don't believe in macroevolution. But I do think that science is useful. And I think that even if you are working from an incorrect hypothesis, you can still make useful and accurate observations and conjectures. The point of using the article was to prove that the single progenitor and progenitress hypothesis was genetically feasible and that it is not merely a matter of doctrinal faith.

I think I made my point.

[nerdvincent]

You mean that you believe there is horse races, but that there is no horses, to take arguments from the Apology of Socrates. Or it sounds so.

[phoenix_fire]

That's not really a good 1 to 1 analogy. I believe that the ultimate aim of science is to discover the truth. Often, the use of hypotheses is very useful in doing so. But when people cling to pet hypotheses (such as macroevolution) to the point where they become dogma, it impedes the true nature of science. I believe the Bible to be true, therefore, I think that scientific discovery will inevitably back it up. In this case, it does. It would be as if I were working on an atomic model and I used the gold foil experiment's findings to posit the nucleus, but I discarded the plum pudding fixed electrons part of the model.

Interesting you should mention horses, though.

[freefallife]

Quote by: Chimera Guess God....

What a lame answer. No explaination, no support, no evidence. What an interesting debate tactic

And science can provide NO real evidence to disprove religion....my point stands....

The two don't have to disprove each other to see that they are not on equal ground. Science can provide EVIDENCE for its CONCLUSIONS. Religion can provide NO EVIDENCE for its conclusions. Therefore, they are NOT equal. Your point fails.

1. God, when he gave humans free will. 2. God, when, instead of using his omnipotence to write the Bible himself in completely concrete terms that cannot be debated, let humans write it, in vague terms.

There is more biblical support for the idea that the bible was not meant to be reinterpreted over and over. Furthermore, the bible was meant to be historicaly accurate. Take Genesis for example, a volume of the bible that many contend is not meant to be a literal account of the creation. If it was not literal, why are Genesis accounts quoted litleraly throughout the bible? The story of Cain and Able in Genesis 4 is litleraly quoted in Hebrews 11:4. The flood account in Genesis 7 is literally quoted in Matthew 24:39. There are other books that are literaly quoted as well. Jonah and the great fish in Jonah 2 is literaly quoted in Matthew 12:40. There is a lot of biblical support for a literal bible.

Now show YOUR support that the bible was meant to be endlessly reinterpreted.

Why would they not interpret it?

Uh...I said REinterpret, genius.

Your questions are ridiculous.

I've shown biblical support for my so called rediculous conclusions. Now it's your turn.

And they are exclusively Christian?

I don't have the information on the makeup of those organizations, but they do have christian followers. This thread is about Christianity, so it is them that we are discussing. Whether there are non- christian followers in those organizations is irrelevant to this thread.

I'm sorry but no scientist would make the the assumption you just made.....This post contradicts everyting you've said up to this point.

It was a simple rubuttal to one of the weakest arguments available. How did it contradict any of my claims?

[Charlatan]

God did not make Adam and Eve because God cannot make anything appear out of nowhere as this breaks the laws of science and nature. To say that God needed a rib from Adam's ribcage is also silly as that merely has that genetic stuff that you need to reproduce it over a thousand times to make a female, but, how do you make this spiral out of this rib? I mean you have a rib, then how do you make this rib grow? Wi th water, a heartbeat... many things you'll need, and of course you'll need to speed up time in a certain space of the universe for a limited amount of seconds, also making a mockery out of what is real. If you have a rib is it the same as having a fertilised egg? I guess so, but to speed up time for a limited time - I have heard of 'time zones' in space - for this woman to come to the fore is balderdash.

Go figure this one out, must be lost in the translation. I say evolution.

[Charlatan]

Quote by: freefallife What a lame answer. No explaination, no support, no evidence. What an interesting debate tactic The two don't have to disprove each other to see that they are not on equal ground. Science can provide EVIDENCE for its CONCLUSIONS. Religion can provide NO EVIDENCE for its conclusions. Therefore, they are NOT equal. Your point fails. There is more biblical support for the idea that the bible was not meant to be reinterpreted over and over. Furthermore, the bible was meant to be historicaly accurate. Take Genesis for example, a volume of the bible that many contend is not meant to be a literal account of the creation. If it was not literal, why are Genesis accounts quoted litleraly throughout the bible? The story of Cain and Able in Genesis 4 is litleraly quoted in Hebrews 11:4. The flood account in Genesis 7 is literally quoted in Matthew 24:39. There are other books that are literaly quoted as well. Jonah and the great fish in Jonah 2 is literaly quoted in Matthew 12:40. There is a lot of biblical support for a literal bible. Now show YOUR support that the bible was meant to be endlessly reinterpreted. Uh...I said REinterpret, genius. I've shown biblical support for my so called rediculous conclusions. Now it's your turn. I don't have the information on the makeup of those organizations, but they do have christian followers. This thread is about Christianity, so it is them that we are discussing. Whether there are non- christian followers in those organizations is irrelevant to this thread. It was a simple rubuttal to one of the weakest arguments available. How did it contradict any of my claims?

All biblical support is supposedly this or that, there is no proof that this or that happened. The descriptions aren't very fine are they, if you read between the lines you won't find much description other than measurements of the commandments boxes and stuff like that, but it might have been a hot day or a cold day, but never degrees fareheit of anything like that. That is the different ways and worlds we live in, the world we live in today is more defined and colourful than the world that was lived in in those days, with more knowledge widely spread too. The difference is people were not as afraid of death in those days and more ready to die for what they believed in, more valourous. It takes months and years to train soldiers to have the same zeal as a teenager back then, so maybe we are completely different to the people back then.

The stories have not changed though, they have been rewritten for ease of understanding, but they have been kept the same in terms that the writers could keep them meaning the same for the readers to recieve the same message, right? Now the problem is that what people found important back then was the box measurements that the commandments came in, not the amount of casualties on the battle field, as we have found, so the stories would have been shaped differently to what we would have shaped them. What we would have found very important would have been the stories Noah told to his family and not the amount of days God showed his power for, right? I mean a vulgar display of power is one thing, but the stories of a man to keep his family in touch with the caring side of the Lord are much more important.

The bible should be full of quotes of what the Lord said to people, not what He did. In this case words speak louder than actions, as ideas carry further than floods. There was a flood. No effect on us. There is a philosophy. Much to learn from it. The bible is structured incorrectly and we are rapidly finding there are many wrongs within. I am not saying that There were not Israelites in Egypt, but I am saying that the sea did not part for them to pass through, as that breaks the laws of nature.

Of course if the bible was full of qoutes of what the Lord had said there would be lots of false quotes of people trying to get their names in the good book and imagining that the Lord is speaking to them or down right lying to others, I mean, if people lie about miracles happeing that break the laws of nature, then surely people will lie about God speaking to them?

Do not use this book as the basis for your arguments, but rather the target, in my advice.

[loser]

If Adam and Eve were the first of our race, and Eve was created from Adams rib, wouldn't that mean Eve would have Adams DNA, thereby skewing the gene pool between them?

Skewing the gene pool? Whatever are you talking about? Perhaps you need to think this through just a wee bit more (if possible...and no drug-induced stupors, please).

DNA is something that is not just shared by human beings but by ALL living things.

The inference in the story of Adam and Eve is that Eve was a CLONE of Adam.

If the claim is that God intervened to prevent this genetic misfortune, where is that supported?

There's no genetic misfortune here...unless you feel that human life is a misfortune.

If God supposedly did intervene, then what about the kids? Over history we have had proven time and time again that incest breeds several forms of genetic errors, retardation, etc. How do "believers" deal with this obvious logical flaw?

This is just more false 'urban legend'. Inbreeding has been used sucessfully in ALL species (including the human variety) since the beginning of time. I see and hear genetic error and retardation all around me and none of it caused by 'incest'.

Inbreeding CAN increase deleterious recessive genes but it can also be used to eliminate these very same undesirable genes.

We've got a long way to go as yet before we come close to understanding the science of genetics. For now, avoid sleeping with your sister.

Also, regarding Adam and Eve, according to the "texts", when did they live?

A very long time ago...

I would like to see how we have reached this population number, in that amount of time, and explain how the numbers don't match.

If the numbers don't match it's because your math skills are lacking and your data assumptions are false.

Adam was created, according to Genesis, on the 6th day. Some theologians maintain Adam was 800 years old when he died. So that would mean he lived from year 0 (or rather 1 since zero hadn't yet been invented) to year 800, minus 6 days.

Actually, Adam was 930 years old when he died (Gen. 5:5).

Okay, one mutation that happened was the extra large head size. Which is uncommon in other animals. That could be viewed as a DNA screw up. Also, although we have hairless earthworms, it is rare for large mammals to be hairless unless they ended up like the whales. Many humans are nearly hairless as compared to cats and dogs. (apes). And the large head size resulted in child brithing pain and even death. Which does not seem like something that nature your pass on as evolution based on survival. Carl Segan wrote in one of this books that the large head size is the best scientific evidence in support of the speical creation of Adam and Eve.

Interestingly, it was ONLY after Eve had 'eaten' of the forbidden 'tree' (The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) that the curse of a painful childbirth came upon her. The inference is that they were given a higher intellect (therefore a larger brain/cranium) making humans more God-like. It's obvious that the large head size is NOT evolutionary but specifically created.

Now if Eve is in fact the rib of Adam then the human race began when God created her as that was like telling Adam to go screw his self (scientifically speaking). Otherwise if she is given brith out of Adam's side then she is his own daughter, suggesting that the human race was begot by the first child molester. And no one made a religion out of that biblical concept. In fact, the reverse took place. It seems all rather distrubing. The evolution idea is less distrubing.

Eve was a CLONE of Adam so I guess she could be considered like a sister. Their genes were PERFECT (no mutations, no defects). It would, of course, be all downhill from there culminating with the genetic cesspool of today.

It is these verses, and many more, that current day flat-earthers and geo-centrists cite to uphold their long since discredited ideology that the christian church once sanctioned. It is their literal translation of an infallable book. As far as other societies and religions that shared these beliefs, we look to where the Hebrews got all their fairy tales. As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians and the Babylonians. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.

And there's people on earth (they've been spotted here at this site) who don't believe that man has actually stood on the moon. Go figure.

If they literally translated the Bible, they would know that it reveals a spherical earth, contrary to popular misconception.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Flat-earther's are obviously people who have never taken a bath. Anyone who has stood on a shore of ANY great body of water has surely noticed the curvature of the earth on the horizon. It's curvature is UNMISTAKABLE. Since ancient man was not nearly as ignorant as modern man, it's completely absurd to envision a sailor believing that the earth was flat. Only readers of modern science fiction (called textbooks) could be this ignorant (hey, they've actually swallowed the fairy tale of evolution!).

Are big-heads a thing of the past? Diminishing cranial capacity a foregone (albeit, forlorn) conclusion?

[Chimera]

What a lame answer. No explaination, no support, no evidence. What an interesting debate tactic

Well who else would decide who's right about the Bible besides the person that judges whether or not you go to heaven? It doesn't require an explanation or evidence. It's common sense. Use critical thinking.

The two don't have to disprove each other to see that they are not on equal ground. Science can provide EVIDENCE for its CONCLUSIONS. Religion can provide NO EVIDENCE for its conclusions. Therefore, they are NOT equal. Your point fails.

1. Speaking of the two as mutually exclusive, Science CANNOT provide valid evidence to disprove God and Christianity can't provide valid evidence to prove God. How are they not equal? 2. If the world's greatest atheist scientist can't disprove the existence of God, how do you expect the world's greatest religious scientist? 3. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

There is more biblical support for the idea that the bible was not meant to be reinterpreted over and over.

As in what?

Furthermore, the bible was meant to be historicaly accurate.

In your opinion, many disagree.

There is more biblical support for the idea that the bible was not meant to be reinterpreted over and over. Furthermore, the bible was meant to be historicaly accurate. Take Genesis for example, a volume of the bible that many contend is not meant to be a literal account of the creation. If it was not literal, why are Genesis accounts quoted litleraly throughout the bible? The story of Cain and Able in Genesis 4 is litleraly quoted in Hebrews 11:4. The flood account in Genesis 7 is literally quoted in Matthew 24:39. There are other books that are literaly quoted as well. Jonah and the great fish in Jonah 2 is literaly quoted in Matthew 12:40. There is a lot of biblical support for a literal bible.

1. As I said, the Bible is a book of spiritual truth, of course it's quoted. Matthew used the situations to compare to the coming of Christ. I'm sorry but that's far from anything you're trying to prove.In Hebrews you have examples of faith ALL used to make a point. Every example you've provided are all used as exactly how I said to take the Bible. A book of spiritual truth. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says "Take all of this literally". It doesn't exist. By the very fact that it is NOT there, I am free to interpret it as I will because I am given free will.

Uh...I said REinterpret, genius.

You're falling back. Answer my Shakespeare question. Or answer all of my questions. You're ignoring so many parts of my post it's not even funny.

I don't have the information on the makeup of those organizations, but they do have christian followers. This thread is about Christianity, so it is them that we are discussing. Whether there are non- christian followers in those organizations is irrelevant to this thread.

By your words, they could potentially have atheist followers, or other religious followers as well.Without the followers being exclusively Christian, your point is moot, due to the fat that it applies across a broad spectrum of belief systems.

t was a simple rubuttal to one of the weakest arguments available. How did it contradict any of my claims

Well, as one supporting science so, it's contradictory to say that considering that the scientific method should test EVERYTHING and assume NOTHING.

God did not make Adam and Eve because God cannot make anything appear out of nowhere as this breaks the laws of science and nature.

So does God, your argument is dumb.

[Jack]

Science CANNOT provide valid evidence to disprove God and Christianity can't provide valid evidence to prove God. How are they not equal? 2. If the world's greatest atheist scientist can't disprove the existence of God, how do you expect the world's greatest religious scientist?

This would only be valid if the existence of god were a given. It's not. Until the existence of god is proven and supported with verifiable evidence, there's nothing there to disprove. It's just another conjecture. There's no need to disprove an unproven conjecture.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ok, so, the believers tell us Adam and Eve were the first of our "race". Would the believers agree with that terminology? If Adam and Eve were the first of our race, and Eve was created from Adams rib, wouldn't that mean Eve would have Adams DNA, thereby skewing the gene pool between them? If the claim is that God intervened to prevent this genetic misfortune, where is that supported? If God supposedly did intervene, then what about the kids? Over history we have had proven time and time again that incest breeds several forms of genetic errors, retardation, etc. How do "believers" deal with this obvious logical flaw? Also, regarding Adam and Eve, according to the "texts", when did they live? I would like to see how we have reached this population number, in that amount of time, and explain how the numbers don't match. Honest questions, based in logic, that I would like to see addressed by believers, if any care to address them. logicly.

I guess I will never understand the most stringent of literalists, and the Adam and Eve myth is right up there at the top... many of the points you bring up highlight that fact. I suppose if someone believes in the theory of "poof;" that whatever doesn't make sense or isn't workable God just went "poof..." then that someone is as consistent as those who believe in fairies. leprechauns, gremlins; and their pots of gold, or golems. But, of course, if we simply had accepted "poof" as a rule of the universe we probably would still think the Earth was flat and question the concept of gravity itself. We might just say, "God does it, and if we displease him we'll all just float away."


I don't type this to dis the believer, just those who are the most extreme in their literalism.

The only thing I listed that I do believe in is gremlins. You know, where did the thing I go that was in my hand a second ago, why do I look 10 times in one place for something and find it there on the 11th and why are there days/weeks/months where everything that possibly could go wrong seems to go wrong? I type this paragraph almost completely in jest. Almost. Some days I wonder.

[Chimera]

This would only be valid if the existence of god were a given. It's not. Until the existence of god is proven and supported with verifiable evidence, there's nothing there to disprove. It's just another conjecture. There's no need to disprove an unproven conjecture.

There is a mystery. No one can solve it. Equal ground.

[phoenix_fire]

Ken, which part of Adam and Eve do you not believe?

[nerdvincent]

I'll deviate a little: all the pro-Bible arguments you give are applicable to the Qur'an too. What makes you believe in Bible and not in the Qu'ran, exept the tradition (mom and dad bringing you to the church, brainwashing you...) and you subconscient judgement?

[phoenix_fire]

Well, that's a matter for another thread. This thread is referring to the genetic viability of the Adam and Eve history, and both Christianity and Islam pretty much see the history the same.

[Athena]

Well, I think to advance this discussion, we need some scientific information. Or we are ignorant people arguing opinions. Frankly, I am not that well informed. I just know the difference between ignorant opnions and basing arguments on facts. It takes a lot of energy to do the learning we need to do to have informed debates, and I don't have a lot of energy, nor the time to be well informed about everything we discuss. I know very little and often not enough to understand the facts I do find with the help of google, but if others want to put in the energy for the learning, I will too. It is like mountain climbing with experts who prepare before climbing a mountain, if people are truly well informed.

Human and Ape Chromosomes Creationists will be quick to point out that despite the similarities, there are differences in the chromosomal banding patterns and the number of chromosomes. Furthermore, they will claim that the similarities are due to a common designer rather than common ancestry. Let's address the differences first, and then we will see if we can tease apart the conflicting scenarios of common ancestry vs. a common designer. The following observations can be made about similarities and differences among the four species. Except for differences in non genetic heterochromatin, chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X have identical banding patterns in all four species. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and Y look the same in three of the four species (those three being gorilla, chimps, and humans), and chromosomes 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, and 16 are alike in two species. Chromosomes 4 and 17 are different among all 4 species. Most of the chromosomal differences among the four species involve inversions - localities on the chromosome that have been inverted, or swapped end for end. This is a relatively common occurrence among many species, and has been documented in humans (Ref. 8 ). An inversion usually does not reduce fertility, as in the case I have referenced. Don Lindsay provides a diagram of the chromosome 5 inversion between chimpanzees and humans scanned from ref. 1. Note how all of the bands between the two chromosomes will line up perfectly if you flip the middle piece of either of the two chromosomes between the p14.I and q14.I marks. The similarity of the marks will include a match for position, number, and intensity (depth of staining). Similar rearrangements to this can explain all of the approximately 1000 non-heterochromatic bands observed among each of the four species for these three properties (band position, number, and intensity). Other types of rearrangements include a few translocations (parts swapped among the chromosomes), and the presence or absence of nucleolar organizers. All of these differences are described in ref. 2 and can be observed to be occurring in modern populations. The biggest single chromosomal rearrangement among the four species is the unique number of chromosomes (23 pairs) found in humans as opposed to the apes (24 pairs). Examining this difference will allow us to see some of the differences expected between common ancestry as opposed to a common designer and address the second creationist objection listed above. There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common ancestry). The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres.

[rez]

Quote by: Chimera ago which is simply idiotic. Supernaturalism and Christianity are not synonyms, let's get that straight.

haha. It is called magic when things just magically poof into existence through the use of words and hand gestures. It is funny that you don't like your superstitions associated with the supernatural realm.. I wonder why?

It is also funny that a Christian can't accept macro evolution, but accept micro-evolution. It shows there true colors, because only an educated person would know that they are the addressing the same underlying principle. It is just that one definition addresses the short term change and the other addresses the change over a long term.

I agree that the opening post is not a good argument. It is more of troll post to get theists up in arms to try and defend this Bronze Age belief that humans came from a supernatural creature that magically poofed them into existence. I honestly would have never thought that humans would still be so silly enough to think thats how life evolves.

[Jack]

There is a mystery. No one can solve it.

What mystery? Until someone can show that the supernatural happenings in the Bible actually happened, it's no more a mystery than the stories in Bullfinch's Mythology. The only mystery about religion is why people continue to believe in something so outdated and useless for the 21st century.

[Chimera]

What mystery? Until someone can show that the supernatural happenings in the Bible actually happened

If they were proven true....They wouldn't be much of a mystery......

The only mystery about religion is why people continue to believe in something so outdated and useless for the 21st century.

Even if all religion was completely false, I see no reason why the morals it teaches would be useless....

haha. It is called magic when things just magically poof into existence through the use of words and hand gestures. It is funny that you don't like your superstitions associated with the supernatural realm.. I wonder why?

I didn't say the word could not be applied. I said they were not synonyms....Which they aren't. This is a fact you seem to still be having trouble with.

It is also funny that a Christian can't accept macro evolution, but accept micro-evolution. It shows there true colors, because only an educated person would know that they are the addressing the same underlying principle. It is just that one definition addresses the short term change and the other addresses the change over a long term.

More evidence of you generalizing. Phoenix doesn't believe in macro-evolution, but I do. You instantly applied it to every Christian. And then spelled their wrong.

I agree that the opening post is not a good argument. It is more of troll post to get theists up in arms to try and defend this Bronze Age belief that humans came from a supernatural creature that magically poofed them into existence. I honestly would have never thought that humans would still be so silly enough to think thats how life evolves.

Concession accepted.