Help! need help debating an evolutionist!

[Cabal]

I'd just like to point out that while not all TEs believe there was a literal Adam, some (such as myself) do.

Indeed - if I implied that my TE views on anything were something that should be more general, then I apologise.

On one level, it'd be really great to attempt to build a somewhat standardised TE doctrine, but on the other hand I wouldn't want to construct essentially a new denomination purely for incorporating ToE as it really is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things.

 

[lucaspa]

I'd just like to point out that while not all TEs believe there was a literal Adam, some (such as myself) do.

I'm sorry, Melethiel, but a literal Adam is inconsistent with evolution. You can't believe in a literal Adam and be a TE. You might be an evolutionary creationist.

For the creationism - evolution continuum, see here:
Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States | NCSE

 

[Melethiel]

I'm sorry, Melethiel, but a literal Adam is inconsistent with evolution. You can't believe in a literal Adam and be a TE. You might be an evolutionary creationist.

For the creationism - evolution continuum, see here:
Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States | NCSE

Of course it's not. Note, I did NOT say that I believe Adam was the only Homo sapiens alive. Can I believe that he was the first Homo sapiens endowed with a soul, or perhaps one of a group but given federal headship, and the first to sin against God and fall? I don't see why not, as that is a theological point, not a scientific one.

Considering there are quite a few TEs here who believe that there was a literal Adam, you really can't make such a claim.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'm sorry, Melethiel, but a literal Adam is inconsistent with evolution. You can't believe in a literal Adam and be a TE. You might be an evolutionary creationist.

Are you talking about literal Adam as in "made from dust and Eve taken from his rib" Adam? Because it is certainly possible to work an Adam-figure into the evolutionary history of humanity. You are correct in saying that a "literal Adam" as described literally in Genesis wouldn't work though.

 

[PaladinValer]

I second Mel and Dark above.

 

[lucaspa]

Note, I did NOT say that I believe Adam was the only Homo sapiens alive. Can I believe that he was the first Homo sapiens endowed with a soul, or perhaps one of a group but given federal headship, and the first to sin against God and fall? I don't see why not, as that is a theological point, not a scientific one.

Then your theological point is going against scripture. Genesis 2-3 is an allegory. That is clear from the "names" Adam and Eve. In Hebrew the words "adam" and "eve" are "dirt" and "hearth". So you are not dealing with 2 literal human beings with names "Adam" or "Eve", but 2 allegorical characters. Characters standing for each of us.

Considering there are quite a few TEs here who believe that there was a literal Adam, you really can't make such a claim.

Yes, I can. Ideas are independent of the people who profess to believe in them. The idea of TE does not allow a literal Adam -- a first man. In an evolutionary transition, there is no single individual that you can point to and say "this is the first member of a new species". Evolution deals with populations. What this means is that, whatever the supposed "TEs" believe, what they believe is not TE. They need to find a more correct label for their beliefs.

 

[lucaspa]

Are you talking about literal Adam as in "made from dust and Eve taken from his rib" Adam? Because it is certainly possible to work an Adam-figure into the evolutionary history of humanity. You are correct in saying that a "literal Adam" as described literally in Genesis wouldn't work though.

What "Adam" figure? One who is in the Garden of Eden, eats a forbidden fruit, and "falls" such that childbirth is painful after that, farming is difficult, etc? An Adam who passes down that tendency to sin to all his offspring? Of our 30,000 genes, which one was introduced suddenly into the genome as the "sin" gene so it could be inherited?

What type of an "Adam figure" are you talking about and what relationship does it have to the Genesis 2-3 story?

 

[Dark_Lite]

What "Adam" figure? One who is in the Garden of Eden, eats a forbidden fruit, and "falls" such that childbirth is painful after that, farming is difficult, etc? An Adam who passes down that tendency to sin to all his offspring? Of our 30,000 genes, which one was introduced suddenly into the genome as the "sin" gene so it could be inherited?

What type of an "Adam figure" are you talking about and what relationship does it have to the Genesis 2-3 story?

My personal take on Adam and Eve is Mitochondrial Eve and Mitochondrial Adam. I am well aware of what they actually imply, such as living millennia apart, and being part of larger populations. The Fall in this context is more of an insight that humanity gains and they turn from God by gaining it. Sin itself is metaphysical; it stains the soul, not the body. Thus, we're not going to find a sin gene.

However, Mitochondrial Eve is the ancestor of all currently living humans. That's enough for me. The creation account is clearly allegorical, but if someone needs to justify something akin to a literal Adam and Eve, it is possible to do so using science. Obviously you're not going to get exactly what is described in the Genesis creation account(s), but you can come close.

 

[student ad x]

MOD HAT
​

​

And on that note, staff is closing the thread for review of multiple reported posts. If a thread cleanup is possible, the thread will be reopened. Thank you for your patience in advance.
​

MOD HAT​