Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[sonofdad]

Dogs make dogs, cats make cats and apes make apes. It all works out.

 

[adi2d]

Dogs make dogs, cats make cats and apes make apes. It all works out.

And one trick pony has one trick answer. No surprise

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

 

[Breathe]

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.

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:

There's a mistaken belief (on both sides of the fence) that evolution means atheism, too. :/

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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 ?

As pictured by orthodox Christianity, yes. But science never closes a door but she opens one up; with modern genetics we are able to speculate about an evolutionary Adam and Eve- our oldest identifiable ancestors. (even though evolutionary Adam likely lived a long time before evolutionary Eve, but hey)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why do you suppose that evolutionary Adam would exist before Eve?

 

[outhouse]

When you take away all of the technical fluff and feathers and let the smoke clear,

Translation = education and knowledge, sitting in the class where one can see the chalk board.

what you have is a theory that is telling us that every living species today share a common ancestor.

Translation = a scientific theory that has been observed and is as fact as gravity

What that means is.....long ago

Translation = billions of years

, animals started producing different kind of animals.

Translation = Species reproduced and slowly changed into different species over very long time periods, with changes so small they would be barely noticeable at times.

There is nothing else to "grasp". That is what the theory means

A Possible Translation = I don't know what I'm talking about, and I will argue inanely from a point of ignorance with a closed mind, and I will not open it no matter how credible the evidence may be.

People in this tread have been patient and kind, and tried to further my education, but I will not have any of it, due to unsubstantiated theistic beliefs!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why do you suppose that evolutionary Adam would exist before Eve?

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.

 

[johnhanks]

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.

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.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" have been given quasi-mystical status largely by media hype.

No shocker there- witness the basically systematic confusion the term "god particle" is responsible for regarding the nature of the Higgs boson...

 

[Trantorfuzz]

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=&quot]"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.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

Right- and the suggestion that it must be understood literally would've struck the rabbis as absolutely ludicrous.

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=&quot]"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.

Yes and no. While the quote from Augustine illustrates a good point- that modern Biblical literalism is hardly representative of Christianity throughout history, the fact remains that the anti-intellectualism we see represented by contemporary fundamentalists has been a part of Christianity since the very first.

Paul got the party starting when he scornfully remarks about how the Greeks "seek after wisdom" and boasted that his teachings were to the Greeks "foolishness", and that God would confound the wisdom of the wise. We can trace the tradition through many prominent Christian writers from Tertullian (I believe because it is impossible), through medieval writers like Aquinas (who, despite pencilling his infamous "Ways", or proofs of the existence of God, wrote that reason is impotent with respect to the articles of faith), and even good old Luther, who called reason "that petty whore".

Obviously, many Christians, from the past to the present, have been aware of the inherent tension between faith and reason, dogma and science- and the fact that Christianity, in which beliefs about what is true or is the case are emphasized far more than virtually any other religion, is far more likely to conflict with secular science and philosophy due to this preoccupation with truth (rather than, for instance, a state of being, which is the primary concern of Buddhism rather than truth as such, like Christianity). Sometimes the response is to attempt to reconcile them (resulting in often grotesque formulations, such as de Chardin or Frank Tipley's "Omega Point" theologies), sometimes the attempt is to attack and depricate reason.

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.

Again, not entirely true. While their rhetoric is often exaggerated, and they often show a lack of depth when they try to deal with the philosophical/metaphysical problems with religion, "ignorant" surely is the wrong word here.

If you want to read good skeptical works, stick with philosophers like Hume and Russell, and leave the "New Atheists" alone.

I'll agree with the recommendation to read Hume and Russell (both brilliant men), but disagree with the second part- as long as you keep in mind that writers like Dawkins are responding to a particular contingent within Christianity, primarily focused in America (fundamentalism/creationism/etc), they are fine to read- Dawkins, like Hitchens, is a lucid and informed writer.