Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm suggesting that the original human beings' bodies may have operated a bit differently due to the nature of their original construction - a construction that sin had only just begun to degrade. You and Mary both make the assumption that incest MUST logically result in malformations because that's what happens now. How can you know that perhaps - in the very beginning, things were different? Good grief: when it comes to Evolution, non-believers will accept any number of implausible things, but a suggestion of a genetically pure couple is unheard of? What?

You on the other hand believe that 'God' snapped his fingers and Hey, presto! the heavens and the earth were created &c. &c. You have a very elastic notion of "implausibility"!

But you didn't answer my question, and it deserves to be answered: why would God design us genetically to not breed with close relatives and then give our first parents no other options by which to continue to perpetuate the race? Is it that you cannot answer, or will not?

Of course I cannot answer, other than to say that there is no irrefutable evidence that 'God' did anything or even existed.

Next.

Elsewhere I believe you refer to something Mary said as "clever" - which indeed everything of hers I have read is in the best, non-sarcastic use of the word. Yet here and elsewhere you resort to supercilious responses of the "There you go again" variety.

Close; not quite. I have never said science=faith.

But a few sentences later you say precisely that:

When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove that.

You will quibble perhaps that a discipline that involves "a significant leap of faith" does not equate to a faith per se, but it is a hair-splitting difference. A more useful difference would be that the "leaps of faith" made within science - the advocacy of an hypothesis - is always subject to repeated testing in a variety of circumstances by scientists other than those who made the hypothesis. A very great difference from religion, in which an ancient text, much translated from earlier versions with demonstrable omissions and additions is then taken as sufficient evidence for everything seen or unseen.

Clever - but you know I was not telling you that science had no place here

As you are fond of telling others, read your own prior post.

[Redzeppelin]

This the most recent. Devolution is a concept that implies directionality in adaptive change. It is the mixing of the notion of teleology with the concepts of adaptive change. This mistake is commonly made by those espousing forms of "social darwinism." Evolution (in all its changes) does not have a direction. It is change contingent upon the particulars of an organism as it copes with the conditions of its environment. Evolution as a concept cannot contain the notion of "progress" or "degradation."

My original use "de-evolved" was in quotation marks; I assume that most people understand that convention in written expression. The word is still understood by most educated people in indicate a degradation of some sort in terms of something lessening or decreasing from a more refined, complex state into something inferior in nature. I thought that was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

Secondly, purity in genetics is something used to discuss cross-breeding between varieties of genetic types. So for example, if you cross green bean type A and green bean type B you get a cross-breed or an "impure" example of type A and type B. If, however, the cross get stabilzed so that the new type breeds true then it is no longer an impure type A or B. With respect to human beings, impurity is not applicable. This is because we are genetically incredibly homogeneous across the spectrum (due to our extreme newness as a species), despite the variations in our phenotype. That is, we don't actually have biological races, although of course we do have social races. Purity as applied to human genetics is another example of the mixing of human notions of directionality in history and ideas of progress with what is an amoral (not immoral but amoral) function of genetics and biology. What results is often horrific, for example, eugenics and notions of "pure blood" obligations to the "race."

Again, if my terminology was inaccurate, excuse me - but I think what I was trying to say was still fairly obvious: leaving off the usage of "pure" in terms of genetics, I will say that Adam and Eve were "pure" beings in that nothing about their make-up would contribute to the same malformations/disorders that particular pairings today can create. Regardless of what we currently know about how genes work, I'm basing my comments off of the idea that God - as a perfectly Holy and Good being - cannot create that which will produce anything negative/malformed/"retarded"/inferior quality UNLESS there is an extenuating ingredient added into the mix - that ingredient is sin and I believe sin changed reality at every level. I understand that I have no proof for this - but I'm reasoning based on God's character as put forth in the Bible.

Finally, perfection has no place in the discussion either of phenotype or genotype. Perfection implies a transcendent standard to which the material expression can be measured. It doesn't matter whether the transcendent ideal is Plato's or Christianity's, neither have anything to do with what science measures against (repeatable experiment and predictive ability).

OK - so we're quibbling on words; my apologies for being sloppy in my choice of words - but I wasn't discussing "purity" in terms of how science uses it - I was using it in terms of the quality of that which God creates.

You can say, if you like, that Adam and Eve existed and were perfect and that we exist and are not perfect. But this has absolutely nothing to do with genes or evolution. Your only recourse is to theology. You (and those with whom you debate) must simply accept the facticity of your joint assumptions.

Sin - left unchecked - would destroy everything. It destroys our minds, our spirits and our bodies. God is the source of life - sin is that which is contrary to God: choosing sin is like choosing to cut yourself off from food, water, air. Once sin entered the human race, we began to "degrade" in ways that science cannot necessarily measure or understand.

You on the other hand believe that 'God' snapped his fingers and Hey, presto! the heavens and the earth were created &c. &c. You have a very elastic notion of "implausibility"!

Not the point of what I wrote; please address the point I was making more than focusing on a tiny portion.

Of course I cannot answer, other than to say that there is no irrefutable evidence that 'God' did anything or even existed.

Still not dealing with what I said.

Elsewhere I believe you refer to something Mary said as "clever" - which indeed everything of hers I have read is in the best, non-sarcastic use of the word. Yet here and elsewhere you resort to supercilious responses of the "There you go again" variety.

My use of the word was not sarcastic; if Mary has an issue with it s/he can take it up with me.

But a few sentences later you say precisely that:
When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove that.

You will quibble perhaps that a discipline that involves "a significant leap of faith" does not equate to a faith per se, but it is a hair-splitting difference. A more useful difference would be that the "leaps of faith" made within science - the advocacy of an hypothesis - is always subject to repeated testing in a variety of circumstances by scientists other than those who made the hypothesis. A very great difference from religion, in which an ancient text, much translated from earlier versions with demonstrable omissions and additions is then taken as sufficient evidence for everything seen or unseen.

I have never said science=faith. I have said science requires faith in certain ways and under certain circumstances.

As you are fond of telling others, read your own prior post.

Thanks for the advice.

[karolab]

let is not forget that out time line does not equal to Gods. he created the heavens and earth in 7 days,, that is our time line, one day for him could have been 1000years,, I am a catholic and believe most of what is in the bible,, some of it I question,, but that is a good thing,, we need to be so that we read it.
karolab

[Redzeppelin]

let is not forget that out time line does not equal to Gods. he created the heavens and earth in 7 days,, that is our time line, one day for him could have been 1000years,, I am a catholic and believe most of what is in the bible,, some of it I question,, but that is a good thing,, we need to be so that we read it.
karolab

Then why didn't Genesis say "1000 years" instead of this: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day"?

[Logos]

Elsewhere I believe you refer to something Mary said as "clever" - which indeed everything of hers I have read is in the best, non-sarcastic use of the word. Yet here and elsewhere you resort to supercilious responses of the "There you go again" variety.

....

As you are fond of telling others, read your own prior post.

I'm using this post as an example, but this message is for everyone.

People on all 'sides' of this (and most other) Religious Texts discussions here have at times employed myriad ad hominem approaches--discussing each other instead of ideas--making comments on their intellect, comparing them to animals, using negative innuendo to suggest they're inferior because of their stance, opinion(s), faith, or beliefs; and used passive aggressive posting style, been antagonistic, and used sarcasm which, in this environment, 99% of the time does not go over well.

I don't care what any of your opinions or stances are, I don't care what you believe in, but I do care that people here are treated with respect and dignity, and that they respect the rules.

I really really really wish people would get a better grasp of RULE C
.
.

[kiobe]

Then why didn't Genesis say "1000 years" instead of this: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day"?

Time lines in the bible have always been a problem for me. Liberal christians say that the 6 days to create the universe is not 6 days as we now know them. Liberals believe that they will never know the actual timeline. The early christian church stuck to thier dogma about the solar system revolving around the earth and dissenters were punished. One would think that if the universe was really created in 6 days that the first inhabatants of earth, Adam and Eve, would be aware of the 7 day week (work 6 days rest on the seventh) even though it wouldn't be called that, if a person counted the weeks going by until the sun was in the same place a year later, eventually a 364 day calendar would arise. Of course that didn't happen until 1582 and only due to the mathmatical and astronomical work done by father Christopher Clavius. It seems, that a pure and perfect human, Adam and Eve, may not have as much ability to reason as later man has proven to have.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Then why didn't Genesis say "1000 years" instead of this: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day"?

Perhaps because Genesis is a parable and like so much else in the Bible it is presenting things poetically, that is, as an imaginitive approximation of how things might have been. Look at the language: it employs pattern and imagery rather than the plainer, more straightforward lanuage of literal exposition.

[JCamilo]

I'm suggesting that the original human beings' bodies may have operated a bit differently due to the nature of their original construction - a construction that sin had only just begun to degrade. You and Mary both make the assumption that incest MUST logically result in malformations because that's what happens now. How can you know that perhaps - in the very beginning, things were different? Good grief: when it comes to Evolution, non-believers will accept any number of implausible things, but a suggestion of a genetically pure couple is unheard of? What?

There is nothing implausible and it is quite reasonable to believe that homo sapiens organism worked in very similar ways that it does today since it is quite reasonable that the universe natural laws are quite the same since always.
And the reason why someone who understands evolution won't buy a perfect couple of humans is that genetically a perfect couple would disappear among the not perfect couples. They had to be traits that are spread in more than one possible couple, the traits must be present in groups not in indivuduals.
Also, this couple implies in Adam and Eve (or any other mythical initial couple), and evolution have showed enough evidences that it was not how it worked and all the stuff that you may classify as implausible but this is how this argument ends.

Close; not quite. I have never said science=faith. I have made the claim that the believing in evolution (which is unprovable, like God) requires a certain amount of faith; likewise, I have indicated that science functions on some presuppositions (i.e. Naturalism and materialism) and that part of its "evidence" consists of observations subjected to interpretive machinery which influences how the data is ultimately evaluated. When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove that.

Evolution is not unprovable. It is a fact you can see every single day of your life when you see a dog and remember about a wolf. You can not possibly mix life and universe creation with evolution which is just the diversifiction of species.
It is true that Science have dogmatic vallues as philosophical concepts that need to be accepted as truthful, but that is old subject. For once, it is not dogmatic when dealing with facts. Science is not dogmatic about its conclusions either. Science accepts questioning. That is the difference from Faith, which is usually dogmatic not only about the principles of faith but also about description of reality (Faith does not exactly means considering all possibilities, some critics address science as not considering it all, but it is not like religious principles usually do). Futhermore, most religious principles have been contested to death and they barelly hold enough after this - Without Faith, which I find a true marvel of human mind - and the Scientific Method still works better for trying to explain in the most reasonable way and in face of the unknow they try to discover the answers rather than just accepting it as God's work. Bigger advantage in my opinion, but then I have no faith.

Clever - but you know I was not telling you that science had no place here - I was confronting your attitude that theology wasn't good "science." Science requires its own brand of faith (in human reason and its observational skills to unravel reality) as well as its unproven assumptions (God isn't real).

I think that is a good work play. Teology is a Science if we consider the broader term where all human knowledge is called science. Who I am to discuss with Dante. But the Moderm Science, that one that we can say is a product of 19-20 century have no place for Theology (but the social study of it) and requires no faith. A scientist that believes badly in one theory will not have any force or power once it was not accepted by Scientific Standards. And individual may have faith, but the institution not.
And please, God isn't real is not an unproven assumption. God is real is the unproven assumption as you can not prove a negative of anything unproven.

[Dark Star]

And please, God isn't real is not an unproven assumption. God is real is the unproven assumption as you can not prove a negative of anything unproven.

Not to mention, science makes no claims whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of God, much like the rest of the supernatural. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Christian scientists and as we know those exist (I mean 'Christian Scientists' not the oxymoron of 'creation science' by the way).

[Granny5]

What a wonderful discussion! So much information. I wonder why man believes that he would ever be able to understand God and his ways. Who is to say that the Bible wasn't written as it is so that man could in some small way understand God. If one assumes that mankind's "day" is the same as God"s puts God in our world and timeframe and maybe with our limitations. I just can't imagine that. I don't really see a difference in evoluation and God creating man from earth. The Bible just says that man was formed from earth, not how and exactly how long it took. ( Unless the "day" was our 24 hour day) To be able to read other's beliefs and reasonings is a great way to understand our own faith. Although I haven't had time to read all the posts, the ones I've read are very interesting. Thank you all for sharing.

[Redzeppelin]

Perhaps because Genesis is a parable and like so much else in the Bible it is presenting things poetically, that is, as an imaginitive approximation of how things might have been. Look at the language: it employs pattern and imagery rather than the plainer, more straightforward lanuage of literal exposition.

Your basis for calling Genesis's creation narrative a "parable"? The use of poetic language has been used throughout history to pass on historical truths.

There is nothing implausible and it is quite reasonable to believe that homo sapiens organism worked in very similar ways that it does today since it is quite reasonable that the universe natural laws are quite the same since always.

It is reasonable to assume so, provided that you assume that how our bodies operate now and how they originally operated "fresh from the manufacturer" were identical. With the myriad of problems associated with the human body, why would we assume that "freshly" created would be the same as that suffering through thousands of years of sin?

And the reason why someone who understands evolution won't buy a perfect couple of humans is that genetically a perfect couple would disappear among the not perfect couples. They had to be traits that are spread in more than one possible couple, the traits must be present in groups not in indivuduals.

Again - these statements are made from within a framework that either a) denies that God exists, or b) assumes that what he creates is unchanged or both. Once we make God's existence as He is described in the Bible, all these things I'm saying become entirely possible.

Also, this couple implies in Adam and Eve (or any other mythical initial couple), and evolution have showed enough evidences that it was not how it worked and all the stuff that you may classify as implausible but this is how this argument ends.

"Mythical" in your opinon - proof please?

"This is how the argument ends" - huh? Did you just prove something and I missed it?

Evolution is not unprovable. It is a fact you can see every single day of your life when you see a dog and remember about a wolf. You can not possibly mix life and universe creation with evolution which is just the diversifiction of species.

What is unprovable is abiogenesis - because the initial conditions cannot a) be observed or b) duplicated. Since scientific fact is (at least in part) established through verification via repeated experiment, evolution (especially abiogenesis) must be inferred from "evidence."

It is true that Science have dogmatic vallues as philosophical concepts that need to be accepted as truthful, but that is old subject. For once, it is not dogmatic when dealing with facts. Science is not dogmatic about its conclusions either. Science accepts questioning.

Science tends to be rather dogmatic regarding the subject of God as creator. God apparently is not a "question" science is willing to consider.

That is the difference from Faith, which is usually dogmatic not only about the principles of faith but also about description of reality (Faith does not exactly means considering all possibilities, some critics address science as not considering it all, but it is not like religious principles usually do).

Dogmatism is being painted here as something negative - and under many circumstances it can be so; however, if you know you're right, is it still dogmatism?

Futhermore, most religious principles have been contested to death and they barelly hold enough after this - Without Faith, which I find a true marvel of human mind - and the Scientific Method still works better for trying to explain in the most reasonable way and in face of the unknow they try to discover the answers rather than just accepting it as God's work. Bigger advantage in my opinion, but then I have no faith.

The scientific method is a valuable way to examine how things work - but it is not the sole arbiter of reality. Science has not confirmed empirically all beliefs that you hold to be true. Everybody excercises faith in some aspect of their existence. You may see scientific "validity" as being an advantage over poor intangible faith, but that simply means that you need to see things to believe in them.

I think that is a good work play. Teology is a Science if we consider the broader term where all human knowledge is called science. Who I am to discuss with Dante. But the Moderm Science, that one that we can say is a product of 19-20 century have no place for Theology (but the social study of it) and requires no faith. A scientist that believes badly in one theory will not have any force or power once it was not accepted by Scientific Standards. And individual may have faith, but the institution not.
And please, God isn't real is not an unproven assumption. God is real is the unproven assumption as you can not prove a negative of anything unproven.

"God isn't real" is the assumption that many atheists make, and since they generally (like you have) tout the wonders of empirical science and the factual nature of verification, I assumed that any non-believer making such a claim had some sort of evidence for his opinion.

Not to mention, science makes no claims whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of God, much like the rest of the supernatural. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Christian scientists and as we know those exist (I mean 'Christian Scientists' not the oxymoron of 'creation science' by the way).

No oxymoron present - Christians are just as adept in scientific matters as atheists - they just posit a different source for much of what we see.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Your basis for calling Genesis's creation narrative a "parable"? The use of poetic language has been used throughout history to pass on historical truths.

Examples, if you please. And your basis for taking Genesis as literal naturalistic truth?

I am still waiting for an answer to my previous question. If, before creation, there was nothing but God, a) of what was Satan created if not God and b) what was there for Satan to imitate except God?

[Dark Star]

No oxymoron present - Christians are just as adept in scientific matters as atheists - they just posit a different source for much of what we see.

On the contrary. Coming up with the conclusion (that Genesis is literal) then searching for evidence that proves that true is quite contrary to how the scientific method works (in particular when all the evidence out there points to a gradual process of evolution rather than every form of life simply being poofed into being). You're supposed to begin by examining the facts out there then reaching a conclusion -- this is how the theory of evolution was reached, NOT by saying "It exists...now let's go find the facts that prove it." This is why the majority of scientists, Christian and non-Christian, accept evolution.

[Redzeppelin]

On the contrary. Coming up with the conclusion (that Genesis is literal) then searching for evidence that proves that true is quite contrary to how the scientific method works (in particular when all the evidence out there points to a gradual process of evolution rather than every form of life simply being poofed into being). You're supposed to begin by examining the facts out there then reaching a conclusion -- this is how the theory of evolution was reached, NOT by saying "It exists...now let's go find the facts that prove it." This is why the majority of scientists, Christian and non-Christian, accept evolution.

Science is no different; it begins from the Naturalistic conclusion that only what is observable and measureable is real; as such, scientific Naturalism automatically disincludes God as a possible source for reality. All systems engage in circular logic. Science pretends it's completely objective - but it's not, because it is conducted by people with subjective biases and interpretive preferences.

[Redzeppelin]

Examples, if you please. And your basis for taking Genesis as literal naturalistic truth?

I am still waiting for an answer to my previous question. If, before creation, there was nothing but God, a) of what was Satan created if not God and b) what was there for Satan to imitate except God?

1. From Wiki:

"[edit] Early history
Poetry was employed as a means of recording oral history, storytelling (epic poetry), genealogy, and law. Poetry is often closely identified with liturgy in pre-literate societies. Many of the scriptures currently held to be sacred by contemporary religious traditions with their roots in antiquity were composed as poetry rather than prose to aid memorization and help guarantee the accuracy of oral transmission in pre-literate societies. As a result many of the poems surviving from the ancient world are a form of recorded cultural information about the people of the past, and their poems are prayers or stories about religious subject matter, histories about their politics and wars, and the important organizing myths of their societies." (bolding mine - RZ)

2. Parables tend to show up to communicate things about God and/or heaven (see the parables of Christ in Matthew). The method of creation is directly linked to the character of God. If we say that God took thousands of years to create the world instead of 6 days, then we have a very different view of God - especially in terms of His power.

3. I do not know where the matter came from from which the angelic beings were created. God apparently can create matter ex nihilo.