Adam and Eve as a Myth

[javajo]

No, it's really not better, because one is the truth [the latter] and one is false [the former].

Indulging your own weakness isn't a virtue, it's a handicap. The Bible isn't truly anything but a collection of myths designed to promote self-deception under a label exactly as you've accepted.

I believe the Bible is true, you don't, ok then.

Whether you are at peace or not does not have anything whatsover to do with how much you know about biology, and geology. Would you be prepared at this time to have a formal, one on one debate with a biologist regarding creationism, and a geologist regarding geology, and agree not to consult any references, and only makes posts based upon your own personal knowledge? Probably not. You are not in a position to have informed opinions creationism, and the global flood theory.

You said that Glenn Morton's articles have been refuted, but even if they have, you would not be able to understand the refutations. What do you hope to gain by quoting articles that you do not understand? Anyone can copy things from the Internet. I can post refutations to your refutations, and so on. Since you are not an expert in science, why are you making posts in a science forum?

Man, you must think I am really dumb. I didn't realize it was a science forum, I just saw Adam, Eve, myth...I'll leave you all to it.

Are you not aware that evolution does not deal with how life began, only how it changed after it began? When Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist, not an atheist. Since the majority of Christian biologists accept theistic evolution, evolution is obviously not an issue of whether or not a person believes in God.

I don't believe in 'atheistic' or theistic evolution, myself. And as I said, to be a Christian one must simply trust Christ to have paid their sin debt.

The vast majority of non-Christians in the world already believe in various Gods. What good will that do them after they die?

Hopefully some good, as I believe God judges equitably and considers what people have done with the light given them.

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't believe in 'atheistic' or theistic evolution, myself. And as I said, to be a Christian one must simply trust Christ to have paid their sin debt.

Then why is science an issue for you at all? Why do you ever discuss science? Why do you ever discuss evolution since millions of Christians accept theistic evolution? Why did you mention scientific articles that you do not understand? Why not just stick to things that you think you understand well, and offer evidence other than merely stating what you believe, which everyone already knows? Anyone can make mere declarations of faith, and quote any religious book. Obvious statements of belief are assertions, not discussions. Actual discussions involve evidence other than obvious assertions. Please provide specfic evidence regarding why you believe that the Bible is the word of God.

You cannot reasonably provde that the story of Adam and Eve is true. You cannot reasonably prove that a global flood occurred. You mentioned genealogies, which proves nothing at all. You said that Jesus predicted the future, but you cannot accurately date the prophecy since there are not any existing original first century A.D. New Testament manuscripts, and hardly any second century manuscripts. You mentioned that the Bible contains real people and places, but so do many other religious books. You ought to know that many ancient writings contain mixes of myths and actual facts. There is nothing at all unusual about that.

Your own personal beliefs and opinions mean nothing in debates, and will never change anyone's mind. You need evidence that people can check out for themselves, especially historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence.

 

[fantome profane]

I believe the Bible is true, you don't, ok then.

Do you know what a "debate" is? lol

 

[javajo]

Then why is science an issue for you at all? Why do you ever discuss science? Why do you ever discuss evolution since millions of Christians accept theistic evolution? Why did you mention scientific articles that you do not understand? Why not just stick to things that you think you understand well, and offer evidence other than merely stating what you believe, which everyone already knows? Anyone can make mere declarations of faith, and quote any religious book. Obvious statements of belief are assertions, not discussions. Actual discussions involve evidence other than obvious assertions. Please provide specfic evidence regarding why you believe that the Bible is the word of God.

You cannot reasonably provde that the story of Adam and Eve is true. You cannot reasonably prove that a global flood occurred. You mentioned genealogies, which proves nothing at all. You said that Jesus predicted the future, but you cannot accurately date the prophecy since there are not any existing original first century A.D. New Testament manuscripts, and hardly any second century manuscripts. You mentioned that the Bible contains real people and places, but so do many other religious books. You ought to know that many ancient writings contain mixes of myths and actual facts. There is nothing at all unusual about that.

Your own personal beliefs and opinions mean nothing in debates, and will never change anyone's mind. You need evidence that people can check out for themselves, especially historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence.

I just believe Adam and Eve are not myth, that's all. I'm not asking you to.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible teaches the most important thing, how to know one can have the free gift of eternal life. Jesus said there is one thing one must do, he said, Ye must be born again.

:no: That's not entirely correct.

Only the Christian part of the bible, which you call New Testament, has something to do with eternal life for man. The other part doesn't say anything about eternal life for mankind; eternal life is only reserved for god in the OT.

 

[gnostic]

Sure. Just like people who know little of origins science and accept evolution as a fact and not a theory. As God asked Noah, Were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth? Is this a science forum? I thought it was a discussion about Adam and Eve as myth. Ok, I see its evolution vs. creationism. Not really my cup of tea as I think evolution is absurd.

What believers, particularly creationists (like yourself), continuously mistaken is that evolution is about the origin of life.

Well let me speak quite plainly:

EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!​

If you want to debate about the "origin of life" in science, then talk about ABIOGENESIS, not evolution.

Evolution is about "changes", like how changes in ENVIRONMENT can affect change on the physical structure of body on the genetic level. (EDIT: ADDED the following sentence) The changes is often very small, but become increasingly noticeable many successive generations.

Evolution is about life that already exist, not in the development of new life or first life.

You, and other like you (literal Christian creationists), often fail to understand this concept about evolution and it it is not about "origin of life", that I no longer find it funny.

 

[javajo]

:no: That's not entirely correct.

Only the Christian part of the bible, which you call New Testament, has something to do with eternal life for man. The other part doesn't say anything about eternal life for mankind; eternal life is only reserved for god in the OT.

I believe the OT teaches it as well:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2

What believers, particularly creationists (like yourself), continuously mistaken is that evolution is about the origin of life.

Well let me speak quite plainly:

EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!​

If you want to debate about the "origin of life" in science, then talk about ABIOGENESIS, not evolution.

Evolution is about "changes", like how change in ENVIORNMENT can affect change on the physical structure of body on the genetic level.

Evolution is about life that already exist, not in the development of new life or first life.

You, and other like you (literal Christian creationists), often fail to understand this concept about evolution and it it is not about "origin of life", that I no longer find it funny.

Copy that.

 

[gnostic]

Copy that.

Well, I hoped that you do, because I'm tired of repeating myself. *frustration*

Some creationists see EVOLUTION and ABIOGENESIS as one and the same.

ABIOGENESIS is trying to create life from inorganic matters, hence the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

The Origin of Life is not cover in Evolution, but creationists keep mistakenly treating it as if it is the same thing.

Take rusra02 and man of faith for example. Both of them keep (wrongfully) claiming that evolution is about ORIGIN OF LIFE, no matter how many times others (including me) explain it to them. They refuse to learn about evolution, so they keep repeating themselves and fall into the same pithole every single time. Willful ignorance is not attractive quality.

 

[gnostic]

As to the Biblical Flood.

Neither Darwin nor Evolution say anything about the Flood. That's found in different fields of science, eg geology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.

Evolution only deal with biology, like natural selection, mutation, genetics, etc, and how the environments can change biological life, over successive generations or numbers of years. Life learn to adapt, because if they don't adapt, they don't survive (hence natural selection).

I have written it before in other threads, about Galápagos Islands. One of the places that Darwin had visited during his voyage on the HMS Beagle in 1830s.

He noticed that many creature from one island is different. One of my favorite examples are the tortoises living on those islands.

In some islands, the tortoises have dome shell, and have short neck and legs. They lived in the humid highland with low-lying vegetation, which they can easily feed on.

But on other islands with drier conditions and sparser vegetation, their food sources are higher up so it would be impossible for most dome shape tortoises to survive in this condition. And it is on these island, where the giant tortoise have different shell, known as saddleback shells. The shape allow longer neck which they crane up. Also the saddleback-type tortoises have longer legs than their dome-type cousins.



And those islands are not really far apart, so it is amazing how you would find diversity of species or subspecies, separated by different climatic and territorial differences.

The Galápagos tortoises are just one of the animals (but not the only one) that allowed Darwin to formulate his theory on Natural Selection.

And Natural Selection only just one mechanic of evolution. Other mechanics also exist (like Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, Genetic Hitchhiking and Gene Flow), but none of them actually discredit or refute Darwin's Natural Selection. But the theory on Natural Selection has been updated in the 20th century, because more evidences have been discovered.

 

[Agnostic75]

I just believe Adam and Eve are not myth, that's all. I'm not asking you to.

Belief is not science. I thought that you said that you were interested in science. You have posted some articles about science. Are you interested in biology, and geology? Do you understand biology well enough to have informed scientific opinions about creationism? Do you understand geology well enough to have informed scientific opinions about the global flood?

You frequently assert that you believe this or that, but your personal beliefs are already obvious to everyone, and do not settle anything. It would be much more useful if you would explain "why" you believe what you believe rather than merely state "what" you believe.

The story of Adam and Eve is completely beyond any scientific or historical research, and must be accepted completely by faith. On the other hand, most experts, including most Christian experts, are convinced that evolution, whether naturalistic or theistic, is true, and can be scientifically tested. Your personal beliefs cannot invalidate scientific research since science does not study faith.

Although many creationist experts often discuss science, creationism is much more about belief than science since there is no way that a relative handful of creationist experts know more about biology, and biochemistry than skeptic and Christian evolutionists do.

Ok, since the story of Adam and Eve is beyond scientific and historical investigation, would you like to start a new thread and discuss something that is not beyond scientific and historical investigation?

 

[`mud]

A thought to all, except Javajo,
He seems to ask everyone to apply his gnosis to what he really believes in.
He's not asking anyone to believe in what he believes.
I, being non-theist, believe that he has that right, and we shouldn't try to convince him.
This thread is looking like a gang bang to me.
I hope he finds his way, but, maybe his way is correct !
And to Javajo, good luck with your beliefs, I really mean that !
~
`mud

 

[idav]

A thought to all, except Javajo,
He seems to ask everyone to apply his gnosis to what he really believes in.
He's not asking anyone to believe in what he believes.
I, being non-theist, believe that he has that right, and we shouldn't try to convince him.
This thread is looking like a gang bang to me.
I hope he finds his way, but, maybe his way is correct !
And to Javajo, good luck with your beliefs, I really mean that !
~
`mud

Some people act like 'myth' is some sort of dirty word. I can believe the bible is a myth and still be a christian. Thats my belief.

 

[Looncall]

Belief is not science. I thought that you said that you were interested in science. You have posted some articles about science. Are you interested in biology, and geology? Do you understand biology well enough to have informed scientific opinions about creationism? Do you understand geology well enough to have informed scientific opinions about the global flood?

You frequently assert that you believe this or that, but your personal beliefs are already obvious to everyone, and do not settle anything. It would be much more useful if you would explain "why" you believe what you believe rather than merely state "what" you believe.

The story of Adam and Eve is completely beyond any scientific or historical research, and must be accepted completely by faith. On the other hand, most experts, including most Christian experts, are convinced that evolution, whether naturalistic or theistic, is true, and can be scientifically tested. Your personal beliefs cannot invalidate scientific research since science does not study faith.

Although many creationist experts often discuss science, creationism is much more about belief than science since there is no way that a relative handful of creationist experts know more about biology, and biochemistry than skeptic and Christian evolutionists do.

Ok, since the story of Adam and Eve is beyond scientific and historical investigation, would you like to start a new thread and discuss something that is not beyond scientific and historical investigation?

I think that you are being unnecessarily kind here. The Adam and Eve story is not beyond investigation. It is outright false.

 

[gnostic]

Some people act like 'myth' is some sort of dirty word. I can believe the bible is a myth and still be a christian. Thats my belief.

No, it's not dirty word.

I actually love reading myths, and it was one of the reasons why I started Timeless Myths. It like reading a good, riveting novel or watching some movies. I always like a good storytelling.

The problem comes from trying to turn a myth into history or scientific event. That's when Adam & Eve (or the Flood story) come "unravelled". You put the myth under scrutiny or microscope, and then it will fail to meet the requirements of either history or science.

As a myth, Adam & Eve (or the Flood story), it's fine. But when creationists tried to put a historical or scientific contexts, they spoiled the myths for everyone.

Christian creationism ( and intelligent design advocates) has actually done more damage to the bible and to Christianity, because it want to compete with evolution. It is not because they believe their myth to be real that causing the problem, but how they tried lie about evolution through misinformation and propaganda for their cause.

For some reasons, they (creationists) have single out evolution in their campaign to have creationism taught in science classroom. They forget that their bible and creationism are theological matters, not science; that creationism is faith-related, not scientific.

 

[javajo]

Well, I hoped that you do, because I'm tired of repeating myself. *frustration*

Some creationists see EVOLUTION and ABIOGENESIS as one and the same.

ABIOGENESIS is trying to create life from inorganic matters, hence the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

The Origin of Life is not cover in Evolution, but creationists keep mistakenly treating it as if it is the same thing.

Take rusra02 and man of faith for example. Both of them keep (wrongfully) claiming that evolution is about ORIGIN OF LIFE, no matter how many times others (including me) explain it to them. They refuse to learn about evolution, so they keep repeating themselves and fall into the same pithole every single time. Willful ignorance is not attractive quality.

I guess the title, "Evolution vs. Creationism" may be misleading?

As to the Biblical Flood.

Neither Darwin nor Evolution say anything about the Flood. That's found in different fields of science, eg geology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.

Evolution only deal with biology, like natural selection, mutation, genetics, etc, and how the environments can change biological life, over successive generations or numbers of years. Life learn to adapt, because if they don't adapt, they don't survive (hence natural selection).

I have written it before in other threads, about Galápagos Islands. One of the places that Darwin had visited during his voyage on the HMS Beagle in 1830s.

He noticed that many creature from one island is different. One of my favorite examples are the tortoises living on those islands.

In some islands, the tortoises have dome shell, and have short neck and legs. They lived in the humid highland with low-lying vegetation, which they can easily feed on.

But on other islands with drier conditions and sparser vegetation, their food sources are higher up so it would be impossible for most dome shape tortoises to survive in this condition. And it is on these island, where the giant tortoise have different shell, known as saddleback shells. The shape allow longer neck which they crane up. Also the saddleback-type tortoises have longer legs than their dome-type cousins.



And those islands are not really far apart, so it is amazing how you would find diversity of species or subspecies, separated by different climatic and territorial differences.

The Galápagos tortoises are just one of the animals (but not the only one) that allowed Darwin to formulate his theory on Natural Selection.

And Natural Selection only just one mechanic of evolution. Other mechanics also exist (like Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, Genetic Hitchhiking and Gene Flow), but none of them actually discredit or refute Darwin's Natural Selection. But the theory on Natural Selection has been updated in the 20th century, because more evidences have been discovered.

I love turtles! To me, they show God's remarkable work, programming so much variation in each species, like with dogs, so many different unique breeds from a very few dogs taken aboard the Ark.

Belief is not science. I thought that you said that you were interested in science. You have posted some articles about science. Are you interested in biology, and geology? Do you understand biology well enough to have informed scientific opinions about creationism? Do you understand geology well enough to have informed scientific opinions about the global flood?

Yes.

You frequently assert that you believe this or that, but your personal beliefs are already obvious to everyone, and do not settle anything. It would be much more useful if you would explain "why" you believe what you believe rather than merely state "what" you believe.

Roger that.

The story of Adam and Eve is completely beyond any scientific or historical research, and must be accepted completely by faith. On the other hand, most experts, including most Christian experts, are convinced that evolution, whether naturalistic or theistic, is true, and can be scientifically tested. Your personal beliefs cannot invalidate scientific research since science does not study faith.

I don't know that I agree with that.

Although many creationist experts often discuss science, creationism is much more about belief than science since there is no way that a relative handful of creationist experts know more about biology, and biochemistry than skeptic and Christian evolutionists do.

Don't agree with that either.

Ok, since the story of Adam and Eve is beyond scientific and historical investigation, would you like to start a new thread and discuss something that is not beyond scientific and historical investigation?

Not big on starting threads. I'm not really that into the creation vs. evolution debate, I did not realize this thread was even in that department when I shared that I believe its not a myth. I may jump in if I see something that interests me that may not seem so far beyond scientific or historical investigation.

A thought to all, except Javajo,
He seems to ask everyone to apply his gnosis to what he really believes in.
He's not asking anyone to believe in what he believes.
I, being non-theist, believe that he has that right, and we shouldn't try to convince him.
This thread is looking like a gang bang to me.
I hope he finds his way, but, maybe his way is correct !
And to Javajo, good luck with your beliefs, I really mean that !
~
`mud

Thank-you, mud, that was very kind of you. All the best to you with your beliefs, too! Oh, and frubals for your kindness to someone like me who's beliefs must sound so crazy and irrational to most.

Some people act like 'myth' is some sort of dirty word. I can believe the bible is a myth and still be a christian. Thats my belief.

How do you do that? I believe to be a Christian, one must believe that they have sinned, the penalty is death, so Jesus died thus paying the penalty and then rose from the grave showing God accepted the payment. One must then trust Christ alone to have paid for their sins and believe he gave them his righteousness, the righteousness of God, in place of their own 'filthy rags' righteousness in order to be given the free gift of eternal life. What say ye?

I think that you are being unnecessarily kind here. The Adam and Eve story is not beyond investigation. It is outright false.

I don't agree with that, of course.

No, it's not dirty word.

I actually love reading myths, and it was one of the reasons why I started Timeless Myths. It like reading a good, riveting novel or watching some movies. I always like a good storytelling.

The problem comes from trying to turn a myth into history or scientific event. That's when Adam & Eve (or the Flood story) come "unravelled". You put the myth under scrutiny or microscope, and then it will fail to meet the requirements of either history or science.

As a myth, Adam & Eve (or the Flood story), it's fine. But when creationists tried to put a historical or scientific contexts, they spoiled the myths for everyone.

Christian creationism ( and intelligent design advocates) has actually done more damage to the bible and to Christianity, because it want to compete with evolution. It is not because they believe their myth to be real that causing the problem, but how they tried lie about evolution through misinformation and propaganda for their cause.

For some reasons, they (creationists) have single out evolution in their campaign to have creationism taught in science classroom. They forget that their bible and creationism are theological matters, not science; that creationism is faith-related, not scientific.

I believe the Bible says that in the beginning God created everything. It says Jesus made everything and holds everything together. It does not say it like it is a myth, but says it like it is a fact. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real people.

 

[David M]

Sorry, folks, too many attackers. I still believe in Adam and Eve and Noah and the Flood. I think science shows it to be a valid belief. I think science supports the Bible much more than evolution or millions of years.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22

You may believe what you want. But when you claim that science shows it to be a valid belief of that science supports the bible you will be corrected because you are absolutely wrong.

Science supports evolution 100%, it supports deep time and an earth that was formed billions of years ago 100%.

All it said is it couldn't have cut through all those hard sedimentary layers fast. But I believe those layers were a result of rapid sediment deposit from the flood, and were still soft, so it does make sense, looks exactly like it, too.

And here is a good example. There are layers in the Grand Canyon that cannot be formed underwater, some even retain the imprints of animal tracks and raindrops and show surface erosion at their boundaries, flood(s) could not form all the geology of the grand canyon.

Incised Meanders such as those seen in the Grand Canyon cannot be formed in soft sediment, its physically impossible for soft sediments to be cut at such angles and at such heights and not collapse.

 

[McBell]

I guess the title, "Evolution vs. Creationism" may be misleading?

As a matter of fact, it is.

It should be changed to something like "Creationists vs Evolution" cause it is creationists who attack evolution thinking if they can somehow discredit evolution, their favorite creation myth somehow becomes the default new position.

 

[javajo]

You may believe what you want. But when you claim that science shows it to be a valid belief of that science supports the bible you will be corrected because you are absolutely wrong.

Science supports evolution 100%, it supports deep time and an earth that was formed billions of years ago 100%.



And here is a good example. There are layers in the Grand Canyon that cannot be formed underwater, some even retain the imprints of animal tracks and raindrops and show surface erosion at their boundaries, flood(s) could not form all the geology of the grand canyon.

Incised Meanders such as those seen in the Grand Canyon cannot be formed in soft sediment, its physically impossible for soft sediments to be cut at such angles and at such heights and not collapse.

Ok, well, I don't agree with you. I believe the Bible.

As a matter of fact, it is.

It should be changed to something like "Creationists vs Evolution" cause it is creationists who attack evolution thinking if they can somehow discredit evolution, their favorite creation myth somehow becomes the default new position.

I guess some folks attack evolution. I just don't believe in it from a scientific, religious or common sense perspective. You know what they teach people in communist countries when they indoctrinate them? The first thing they teach is not communism or socialist ideas, its evolution. They do so to erase belief in God and moral absolute truths so the strong can control the weak, the bully makes the rules.

 

[McBell]

I guess some folks attack evolution. I just don't believe in it from a scientific, religious or common sense perspective. You know what they teach people in communist countries when they indoctrinate them? The first thing they teach is not communism or socialist ideas, its evolution. They do so to erase belief in God and moral absolute truths so the strong can control the weak, the bully makes the rules.

Your lack of belief in evolution has absolutely no bearing on it being true.

I would be most interested in you providing a source for your communist countries claim.

 

[javajo]

Your lack of belief in evolution has absolutely no bearing on it being true.

I would be most interested in you providing a source for your communist countries claim.

I believe the Bible is true despite others' lack of belief in it. I heard the commie thing on the radio so take it how you wish.