Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

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.

Your creationist straw man again.None of the leading abiogenic hypotheses propose such a crazy scenario.But you heard this from some creationists somewhere and read it on some creationist sites so now it is stuck in your head, isn't it. That is the poison of creationist thought.

Then you miss-remember or had a bad (or religiously motivated) science teacher.Even the earlier hypotheses of abiogenesis in the last 60 years never involved the ridiculous notion that a fully formed living cell was poofed together on the end of a lightning bolt, or anything else. The process, whatever it turns out to have been, has always been seen to have been a slow chemical process with, maybe, a lucky chance encounter of molecules forming the first self-replicating short simple chains, not a fully formed cell.What we do not know is precisely what chemicals, what molecules, formed these first chains and how the self-replication was accomplished. The "seeds of life" thing is the misleading pop-culture way of saying the chemicals and molecules necessary for nature's multi-million year experiment to make life on earth were brought in on comets, asteroids and dust. Well, duh! Everything on this planet was brought in here from out there. Big whoop.Panspermia, where an already evolved organism, not just the molecules, are brought (or floated) to earth from somewhere doesn't address the question at all. It only puts an abiogenic event much further back in time and onto some other planet.None of the above, jaywill, negates the hypothesis that some abiogenic event of natural course, without any poof or magic necessary, was the precursor to what we call life on this planet.The only people who ever said "Science says complete living cells just poofed up out of the slime," are creationists on a mission to obfuscate and those who did not pay attention or understand. I agree. It is worthless. Especially since the existance of the diety in question is doubtfull at best.Edited by AZPaul3, : lighter touchEdited by AZPaul3, : clarity? I hope.

One of the most popular biology texts around the country in the 60's was "The Golden Book of Biology" Golden Press, New York, 1961. I know because I remember the pictures in the text and when I saw one after 30 years at a book sale I bought it for my own two budding scientists.It was the current science for the time and was evolution frendly. It never mentioned such a bullshit crazy scheme.I reiterate. Either you miss-remember or had a bad (or religiously motivated) science teacher interpreting the text for you. As a mater of fact I know for certain that this will happen. But it will not be in favor of the even more ridiculous hypothesis you and yours have been trying to cram down everyone’s throat for the last 2000 + years. Yet you continue to have "faith" in something that has been so completely debunked as creationism.Look, jaywill, the planet earth had, and still has, trillions of little nooks and crannies all over the surface and below. The chemical soup KNOWN to be present on the early earth soaked every one of those spaces giving us trillions of petri dishes each with its own separate experiment of randomly colliding molecules. And every few hours each "dish" was repopulated by more sets of molecules and another experiment. For literally tens of millions of years these hundreds of trillions of experiments each year were performed. These are KNOWN facts.With such numbers all working in parallel the chance encounter of some set of molecules to form a self-replicating chain (thus the beginnings of life) is not just pretty damn good but so close to unity as to make no difference.These are facts.And you have "faith" in an un-evidenced, illogical, falsehood. You do not have any "faith" to believe in facts, probability ... reality. You are being willfully blind to the universe around you.You don't know it since you are so blinded by some 3000+ year old myths that you really believe you have some kind of corner on Truth^TM but, man, you are really missing out on the true beauty of this universe. You miss-understand yet again. That seems too easy for you.That lots of chemicals and molecules were brought to earth by comets, asteroids and dust is well known as fact. It continues today as well. The misleading part of the pop-culture sound bite for this, that I was pointing out, makes it seem as though these were magic seeds of life itself. People, like you, get the totally wrong impression of the mechanism being presented when pop-culture puts catchy names on them.This "seeds of life" crap was, and still is, the pop-culture way of saying ... "stuff came to earth". No "seeds," and only a tenuous connection to "life." It's like saying an acorn is a "seed of the suburban neighborhood." With the explanation above, I hope you can recognize this statement as nonsensical. Don't flatter yourself. Creationism hasn't the intellectual ability to mount any type of conspiracy against reality. Oh, I am quite certain the type of blind religious BS you have fallen for has not contaminated my quite large, pure and intellectually superior reasoning. Edited by AZPaul3, : damn bbcode.

Remember what we are talking about here is your contention that when you were growing up biology textbooks gave an explanation of life as:

quote:

---

... lightening struck on a pool of primordial soup and, presto, the first living micro organism came into being ...

​

I am 64 years old. And I read it from books on biology and science. Maybe you don't remember when that was taught in science classes.

---

That puts you in middle school in the mid-60s and high school in the late 60s.I have referred you to the most popular biology textbook of that time period. Anyone is free to go get a copy (though buying one these days is quite pricey - library would be better) read the appropriate chapters and see, as I contend, that"... lightening struck on a pool of primordial soup and, presto, the first living micro organism came into being ..."WAS NOT offered as the hypothesis, and that this is a misreading, misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the hypothesis that Can you present a similar level of evidence showing I was wrong?Show me this evolution-friendly science-based textbook of that time period that says differently.Or any evolution-friendly science-based textbook of any period that says such a thing.Since that time in the 60s other hypotheses have formed similar in concept, differing in detail, but still no "presto, the first living micro organism came into being." Never was, isn't, never will be.Show me otherwise. "Teach the controversy," Discovery Institute's Wedge document, Dover? Just three of hundreds of modern examples of throat cramming by you religious zealots that has been going on for centuries. The only difference between then and now is you can't burn us at the stake anymore.And I don't give a flyin' flip what the fuck forum this is in. You are giving false information, preying on vulnerable impressionable minds, perpetrating a fraud upon the people and must be stopped wherever your kind raise a religious stink. First, remember that "science" is not just seeing it happen but also involves using the mathematical models (laws of physics) to make highly reliable inferences of what must have happened. The universe, including it's creation, is well within the scope of science. We just don't have the tools necessary to know reliably how it all did happen, yet.And second, if creation science can demonstrate the problems with some purely naturalistic explanations then why hasn't it?The only things creation science has come up with are nonsensical and impossible "what if's" that have been proven false and then spouting chapter and verse from articles of faith the meanings of which even you religionists can not agree.The only thing you have are some 3000 year old oral myths finally scribed after hundreds of years of embellishment then embellished even more with each re-writing, cobbled into a book which to anyone whose eyes are open to history is known to be an influence-peddled political put-up sham from the start. Not a convincing source of evidence for discussion. So we have a plausible, if incomplete, hypothesis based upon a lot of available evidence from history, geology, chemistry, quantum mechanics and evolution versus an emotional comfort level scenario based upon the blinding youthful acculturation into a religious cult.Gee, no contest. You ask later in your message what the real beauties of the universe are that I say you are missing being religiously blind to the realities around you. This is one of them.We know, we have the facts the models and the reality, that in the beginning there was energy. Then from this energy quarks and electrons condensed which then formed protons and neutrons, then atoms and clouds and stars and planets and apes and consciousness. All due to physics. That is a beautiful thing.Your way is to ignore the facts, the evidence, the reality and ascribe all this to some magical poofer from nowhere using powers that, gee, must exist somewhere, somehow, right?I may not be religious but that does not mean I am without some spirituality. I am in awe of physics. That energy, given time, would evolve to see itself and know its very nature without an apparent need for some unknowable magic or grand invisible guidance is the true miracle of this universe. And you missed it. Such a loss.And let's take this one step further. IF, that is a real big capital IF, there is some guiding force in this universe its nature will not be anything even close to any religious conceptions of man. All of them are known to be self-serving, predatory and false.Some god in our human image? The one god of this whole thing an ape? In this vast expanse of a universe? Some arthropod-like thing in M86 probably says otherwise. Purpose? Is that what you are asking? What is my purpose?First, my destiny is to die, just like everything else that has ever lived on this planet. Before the end of this century I will be dead and forgotten. In 20,000 years even our most beloved heroes down the millennia will have all been forgotten. In two million years all humanity will have been forgotten. In 5 billion (english or american, it doesn't matter) years the earth will have been forgotten.As for my purpose? Purpose is a human conception. Your dog, the dandelion in your neighbor's front lawn, the sun, some asteroid out in the Kuiper belt, the whole rest of the universe, doesn't know nor care about your purpose. You and I, this planet, this galaxy are of no significance in this universe whatsoever. Your purpose is your own vain attempt to impose your will upon an anthropomorphic view of a universe that just doesn't care one damn bit whether you're here or not.Since no one gives a damn you can adopt whatever purpose floats your boat.Mine was to survive childhood, fuck Diane in high school, survive the army, get laid as often as possible in college, get married, have some kids and eat lots and lots of Hagen-Dazs chocolate ice cream.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yes! You got it! Your shrub doesn't give a hoot about your or any other god."Atheism" is only a lack of belief in a god or gods.Do not confuse what you may be reading about New Atheism and Atheism+. These are political movements, not definitions.

A time to every purpose under heaven.Now I'll get that song stuck in my head and won't be able to shake it until the next compelling meme comes along.Have you read Ecclesiastes? Did you understand it or did you misunderstand it like you seem to misunderstand so many other things?Kohelet, the preacher, king of Jerusalem, was right wasn't he? As he went out to study the world looking for purpose what did he find? He found none.Everywhere he looked he saw that all was pointless. All was in vain, useless and meaningless. He looked throughout his kingdom and found toil for naught.He found growing food to satisfy hunger but hunger never abated. It always returned. His accumulation of knowledge is ultimately left to someone after him. And the only gain from man's efforts is a life filled with pain and the strain of his toils.He found that man was no better off than the animals. They breathe the same air, eat the same food, make children and, like animals must, men die. From dust man and animal came and to dust each will return to be forgotten in time. He was almost there. Reality was just beyond his grasp, beyond his knowledge. He knew nothing about evolution. He did not know that man was, and was descended from, a lineage of apes. He knew nothing of the universe. He did not know the stars as suns with their own planets. He did not know the vast reaches of our galaxy, the immensity of a universe full of hundreds of billions of galaxies. He had no way to discern the great probability of other life in the magnitude of the cosmos.But Kohelet was a religious man. There were no options for him as king. There was nothing to challenge his training that god had made man and god must have had a reason, right? God would have had to make man with a purpose and yet everywhere he looked he found none.True to his ignorance and to the only "reality" in which he had been acculturated, Kohelet could only conclude that man's purpose was to fear and obey god.But today we have the knowledge that Kohelet lacked. We understand the universe in ways he could not have imagined. We understand the self-serving predatory nature of religion and the psychological stranglehold it puts on men.With this knowledge we know the concept of "purpose" in our existence as religions would have us believe falls away.If we are lucky, we come into this world adapted to survive. You do know that about half of all human conceptus never get that chance, don't you? A science thing.Things are much better now (another science thing) but at the time your bible myths were being developed up to 2/3's of all humans born never made it out of childhood.We are the lucky ones. We get to experience life. We get to have babies that with any luck will survive to have babies of their own. And in this journey through survival and procreation some of us get to have some fun along the way (think Hagen-Dazs).Regardless of which biology textbook you care to read, this thing we call life started as a short simple self-replicating chain of molecules. Those chains evolved, not "created" or "built" or "devised" as in the pop-culture sense, but blindly slowly evolved more fitness to survive and procreate. Some strains grew more and more complex enhancing their ability to survive in concert with other groups of self-replicating chains forming first cells then colonies then bodies. All of it under the sole control of physics. No magic, no nostrils, no poofing of anything anywhere along the way.If you really need some purpose in life then know that you are the survival vessel for a complex contingent of self-replicating molecules with the job of surviving the world just long enough to pass along the chemistry.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : Hey, this thing is long. Lots of room for error.Edited by AZPaul3, : more of the same

Nice side dishes, but back to the main course: So, jaywill, got anything?

I'm not going to get an answer, am I.Am I?

Well, for one, the man that wrote that psalm. Another would be the man he wrote it for.

Good lord you are dense."Races" not people but all life. Every noticeable difference among populations animal, plant, etc. Species. Victorian England, remember?"Favoured" not by him or you or me but by the environment. You know ... natural selection ... the entire focus of his life's work, remember?Either you are dense as a stump, which leaves much to be desired in assessing your intellectual capabilities or this was a deliberate smear ... a lie.Either way you have done yourself dirty. I know you are not going to answer. You can't answer since your statement here is as false as the one above.I do not want your answer.I will mill around the edges and throw sand in your face but any "discussion" with you is done.