Creation vs. Evolution

[Jacob]

I did notice at the start he was about to talk about genetic diversity from breeding pairs of sheep marooned on islands. But as you might appreciate, the point is there are many different lines of evidence that converge on the fact that the story of Adam and Eve is fiction.

As for sinning against an imaginary friend because two imaginary humans exercised their 'god-given' curiosity and were subsequently given imaginary punishments, along with a serpent; such stories are for those interested in the ignorant infancy of one particular religious culture, or the very gullible who are vulnerable to the political ambitions of dictators who tell such stories with a straight face.

Stuart

There are genealogies in the Bible that go back to Adam and Eve. What he is addressing, however, is whether or not finding there is an origin of man that predates Adam and Eve would wreck the faith of the Christian.

 

[alwight]

He talks about genes... apparently the idea that it is possible by looking at people's genes to determine we came from one man and one woman.

The genetic evidence actually does seem to suggest that we did all come from one woman known as "Mitochondrial Eve". However that doesn't mean she was the only woman around at the time, only that for whatever reasons her genes were extraordinarily successful or just that someone had to be our particular "Eve".

 

[Jacob]

The genetic evidence actually does seems to suggest that we did all come from one woman known as "Mitochondrial Eve". However that doesn't mean she was the only woman around at the time, only that for whatever reasons her genes were extraordinarily successful or just that someone had to be our particular "Eve".

If we can trace back to one Eve, why would we suggest there is more than one?

 

[noguru]

He talks about genes... apparently the idea that it is possible by looking at people's genes to determine we came from one man and one woman.

I think you have been hoodwinked again, Untellectual. The anthropological and genetic evidence supports that there was one woman and one man in the far past from which most of our current genetic makeup descended. It does not claim they were the only 2 alive at that time. But as usual you will continue believing what you want rather than what the evidence supports.

The fact of creation is important in the discussion of man and the fall. Some people do not believe there ever was a fall. But there was a time when sin entered the world in reference to man.

Thanks for your opinion. I think you have achieved exactly what you set out to achieve, Untellectual. Its called confirmation bias. Keep your head in the sand.

Are you proposing that sin entered the entire biological world from the fall, and there was no death of any kind before that?

If so can you demonstrate this with empirical evidence?

I think science is not incompatible with Theology or the Bible.
I actually don't see this at all.

First, I think you need to separate "the Bible" from a specific interpretation of Genesis. I think science is incompatible with certain interpretations of Genesis, but this does not mean it is incompatible with "the Bible". The Bible is not meant to be accurate scientific text. It is people like you who try to push that idea on others. Hence pushing your specific theology in science.

I suspected you would say this. Let's just say I have little confidence that you can deliver on this.

What does a person's religious practice have to do with whether or not there was one man and one woman in the beginning?

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Could you clarify?

I believe Adam and Eve's sin was the original sin of man.

That's terrific. But it is not science, unless you can support your model with empirical evidence.

 

[noguru]

If we can trace back to one Eve, why would we suggest there is more than one?

Evidence, Untellectual, empirical evidence.

 

[alwight]

If we can trace back to one Eve, why would we suggest there is more than one?

If you read my link it rather explains all that. WLC seems to want to assume that simply tracing our genetic inheritance to one woman means that therefore there was only one, far from it.

" Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, except her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."

 

[Jacob]

I think you have been hoodwinked again, Untellectual. The anthropological and genetic evidence supports that there was one woman and one man in the far past from which most of our current genetic makeup descended. It does not claim they were the only 2 alive at that time. But as usual you will continue believing what you want rather than what the evidence supports.

What evidence would you suggest that there are more than 2 that we can trace back to?

Thanks for your opinion. I think you have achieved exactly what you set out to achieve, Untellectual. Its called confirmation bias. Keep your head in the sand.

I have no idea what you are against in what I said. I suggested what Dr. Craig is presenting in light of what the Bible says and the Christian faith. He is dealing with whether or not findings would change faith. That is, what our minds can conceive of with the faith we have, and the issue of doubt as people sort through science and Theology.

Are you proposing that sin entered the entire biological world from the fall, and there was no death of any kind before that?

Well, if they ate the fruit of trees that doesn't mean the plant died. I'm not the one suggesting anything though to be honest. Just entertaining what Dr. Craig has to say.

If so can you demonstrate this with empirical evidence?

I think you are asking if I am one of those second law of thermodynamics creationists. I am trying to point out that in Christianity what is essential is exactly what Dr. Craig points out... the issue of sin.

First, I think you need to separate "the Bible" from a specific interpretation of Genesis. I think science is incompatible with certain interpretations of Genesis, but this does not mean it is incompatible with "the Bible". The Bible is not meant to be accurate scientific text. It is people like you who try to push that idea on others. Hence pushing your specific theology in science.

I guess I know now that it is people like me... not sure what you mean. What have I said in my observation of Dr. Craig and the issue of sin in the Bible and creation and science not being incompatible that would paint me into a corner for you?

I suspected you would say this. Let's just say I have little confidence that you can deliver on this.

Are you talking about creation, or science, or evolution?

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Could you clarify?

Dr. Craig points out that if there was one man and one woman then in regard to faith and doubts we would not be as hard-pressed to say there was a fall as the Bible suggests.

That's terrific.

Original sin and the sin nature or sinful inclination are both subjects I am not entirely fluent in.

 

[Jacob]

Evidence, Untellectual, empirical evidence.

Such as? Are you saying science is saying more than one thing at the same time?

 

[noguru]

If you read my link it rather explains all that. WLC seems to want to assume that simply tracing our genetic inheritance to one woman means that therefore there was only one, far from it.

" Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, except her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."

Scientists love to use figurative speech borrowed from the Bible when describing things sometimes. I suspect that most scientists are much more in tune than most YECs with devices used in language and the physical reality around us. I guess he also thinks the Higgs Boson particle is actually "God" as well.

 

[Jacob]

If you read my link it rather explains all that. WLC seems to want to assume that simply tracing our genetic inheritance to one woman means that therefore there was only one, far from it.

" Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, except her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."

One Eve and four wives of Noah and his sons.

 

[noguru]

Such as? Are you saying science is saying more than one thing at the same time?

If empirical evidence is taken separately, perhaps. But when all empirical evidence is considered the field of possibilities is often narrowed quite a bit.

 

[Jacob]

If empirical evidence is taken separately, perhaps. But when all empirical evidence is considered the field of possibilities is often narrowed quite a bit.

ok

 

[noguru]

What evidence would you suggest that there are more than 2 that we can trace back to?I have no idea what you are against in what I said. I suggested what Dr. Craig is presenting in light of what the Bible says and the Christian faith. He is dealing with whether or not findings would change faith. That is, what our minds can conceive of with the faith we have, and the issue of doubt as people sort through science and Theology.Well, if they ate the fruit of trees that doesn't mean the plant died. I'm not the one suggesting anything though to be honest. Just entertaining what Dr. Craig has to say.I think you are asking if I am one of those second law of thermodynamics creationists. I am trying to point out that in Christianity what is essential is exactly what Dr. Craig points out... the issue of sin.I guess I know now that it is people like me... not sure what you mean. What have I said in my observation of Dr. Craig and the issue of sin in the Bible and creation and science not being incompatible that would paint me into a corner for you?Are you talking about creation, or science, or evolution?Dr. Craig points out that if there was one man and one woman then in regard to faith and doubts we would not be as hard-pressed to say there was a fall as the Bible suggests.Original sin and the sin nature or sinful inclination are both subjects I am not entirely fluent in.

I think you should work on how you separate your comments. I am not going to go through and reformat your text.

But for the subject matter, I have no problem with Craig's apologetics in regard to his theological views on this specific issue. I do have an issue with some of his other claims regarding evidence for God.

At any rate, I am curious as to why you felt the need to insert this apologetics into a discussion on science?

 

[Jacob]

I think you should work on how you separate your comments. I am not going to go through and reformat your text.

But for the subject matter, I have no problem with Craig's apologetics in regard to his theological views on this specific issue. I do have an issue with some of his other claims regarding evidence for God.

At any rate, I am curious as to why you felt the need to insert this apologetics into a discussion on science?

The discussion is on creation and evolution.

 

[alwight]

One Eve and four wives of Noah and his sons.

I don't know any hard evidence of that and 200,000 years ago is thought to be when the first modern homo sapiens (including Mitochondrial Eve) began to appear from our most recent ancestors.
Anyway all of which is well beyond Biblical genealogies and timescales as I understand them.

 

[Jacob]

I don't know any hard evidence of that and 200,000 years ago is thought to be when the first modern homo sapiens (including Mitochondrial Eve) began to appear from our most recent ancestors.
Anyway all of which is well beyond Biblical genealogies and timescales as I understand them.

Genealogies are one way of measuring time.

 

[noguru]

The discussion is on creation and evolution.

Have you read through the entire thread?

Yes, it is an attempt to make a sound scientific argument for creation and at the same time oppose evolution with sound logic and empirical evidence. Do you have an argument like that?

Do you oppose the ideas of genetic variation and natural selection, does Craig oppose these ideas?

 

[alwight]

Genealogies are one way of measuring time.

Only if there is actual firm and clear evidence of each person in the tree, but a list of people's names in an ancient scripture isn't evidence of that.

 

[noguru]

Genealogies are one way of measuring time.

Yes, they were the first ways used in written human history. Bishop Ussher used them and accomplished one of the most involved efforts to set up a timeline of human history. However this was before modern science came along. Since we now have a more reliable set of tools supplied by modern science, we realize that Ussher was inaccurate.

 

[Jacob]

Have you read through the entire thread?

Yes, it is an attempt to make a sound scientific argument for creation and at the same time oppose evolution with sound logic and empirical evidence. Do you have an argument like that?

Do you oppose the ideas of genetic variation and natural selection, does Craig oppose these ideas?

I believe the subject of mankind is important for the discussion.

But the issue of creation and evolution may be an issue of sin more than it is an issue of science. So we have man, and creation, and sin and the fall, and other issues. Creation is science in a way. And maybe evolution, at least on the large scale like macro evolution, is not.

I don't know Craig's view. Only an observation from his video which seemed to be timely when I saw it today at the same time as the issues being discussed. I actually am not an old earth creationist, though I used to be. I believe Dr. Craig may be an old earth creationist. At least it sounds like it from this video of his. But he endeavors to explain the Bible, which discusses creation, in a way that makes sense to those who delve into science, whatever their view.