|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faitheist Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
I just had a look at the first two Hugh Ross videos ... didn't impress me at all. Then I looked at another on YouTube of his --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd38yXXo3r4 -- which confirmed to me that he's he's just full of hot air.
As for the flood, since it's been brought up, here's a question for you: How did Noah (who was what ... 600 years old at the time?) A) Get a male and female of each Australian species, ie, kangaroo, wallaby, koala, platypus etc. on to his ark, and then B) Make sure that when the flood was over he put them back in Australia so that millennia later they would still be native to Australia and Australia only, without exception. I'm always constantly amazed that any adult can read the bible and see it as anything but a book of ancient myths. How do you believers believe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, the former is easy to prove. Humans were around and spread all over the world before Adam or Eve existed.
So that leaves the alternative which is using mythos to make a point. And yes, of course I don't think there was a "first" man, rather there has been a spectrum of critters that very gradually evolved into what we call a human. The "first" man is simply an arbitrary point we select and use loosely and imprecisely.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Well, the former is easy to prove. Humans were around and spread all over the world before Adam or Eve existed. That argument may concern a Young Earth Creationists who insists that we know the millennium in which Adam lived. Since I don't subscribe to the view that that can be calculated your objection is not accounted as decisive.
So that leaves the alternative which is using mythos to make a point. No proof there that there was no first man.
And yes, of course I don't think there was a "first" man, rather there has been a spectrum of critters that very gradually evolved into what we call a human. The "first" man is simply an arbitrary point we select and use loosely and imprecisely. That's your belief. It could be "mythos" dressed in scientific speculation as well. I have seen the artwork of imaginative artists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, it is NOT my belief, it is the conclusion based on the evidence.
No belief needed.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
No, it is NOT my belief, it is the conclusion based on the evidence. No belief needed. What is your evidence that you know that no first man ever existed ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What is your evidence that you know that no first man ever existed ? Can you point to one of the fossil finds and say that is the first? How do you deal with the gradual transitions between one species and the next? It is like the colors of the rainbow--it is very difficult to say where one color ends and the next begins. Unless you're going on pure belief, then no evidence is needed.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8536 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
What is your evidence that you know that no first man ever existed ? The evidence showing the process is legion, well documented and well understood. The logic of the process says there could be no identifying a "first man." You are dealing with a sliding scale of 10,000 generations. The slider you use covers 100 generations along that line. You can't even place that slider on the line to say this is the first community of homo sapiens let alone identify the first individual man. The problem is you do not want to admit the process exists. Under this handicap your want of evidence is ridiculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Can you point to one of the fossil finds and say that is the first? Does that prove that there was never a #1 Human Being ?Or does that just demonstrate some limitations of the scientific method in determining this matter ? I don't regard this limitation as proof there was no #1 human man.
How do you deal with the gradual transitions between one species and the next? If I were a biologist, given the state of evolution theory today, I would look by experimentation in the direction of something more sudden. I think an all-encompassing gradualism is in trouble.
It is like the colors of the rainbow--it is very difficult to say where one color ends and the next begins. Maybe the theory that man "faded" into being from another species is not what happened at all. Besides, in the laboratories where scientists true to prove gradualism by producing, say, fruitflies with wing mutations, are they not able to identify when the first one was produced ? Anyway, I see that there was disagreement over where this discussion should have been placed. It is a given for me that the Bible contains revelation of things some of which we could not have figured out by our scientific methods. It goes with the territory that God revealed some things to us and that He knows all the facts. And I think that you do not KNOW for scientific certainty that no #1 human ever lived. You are welcomed to believe so. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is a conclusion based on ALL of the evidence.
What the evidence shows is that life is a succession of evolving critters, each only slightly different than its parents. As the Bible says, MAN names the beasts and that includes even man. We can pick one point in evolutionary history and call it "first" BUT that is only valid based on some set of characteristics and no more valid than some other point we call "first" based on a different set of characteristics. It's not a weakness of science rather an acknowledgement of reality and truth.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
As the Bible says, MAN names the beasts and that includes even man. The Bible says that before MAN existed God said "Let us make MAN in our image, according to our likeness ..." Seems that God named MAN. Then MAN names the creatures. But the more salient point is the man is always unique and distinct from the other created lives on earth. Your evolution theory ever blurs this distinction. And for some this is a very welcomed concept for they wish to think of man as only an animal. I think the reasons for that are more related to the desire to be absolved from moral obligation. It is only one of a number of methods (including some religious) that men seek to quiet their conscience concerning their sins. Ie. "If I am just another animal, well, all things are OK." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, that depends on which of the myths you are pointing to in the Bible.
And the evidence is that man is no more unique than any other critter.
jaywill writes: I think the reasons for that are more related to the desire to be absolved from moral obligation. It is only one of a number of methods (including some religious) that men seek to quiet their conscience concerning their sins. And that is just another example of you being wrong yet again. The biggest cop outs regarding "their sins" are the bullshit called Original Sin and the con job of "Are you Saved?"Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
And the evidence is that man is no more unique than any other critter. How come there is no other being on the planet exactly like or even close to a human being ? I mean dolphins and chimps are neat. But it is unrealistic to believe that any other living thing on the earth can be classed with a human being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How come there is no other being on the planet exactly like or even close to a human being ? Oh good grief. Because they are not humans? How come there is no other being on the planet exactly like or even close to a cheetah? How come there is no other being on the planet exactly like or even close to a bonobo?
I mean dolphins and chimps are neat. But it is unrealistic to believe that any other living thing on the earth can be classed with a human being. I mean humans are neat. But it is unrealistic to believe that any other living thing on the earth can be classed with a T-Rex. I mean humans are neat. But it is unrealistic to believe that any other living thing on the earth can be classed with a Sequoia. See how silly that post of yours was, how totally free of any content.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
jaywill writes: "If I am just another animal, well, all things are OK." quote:Ellen Ripley Officer of the Nostromo *edit to add: I should clarify that we do not need God or religion to condemn or glorify our morality or humanity for that matter.We do the things we do because we are products of evolution not because we are products of a creation myth imo. Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
H ow come there is no other being on the planet exactly like or even close to a cheetah? How come there is no other being on the planet exactly like or even close to a bonobo? What kind of post modernist despair is this that a man cannot recognize that humans are light years ahead of cheetahs, cockroaches, crab grass, and water buffaloes ? You heard of the search for extra terrestrial intelligence SETI. How come they aren't spending the millions to search for say watercress or monitor lizards? Why is it the Search for Intelligence ? Something special about intelligence ? Why isn't it SETU - Search For Extraterrestial Unintelligents ? According to you something along the line of a cheetah would be just as exciting.
I mean humans are neat. But it is unrealistic to believe that any other living thing on the earth can be classed with a T-Rex. Why not the Search For Extra Terrestial T-Rexs then funded by millions of dollars ? If we found two planets - one with just huge amounts of crab grass and another with cities, flying machines, televisions, and government, which do you think scientists would be more interested to go visit ? No difference, right ?
I mean humans are neat. But it is unrealistic to believe that any other living thing on the earth can be classed with a Sequoia. So we find a planet filled with Sequoias and another filled with an Internet like technology, which do you think the people of earth would be more interested in ?
See how silly that post of yours was, how totally free of any content. How silly your false humility is. Mankind is unique on the earth.Sorry if you from some sense of false humility, you cannot honestly admit that. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024