Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dogs make dogs, cats make cats and apes make apes. It all works out.
Yeah. There's something really wrong with the way the educational system is teaching evolution, if people can't grasp what evolution teaches. The worst part is, creationism has grown in the past few decades. :cover:YEC is nothing but a cop out for desperate people who have to choose to intentionally remain ignorant. They find something that sounds good to them because it re-assure's them of their faith and then repeats it over and over as if it meant something. Its more or less what this entire 21 page thread is about.
YEC say something like "there is no transitional forms" or "Dogs only make dogs therefore suck it atheists" and such while everyone else appeals to reason, fact, evidence and such. And this isn't just Atheists trying to push this...its everyoen but crazy YEC people who deny reality.
Hi All
As a sikh I don't believe in Adam, there is only one reference of Adam in sikh scriptures but only as a reference point. But I know a lot of other religions have the belief that god created Adam with its own hand and that he was the first human being ever.
This belief certainly doesn't go with evolution and the evidence is so strong for evolution that u simply can't reject it. Where does this leave the beliefs and how do they contradict with evolution?
I read a lot and watched some debates regarding this and everytime evolution comes on top. Keep religious beliefs aside, do u think that science has destroyed
So called image of Adam ?
When you take away all of the technical fluff and feathers and let the smoke clear,
what you have is a theory that is telling us that every living species today share a common ancestor.
What that means is.....long ago
, animals started producing different kind of animals.
There is nothing else to "grasp". That is what the theory means
Why do you suppose that evolutionary Adam would exist before Eve?
More accurately, those ancestors are where those genetic trails lead. There's nothing special about mitochondrial or Y-chromosomal DNA other than the first being passed only through the female line and the second only through the male. Trace a different haplotype, take a different route up the family tree and you'll come up with a different common ancestor. "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" have been given quasi-mystical status largely by media hype.Because that's where the genetic trail leads; we can trace mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to offspring, back to a "mitochondrial Eve", from whom all humans are descended and who lived roughly 200,000 years ago, whereas we can trace the Y-chromosomal DNA back to a "Y-chromosomal Adam" (from whom all humans are descended) who lived more like 250-000 to 500,000 years ago.
"Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" have been given quasi-mystical status largely by media hype.
The idea that the literal interpretation of Genesis must have been the original and most authentic interpretation is rubbish, for the following reasons.Yes the literal version of pretty much everything in Genesis we know is impossible thanks to science. The earth is older than 6k years old, we evolve so there was no 2 original humans that begat the rest of us.
Many sects of Christianity have backtracked to say this is merely the symbolic version of the "truth". Though even then its a stretch and a half.
The idea that the literal interpretation of Genesis must have been the original and most authentic interpretation is rubbish, for the following reasons.
First, the Hebrew word that we translate as "Adam" is a generic term for man. The Hebrew word that we translate as "Eve" is a generic term for "life." And the tree that Eve took the fruit from was the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's a long, long way from self-evident that the writers of Genesis intended their work to be taken literally.
Second, the idea that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally is not modern Christian "backpedaling." It was current among Christian theologians in the 300's (not the 1300's, the 300's). Check out this quote from St. Augustine of Hippo, who lived in that time and remains one of the most eminent Catholic theologians.
[FONT="]"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn. --- - St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)[/FONT]
Third, Christian fundamentalism didn't begin in the first century; it began in the nineteenth as a response to the increasingly dry teachings of Enlightenment Christianity.
Richard Dawkins deserves his reputation as an eminent biologist. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens deserve to be called top-notch journalists. But none of these three knew jack about the history of Christianity, and that ignorance shows in their anti-religionist screeds.
If you want to read good skeptical works, stick with philosophers like Hume and Russell, and leave the "New Atheists" alone.