- Feb 18, 2021
- 2,276
- 1,119
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Perhaps a a bit of envy that I am not the one benefiting from the $$. /sAre you bragging, or complaining?
Upvote
0
Perhaps a a bit of envy that I am not the one benefiting from the $$. /sAre you bragging, or complaining?
Their are hundreds of denominations that make up the Christian faith but I referring to those that hold to a literal reading so I would expect that would be a fair amount of crossover.Isnt the faith made up of multiple minority sects?
Their are hundreds of denominations that make up the Christian faith but I referring to those that hold to a literal reading so I would expect that would be a fair amount of crossover.
You write well, @sfsThe Fox News article is not particularly accurate, by the way. Specifically, it mischaracterizes an article I wrote for BioLogos on this subject.
Yes, THEY DO. That is the irrefutable science. The critical distinction is GENEALOGICAL ancestry. Genetic ancestry becomes meaningless LONG before 100,000 years. I'm not going to debate the science, because its validity is acknowledged by secular and even atheist scientists. All I can say is: Read the book.
No, the preexisting humans were not, in Swamidass' theory, "amoral beasts." They were human, but not theologically human, not in an intimate relationship with God, and not capable of sinning. The book discusses extensively the meaning of the term "human."
You're offering knee-jerk observations, not having read the book. Read the book. It has received much wider recognition than Craig's.
I think I understand the concept of genealogical ancestry... but I'd have thought it would be difficult to get the entire population of humans given how far they spread and how isolated some remote populations in Asia, Africa and Australia can be.Yes, they do. Go back not too many thousand years and everyone who was an ancestor to anyone alive today was an ancestor to everyone. That's because the number of descendants doubles (on average) every generation.
It also makes humanity something that is inherited physically but not genetically, which is just odd. To me, it's a hopeless attempt to force a completely non-scientific text into a scientific understanding of the world.
The key paper on the subject is a modeling study from 2004: Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans | NatureI think I understand the concept of genealogical ancestry... but I'd have thought it would be difficult to get the entire population of humans given how far they spread and how isolated some remote populations in Asia, Africa and Australia can be.
Thank you. I certainly work hard enough at it.You write well, @sfs
It's not my field, but I do know that that's a highly controversial conclusion. Craig goes into this question in some detail in his book and concludes that Neanderthals almost certainly had language, even if their phoneme repertoire was different or smaller than modern humans.ETA: Interesting to note that if all that is correct (and how would I judge), A&E would have existed ~450K to ~350K years before language is supposed to have arisen: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=when+did+language+arise+in+humans
Not Craig's field either!Thank you. I certainly work hard enough at it.
It's not my field, but I do know that that's a highly controversial conclusion. Craig goes into this question in some detail in his book and concludes that Neanderthals almost certainly had language, even if their phoneme repertoire was different or smaller than modern humans.
Having been a Christian, I am curious as to your reaction to this.Certainly not, but he cites the relevant literature, which I haven't read.
and Science is obviously going to be thrilled by a major Christian philosopher who completely surrenders to theistic evolution.
These approaches start from assumptions about the Bible that I do not share, so I have zero interest in positing invisible miracles to insert Biblical events (which I don't think happened) into a scientific framework. The early chapters of Genesis are written in the language of myth (as Craig himself concludes) and aren't even attempting to tell us anything about human origins. Craig insists on a literal first couple only because Paul's account of sin in Romans seems to require it, which I suspect puts more weight on Paul's theological musings than he would have himself.1) I think your article and writing style implies that this is your attitude as well?
2) As a non-believer, the endeavor seems a bit ridiculous as a means to reconcile science to the Bible. I mean really, go back 1/2 million years to justify a story that takes place 6000 years ago that ALSO includes people living 939 years (Adam). How do you as a Christian process this?
Thank you for answering. Were I still a Christian, I'd answer similarly.These approaches start from assumptions about the Bible that I do not share, so I have zero interest in positing invisible miracles to insert Biblical events (which I don't think happened) into a scientific framework. The early chapters of Genesis are written in the language of myth (as Craig himself concludes) and aren't even attempting to tell us anything about human origins. Craig insists on a literal first couple only because Paul's account of sin in Romans seems to require it, which I suspect puts more weight on Paul's theological musings than he would have himself.
More generally, tying anything important -- humanity, or sin -- to physical descent but not to genetics (as Swamidass does) strikes me as misguided. Making it dependent on physical descent puts it in the realm of science, while divorcing it from genetics removes the only plausible physical mechanism available. It also strikes me as terrible theology, as it cuts against the entire New Testament emphasis on spiritual descent and adoption as being far more important than physical descent.
As to sin, I believe it was an Eastern Orthodox who said we don't need Christ's salvation because A&E sinned but because we sin.
I almost said that there are so many minority sects that there is no majority. I would have been almost right. Catholics make up 50.1% of all Christians, so I would have been barely wrong. The rest are a whole slew of 'minority sects'.Isnt the faith made up of multiple minority sects?
These approaches start from assumptions about the Bible that I do not share, so I have zero interest in positing invisible miracles to insert Biblical events (which I don't think happened) into a scientific framework. The early chapters of Genesis are written in the language of myth (as Craig himself concludes) and aren't even attempting to tell us anything about human origins. Craig insists on a literal first couple only because Paul's account of sin in Romans seems to require it, which I suspect puts more weight on Paul's theological musings than he would have himself.
More generally, tying anything important -- humanity, or sin -- to physical descent but not to genetics (as Swamidass does) strikes me as misguided. Making it dependent on physical descent puts it in the realm of science, while divorcing it from genetics removes the only plausible physical mechanism available. It also strikes me as terrible theology, as it cuts against the entire New Testament emphasis on spiritual descent and adoption as being far more important than physical descent.