Reconciling Adam and Eve with Evolution

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If that were true the Paul could not have said sin and death was a result of one man.

Or that Adam was the first man in 1 Corinthians 15:45 and 1 Timothy 2:13..

Um, no. The OP explained pretty clearly how the the explanation both affirms what we know from the evidence with Paul's statement that sin came from one man. The OP description solves both these issues, with Adam being both the first full human and the single person through whom all sin came.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes i do seriously think they are new to you, otherwise you wouldn't just regurgitate fallacious naturalistic apologetics based on fallacious evidence.

The fact that you don't easily recognize all the falsehoods in the video, along with statements like this (such as failing to understand the difference between methodological and ontological naturalism) make me wonder if you understand evolution.

Do you understand evolution - even if you don't agree with it?

What does that even mean when Jesus lied about this according to you?

I never said or suggested that Jesus lied. In fact, the creationist stance suggests that Jesus lied in John 4:15.

In Christ Jesus-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The fact that you don't easily recognize all the falsehoods in the video, along with statements like this (such as failing to understand the difference between methodological and ontological naturalism) make me wonder if you understand evolution.
Maybe you don't understand evolution.
Do you understand evolution - even if you don't agree with it?
Of course i understand the ToE.
It's not that complicated.
We're speaking of "special evolution", not what they call "micro-evolution" nor abiogenesis.

The assumed natural (unconscious, knowledge-less) mechanism that by natural selection of random mutations (the struggle for life) can write DNA with (near or potential) perfection.

This must have started with just one or maybe a few base organisms.This then has to explain every kind of organism and every kind of organ, eco systems (interdependency) in every detail.
And thus there emerged birds accordingly, with all their specialised body parts, fit snugly in various aerodynamic packages.

And that's how all organisms are: Fully developed with its place and function in the eco-system.
We can learn a lot from the designs and solutions we find in living nature for our own creations.

Anyway, some ape mutated and got a big brain, smooth skin and feet developed also...
And then God came along, and He said:
"I made you on the 6th day of the week that i begun this Creation.
And now you're gonna do exactly as i tell you or bare the consequences.
Coincidently God has the same appearance as the mutated base organism.
He even made a woman pregnant, who bore Jesus Christ, who is the Word incarnate, who created everything.
He affirms Genesis (Torah) as Truth.
I never said or suggested that Jesus lied.
It's implicit.
In fact, the creationist stance suggests that Jesus lied in John 4:15.
No, why? :scratch:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,941
1,034
New York/Int'l
✟14,624.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Um, no. The OP explained pretty clearly how the the explanation both affirms what we know from the evidence with Paul's statement that sin came from one man. The OP description solves both these issues, with Adam being both the first full human and the single person through whom all sin came.

In Christ-

Papias

The context is that sin came from one man because Adam was the first man.

Even basic biological processes have primes - and what many are trying to do is solve the improbability of billions of people coming from just two people whilst explaining the incredible genetic variation within the human race. This is where theologians get the idea of an "Adamic race," and "aboriginal" human race existing at the same time. I used to believe in those types of theories also, but they become incredibly dangerous once you go deeper into where they came from, and how they do not add up with the Hebrew history and culture. There was no 6th day humans, then 8th day Adamic creation. Adam was the first human.

And, let's table that issue for a second: my other question was still not answered (concerning the need for a outer shell of literal light generated by a human, and its biological significance and implications.) Let's not forget the entire title of the Origin of Species:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

The entire paradigm was used to subjugate and dehumanize whole populations of humans on the basis that "science says they are not human." This "science" justified genocide, racism and so much more evil in the Church and secular world. The entire root of "Adam was not the first human" is dangerous, and has been for centuries - used to display one or a few "race" of people as "chosen," while others are "appropriately" fashioned on the totem of importance (based on "how human/Adamic" they are.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Scripture which proves that TE is false:

Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

What Day was the 1st Earth made? The 3rd Day. Gen 1:10 This verse is speaking of the THIRD Day.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

On the 3rd Day before the plants and herbs GREW and before the rain...

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man (
Heb-Adam) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

On the 3rd Day before the plants and herbs grew and before the rain, the Lord God (YHWH) made Adam of the dust of the ground...

The above is very clear and identifies the 3rd Day again...


Gen 2:8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

What Day were the TREES made? The 3rd Day...Gen 1:12

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after His (YHWH) kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after His kind: and God (Elohim) saw that it was good. Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Can anyone show us of another Day when man was made? TEs teach that the first man evolved from other creatures. This is NOT Scriptural, since Adam was made BEFORE any other living creature. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

Sola1517

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)
Jun 27, 2016
574
200
29
Don't ask
✟20,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
3. Population genetics reveals to a high degree of probability that the population of homo sapien sapiens has not at any time dropped below aproximately two thousand individuals.
One has to wonder if maybe the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic in a way. Romans 1 talks about "them" (an indefinite number of people) knowing the plain truth of God and rejecting it. It sounds like some sort of fall of humanity to me.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Um, no. The OP explained pretty clearly how the the explanation both affirms what we know from the evidence with Paul's statement that sin came from one man. The OP description solves both these issues, with Adam being both the first full human and the single person through whom all sin came.

In Christ-

Papias

That whole concept has been blown completely out of the water...when one considers there were others around.

The isssue is far from solved.

There would have been many people just like Adam...having families...that had families...that had families...not effected by Adams sin.

Your claim of how Adams sin spread to everyone has not been shown to work considering the others populating the earth.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One has to wonder if maybe the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic in a way. Romans 1 talks about "them" (an indefinite number of people) knowing the plain truth of God and rejecting it. It sounds like some sort of fall of humanity to me.

As a "Christian"...why do you reject scripture? (question not meant to insult)
 
Upvote 0

Sola1517

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)
Jun 27, 2016
574
200
29
Don't ask
✟20,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As a "Christian"...why do you reject scripture? (question not meant to insult)
Dohp, never mind! It's always a good thing to point someone back to Scripture. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,798
967
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟247,706.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, that Adam and Eve were members of much larger, interbreeding population. In fact, 2,000 is probably too small. At least many thousands very similar transitional ape/humans.



The others were not ensouled. Only descendants of Adam and Eve were ensouled.



No. This isn't obvious to most people, but those of us working in genealogy, or biology, or similar fields are familiar with the fact that in a population, any given member in the past, in most cases, is the ancestor of everyone in the population after a while.

Let's use an example. Consider any person from a long time ago, say, Pharaoh Ramesses II. He lived around 1260 BC. He had a wife (Nefertari), and kids. Kids will have kids, and since all their descendants will be descended from Ramesses, the number will grow (you can also see this by the fact that Thomas Jefferson already has thousands of descendants after just 200 years, or the fact that there are today many millions of people descended from the few dozen passengers on the Mayflower).

So by 1000 BC Ramesses will have thousands of descendants, and simple math shows that by 800 BC his descendants will surpass the population of Egypt at the time. Of course, many of those will be double or triple descendants, but the upshot is that by then most people in Egypt then will be his descendant. Some of those people will live near the borders, or will have migrated over those centuries, so will be in neighboring countries (Assyria, Babylon, etc.) They too will have kids, and the same spread will happen, so by 600 BC a good chunk of the populations in those areas will be descended from them, and by 400 BC, most will be. The same goes for Asia Minor (Turkey), Greece and Italy by around 400 AD, and into Europe by 600 AD. Note that this happens regardless of whether or not the population is growing.

Continuing on, most of Southern Europe would be descended from Ramesses by 1000 AD (along with some of Northern Europe) and then most of Northern Europe by 1400 AD, and practically all by 1800 AD. Notice that you can do the same thing with most anyone from Ramesses time who had at least a few kids. You could also start in, say, Sweden and work south, or whatever, and still get a similar result.

So, being of mostly French and German Ancestry, I'm descended from Ramesses, as you likely are (unless you are not European, Middle Eastern or North African).

All that happened without there ever being a population bottleneck. Just like Adam and Eve, Ramesses & Nefertari were never the only ones on earth, yet, within a few millenia, everyone on earth will be descended from them. We agree that Ramesses and Nefertari, like all humans, evolved from earlier apes.

Now, imagine a population of hominids in Africa. At some point, say, a million years ago, designate two as "Adam & Eve". From a Christian standpoint, God gives these two the first souls - they are the first "full humans", even though they are very similar in most respects to everyone else at the time, and so their children can interbreed with the others. All their descendants also receive souls, and hence are also "fully human".

Now the same thing we saw with Ramesses happens, and within a few thousands years (say, by 960,000 years ago) everyone on earth is descended from them, and is fully human, and there never was a population bottleneck of just 2 people.

You many not agree with this situation described by many churches. Regardless, do you see how this works, being completely consistent in every material way with the evolutionary history accepted by science?
The problem is what you proposed for Ramesses also applies to every person that was around with Ramesses. So they too have the same possibility of having just as many decedents. If you apply this to Adam and Eve who were now among even more people than the 2000 you mention then every one of those with Adam and Eve have the same potential to produce decedents that dominate the world. In fact if you calculated the odds that Adam and Eve became the dominant pair who produced all the people of the world they would have one chance in however many couples who were around with them or even before them. So the chances are there are many people who dont come from the Adam and Eve line and could come from another couple who were around at the same time.

It's not "just because" it's the consensus, but rather that the fact that it is the consensus is part of how we decide if something is true, in addition to the evidence. For instance, It's the scientific consensus that the HIV virus causes the AIDS disease. In addition to that fact, some of us have looked at some evidence. Whether we have looked at evidence directly or not, most of us accept that the HIV virus is responsible for AIDS at least partly due to the scientific consensus. Do you agree?
HIV virus is different as it can be tested and verified. Its a single issue that can be defined clearly. Evolution is a theory that has many components to it. There are different interpretations to evolution and there are differing views on many of the components that make up evolution theory. For example most people support micro evolution where a type of creature can vary its some of its features such as color, size,thickness of hair for example. This same ability is assumed to apply being able to create complete creatures as well. We can directly test the micro level evolution in the lab but we cant test the macro level and this is assumed based on speciation, the fossil records and interpretations of anatomy all of which are subjective.

But the important point here is that many tests have actually shown that there are limits for how life can mutate itself into other features and forms and actually show other reasons why life changes that are non adaptive processes that dont require Darwin's theory of evolution. We have discovered more from new technologies such as genomics which are showing a different picture to what evolution says. Much of the idea of evolution was formed from observation rather then testing and detailed tests on the processes themselves.

Certainly. Consider the idea that things are made of atoms. That idea is supported by scientists who are Atheists, as well as some that are Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and so on. The fact that atomic theory is supported by those of widely varying religion supports the idea that it is actually true, because it shows that it's support is not just due to some religious bias, but has actual evidence supporting it.

That's also true of evolution. In fact, the majority of those who support evolution in the United States are Christian. Evolution is supported by scientists who are Christians, Atheists, Jews, Hindus and so on. The fact that evolution is supported by those of widely varying religion supports the idea that it is actually true, because it shows that it's support is not just due to some religious bias, but actual evidence.
Humans are trying to work out what the reality of life is. Science is one way of trying to explain things in a certain way and it really isn't dealing whether that something is true or not. Just because something may add up to a man made measuring idea doesn't mean it also explains the truth or reality of it or how it came about. But science also tends to lead some people in a world view that everything has a material explanation even if it doesn't. I like Professor Lennox's explanation of how a world view logic can make scientific descriptions of things have some sort of creative power as well when all they are is descriptions. That maths can calculate whats happening in the universe but it doesn't create it.

Some people think that just because we have described or calculated something that they have also found the answers to how it came about. All humans are doing is trying to put an explanation onto something we dont really understand in the bigger scheme of things. For all we know our ideas of things like gravity, dark matter, and the expanding universe are wrong in the bigger picture and some are even saying this as we discover more. New discoveries are questioning the ideas of science and they dont fit with the logic of some of the theories and views science has made such as with quantum physics. In fact in some ways you could argue that some of these new discoveries are pointing to something beyond what science could explain.

Not really. There are millions of scientists, who are people, so of course you can find one here or there that support any idea, such as alien abductions, creationism, or whatever
The difference and challenges that some scientists are making with evolution isn't a major thing that it should put people in one corner or the other. The challenges are coming in small doses and gradually changing the way we see things. For example how evolution always thought that most of our DNA was junk. New discoveries are showing more and more has function. This then causes evolution to have to account for how that complexity came about through a blind process. Or how we have discovered other non adaptive processes such as HGT, symbiosis, epigentics, developmental evolution, plasticity ect which cause life to change without Darwin's evolution. All these mechanisms take away from evolution by injecting ways life can come about and transfer genetic material without adaptation through mutations and natural selection.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Practically all scientists (over 95%) support evolution and reject creationism, and that support has been constant since around 1950, because so many new discoveries have confirmed evolution, such as the whole field of genetics.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
The problem is you are creating a false dilemma by making out there are only two choices here. Its not a case of evolution verses creationism. There are several positions and there are more than one view about evolution. As I stated before most people and this would include the scientists and religious people support some form of evolution. But there is a difference in the small amount of evolution we see within a type of creature and the extended power Darwinian evolution gives to mutations and natural selection being able to create new life forms from genetic material that was there in the first place. The important thing here is when you test the ideas Darwin's evolution doesn't have the scientific verification from direct testing.

Its a great idea and sound logical but it dont pan out that way. Mutations are basically errors and damage to life and not the source of greater complexity and fitter life. Even Darwin sort of knew this when they were doing experiments with artificial selection. They could make variations of dogs for example but they couldn't go to far away from the natural wild state of their genetic makeups as it started to introduce damage such as diseases and deformities.

The idea that "a growing proportion of scientists are rejecting evolution" is simply a creationist lie - often repeated over the years, but just as false now as it was in 1980, or 1985, or 1990, or 1995, or 2000, or 2005, or 2010.......
Once again you are taking the debate to extremes. the scientists are not rejecting evolution as a whole but some of the ideas it promotes such as mutations and natural selection are the source fro all of life's complexity and variety. This is being shown to be wrong and there are non adaptive processes that are more responsible for how life came about and changes. What was once thought of a simple life back in time is regarded as just as complex in its own way such as the Cambrian explosion which produced most of life's body plans in a very short time in evolutionary terms. Their features were just as complex and varied and life has been more about tapping into existing complexity of life and making adjustments to that.

Processes such as HGT and discoveries made through other areas of science such as development biology have shown that life can change and gain new forms beyond what darwins theory tries to say. Many contradictions in molecular science has shown that it doesn't support the tree of life Darwin made. Other scientists have found through testing that the mechanisms that evolution claims created life doesn't work the way they said. It relies on mutations being much more creative and powerful that they are. tests show that they are almost always a restriction to creating fitter and more complex life. So its not a case of big challenges but smaller ones which can add up to undermining some of the tenets of evolution and its more of a case of the type of evolution and the ability it has and including other mechanisms that are non evolutionary that contribute to how life came about and changes.

These are scientific supports and have nothing to do with creationism. Thats what I am meaning when people should study the topic more and not just take things on word. By making the debate a black and white one or evolution verses creation is overlooking a vast amount of evidence that adds context and meaning to what the reality is.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

Whether God set it up to work that way, or is constantly active behind the scenes (such as by making the beneficial mutations) isn't a big deal to me. After all, we all agree that it is God doing the creating, whether that's in the more deistic form of preset mechanisms, or in the ongoing form.
Yes I agree and that is the important thing. Even if evolution is as Darwin sates then the mechanism was created by God and purposely setup that way to allow for life to use so that can live on planet earth. What I find a worry though is that Darwin's theory is also used as a way of disproving that there needed to be a God and that natural processes can create life itself without the need for a God. Darwin's theory also has consequences for life itself in the survival of the fittest and takes way the importance and value of life. It makes life a case of those who are good enough will make it and too bad for the rest. It causes people to see things in terms of physical and material value rather than a divine view.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dohp, never mind! It's always a good thing to point someone back to Scripture. Thank you.

Sola, in your post you had said "One has to wonder if maybe the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic in a way."

One way we can know it wasn't symbolic is the way Paul presents it and bases instruction upon it. For instance in Pauls letter to Timothy we read in 1st Tim 2:12 Pauls instructions to women followed by the reason why:

The reason why was this "For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression"

I see no reason why Paul would use a story or symbolic account...an event that didn't happen...to base such instruction on.

The verses presented in 1st Tim are just one more the Theo-Evo sect needs to change to fit the views of evolutionism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KWCrazy
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sin is normal for evolutionary man. Besides, the beast and the world had already fallen before Adam and Eve materialized like Star Trek.

The bible has pretty much a different description of how Adam and Eve came about. You know, Adam formed from the dirt then Eve from his rib.

....But, if you want to stick with the x-tra biblical "Adam and Eve materialized like Star Trek." stick, have at it. I need the humor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KWCrazy
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,406
60
✟92,791.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The bible has pretty much a different description of how Adam and Eve came about. You know, Adam formed from the dirt then Eve from his rib.

....But, if you want to stick with the x-tra biblical "Adam and Eve materialized like Star Trek." stick, have at it. I need the humor.
I believe Adam and Eve incarnate from another world. They were educated adults in the Bible story, they spoke the same language as the fallen beast. They had been instructed about the will of their superiors, the beast also knew what was expected.

There is a much larger story obviously.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I believe Adam and Eve incarnate from another world. They were educated adults in the Bible story, they spoke the same language as the fallen beast. They had been instructed about the will of their superiors, the beast also knew what was expected.

There is a much larger story obviously.

I'm sure there is. But there's no reason to believe it.
 
Upvote 0