Memammal

I would like to focus on this part of the equation (again). This, of course, relates to the teaching of original- or hereditary sin, one of the "pillars of Christianity" as you put it. I previously referred to it as hideous. Let me expand upon that. Consider what has been happening in Christian families for centuries and continues to happen. Children have been- and are still being brought up and taught that they were born in sin because of what happened in Eden and that as a result they (as everybody else) are destined to end up in eternal hell unless whatever divine intervention they subscribe to (Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, grace of God, their names in the right book, faith, righteous deeds, salvation through the church, etc). These same children would grow up, marry another Christian, conceive and give birth to their own children who they would baptise and later inform them of their own fate, the burden of that sin that they passed on to them. And so it goes on and on and on without anybody questioning the merit thereof. Does it not seem freakish? There are those who think that it might have psychologically scarred (and scared) generations of people; I can understand why. Which may explain this: No comment

I trust that this was in good faith. I also just noticed this post in another thread that seems very applicable to the discussion that we had: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96729-intelligent-design/page-9#entry934349

I read all about that. It is not going to solve your dilemma with wanting to move Adam & Eve back to the very start of the origin of our species though. Let me quote: While it may be true on the one hand to say that a precise age of the Earth is unobtainable from the genealogies, at the same time let us hasten to point out that using the best information available to us from Scripture, the genealogies hardly can be extended (via “gaps”) to anything much beyond 6,000 to 7,000 years. For someone to leave the impression (even if inadvertently) that the genealogies do not contain legitimate chronological information, or that the genealogies are full of “gaps” that render them impotent, is to misrepresent the case and distort the facts. (Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1143) Another informed view that strongly opposed yours is this one: Interlocking Time Specifications Of The Genesis Genealogies Allow me to add another perspective on the likely age of Biblical Adam & Eve at the end of this post. With "ignorant" I meant ignoring all the scientific knowledge at your disposal. With "young and inexperienced" I intended to highlight the fact that as you grow older you are likely to be exposed to- and become more open-minded to other external influences that may (hopefully) open your eyes and help you to consider the facts in a more enlightened manner. We are all products of the interaction between our genes and our environments and at this stage it appears as if your genetic make-up in combination with your particular environment is limiting your willingness to learn..? Moontanman already touched on what you posted, but let me do my part in providing you with a brief overview of the scientific knowledge that I referred to above: As an introduction have a look at this Human Family Tree and feel free to navigate through all the topics under the Human Evolution Evidence link. Another (unexpected) source of evidence in this article: Evolution of gut bacteria tracks splits in primate species More here: Genetic Study Reveals New Insight into Origins of Our Species This explains the multi-disciplinary facets of the scientific research into evolution of our species A Record of the Past. Again, please explore it beyond just the link. And now we start to narrow it down...first read the introduction to the Paleolithic. Then The Human Journey And if you need more supporting evidence of the above, read this very important scientific research paper Anthropological Genetics: Inferring the History of Our Species Through the Analysis of DNA So after you have read all of that, you will understand that science pretty much wrapped up the origin of our species. There is NO NEED to insert supernatural creation, in fact creatio ex nihilo of the human race will not only compromise all the scientific knowledge that have been acquired, it will simply NOT FIT. Now back to Genesis and the "challenge" of placing alleged Biblical Adam & Eve in the appropriate historical context. See how these verses from Genesis tie in with other (more recent) historical events: Gen 3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread Cereals and bread became a staple food during the Neolithic, around 10,000 years ago, when wheat and barley were among the first plants to be domesticated in the Fertile Crescent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bread) Gen 4:2: Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 – 8,800 BC. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufian period was between 12,000 and 10,200 BC, and the so-called "proto-Neolithic" is now included in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic between 10,200 and 8,800 BC. As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming. By 10,200–8,800 BC, farming communities arose in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution from around 10,000 BC. It has been identified as having "inspired some of the most important developments in human history including the invention of the wheel, the planting of the first cereal crops and the development of cursive script, mathematics, astronomy and agriculture." Early Neolithic farming was limited to a narrow range of plants, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt, and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats. By about 6,900–6,400 BC, it included domesticated cattle and pigs, the establishment of permanently or seasonally inhabited settlements, and the use of pottery... Unlike the Paleolithic, when more than one human species existed, only one human species (Homo sapiens sapiens) reached the Neolithic.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) Gen 4:14: Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” This was Cain speaking shortly after he killed Abel. Who was he afraid of? Gen 4: 16 – 17: And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#Early_settlements So in conclusion - based on the evidence before you the dates that I previously quoted for the Biblical Adam & Eve that also coincided with the above Genesis narratives make much more sense within the historical setting as described above as opposed to the origin of our species more than 150,000 years earlier. Keep in mind that it still does not prove their actual existence, but it paints a realistic setting for their story. Thank you!

Moontanman, I wanted to vote this post up and somehow and by mistake I voted it down... Sorry for that. I am not sure if I can restore it again but I will try! For the record it was at +1 before I messed it up.

Either I missed that "proof" or it is simply not there. There was just a vague reference to a possibility that any number of possible links in the Biblical genealogical lineage might have been omitted, i.e. that it might not be 100% complete. In essence it means nada as the other sources that I provided clearly spelled out how the age of the Biblical genealogy was determined, including filling any gaps with alternative information provided by other Biblical references. Your claim is an extraordinary one...it attempts to bridge >150,000 years...your so-called "proof" is seriously lacking. It is often said that it is useless to debate with a creationist. How does one argue with such blatant ignorance? Please lad, I appreciate the fact that you are still young and inexperienced but this is a science forum and you are really out of your depth. I rest my case.

What evidence Raider5678? You only presented a highly speculative, unfounded and extremely unlikely claim in order to raise doubt about the real facts that were presented to you. You are right, I cannot accept that and neither should I. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no measure of understanding that it is entirely impossible for Biblical Adam & Eve to have been the first male and female of our species who produced their children Cain, Abel, Seth and the rest. Yet you remain steadfast in the midst of your ignorance. Feel free to do so, but please do not expect the rest of us to take you seriously.

There seem to be different ways in which the religious deal with scientific knowledge: ​Assume the default position that their relevant scriptures and religious dogma are inerrant and try their best to ignore or to downplay anything that contradicts it - typically these are the ignorant lot who don't even bother with anything outside their comfort zone. Assume the default position that their relevant scriptures and religious dogma are inerrant and actively counter anything that contradicts it - the apologetics, fundamentalists, etc. You asked whether there is any scientific evidence that the earth or the universe is around 6 thousand years old...well, establishments like creation.com & youngearth.com have accumulated a large collection of pseudo science for those who want to believe it. Assume the default position that their relevant scriptures can be interpreted in different ways and that their religious dogma is thus adaptable - the Roman Catholic Church is a good example, also other progressive or liberal thinking denominations. Some, as you mentioned, even attempt to (mis)use science in support of their beliefs. They often don't understand the implications-, or the full extent of the gap between science and their own dogma...our discussion re evolution vs original sin is a case in point. Then lastly you get those who only use selective parts of scriptures while largely ignoring everything else - for example Preterits, Jehovah's and even Evangelists. Yes and as we have established in the discussion leading up to this, often the very foundation on which a religion was formulated gets exposed for what it is...flawed...and built on sand.

Yes, I fully agree. The issue lies very much at the heart of Christianity. One should of course never confuse mitochondrial Eve with Biblical Eve. Too much confusion...akin to the " theory" in "scientific theory"... Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living person in the present day. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa, when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species. Analogous to the Mitochondrial Eve is the Y-chromosomal Adam, the member of Homo sapiens sapiens from whom all living humans are descended patrinilineally. The inherited DNA in the male case is his nuclear Y chromosone rather than the mtDNA. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam need not have lived at the same time. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) Here is another very insightful article that deals with two independent studies that were done to narrow down mitochondrial Adam & Eve: http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478. It concludes with: ...he, as many other population geneticists, bristles at the use of biblical names. Because of the random nature of genealogy, he says, two different genetic lineages are unlikely to have common ancestors who lived in the same population at the same time. ​(I previously asked Raider5678 about the likelihood that the actual Adam & Eve could have been a unique and isolated case of two of a new subspecies appearing at the same place (in Africa) at round about the same time). As a side note, I realise that it might have seemed strange that I was "promoting" or "condoning" the Biblical narrative as being "accurate". I had to obviously present the actual Biblical story and the implications thereof i.t.o. the recorded age of Biblical Adam & Eve in order to compare it with what we know, scientifically, about the origin of our species. I like your use of the word "fudging" (meaning: present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead, or to adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture) because that is the only way (and it would require some serious fudging such as what was hinted at in that bible.org link that Raider5678 provided) to remotely merge the Biblical Adam & Eve with a mitochondrial Adam & Eve. In fact, I think we should probably agree that it is a blatantly implausible claim.

Raider5678 and myself have been debated the question as to whether Biblical Adam & Eve could have actually (literally) been the first two humans. My point of view was no, the Biblical narrative and the evolutionary emergence of our species are not compatible. His opinion was that it cannot be ruled out (as there might have been gaps in the male lineage of the Biblical genealogy that could potentially place Adam & Eve back at the very beginning of our species). The underlying, or secondary argument lies in the implications that it has on the doctrine of original sin. In this respect my understanding thereof is pretty much similar to what is conveyed by these extracts: St Paul's idea of redemption hinged on the contrast between the sin of Adam and the death and resurrection of Jesus. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned". "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Up till then the transgression in the Garden of Eden had not been given great significance. As the Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes has said: Paul believed that Adam's transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort. Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systemic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy (atonement on the cross). John Calvin defined original sin as follows: Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin) The question as to whether Adam was the first man therefore has significant implications for Christianity, although I realise that there are Christians (specifically some denominations) who nowadays perceive the Eden story as merely an allegory in order to illustrate the sinful nature of man.

You keep on insisting that there were gaps that were not accounted for...but your missing gaps are speculative..it is reminiscent of a God of gaps argument. Please read this http://creation.com/6000-years. I am not a big fan of creation.com for obvious reasons, but at least they provide a clear and concise explanation of how the Biblical age of creation (and thus Adam & Eve) can be calculated based on the Biblical narrative. I think we can safely say that the idea of a Biblical Adam & Eve as the first of our species is inconsistent with science. That would bring into dispute Paul's premise for the doctrine of original sin as alluded to in Romans 5:12 ("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned") read together with 1 Corinthians 15:45 ("The first man Adam became a living being").

Sorry I had to quickly rush out...just a correction re my previous post...the last part of the main paragraph must read "...arrived at dates 5,500 BC or younger, thus maximum 7,500 years ago." Our discussion revolved around whether Adam & Eve could have been the first humans or not (taking both evolution and the Biblical narrative into account) as that will impact on the doctrine of original sin. So not as much to do with the rest of the 6-day creation story.

^ It seems that he was quoting a source in reference to our earlier argument re the genealogies of the Bible and the notion that it is an incomplete record that cannot be used to determine the age of Adam & Eve, or Biblical creation. My stance on this was (and still is) that even though there may be gaps in said genealogies, it can never bridge the enormous time span between the scientific established age of our species and the appearance of Adam & Eve according to the Biblical narrative. The article that he referenced mentioned the possibility of up to 10,000 missing generations which sounds absurd in light of the fact that by far the majority of reputed Biblical scholars, historians and scientists who calculated the Biblical chronology arrived at dates 5,000 BC or younger, thus maximum 7,000 years ago. See this Wikipedia section: Creation according to the Bible.

So you finally concede that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans...and that as Phi for All put it "the writers of the Bible either made up the creation story (or adjusted a previous one), or God inspired them to tell a version we could intuitively understand but was wrong, for some reason.?" Where does it leave you then w.r.t. the entire human race carrying the weight of Adam & Eve's original sin and that it necessitated the Atonement of Jesus Christ? You engaged in this argument based on what you were taught...without verifying the facts for yourself..? And then you got angry when we dared to question it?

Very well said @ Phi for All. Interestingly enough the Judaists don't make such a big fuss about this fallacy, probably because of the fact that the teaching of original sin is not as important to them. Total different story within Christianity though. Notwithstanding many of them downplaying it, original sin (reliant on the Adam & Eve narrative) remains one of the core doctrines of Christianity. And this is the disconcerting aspect of it. Paul reinvented the sin/fall in Eden, he reconfirmed Adam as being the first man and on that premise he founded the teaching of original sin. This was supposedly one of God's post-Jesus revelations to Paul during their encounter on-route to Damascus (this is what Christians believe). It was never mentioned during God's alleged punishment of Adam & Eve, nor did Jesus ever mentioned it, but Paul somehow got this idea and based on this we have this hideous teaching prevailing to this very day. So even the Roman Catholic Church, that is actually very progressive when it comes to integrating science into their dogma and declared their acceptance of evolution, still refuses to compromise on the teaching that Adam was the first ("spiritual") man.

@ Overthinker301, me think you got it right the first time and his incoherent reaction is the ramblings of a teenager whose feelings got hurt.

Uhmm...a broken male lineage cannot account for the more or less 190,000 missing years (even give or take 50,000 years either way)...while most of those who calculated the age of the Biblical genealogy took all such factors in consideration. I am not ignoring your argument, I am challenging you to substantiate it. Until you prove otherwise, our contemporary scientific knowledge read together with the Biblical genealogy dictate that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans.

I would like to highlight this discussion as an example of what was referred to by the OP (as Phi for All already alluded to in his post #148): So Raider5678 challenged me regarding my claim that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans. I asked him numerous times to explain his counter argument, but he has been (deliberately) circumventing it. He is either oblivious to the extent of the missing time span that is in question here, and/or he is just plain ignorant, and/or he pretends to be ignorant as he has since realised that he got himself in a bit of a bother. He seemingly wants to avoid the truth, or the implications of this significant discrepancy..?

I am sorry, but you can't get out by virtue of such a lame excuse. You need to show me how you resolve the ENORMOUS difference between the scientifically verified age of our species and the time that Adam, Eve and their sons walked this earth according to the Bible. If you want to refute my (substantiated) claim that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, you need to prove me wrong and not conjure up some vague explanation. I am convinced that your alleged broken male lineage will not solve this puzzle. It may buy you a few thousand years at most, but that ain't gonna do it. Prove me wrong or admit that Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first. Your ongoing refusal to explain the discrepancy will imply the latter. Huh?

Whereas I agree that there was a shift away from the emphasis on the old laws, the problem that I had with your original post related to this part: "you should (not?) put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go." It came across as implying a general abolishment of the death penalty. Furthermore, i.m.o. any notion that the NT was less "barbaric" than the OT is negated by all its apocalyptic prophecies and Paul's condemnation of the entire human race to eternal hell unless... You are not going to sidestep yourself out of this one with such a reply; it is simply not good enough. You need to be much more specific in explaining why you consider all the various calculations based on the Biblical genealogy/chronology to be wrong and how you propose for the "massive span of time" to be resolved by the alleged broken male lineage? Do you then also propose that Adam & Eve a) happened to be an isolated case of two of a new species from an earlier H. sapiens lineage and b) that they and their sons (who presumably mated with some of the other H. sapiens hominids to produce the next lineage) all came from Africa? So an omniscient and omnipresent God felt that it was perfectly acceptable to order the genocide of the Canaanites for Israel to occupy their land at that point in history, but that would not be something that the same God would do in the present time as that would be really bad PR..? And that makes sense to you?

I think it is vitally important for you to understand this matter. My number of approx. 6,000 years is based on the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar who meticulously calculated the date of Adam & Eve's arrival to be 4004 BCE. And there were others who made very similar calculations: Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC). ​If you do some further research you will find many references to these dates. There are some sources that support a slightly older Adam & Eve, up to 10,000 years. That still does not resolve the vast difference with the scientifically determined age of our species. So either you accept that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or you accept that the Biblical genealogy/chronology is wrong...and the consequences thereof. Do you really want to pursue this? I fail to see the relevance and you are treading on thin ice with this kind of reasoning. I am not sure if and where I insinuated this but seeing that you raised the subject, does the genocide of the Canaanites (men, women and children) ring a bell? Please explain why you find my knowledge of the Bible annoying? And talking about questionable knowledge of the Bible... Could you perhaps elaborate on the above?

You don't have to be a religious bigot to help starving people...and yes, I have a problem with missionary work as 9/10 times it boils down to an attempt to convert vulnerable people into a preferred religion. No, I was not stereotyping all religious people as being religious bigots. Read my post again. At the same time, to say that the Christian religion is not guilty of similar acts is a lie. Over the years many evil deeds have been committed in the name of Christianity, even under the roof of the church...extremist Christian sects have been performing acts of mass murder...the USA and its allies under the leadership of GW Bush, a Christian bigot, have invaded Iraq under false pretences...just to name a few examples. Oh gosh. You really need to read more. Biblical Adam & Eve walked this earth around 6,000 years ago. At that time humanity was spread over the entire world already, each group with its own (albeit primitive) languages, cultures and superstitions. The Neolithic revolution has taken place approx. 6,000 years prior to Biblical Adam & Eve, in fact the wheel might have already been used when Adam & Eve arrived on the scene. Genetically our species can be traced back to around 200,000 ago, a dating which is also supported by the oldest remains of homo sapiens. The Genesis creation story is a very far cry from evolutionary biology. So no, it simply does not add up. Whether circumcision is healthy or not has nothing to do with the argument. One is not necessarily healthier than the other. In fact some primitive circumcision procedures are downright dangerous. Many young people die in developing countries as a result of traditional circumcision practices. The problem lies with the fact that it is an important religious tradition and as such expected to be performed on (unwilling) babies. Most Christians seem to feel that why. I am often astounded by how they consider themselves to be better people than all the rest. But then I suppose most religions feel that way about themselves.

That is part of the problem...the fact that religious bigots simply refuse to accept the science behind evolution and/or an old universe/earth. As a result affected families, communities and societies are ignorant of these facts and left without any option but to follow traditions. There are millions of Christians being born and bred on the false doctrine of original sin and not because they ever had an informed choice, but just because of the fact that they were brought up in a Christian environment. Ditto for Muslims, Judaists, etc. Consider the downsides of these culturally aligned- and in some cases very conservative religions...women being oppressed, "forced" circumcision, and on the more fundamentalist side of the spectrum there are young men blowing up people with suicide vests, or flying into skyscrapers. Should one just turn a blind eye, or even condone outdated traditional religious practices/beliefs with the kind of knowledge at our disposal..?

I am a bit lost for words too... Referring specifically to the monotheistic religions, surely the question as to whether any of them was actually inspired by the relevant God in question, in stead of being superstitious folklore, is relevant. Take away the divine origins of these religions and they fall flat. The same "rationality" applies to the belief that the first two humans committed the original sin that would cast the entire human race to eternal hell unless saved by the grace and sacrifice of the son of God. If evolution shows that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, or that humans do not have a unique "sinful nature" opposed to other animals, that particular doctrine (central to Christianity) again falls flat. Why not use knowledge to debunk superstitions?

Mmm...this appears to be aimed at something that I argued in a previous debate. There is an important difference though. Most people recognise and accept that our love for music has its roots in primitive origins, but very few religious people would accept that religions are merely "organised" superstitions and likely spandrels of evolution. Religious people, by and large, feel very strongly that their religions were divinely inspired, in fact (most) religions would be pretty baseless if they were not...which was the premise of my argument.

@ Raider5678: I had a look at the website that you referenced, but since said website clearly argues from a religious and ID perspective and being familiar with their anti-science stance from past experiences with similar websites like creation.com, I have no intention to engage in a debate about their dubious claims. I cringe when I read stuff like that and it is not that I don't want to entertain a different opinion, it is because I know that it is devoid of scientific merit. Perhaps you should post questions in this regard on the relevant sub-directories of this site in order to get a more scientific response to it..? Alternatively try to read, or research more credible sources. Here is one that highlights some of the important applications of evolution in medical science: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01 (navigate through the site by means of the "next" buttons) It may be true that most Romans did not know much about evolution, but then neither did Neanderthals. Interestingly enough though, evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity - in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. You can read about this as well as the history of the widespread influence of evolution here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought. I previously provided a link to the evolution of morality. You may also find this interesting: Sociocultural evolution & Evolutionary psychology. PS. Please also pay attention to disarray's last post above (#109) and his comments w.r.t. evolution.