Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Memammal

  1. Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world. Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.” In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.

    Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages.


    Since the early 1990s, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line, and a genetic factor is taken to be the cause. Also relevant - although in no way proof - is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and a dizzying array of homosexual behaviour in animals. [snip]
    The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

    There are two or more ways this might happen. One possibility is that the allele confers a psychological trait that makes straight men more attractive to women, or straight women more attractive to men. "We know that women tend to like more feminine behavioural features and facial features in their men, and that might be associated with things like good parenting skills or greater empathy," says Qazi Rahman, co-author of Born Gay; The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. Therefore, the theory goes, a low "dose" of these alleles enhances the carrier's chances of reproductive success. Every now and then a family member receives a larger dose that affects his or her sexual orientation, but the allele still has an overall reproductive advantage.

    Another way a "gay allele" might be able to compensate for a reproductive deficit is by having the converse effect in the opposite sex. For example, an allele which makes the bearer attracted to men has an obvious reproductive advantage to women. If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit.

    There is some evidence for this second theory. Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men. The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men. These results haven't been replicated in some ethnic groups - but that doesn't mean they are wrong with regards to the Italian population in Camperio-Ciani's study.


    Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally." That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8. [snip]

    The study detailed an in-depth analysis of blood and saliva samples taken from 409 pairs of openly gay brothers, including non-identical twins, from 384 families. The only common characteristic shared by all 818 men was being gay.

    Knowing this, the researchers theorized that any single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) consistently found among these men would have something to do with sexual orientation.

    Interestingly, five uniquely presented SNPs did indeed stand out, expressed in two portions of the human genome. [snip]

    Now the same team is working to compare these gene variants to heterosexual males, expecting that it will not be a common find among "straight" men.

    Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born.



  2. ...the idea that the whole universe mysteriously and magically popped into being out of nothing, for no apparent reason (i.e. have no logic behind it) then start rapidly expanding into the same nothingness that it came out of, its absolute nonsense, it is pseudoscience, magical thinking. And then you have evolutionary theology where as in the same process of mystery and magic a fish, for no apparent reason, jumps out of a pond of primordial soup, starts crawling across the ground then climbs a tree before sprouting wings and flying, all by complete accident. What utter bullshit, I can't want for the second coming of Christ so he can begin teaching the truth about heaven and its blessings, a.k.a. the secret science of religion.

    Gosh, I did not know how to react to this..? Have pity, roll over into hysterical laughter, or what..? This coming from a man who would apparently consider a 7-day creation of our universe and all life on this earth out of nothing 7,000 odd years ago to be a perfectly legitimate alternative and who furthermore reckons that Jesus needs a second crack at teaching humanity "the secret science of religion".

  3. In short, the quintessential ethics that could allow an ordered society to be founded and continue can be found in the Abrahamic faiths.

    This seems like a pretty subjective- and at the same time sweeping statement. What are you implying with this? That the ethical codes of the Abrahamic faiths are all the same? That no other ethical codes existed-, or that no older civilisations functioned orderly prior to the Abrahamic ones? That the ethics of the Abrahamic faiths are "quintessential" because they were divinely inspired?


    Temptation of Adam/Eve by satan/serpent>Fall of mankind (sic) and expulsion from the paradisaical garden of Eden>Mankind's state of fallen grace>Christ's redemptive act>Need to accept Christ's redemptive act>Personal or Group redemption>Eternal life

    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:


    Though many Catholics and Protestants attempt to assimilate scientific advancements, 41% of Protestants hold the Bible is literally true and 46% take the Bible to be the inspired word of God...

    Hence, the reason that 'religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and science'.




    Memammal (to Raider): "I trust that this was in good faith" ...

    Some sort of ironic pun?

    No comment ;)

  5. Its hard to argue with you, as you think that simply dissmissing the idea is proof its fake.

    In the time the geaneologies were written it was common practice to skip plenty of generations. That's historical comparison. If that's how geaneologies were written in that time period, surely you can assume the same of the ones in the bible? Or do you saying it wouldn't mean its not true?

    The word yalad in the Hebrew language can be translated to begat. Inside the bible, begat is commonly used to signify relations, but they dont have to be direct. Inside the Hebrew language there's also a mark they would put front of the geaneologies to mean several generations were

    skipped. And not just one or two, but significant numbers of generations. This mark was placed many times in the genesis geaneologies.

    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.


    In what way am I ignoring your question? Please, answer!


    And your dismissing this because you don't want to answer? You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. Your previous argument was that the possibility of two human beings showing up in a pair was impossible. If God made them, can you honestly say its impossible? You can't disprove God. You can't prove God. Its called russels teacup. Simply dismissing everything I say because I'm "young and inexperienced" kind of seems rude.

    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.



    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.


    Did my part to fix it for you...

    Thank you!

  6. There is both geological, fossil, and genetic evidence that shows conclusively there was never a first human. If you could indeed line up a picture of ever one of your ancestors over many thousands of generation there would be no point where you could point to a first human, everything gives birth to what species it is. At no point is there a line that can drawn, no dogs giving birth to kittens, no crocoducks, just a slow gradual change that is still going with each generation of living things...

    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.

  7. It IS founded by historical comparisons and translators of the Hebrew language, along with several examples and proof is provided. Once again, I don't see why its extremely unlikely.

    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.


    Also, why is it "impossible" that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Your evolution theory doesn't really work because according to us its god.

    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.

  8. The first men were not domesticated.

    Overtime man gradually domesticated himself.

    True, that much we know.


    I don't know how long this took but by the time of Adam man was fully domesticated and civilization took off.

    Acknowledgement that Adam was not the first of our species.


    As for the rest, perhaps best described as woo-woo..?

  9. And if you simply reread the argument, your assuming you won because you don't like the evidence memammal. That's why I'm not bothering to argue against you. Maybe I don't Accept all the facts, but then neither do you.

    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.

  10. Memmamal: Your comments re Adam/Eve provide a nice clarification. Too often religious people try to hijack science in a token effort to validate scriptures. Such a roundabout approach can often be more effective and insidious than just trying to say that science is wrong because it contradicts scriptures, or to say that science is wrong by focusing on any current gaps in a scientific worldview, e.g., that of evolution. I wonder, for example, if there is any actual scientific evidence at all that the earth or the universe is around 6 thousand years old?

    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.


    Such argumentation obfuscates the fact that the worldview of the Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) is premodern and archaic...

    Both direct efforts to belittle and surreptitious efforts to befriend science are blatant attempts to lend credence to claims that everything found in scriptures is undeniably true (from, for example, the miraculous creation of humans in a single breath to the ascension of one back into the arms of the creator) as well as to claims that a deity has a divine plan for an elite group of followers. Obviously no group would want to relinquish its hold on the advantageous position that its divinely inspired and thus unquestionable scriptures affords them, and therefore will blindly oppose or try to assimilate any further advancements that the rest of civilization might throw at them.

    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.

  11. In order to prove the existence of something,first you must define what that something is. Hence my question. A definition of a god which is unprovable is unsatisfactory. It makes no sense to ask the question "do you believe in god" in this case.

    In what sense do you mean that any definition of a god that is unprovable is unsatisfactory? Buddhism suggests that you don't really require a god to have a rich spiritual life, while pantheism shows that you can equate god to nature (and thus belief = knowledge) which can yield a similarly rewarding spiritual experience without having to rely on the supernatural.

  12. I watched an episode of Through The Wormhole (Are We All Bigots?) the other day where this subject came under the spotlight. It seems that there is neurological evidence to support the notion that conservatives and liberals are "wired differently", that they use different parts of the brain to ponder certain matters that would typically be associated with a pro-conservative or pro-liberal stance (not only towards a specific political party, but also i.t.o. racism and opinions re gun control, climate change, etc). That would suggest more nature and less nurture..?


    ...but the bottom line is that unless one believes that Adam and Eve were actual people who existed in history (as the first humans) within the time parameters set forth in the Creation narrative of Genesis, then, it seems to me, that there would be no need for Jesus to have been on the cross in the first place, with the result that Christianity would have no purpose, since people would have no sins that needed to be forgiven or overcome.


    Not to be trite, but if Adam and Eve didn't actually exist, Christianity would be like a doctor who claims that one has an illness that one really doesn't have, merely so that one can give you a tablet (or wafer, as it were) in order that you are cured.


    That is perhaps a main reason that I can't fathom how there can be those who claim to be Christians but who do not take the story of the Creation or the story of Adam and Eve literally, as if it were just some sort of significant allegory.

    Yes, I fully agree. The issue lies very much at the heart of Christianity.


    In any cases, scientists are undecided as to whether there was just one (mitochondrial Eve) or whether there were several parallel Eves. If one persists in fudging the time spans, obviously one can suggest that the Bible is not in contradiction with science, but that says nothing at all about the story being true or having any substance whatsoever. If anything, an actual first-modern hominid, scientific Adam and Eve would probably, I suspect, not be evolved enough to carry on a complex dialogue with God (or Satan for that matter) about the ethics of eating fruit from a particular tree of knowledge in order to maintain their relationship with him.


    Indeed, I doubt that the nature of such a dialogue would be passed down through the centuries in any way so that Church Fathers could, with various interpretations, recount what transpired.

    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.


    I think you will need to elaborate about the Biblical Adam and Eve being the first of our species...Do you mean these two were literally the first or, as you say, "the idea" of these two?

    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.

  15. Annnnnnd again. They calculated the age assuming there were no gaps.

    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 presume that if we can show that if the existence of an Adam and Eve is not inconsistent with science, that somehow lends credibility to the claim that original sin is a valid concept. Even if we can establish that Adam and Eve were historical characters, it is a huge leap (of faith?) to suggest that such a 'fact' would somehow give a degree of credibility to the notion of original sin that Church Fathers created centuries, or rather thousands (or billions) of years later.

    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").

  16. 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."


    In any case, trying to show that Biblical accounts of the age of the earth or the duration of creation, among numerous other things, is in keeping with modern science is quite a Herculean task indeed, if that is what is being attempted.


    My question was rather why one would want to show that information in the Bible were non inconsistent with modern science, which is actually what one would be doing if one was trying to show that the events were plausible.

    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.

  17. ^ 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.

  18. I'll go with this. I just have a hard time when the person who accuses me of starting arguments(memammal) continues to say stuff about the religion. And should we reply then it was obviously us who started the argument.

    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?


    I made that bit up? Get this straight, when we read that that's what we were taught.

    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?

  19. 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.

  20. I gave you my counter argument. Your basing me being wrong on the findings of someone I proved in accurate. 6000 years is false, accept that. There's proof if you would just open your eyes. Look at my post and any fool can see that I presented an argument that you choose to ignore.

    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.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.