Page 3 of 4
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:03 pm
by RickD
neo-x wrote:RickD wrote:Ivellious wrote:And I wouldn't say Adam and Eve couldn't be based on real people, either...though, like Neo, I don't see it possible to say that they were the first humans ever.
Actually, on an interesting note, genetic evidence suggests that at one point in the (relatively) recent past, the species homo sapiens went through a critical bottleneck in its population, where there may have only been a few dozen individuals alive. This tiny group gave rise to the rest of humanity today. Honestly, it would actually make a lot of sense if Adam and Eve were based on people in that group or a similar event in history.
Or maybe eight people who gave birth to the rest of humanity alive today? If you concede a few dozen, is it beyond the scope of reason to you, that it could possibly be as few as eight?
That still wouldn't make them the first humans, the point is lost either way.
It just would mean all humanity alive today could have sprung from Noah and his sons. Noah + his wife + Shem, Ham, Japeth, and their wives= eight.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:05 pm
by Ivellious
The only problem with the idea of Noah and his family repopulating the Earth after a global flood is time. The genetic bottleneck I referred to happened tens of thousands of years ago, before humans even left sub-Saharan Africa. Unless Noah's ark somehow occurred many thousands of years before human civilization existed (which wouldn't be possible), then Noah's global flood is bunk.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:07 pm
by neo-x
RickD wrote:neo-x wrote:Just aS a side point, it posits a problem back at your position, especially oec, if Adam is real, then so is the creation story, meaning you can't really say adam is real but the story is not really as it reads to being yec, ofcourse its yec then.
Huh? How so? I believe Adam is real, and I believe the creation story is real and literal. And it fits into an OEC/PC worldview.
Because the same way Adam is referenced, the later authors referenced six day creation. If adam is literal then so is the story, as is.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:15 pm
by RickD
Ivellious wrote:The only problem with the idea of Noah and his family repopulating the Earth after a global flood is time. The genetic bottleneck I referred to happened tens of thousands of years ago, before humans even left sub-Saharan Africa. Unless Noah's ark somehow occurred many thousands of years before human civilization existed (which wouldn't be possible), then Noah's global flood is bunk.
Who's to say Noah's flood didn't happen tens of thousands of years ago?
then Noah's global flood is bunk.
Bingo! You're catching on!
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-waters-of-the-flood
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:22 pm
by Ivellious
Haha, Rick, I'm confused...I mean, obviously I don't believe the flood was global or killed all life on Earth. Were your questions purely hypothetical?
And yes, I suppose Noah's flood could in theory have happened ages ago. But for it to happen long enough ago to re-populate the Earth and spread to every edge of the planet, it would have to have happened so long ago that the story doesn't make sense. Like, before humans had done anything outside of hunting and gathering food.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:24 pm
by RickD
neo-x wrote:RickD wrote:neo-x wrote:Just aS a side point, it posits a problem back at your position, especially oec, if Adam is real, then so is the creation story, meaning you can't really say adam is real but the story is not really as it reads to being yec, ofcourse its yec then.
Huh? How so? I believe Adam is real, and I believe the creation story is real and literal. And it fits into an OEC/PC worldview.
Because the same way Adam is referenced, the later authors referenced six day creation. If adam is literal then so is the story, as is.
They referenced a six "yom" creation. You know Yom has several
literal meanings. Please don't start an argument about the meaning of Yom here.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:30 pm
by RickD
Ivellious wrote:
Haha, Rick, I'm confused...I mean, obviously I don't believe the flood was global or killed all life on Earth. Were your questions purely hypothetical?
Ivellious, as an OEC, I believe the flood was local(geographically), but universal in the extent that it killed all of humanity, and all animals associated with humanity. Maybe humanity hadn't filled the earth yet, and was localized to the region of the flood.
Ivellious wrote:
And yes, I suppose Noah's flood could in theory have happened ages ago. But for it to happen long enough ago to re-populate the Earth and spread to every edge of the planet, it would have to have happened so long ago that the story doesn't make sense. Like, before humans had done anything outside of hunting and gathering food.
Do a search on when the land bridges disappeared. I don't know for sure, but I bet it wasn't as long ago as you may think.
This talks about hominids and humanity a little, for reference:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-s-p ... d-hominids
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:41 pm
by Philip
I find it incredible that anyone who has hung out on these pages any length of time tries to float the fiction that Genesis must be interpreted as teaching literal, 24-hour creation days and/or that the flood was global. But I keep seeing it over and over. Why?
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:34 pm
by Ivellious
Probably because it is by far the most popular belief among Christians in the US, and since there are more Christians in the US than anywhere else, it makes sense that YEC and literal interpretations of Genesis are everywhere here, too.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:53 pm
by neo-x
RickD wrote:neo-x wrote:RickD wrote:neo-x wrote:Just aS a side point, it posits a problem back at your position, especially oec, if Adam is real, then so is the creation story, meaning you can't really say adam is real but the story is not really as it reads to being yec, ofcourse its yec then.
Huh? How so? I believe Adam is real, and I believe the creation story is real and literal. And it fits into an OEC/PC worldview.
Because the same way Adam is referenced, the later authors referenced six day creation. If adam is literal then so is the story, as is.
They referenced a six "yom" creation. You know Yom has several
literal meanings. Please don't start an argument about the meaning of Yom here.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
Rick, you can believe that. I think it's inconsistent. I really don't think there is any margin in there. My point is either you accept the genesis story as it is which is "unapologetically" YEC, or like me you reject it completely. Don't pick and choose from within the story because now you are opening yourself to the same problems you accuse T.E's of.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:36 am
by RickD
neo-x wrote:RickD wrote:neo-x wrote:RickD wrote:neo-x wrote:Just aS a side point, it posits a problem back at your position, especially oec, if Adam is real, then so is the creation story, meaning you can't really say adam is real but the story is not really as it reads to being yec, ofcourse its yec then.
Huh? How so? I believe Adam is real, and I believe the creation story is real and literal. And it fits into an OEC/PC worldview.
Because the same way Adam is referenced, the later authors referenced six day creation. If adam is literal then so is the story, as is.
They referenced a six "yom" creation. You know Yom has several
literal meanings. Please don't start an argument about the meaning of Yom here.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
Rick, you can believe that. I think it's inconsistent. I really don't think there is any margin in there. My point is either you accept the genesis story as it is which is "unapologetically" YEC, or like me you reject it completely. Don't pick and choose from within the story because now you are opening yourself to the same problems you accuse T.E's of.
That's pretty sad Neo. You throw away the creation story in Genesis because you think the only way to interpret it is through a YEC lens. So since you think YEC is wrong, then you're forcing yourself to reject scripture.
Neo, God wrote scripture. God created the universe. There's no contradiction between scripture and nature. Tbh, you are the first person I've met, with as much intelligence as you have, that calls himself a believer yet rejects (parts of) scripture because it doesn't match up with your worldview(evolutionary). You're taking yourself down a dangerous road Neo.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:00 pm
by Silvertusk
This is the way I see it for what it worth.
The way Genesis talks about Adam to begin with (and this is also according to the footnotes in my copy of the Bible) is as "Mankind" rather than a single man. It is only a bit later that it refers to Adam (Genesis 2:20) as a single man - therefore I believe Adam as an individual was chosen out of a pre-existing race of specially created beings (Homo-sapiens - Genesis 1:26-28) and placed into Eden. Therefore I believe he was an historical person.
Any thoughts?
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:23 pm
by RickD
Silvertusk wrote:This is the way I see it for what it worth.
The way Genesis talks about Adam to begin with (and this is also according to the footnotes in my copy of the Bible) is as "Mankind" rather than a single man. It is only a bit later that it refers to Adam (Genesis 2:20) as a single man - therefore I believe Adam as an individual was chosen out of a pre-existing race of specially created beings (Homo-sapiens - Genesis 1:26-28) and placed into Eden. Therefore I believe he was an historical person.
Any thoughts?
I thought you were leaning towards theistic evolution?
" a pre-existing race of specially created beings". Sounds more like some kind of creationism, not evolution.
If you are correct about Adam being one of a pre-existing race, then why was there no helper suitable for him?
Genesis 2:20:
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the 1sky, and to every beast of the field, but for 2Adam there was not found aa helper 3suitable for him.
Maybe God had to create Eve because there were no suitable helpers because the pre-existing race was only fat chicks?
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:56 pm
by Silvertusk
RickD wrote:Silvertusk wrote:This is the way I see it for what it worth.
The way Genesis talks about Adam to begin with (and this is also according to the footnotes in my copy of the Bible) is as "Mankind" rather than a single man. It is only a bit later that it refers to Adam (Genesis 2:20) as a single man - therefore I believe Adam as an individual was chosen out of a pre-existing race of specially created beings (Homo-sapiens - Genesis 1:26-28) and placed into Eden. Therefore I believe he was an historical person.
Any thoughts?
I thought you were leaning towards theistic evolution?
" a pre-existing race of specially created beings". Sounds more like some kind of creationism, not evolution.
If you are correct about Adam being one of a pre-existing race, then why was there no helper suitable for him?
Genesis 2:20:
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the 1sky, and to every beast of the field, but for 2Adam there was not found aa helper 3suitable for him.
Maybe God had to create Eve because there were no suitable helpers because the pre-existing race was only fat chicks?
I am leaning towards theistic evolution. Doesn't mean that God can't create things if he wants to. As with the helper, maybe Eve was selected as well a a helper for Adam when he was placed in Eden. Who knows? But one thing is for sure, both you and I know that the literal account cannot be true. Unlike neo however I refuse to throw Genesis out but instead seek a reconciliation between it and the current scientific discoveries.
Re: Eyeless fish disprove intelligent design?
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:11 pm
by RickD
Silvertusk wrote:
I am leaning towards theistic evolution. Doesn't mean that God can't create things if he wants to. As with the helper, maybe Eve was selected as well a a helper for Adam when he was placed in Eden. Who knows? But one thing is for sure, both you and I know that the literal account cannot be true. Unlike neo however I refuse to throw Genesis out but instead seek a reconciliation between it and the current scientific discoveries.
Maybe you can create a new creation stance based on special creation and theistic evolution. You could call it...theistic crevolution.
As far as Eve being selected as a helper in Eden, I'm sticking with the "fat chicks" theory.
As a OEC, I believe the creation account is most definitely a
literal account. I just don't think it's as literal and concrete, as most YEC interpretations.
I think I'm gonna ask Hana to add another creation stance in the profile for you. Theistic Crevolution. And look for my upcoming dissertation on the "Fat Chick Theory".
