question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:01 pm
http://themadmanchronicles.com/2014/02/ ... and-years/ Is what this article says true? I'm worried about whether or not the story of Adam and Eve is true or not.
Evidence for God from Science
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
question for Old Earth Creationists
Page 1 of 2
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:31 pm
Why are you worried?
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:16 pm
First poster here - but let me take a whack at this. I don't mean to publish a novel here, but there's some seriously silly thinking in the post you linked to. And somebody needs to cut it down to size. There are a number reasons that you don't have to take this guy seriously.
1 - This isn't even really an article, per se. It seems more like a blog post. Anybody can post a challenging blog post and get people all stirred up. A blog requires zero credibility to create. What is this guy's credibility? Some of his other blog posts have titles so crude that I'd rather not quote them for fear of losing my freshly-registered account. People with zero credibility post lots of wild things all the time. Which leads to my second point.
2 - If you make a claim, you have to own it. And it's hard to make heads or tails of what this author is even trying to claim. He says a lot of hostile things, but doesn't seem to follow up on them. Just picking out a little piece of this post: he seems to indirectly refer to Christian beliefs as "illogical", but never shows how. If you're going to claim something is illogical, you're going to have to present a false premise or some sort of logical fallacy that has been committed. I think what he means to say is that he believes Christian beliefs are unreasonable. But even then, he doesn't present reasoning. If a person wants to challenge a view, they'll have to provide a real argument. I could claim that my wife is an alien. But if I can't provide a good reason, I'm going to look awfully foolish. (Although I do often wonder why her "curling iron" is so freakishly otherworldly-looking...)
3 - He seems to claim that this one study (which I'll get to) leads to one of two conclusions. He says that either Adam and Eve were black or that all of Judeo-Christian belief is false. I would love to read his reasoning about these claims - but again, there is none. I'm left to assume that he means to say that this single study infallibly "proves" that the oldest humans were black (so?) and that the idea of Adam and Eve is somehow illegitimate in light of such. I'm not sure why it would matter what Adam and Eve looked like - and for the sake of conversation, I don't see what it would matter how far back one "mutation" could be traced. How do these things undermine a literal Adam and Eve?
4 - It would be nice to read the original source to which this author refers. But I seriously can't find it. There's a link to a database on which the article is allegedly hosted. But I've tried searching for entire phrases and sentences in the author's quote and I get no direct matches. I tried Googling it too - and all I can find is similar commentary. Back me up here - is it MIA?
5 - Regarding the bit about how this mutation dates back to when "modern" humans "had not yet evolved": I haven't even mentioned evolution yet - and it's beyond the scope of this reply to present the exhaustive case against it. And without the original article, it'll be hard to talk specifics. But I will say that the Intelligent Design crowd is doing work that has left Darwinism spinning, namely regarding the origin and of digital information in DNA, irreducibly complexity in the cell, and the lack of correlation between macro-evolution and the fossil record. A number of sources are helpful here: Greg Koukl's Why I'm not an Evolutionist (lecture), Stephen C. Meyer's Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
Just to list a few reasons why you do not need to be worried about this one little blog post. And I'm not even especially knowledgable about any of these things. Do your homework on this stuff bit by bit and you'll be a lot harder to shake. My encouragements to you.
1 - This isn't even really an article, per se. It seems more like a blog post. Anybody can post a challenging blog post and get people all stirred up. A blog requires zero credibility to create. What is this guy's credibility? Some of his other blog posts have titles so crude that I'd rather not quote them for fear of losing my freshly-registered account. People with zero credibility post lots of wild things all the time. Which leads to my second point.
2 - If you make a claim, you have to own it. And it's hard to make heads or tails of what this author is even trying to claim. He says a lot of hostile things, but doesn't seem to follow up on them. Just picking out a little piece of this post: he seems to indirectly refer to Christian beliefs as "illogical", but never shows how. If you're going to claim something is illogical, you're going to have to present a false premise or some sort of logical fallacy that has been committed. I think what he means to say is that he believes Christian beliefs are unreasonable. But even then, he doesn't present reasoning. If a person wants to challenge a view, they'll have to provide a real argument. I could claim that my wife is an alien. But if I can't provide a good reason, I'm going to look awfully foolish. (Although I do often wonder why her "curling iron" is so freakishly otherworldly-looking...)
3 - He seems to claim that this one study (which I'll get to) leads to one of two conclusions. He says that either Adam and Eve were black or that all of Judeo-Christian belief is false. I would love to read his reasoning about these claims - but again, there is none. I'm left to assume that he means to say that this single study infallibly "proves" that the oldest humans were black (so?) and that the idea of Adam and Eve is somehow illegitimate in light of such. I'm not sure why it would matter what Adam and Eve looked like - and for the sake of conversation, I don't see what it would matter how far back one "mutation" could be traced. How do these things undermine a literal Adam and Eve?
4 - It would be nice to read the original source to which this author refers. But I seriously can't find it. There's a link to a database on which the article is allegedly hosted. But I've tried searching for entire phrases and sentences in the author's quote and I get no direct matches. I tried Googling it too - and all I can find is similar commentary. Back me up here - is it MIA?
5 - Regarding the bit about how this mutation dates back to when "modern" humans "had not yet evolved": I haven't even mentioned evolution yet - and it's beyond the scope of this reply to present the exhaustive case against it. And without the original article, it'll be hard to talk specifics. But I will say that the Intelligent Design crowd is doing work that has left Darwinism spinning, namely regarding the origin and of digital information in DNA, irreducibly complexity in the cell, and the lack of correlation between macro-evolution and the fossil record. A number of sources are helpful here: Greg Koukl's Why I'm not an Evolutionist (lecture), Stephen C. Meyer's Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
Just to list a few reasons why you do not need to be worried about this one little blog post. And I'm not even especially knowledgable about any of these things. Do your homework on this stuff bit by bit and you'll be a lot harder to shake. My encouragements to you.
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:37 am
Welcome, Cloud. 
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:32 pm
Thanks! Loving the community already.
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:43 am
Of course, the big issue for Christians isn't really any of that stuff.
St Paul said it best when He said this:
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
The undeniable truth of this is simply this part:
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Not Adam and Eve, not evolution, not ID, not ANYTHING.
ALL that truly matters is Christ and His resurrection.
St Paul said it best when He said this:
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
The undeniable truth of this is simply this part:
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Not Adam and Eve, not evolution, not ID, not ANYTHING.
ALL that truly matters is Christ and His resurrection.
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:12 am
--Jaroslav Pelikan"If Christ is risen - then nothing else matters.
And if Christ is not risen - then nothing else matters."
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:37 am
Indeed:RickD wrote:--Jaroslav Pelikan"If Christ is risen - then nothing else matters.
And if Christ is not risen - then nothing else matters."
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition."
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:50 am
I like tradition. It gives me the freedom to ignore non-traditional gibbersish.PaulSacramento wrote:Indeed:RickD wrote:--Jaroslav Pelikan"If Christ is risen - then nothing else matters.
And if Christ is not risen - then nothing else matters."
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition."
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:54 am
Indeed, as long as we always remember " where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide".Byblos wrote:I like tradition. It gives me the freedom to ignore non-traditional gibbersish.PaulSacramento wrote:Indeed:RickD wrote:--Jaroslav Pelikan"If Christ is risen - then nothing else matters.
And if Christ is not risen - then nothing else matters."
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition."
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:33 am
If you want some sort of science, look to reputable sources for it.Annonymus wrote:http://themadmanchronicles.com/2014/02/ ... and-years/ Is what this article says true? I'm worried about whether or not the story of Adam and Eve is true or not.
The reality of Adam and Eve in any form is not consistent with any data,
which rather indicates a much longer and more complex history.
How or whether that should affect one's religious beliefs is up to the
individual.
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:04 am
There IS a form of "reality" in which Adam and Eve's existence as ACTUAL people (not just metaphors) is feasible:Audie wrote:If you want some sort of science, look to reputable sources for it.Annonymus wrote:http://themadmanchronicles.com/2014/02/ ... and-years/ Is what this article says true? I'm worried about whether or not the story of Adam and Eve is true or not.
The reality of Adam and Eve in any form is not consistent with any data,
which rather indicates a much longer and more complex history.
How or whether that should affect one's religious beliefs is up to the
individual.
Adam and Eve were the first fully human, with soul and spirit.
It may be possible that there were even created as opposed to evolved ( not really relevant to be honest at this point).
Genesis gives us TWO creation accounts, one in general about life on this planet ( Genesis 1) and one in specific about life in the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden ( the creation account IN Eden is also a bit different then the rest of the world by the way) and as such, they are unique to the rest of the planet.
In short, Adam and Eve can certainly be two real people without conflicting with our current understanding of biological decedencies.
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:24 am
First to get souls, that is unarguable.
The sole two ancestors of all humankind is unsupportable.
What role do you see for them?
The sole two ancestors of all humankind is unsupportable.
What role do you see for them?
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:50 am
I don't understand your question...Audie wrote:First to get souls, that is unarguable.
The sole two ancestors of all humankind is unsupportable.
What role do you see for them?
What roles do I see for Adam and Eve?
Role in what way?
Re: question for Old Earth Creationists
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:58 am
Like, ancestor to all mankind, the cause of all suffering,those biblical things.PaulSacramento wrote:I don't understand your question...Audie wrote:First to get souls, that is unarguable.
The sole two ancestors of all humankind is unsupportable.
What role do you see for them?
What roles do I see for Adam and Eve?
Role in what way?