Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[viole]

The God of the Gaps idea seems to be being replaced by the naturalistic science of the gaps. That seems to be an area where many people live, in a world where science will one day find an answer or if not it is OK to not know, as long as we don't believe in a God we have no scientific evidence for.

Well, we all know that in history many supernatural explanations have been replaced by naturalistic ones. Example: Thor --> Electromagnetism to explain lightnings.

Do you have evidence of something going in the other direction? Something which had a naturalistic explanation that changed into a supernatural one?

That never happens, and that should be evidence enough of the crushing superiority of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. So, the God of the gaps is called that because there are less and less places (gaps) where He can hide.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The claim is that “if” humas have a soul, there would be a “first soul”

Why "would that" be the case?

Humans have fingers as well, but was there a "first finger"?
Not really. We can identify features in our ancestors which would later become fingers.
We can identify analogous bones in birds which in humans are fingers, but in birds are part of the wing structure.

A "first finger" though? Nope. Except at best an arbitrary one.

Why couldn't "souls" be like that also?

Things like free will, morality, love and all the stuff that makes us different from animals are commonly attributed to the soul.

Animals don't have free will? Morality? They don't "love"?
How do you figure?

And I didn't ask you if they are "commonly attributed" to "the soul". I asked you how it was determined that such are properties of "the soul".

I am not claiming to have evidence; this is just my view

Great.

 

[leroy]

It's a problem in multiple ways - and not just in terms of inbreeding.
It's a hindrance for evolutionary processes in general and severely limits a species' ability to respond to a changing environment.

Incest is the extreme expression thereof.

Well maybe the “limited genetic variation” was good enough to survive.

 

[leroy]

Why couldn't "souls" be like that also?

sure that is a possibility

Animals don't have free will? Morality? They don't "love"?
How do you figure?

At least not in the same way humans do. (it seems to me)

And I didn't ask you if they are "commonly attributed" to "the soul". I asked you how it was determined that such are properties of "the soul".


t.

Because those things are hard to explain given the deterministic nature of the electrical impulses of the human bran.

There has to be something beyond the brain to explain that stuff.

 

[gnostic]

Well what do you mean with “Before Adam” (before 6000 years ago?)

In your original post...

B) Theologically: At some point there was a “first human” with a soul.

...when you wrote “At some point”, you seems to be implying there were people around, before Adam was created.

You didn’t answer my question...

Are you saying there were humans around before Adam?

 

[gnostic]

OBEs associated with NDEs are good evidence for consciousness outside the body but it is hard for this sort of evidence of 'spirit' to be taken seriously because of ignorance and prejudice.

You still don’t know what evidence are.

A “claim” of an “out-of-body experience” is just “a claim”.

A “claim” is not an “evidence”.

And a “claim” of a “spirit”, is just another “claim”, you don’t have evidence that spirit exist in the first place, so you don’t have evidence for spirit.

So you have 3 claims, one for NDE, another for OOBE, and still another for “spirit”.

You basically have no evidence whatsoever...you have only added more claims to NDE.

Those people experiencing the “out-of-body” while being clinically dead, are just testimony of one’s experience, that’s not “evidence”.

Evidence would be any 3rd-party person or whole bunch of people can independently observe and measure that person having the OOB experience.

The testimony of one’s experience, is just a claim or a story. And that those types of stories, are too common, as well as being without substances and far-fetch stories.

OOBE aren’t unique to those NDE; there are those who claimed that they can achieve “out-of-body” without being “dead”, such as through deep meditation, or the so-called astral projection, or when they’re tripping acids or taking other psychedelic drugs.

All of these claims, are either imaginary fantasy (hallucination), or they are suffering from delusional break, or they are seeking attention, or trying to exploit people’s naivety for money (a con).

 

[leroy]

In your original post...

​

...when you wrote “At some point”, you seems to be implying there were people around, before Adam was created.

You didn’t answer my question...

Are you saying there were humans around before Adam?

If by human you mean “Homo Sapiens Sapiens” then NO there where no humans before Adam.

If you allow for a wider definition that would include Neanderthals, and homo erectus the answer is yes, there where humans before Adam,

(this is my view)

 

[gnostic]

If by human you mean “Homo Sapiens Sapiens” then NO there where no humans before Adam.

If you allow for a wider definition that would include Neanderthals, and homo erectus the answer is yes, there where humans before Adam,

(this is my view)

Homo sapiens sapien are modern subspecies of the Homo sapiens, have been around at least 60,000 years, but could have been even earlier.

The Homo sapiens sapiens have been around lot longer than your supposed Adam of 6000 years.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At least not in the same way humans do. (it seems to me)

With social animals behavioral norms seem to be a very common thing, with punishments for members who violate the rules. Such as an unruly bonobo being sent away from the rest of the group for awhile. They also definitely have what I would say is love. Elephants are known for visiting the graves of deceased family members. I saw one documentary where a very young chimp lost his mom, and had this happened to a human we'd have no hesitations saying the young chimp died of depression.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well maybe the “limited genetic variation” was good enough to survive.

No.

A population of a single breeding pair is doomed to extinction.
Generally, you require a population of >200 to be somewhat sustainable - and with such a small population, it will already be quite hard to bounce back and not go extinct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At least not in the same way humans do. (it seems to me)

Obviously, why would one expect otherwise...
Every species has its own social and psychological dynamics.
It seems to me that these are shared basal faculties that manifest in different ways in different species.

Because those things are hard to explain given the deterministic nature of the electrical impulses of the human bran.

Ah.... So it's just the result of an argument from ignorance.

There has to be something beyond the brain to explain that stuff.

"has to"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If by human you mean “Homo Sapiens Sapiens” then NO there where no humans before Adam.

If you allow for a wider definition that would include Neanderthals, and homo erectus the answer is yes, there where humans before Adam,

(this is my view)

Does that mean that you believe that at some point in history an individual that was not a Homo Sapiens, gave birth to a Homo Sapiens?

 

[Brian2]

Show me the proper studies in controlled environments.
Anecdotes are not enough.

Unless we want to set up experiments where people are killed and brought back to life in a controlled environment, we get what is reported and from that find out about the verification of reports sometimes.

That's not a claim.
Life IS chemistry and physics. So when trying to find out how life could come about, it would necessarily have to be a study in the field of chemistry and physics.

A chemical process is the most likely candidate.
Chemistry exists and life is chemical. What else would you suggest as the field of inquiry?

You are making a claim that life IS chemistry and physics as if you already know that.
You also close your eyes to verified claims of OBE experiencers in NDEs.
Maybe the NDEs is a good place to study life and if it exists outside the body.
Then the importance of the chemistry and physics as home for the life might become evident.
But it is good to see no bias here, no pre conceived notions, like I have.

Again, the field of study is not the claim.

[qutoe]
The claim is the presumption that life did not come from God.

No, there is no such presumption.
The actual presumption is that we only investigate those things that have a shred of evidence.
This is why "god" is not a variable in ANY scientific theory or hypothesis. Why should abiogenesis be any different?[/QUOTE]

That means that if any answer is found, it is a chemistry/physics answer and it is interesting that atheists and even non atheists have told me that the evidence so far points to chemistry and physics,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,as if it would point anywhere else while only studying the chemistry and physics.
And of course the chemistry and physics side of life had to come about somehow but to assume the answer is found when that side is found is circular reasoning.
No doubt more atheists are produced with stuff like that from science (the evidence points to a naturalistic answer) but it is not really science.
If starting with the idea that God did it is not science then starting with the idea that God did not do it is not science.

I'm not claiming to know the answer. Your strawmen and misrepresentations notwithstanding...

OK that's fine, I'm sorry, I just get het up about the whole thing, knowing where it end up even if answers are not found and knowing that if answers are found they cannot be trusted because science does not deal with the theological evidence, only the naturalistic evidence.

 

[Brian2]

You have yet to explain what you mean with "perfect" in terms of "perfect genome".

Genetically, it is pointless.

One without errors or mutations.

 

[Brian2]

A population of less then 200 is generally pretty much doomed to extinction due to the problems that will show up due to a lack of genetic variation.

Yet small populations like this are being bred up to save species from extinction.

Another statement rooted in ignorance.
Every newborn comes with a set of mutations. Mutations are copying "errors" - and they aren't necessarily bad.

There you go, diversity is being bred into the population from the first newborn.

But none of this is relevant to the point. The point being that the problem is the lack of genetic variation.
A population of a single breeding pair is not sustainable. Their children, grand children, grand grand children,... are doomed to extreme incest. And that will inevitably cause problems.

Extinction is the only possible outcome.

I have wondered at times if the longevity in those days had good points. One would probably have been the retaining of knowledge in the communities for a long time and another might be that older men might have married much younger women from a line in the family tree that was a bit removed. After a while the marriages would be with people that are hardly related at all.
And of course the death of babies with defects would have stopped the passing on indefinitely of genes that were defective.
But yes I don't know much and am just guessing stuff.

 

[leroy]

Homo sapiens sapien are modern subspecies of the Homo sapiens, have been around at least 60,000 years, but could have been even earlier.

The Homo sapiens sapiens have been around lot longer than your supposed Adam of 6000 years.

I am not a YEC , I dont belive in the 6000 stuff

 

[Brian2]

Stop projecting.
It's creationists that invoke magic as they claim a "supernatural miracle".

Scientific research into abiogenesis looks into chemical processes, which are the opposite of magic.
Chemistry isn't magic.

Saying that life is just chemicals and consciousness is just chemicals is bringing magic into science sneakily and making it look like real science.

"make up"?

Life IS chemistry and physics.
As Tyson once said: "life is the extreme expression of carbon based complex chemistry"

No preconceived answer there.

What is it exactly that you think an abiogenesis researcher does all day?

Waste his time, ah push various mixtures of dirt and water around saying, "come on little one, you can do it, move for me".

Feel free to demonstrate OBEs and NDEs under controlled conditions without requiring anyone to "just believe" the anecdotes.

If you succeed, surely you'll receive a nobel.

Money is being offered for anyone who can come up with an answer to how genes could have gained data and became the codes that control so much about and in our body.
I don't suppose you have any money to offer for these experiments you are suggesting?

 

[leroy]

No.

A population of a single breeding pair is doomed to extinction.
Generally, you require a population of >200 to be somewhat sustainable - and with such a small population, it will already be quite hard to bounce back and not go extinct.

There is no evidence for those assertions.......Those are just claims

 

[Brian2]

No. It is clearly written: "Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground ..". You respect your scriptures only that much?.."

The scriptures do not say how God formed the man out of the ground. Why not by evolution from other creatures?

 

[leroy]

Does that mean that you believe that at some point in history an individual that was not a Homo Sapiens, gave birth to a Homo Sapiens?

No I didn't say such a thing , nor implied it