Peer-Reviewed: Adam and Eve- 7000 years old family

[Audie]

What does free will have to do with theism or with atheism.

Discussion on about free will, would fall under philosophical discussion, where there are no right or wrong answers, all of it highly subjective personal opinions.

But whether free will existl, it doesn’t prove that god exist or that Adam

and Eve exist

As an indicator of confusion,
it is quite relevant.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0497-363

N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509.
How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve?

Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998:
Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29. Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock

Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013
Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012:
Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes

The above references are from this pop-science report

I'm probably going to get trashed for this post, but "Adam" means representative in Hebrew. Why couldn't humanity evolve gradually from monkeys and then one day one was the exact first representative of humanity, or even a relatively short time span where they all became representatives?

 

[Salvador]

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0497-363

N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509.
How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve?

Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998:
Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29. Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock

Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013
Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012:
Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes

The above references are from this pop-science report

The Bible places a constraint on the creation date of Adam at no earlier than ca. 7,600 B.C; this according to there being 1,948 years between biblical Adam's creation and the birth of Abraham ( Genesis 5, Genesis 11 ) and there being a limit of no more than 100 years between the 57 generations from Abraham to the birth of Christ ( Genesis 6, Luke 3 and Mathew 1 )

The ancient relics of the earliest Australian people are scientifically dated to be over 65,000 years old; this according to "Carbon dating and optically stimulated luminescence dating (that) were used to assess the artifacts' antiquity, the latter being a technique that measures the radioactive signature of a grain of sand revealing when it was last exposed to sunlight. In the deepest levels of sediment, some artifacts were estimated to be about 80,000 years old – or at least 95% likely to be older than 70,000, the report noted."

Reference: Artifacts suggest humans arrived in Australia earlier than thought

Reference: Chris Clarkson, Zenobia Jacobs, Ben Marwick, Richard Fullagar, Lynley Wallis, Mike Smith, Richard G. Roberts, Elspeth Hayes, Kelsey Lowe, Xavier Carah, S. Anna Florin, Jessica McNeil, Delyth Cox, Lee J. Arnold, Quan Hua, Jillian Huntley, Helen E. A. Brand, Tiina Manne, Andrew Fairbairn, James Shulmeister, Lindsey Lyle, Makiah Salinas, Mara Page, Kate Connell, Gayoung Park, Kasih Norman, Tessa Murphy, Colin Pardoe." Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago". Nature, 2017; 547 (7663): 306 DOI: 10.1038/nature22968

Biblical Adam being the first man and Biblical Eve being the first woman are mythological characters rather than historical persons who actually existed; proof of this being there were people who lived 60,000 years before the Bible alleges Adam as being the first man and Eve supposedly being the mother of all the living. ( Genesis 3:20 )

 

[Valjean]

Objection: "Thousands of gods in the world. Which of them do actually exist?"

There is only the Existing God; for God is the name, and so the rest ones are idols that do not actually exist. Agnosticism (as a "scientific scepticism" in God's existence) is nothing more than a logical mistake when the Existing God and the Non-existent idol (satan and his beloved invention - atheism) are taken for one person, cf. Matthew 6:24. Since there is the Existing God and the non-existent god, then the Existing God really exists. From this theory comes out, that atheists are so sure that there is no god, because they have an idol in their minds that does not exist.

An idol? What sort of idol? How can we have a nonexistent idol in our minds?
We disbelieve for the same reason you disbelieve in flying unicorns -- no evidence. How is this unreasonable?
"Since there is the Existing God... then the Existing God really exists." Speaking of logical mistakes...

Yes, because he does not exist! The Absolute Nothingness is taken for the idol. They are just the most advanced pagans. On Earth, there are only three basic nations in the eyes of Christian God: Jews, Christians, and Gentiles.

Absolute nothingness is taken for an idol? What does that mean?
Before making statements about god's opinions, you really need to explain how you came to this conclusion, as well as proffering some evidence that this god exists.

Finally, if the God of Knowledge is not perfectly 100% proven, then there can not be any knowledge or proof, even physical or mathematical. Because there is no Absolute Judge what is wrong and what is right, even in scientific sense. Therefore, He would have no right to burn atheists and sinners after the Judgement Day. Conclusion: the God is Spirit of Truth Himself.

Why would a proven god make knowledge itself possible?
What proofs do you have for this god? I'm not seeing any.

It is 10000000 times more easy to prove God than to convince people to give me Nobel Prize for that.

Then prove it! I've chatted with dozens of Christian apologists and I've yet to see any convincing evidence.
Most of their evidence relies on a false dichotomy. They assume that picking holes in the ToE will somehow support their position. They also seem to think that unexplained phenomena are evidence of god or creation ex nihilo. It is not, and, amusingly, most of the examples they give aren't unexplained at all. Creationists are either unaware of the explanations, or they dismiss them because they don't fit their preconceived theology. When given evidence they usually won't read it, or they claim to have read it but their comments make it clear they didn't understand it.

If all of the scientific knowledge of the past 1,000 years were suddenly swept away there still would be no evidence of a god.

Objection: "Correction, most atheists don't say god is nonexistent, but that there's insufficient reason to believe he exists. Come up with sufficient evidence for god's existence and these atheists will change their minds and believe he exists."

Stop juggle with words: "we do not know, that there is no God, we just do not believe, that there is God." You have no idea what faith and belief is, because you are non-believer.

Who's juggling words? Why is withholding belief pending evidence epistemically or logically invalid? Remember the aforementioned unicorn?
I understand faith fine. It's poorly evidenced belief; pretty simple, I think.

 

[Milton Platt]

The Creational Journals all have rejected all of my papers. I am sure, you will count it for plus point to them?

I'm certain they had a reason. scan the rejection letters or take a photo and post them.

 

[questfortruth]

I'm certain they had a reason. scan the rejection letters or take a photo and post them.

No rejection letters from Reviewers. All my brilliant papers, proving for sure the Creationism, were rejected by the Creationists without being sent to review. They (editors) all wrote only: "it is not suitable.".

 

[questfortruth]

OMG
That was horrible.
Why do people go to such ridiculous efforts to ‘prove’ what they believe?

if the God of Knowledge is not perfectly 100% proven, then there can not be any knowledge or proof, even physical or mathematical. Because there is no Absolute Judge what is wrong and what is right, even in scientific sense. Therefore, He would have no right to burn atheists and sinners after the Judgement Day.

 

[Milton Platt]

No rejection letters from Reviewers. All my brilliant papers, proving for sure the Creationism, were rejected by the Creationists without being sent to review. They (editors) all wrote only: "it is not suitable.".

As I said, display the letters.
Why don't you scan one of the papers and reproduce it here?

 

[questfortruth]

An idol? What sort of idol? How can we have a nonexistent idol in our minds?
We disbelieve for the same reason you disbelieve in flying unicorns -- no evidence.How is this unreasonable?
"Since there is the Existing God... then the Existing God really exists." Speaking of logical mistakes...
Absolute nothingness is taken for an idol? What does that mean?

Please study the history of paganism. Look up the modern paganism in YouTube: "human sacrifice in CERN", because anything can be taken as most high priority and value in life: dust (scientists proudly say, that we came from star dust), as well Nothing. Scientists say, that we came from Nothing without need of God. Thus, Nothing is the very first thing in history, Nothing took Holy seat of God.

 

[Valjean]

if the God of Knowledge is not perfectly 100% proven, then there can not be any knowledge or proof, even physical or mathematical. Because there is no Absolute Judge what is wrong and what is right, even in scientific sense. Therefore, He would have no right to burn atheists and sinners after the Judgement Day.

Awaiting proof of this god of knowledge. Happy to hear there will be no punishment for disbelief before said proof is produced.
Wrong and right in the scientific sense?
This is what I mean when I say creationists don't understand the science they criticize. Wrong and right in the scientific sense? What does science have to do with wrong and right?

 

[Valjean]

Please study the history of paganism. Look up the modern paganism in YouTube: "human sacrifice in CERN", because anything can be taken as most high priority and value in life: dust (scientists proudly say, that we came from star dust), as well Nothing.

History of paganism? Isn't pagan a catch-all term for any heterodox religion?

Scientists say, that we came from Nothing without need of God. Thus, Nothing is the very first thing in history, Nothing took Holy seat of God.

What do you mean by "came from nothing?" Are you talking about Big Bang, or abiogenesis?
There are theoretical models of both, backed by considerable evidence.
There is no evidence of "goddidit," Goddidit, unlike science, says we came from nothing, and were "spoken" into existence. Goddidit, unlike science, posits no mechanism for this magic poofing.

So.... Magic vs mechanism, folklore vs evidence. Which seems more reasonable?

So paganism is a catch-all, apparently for any non-abrahamic faith.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible places a constraint on the creation date of Adam at no earlier than ca. 7,600 B.C; this according to there being 1,948 years between biblical Adam's creation and the birth of Abraham ( Genesis 5, Genesis 11 ) and there being a limit of no more than 100 years between the 57 generations from Abraham to the birth of Christ ( Genesis 6, Luke 3 and Mathew 1 )

The ancient relics of the earliest Australian people are scientifically dated to be over 65,000 years old; this according to "Carbon dating and optically stimulated luminescence dating (that) were used to assess the artifacts' antiquity, the latter being a technique that measures the radioactive signature of a grain of sand revealing when it was last exposed to sunlight. In the deepest levels of sediment, some artifacts were estimated to be about 80,000 years old – or at least 95% likely to be older than 70,000, the report noted."

Reference: Artifacts suggest humans arrived in Australia earlier than thought

Reference: Chris Clarkson, Zenobia Jacobs, Ben Marwick, Richard Fullagar, Lynley Wallis, Mike Smith, Richard G. Roberts, Elspeth Hayes, Kelsey Lowe, Xavier Carah, S. Anna Florin, Jessica McNeil, Delyth Cox, Lee J. Arnold, Quan Hua, Jillian Huntley, Helen E. A. Brand, Tiina Manne, Andrew Fairbairn, James Shulmeister, Lindsey Lyle, Makiah Salinas, Mara Page, Kate Connell, Gayoung Park, Kasih Norman, Tessa Murphy, Colin Pardoe." Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago". Nature, 2017; 547 (7663): 306 DOI: 10.1038/nature22968

Biblical Adam being the first man and Biblical Eve being the first woman are mythological characters rather than historical persons who actually existed; proof of this being there were people who lived 60,000 years before the Bible alleges Adam as being the first man and Eve supposedly being the mother of all the living. ( Genesis 3:20 )

The constraint is placed by some people using an estimate developed from information claimed in the Bible. The Bible does not specify a date for creation of claim how long ago it is supposed to have occurred.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You have no idea what faith and belief is, because you are non-believer.

Faith, not so much, belief I sometimes have, and trust all too often. I seem to manage without faith - as many do.

 

[Salvador]

The constraint is placed by some people using an estimate developed from information claimed in the Bible. The Bible does not specify a date for creation of claim how long ago it is supposed to have occurred.

The Bible does specifically list there being 77 generations between Adam and Christ. ( Matthew 1 )

The Bible counts there being 1,948 years with 20 generations between biblical Adam's creation and the birth of Abraham. ( Genesis 5, Genesis 11 ) with a couple of thousand years divided by twenty generations equaling one hundred years on average between one generation to the next generation.
Genesis 6:3: "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Seventy seven generations times one hundred years equals seven thousand seven hundred years B.C.; this being the earliest date the Bible implies Biblical Adam with Bible Eve, "the mother of all the living", had been created. (Genesis 3:20 )

 

[Valjean]

What is it with this Bible thing? Why are creationists always citing it as if it were a well researched, tested, peer reviewed textbook?
It's none of these. The Bible is not authoritative. Please cite substantive evidence if you want to make a case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible does specifically list there being 77 generations between Adam and Christ. ( Matthew 1 )

The Bible counts there being 1,948 years with 20 generations between biblical Adam's creation and the birth of Abraham. ( Genesis 5, Genesis 11 ) with a couple of thousand years divided by twenty generations equaling one hundred years on average between one generation to the next generation.
Genesis 6:3: "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Seventy seven generations times one hundred years equals seven thousand seven hundred years B.C.; this being the earliest date the Bible implies Biblical Adam with Bible Eve, "the mother of all the living", had been created. (Genesis 3:20 )

My math may be a little rusty, but 14 + 14 + 14 does not equal 77. Then there is the questions that arise from the claimed ages of people listed in the Bible.

You do realize that you are using information from the Bible to derive an estimate and place that as a constraint on the age of creation?

A human generation is about 20-25 years. Using 77 and 25 yields an answer of 1925 years to Christ. Add 2000 to get 3925 on the age of creation. This is using your numbers and applying observed values for a generation time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible does specifically list there being 77 generations between Adam and Christ. ( Matthew 1 )

The Bible counts there being 1,948 years with 20 generations between biblical Adam's creation and the birth of Abraham. ( Genesis 5, Genesis 11 ) with a couple of thousand years divided by twenty generations equaling one hundred years on average between one generation to the next generation.
Genesis 6:3: "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Seventy seven generations times one hundred years equals seven thousand seven hundred years B.C.; this being the earliest date the Bible implies Biblical Adam with Bible Eve, "the mother of all the living", had been created. (Genesis 3:20 )

I see how the 77 is derived now. Still, you are using an estimate of age and not generation time to get your results. This also assumes no missing generations in the Bible.

Observed generation times for humans are a quarter to a fifth of the value you are using. Never-the-less, the constraint is generated by a person interpreting claims of the Bible and not something explicitly claimed in the Bible.

 

[McBell]

No rejection letters from Reviewers. All my brilliant papers, proving for sure the Creationism, were rejected by the Creationists without being sent to review. They (editors) all wrote only: "it is not suitable.".

Are you saying you have proven Creationism but professional creationists reject your proof out of hand?

 

[McBell]

The Bible does specifically list there being 77 generations between Adam and Christ. ( Matthew 1 )

The Bible counts there being 1,948 years with 20 generations between biblical Adam's creation and the birth of Abraham. ( Genesis 5, Genesis 11 ) with a couple of thousand years divided by twenty generations equaling one hundred years on average between one generation to the next generation.
Genesis 6:3: "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Seventy seven generations times one hundred years equals seven thousand seven hundred years B.C.; this being the earliest date the Bible implies Biblical Adam with Bible Eve, "the mother of all the living", had been created. (Genesis 3:20 )

Are you claiming that every one waited until they were 100 years old before having their first child?

 

[Salvador]

Are you claiming that every one waited until they were 100 years old before having their first child?

Not real historical people, but rather the mythological Biblical Patriarchs of Genesis did. ...