Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: Thanks Byblos.

If all other humanoids, without a sentient, rational soul were existing before Adam, and also at the same time as Adam, does that mean they weren't fully human? Were they completely the same physically, but only lacking the rational, sentient soul? The reason I ask, is because it then gets into things like who was Cain's wife, and maybe even who were the "daughters of men", "sons of God" that the bible talks about.

I'd also be interested to know if you think those that were alive but without sentient, rational souls, received that sentient, rational soul, when Adam sinned.

And further, if Australian aborigines are included among those with sentient, irrational souls. And if they aren't fully human, how did they become fully human?

Interesting stuff for sure.

I believe that Cain did marry someone other than a family member, it is the most natural and correct reading of that verse in Genesis, that also implies people living outside of Cain's immediate family ( add to that the bible implies that Adam and Eve had other Children AFTER Cain fled).
The Sons of God refers to Angels and to try to make it refer to others is, well, incoherent with the passage in which the term appears. Michael Heiser has a whole paper about this and it should be noted that only after the Masoteric texts do we see issues (of the doctrinal type) with the Sons of God being viewed as angelic beings.
Daughters of men are of course just that.

The issue of when the rest of humanity got a rational soul is, I think, incorrect.
The issue isn't soul but spirit.
What make us in the image of God is, IMO, the spirit.
All living things have a soul/are a soul.
So when did they rest of humanity receive a spirit?
I don't know and the bible certainly doesn't address that.
We know that Adam was divinely created and Eve created from Him BUT every other being born of them was very different then either one of them.
So, perhaps after the fall, the next generations being born to all mankind were given a spirit since it can only be given by God and not "inherited".

I have never seen a distinction between soul and spirit that made any sense. They are one and the same, IMO.

Just an idea..

the soul is that life force every living thing has, the spirit is what is made in His image. our soul dies, our energy but our spirit returns to God.

Byblos wrote:I have never seen a distinction between soul and spirit that made any sense. They are one and the same, IMO.

The way you described it, as a sentient, rational soul, is basically what is meant by having a spirit. Spiritual creatures, like us, are able to comprehend spiritual things, and have a relationship with God, who is Spirit.

And animals without a spirit, but with a soul, are able to form relationships with other animals with a soul, and man.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.

Byblos wrote:I have never seen a distinction between soul and spirit that made any sense. They are one and the same, IMO.

Well, from the jewish perspective, soul was what a person was ( a living soul) and the spirit was what survived after death and went back to god.
Hence all living things have/are a soul but only humans have a spirit.
From the hellenistic view, soul was what a person was and spirit was it's "ghost" ( for lack of a better word).
The Aquinas view was that there was a spiritual soul ( human) and non-spiritual soul (animals).
The spiritual-soul is the attributes and the intellect of being human and as such is immortal because it is immaterial and because these attributes and intellect exist apart from life.
The soul can be destroyed and while it isn't mentioned explicitly in the bible, so can the spirit ( by fire).

Immortal means that it doesn't die a natural death BUT can be destroyed as opposed to eternal ( like God) that can't be destroyed.

That said, I agree that they are basically ( for humans) the same thing because they are in perfect union.
When the body dies the spirit returns to God and takes with it the soul.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:I have never seen a distinction between soul and spirit that made any sense. They are one and the same, IMO.

Well, from the jewish perspective, soul was what a person was ( a living soul) and the spirit was what survived after death and went back to god.
Hence all living things have/are a soul but only humans have a spirit.
From the hellenistic view, soul was what a person was and spirit was it's "ghost" ( for lack of a better word).
The Aquinas view was that there was a spiritual soul ( human) and non-spiritual soul (animals).
The spiritual-soul is the attributes and the intellect of being human and as such is immortal because it is immaterial and because these attributes and intellect exist apart from life.
The soul can be destroyed and while it isn't mentioned explicitly in the bible, so can the spirit ( by fire).

Immortal means that it doesn't die a natural death BUT can be destroyed as opposed to eternal ( like God) that can't be destroyed.

That said, I agree that they are basically ( for humans) the same thing because they are in perfect union.
When the body dies the spirit returns to God and takes with it the soul.

our spirit then, if we accept Christ,, saves our soul?

Storyteller wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:I have never seen a distinction between soul and spirit that made any sense. They are one and the same, IMO.

Well, from the jewish perspective, soul was what a person was ( a living soul) and the spirit was what survived after death and went back to god.
Hence all living things have/are a soul but only humans have a spirit.
From the hellenistic view, soul was what a person was and spirit was it's "ghost" ( for lack of a better word).
The Aquinas view was that there was a spiritual soul ( human) and non-spiritual soul (animals).
The spiritual-soul is the attributes and the intellect of being human and as such is immortal because it is immaterial and because these attributes and intellect exist apart from life.
The soul can be destroyed and while it isn't mentioned explicitly in the bible, so can the spirit ( by fire).

Immortal means that it doesn't die a natural death BUT can be destroyed as opposed to eternal ( like God) that can't be destroyed.

That said, I agree that they are basically ( for humans) the same thing because they are in perfect union.
When the body dies the spirit returns to God and takes with it the soul.

our spirit then, if we accept Christ,, saves our soul?

Yes, that is one way of putting it.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:And further, if Australian aborigines are included among those with sentient, irrational souls. And if they aren't fully human, how did they become fully human?

How exactly can we be certain they are NOT descendants of A&E? After all, science purports that not only homo sapiens but all living things are traceable to a single source.

This is the specific question that forced me kicking and screaming to go back and reevaluate whether Scripture really claims that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans.

Here's why I am certain that the Australian Aborigines are not descendants of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Genesis 2-4 takes place within a geographical and historical context that we can identify and date.
The physical location is Mesopotamia, and the time frame is some time after 10,000 BC.

Genesis 4 describes a number of activities which we know took place after the start of the Neolithic era which began around 10,000 BC in Mesopotamia. These activities include:
- building cities
- living in tents
- forging bronze
- forging iron

These activities described in Genesis 4 place Adam and his immediate descendants in Mesopotamia sometime after the start of the Neolithic era and thus after 10,000 BC.

Now let's look at the Australian Aborigines.
The Australian Aborigines are honest to goodness humans (ie species homo sapiens sapiens) who populated Australia somewhere around 50,000 years ago. The Aborigines migration into Australia takes place at least 40,000 years before the earliest possible date that we can assign to the events of Genesis 4 and Adam's immediate descendants.

For me this is definitive proof that the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve could not possibly be the genetic progenitors of the humans who migrated to Australia, the Americas, Asia, Europe, etc tens of thousands of years before the beginning of the Neolithic age in Mesopotamia.

Now let's talk about the 'single source' for humanity that you refer to.

The earliest known human (species homo sapiens sapiens) fossils are dated to around 190,000 years ago and were found in Africa. Mitochondrial 'eve' and Y-Chromosone 'adam' (the genetic common ancestors for all humans) are dated to 150,000-200,000 years ago, also in Africa. So we have a fairly good idea when and where the first humans appeared. But this just makes the problem worse.

Mitochondrial 'eve' and Y-Chromosone 'adam' (who are honest to goodness humans) lived in Africa somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.
Whereas the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia no earlier that 10,000 BC.
The Biblical/historical Adam and Eve are neither geographically or chronologically close to the first human beings.

So we have the first humans living in Africa over 100,000 years before the time of the Biblical Adam and Eve.
And we have the globe (Australia, Americas, Asia, Europe, etc) totally populated by humans tens of thousands of years before the time of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Add to that the fact that Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans, and I was forced, as I said before 'kicking and screaming', to the conclusion that Adam and Eve are not the genetic progenitors of all humans.

DBowling wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:And further, if Australian aborigines are included among those with sentient, irrational souls. And if they aren't fully human, how did they become fully human?

How exactly can we be certain they are NOT descendants of A&E? After all, science purports that not only homo sapiens but all living things are traceable to a single source.

This is the specific question that forced me kicking and screaming to go back and reevaluate whether Scripture really claims that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans.

Here's why I am certain that the Australian Aborigines are not descendants of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Genesis 2-4 takes place within a geographical and historical context that we can identify and date.
The physical location is Mesopotamia, and the time frame is some time after 10,000 BC.

Genesis 4 describes a number of activities which we know took place after the start of the Neolithic era which began around 10,000 BC in Mesopotamia. These activities include:
- building cities
- living in tents
- forging bronze
- forging iron

These activities described in Genesis 4 place Adam and his immediate descendants in Mesopotamia sometime after the start of the Neolithic era and thus after 10,000 BC.

Now let's look at the Australian Aborigines.
The Australian Aborigines are honest to goodness humans (ie species homo sapiens sapiens) who populated Australia somewhere around 50,000 years ago. The Aborigines migration into Australia takes place at least 40,000 years before the earliest possible date that we can assign to the events of Genesis 4 and Adam's immediate descendants.

For me this is definitive proof that the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve could not possibly be the genetic progenitors of the humans who migrated to Australia, the Americas, Asia, Europe, etc tens of thousands of years before the beginning of the Neolithic age in Mesopotamia.

Now let's talk about the 'single source' for humanity that you refer to.

The earliest known human (species homo sapiens sapiens) fossils are dated to around 190,000 years ago and were found in Africa. Mitochondrial 'eve' and Y-Chromosone 'adam' (the genetic common ancestors for all humans) are dated to 150,000-200,000 years ago, also in Africa. So we have a fairly good idea when and where the first humans appeared. But this just makes the problem worse.

Mitochondrial 'eve' and Y-Chromosone 'adam' (who are honest to goodness humans) lived in Africa somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.
Whereas the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia no earlier that 10,000 BC.
The Biblical/historical Adam and Eve are neither geographically or chronologically close to the first human beings.

So we have the first humans living in Africa over 100,000 years before the time of the Biblical Adam and Eve.
And we have the globe (Australia, Americas, Asia, Europe, etc) totally populated by humans tens of thousands of years before the time of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Add to that the fact that Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans, and I was forced, as I said before 'kicking and screaming', to the conclusion that Adam and Eve are not the genetic progenitors of all humans.

What about land bridges though? If there were land bridges then it explains how they got to Australia. The depths of the oceans may not always have been as deep as they are now.

abelcainsbrother wrote: What about land bridges though? If there were land bridges then it explains how they got to Australia. The depths of the oceans may not always have been as deep as they are now.

There are others here who are more knowledgeable than me regarding the migration of humans to Australia. I'll use approximations from memory, but I think even approximations will communicate the basic principle.

Two general types of data used to determine when humans migrated to Australia are fossils and the geology that describes when the land bridges were available for humans to reach Australia. I believe both types of data converge to a window of around 50,000 years ago for humans in Australia.

I am relying on memory here, and if someone has more precise dates for the migration of humans to Australia, please feel free to jump in... I won't be offended.

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: What about land bridges though? If there were land bridges then it explains how they got to Australia. The depths of the oceans may not always have been as deep as they are now.

There are others here who are more knowledgeable than me regarding the migration of humans to Australia. I'll use approximations from memory, but I think even approximations will communicate the basic principle.

Two general types of data used to determine when humans migrated to Australia are fossils and the geology that describes when the land bridges were available for humans to reach Australia. I believe both types of data converge to a window of around 50,000 years ago for humans in Australia.

I am relying on memory here, and if someone has more precise dates for the migration of humans to Australia, please feel free to jump in... I won't be offended.

I wish I could see what fossils they are talking about.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:And further, if Australian aborigines are included among those with sentient, irrational souls. And if they aren't fully human, how did they become fully human?

How exactly can we be certain they are NOT descendants of A&E? After all, science purports that not only homo sapiens but all living things are traceable to a single source.

This is the specific question that forced me kicking and screaming to go back and reevaluate whether Scripture really claims that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans.

Here's why I am certain that the Australian Aborigines are not descendants of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Genesis 2-4 takes place within a geographical and historical context that we can identify and date.
The physical location is Mesopotamia, and the time frame is some time after 10,000 BC.

Genesis 4 describes a number of activities which we know took place after the start of the Neolithic era which began around 10,000 BC in Mesopotamia. These activities include:
- building cities
- living in tents
- forging bronze
- forging iron

These activities described in Genesis 4 place Adam and his immediate descendants in Mesopotamia sometime after the start of the Neolithic era and thus after 10,000 BC.

Now let's look at the Australian Aborigines.
The Australian Aborigines are honest to goodness humans (ie species homo sapiens sapiens) who populated Australia somewhere around 50,000 years ago. The Aborigines migration into Australia takes place at least 40,000 years before the earliest possible date that we can assign to the events of Genesis 4 and Adam's immediate descendants.

For me this is definitive proof that the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve could not possibly be the genetic progenitors of the humans who migrated to Australia, the Americas, Asia, Europe, etc tens of thousands of years before the beginning of the Neolithic age in Mesopotamia.

Now let's talk about the 'single source' for humanity that you refer to.

The earliest known human (species homo sapiens sapiens) fossils are dated to around 190,000 years ago and were found in Africa. Mitochondrial 'eve' and Y-Chromosone 'adam' (the genetic common ancestors for all humans) are dated to 150,000-200,000 years ago, also in Africa. So we have a fairly good idea when and where the first humans appeared. But this just makes the problem worse.

Mitochondrial 'eve' and Y-Chromosone 'adam' (who are honest to goodness humans) lived in Africa somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.
Whereas the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia no earlier that 10,000 BC.
The Biblical/historical Adam and Eve are neither geographically or chronologically close to the first human beings.

So we have the first humans living in Africa over 100,000 years before the time of the Biblical Adam and Eve.
And we have the globe (Australia, Americas, Asia, Europe, etc) totally populated by humans tens of thousands of years before the time of the Biblical Adam and Eve.

Add to that the fact that Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans, and I was forced, as I said before 'kicking and screaming', to the conclusion that Adam and Eve are not the genetic progenitors of all humans.

What about land bridges though? If there were land bridges then it explains how they got to Australia. The depths of the oceans may not always have been as deep as they are now.

Land bridges to Australia?
Sure but AT LEAST 40K years ago from India / Indonesia.

PaulSacramento wrote: Land bridges to Australia?
Sure but AT LEAST 40K years ago from India / Indonesia.

Paul's right. No land bridges made it all the way to Australia. Some boat travel over the ocean was required.