Where Did Humans Come From?

[The Barbarian]

Its a miracle, by definition it’s not supposed to be explainable by science. That’s like asking where the X chromosome came from in dust.

This is why it seems obviously a figurative description, not a literal history.

But again, any problems with such an interpretation can be cleared up by tossing in another miracle.

 

[BobRyan]

Adam and Eve were the first to have living souls. God doesn't care in the least if you approve of evolution or not. Love, Him, love your fellow humans, and act on that love. Everything else depends on that, not who Adam's father was.

Here is what God actually said about it --

Gen 2:
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

7 the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.


Ex 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Adam and Eve were the first to have living souls. God doesn't care in the least if you approve of evolution or not. Love, Him, love your fellow humans, and act on that love. Everything else depends on that, not who Adam's father was.

Here is what God actually said about it --

Since the text itself says that it's not a literal timetable, we should accept His word on it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again that doesn't make sense.. how am I more improbable?

Because the likelihood of your combination of genes, given your ancestors, is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. Just as the likelihood of any particular shuffled deck is astoundingly unlikely. And yet people and shuffled decks happen all the time.

So did living things. They were produced by the Earth, as God intended. Even if it was unlikely.

 

[renniks]

Because the likelihood of your combination of genes, given your ancestors, is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. Just as the likelihood of any particular shuffled deck is astoundingly unlikely. And yet people and shuffled decks happen all the time.

So did living things. They were produced by the Earth, as God intended. Even if it was unlikely.

Still doesn't make sense. A shuffled deck of cards has a pretty limited amount of possibilities... and I still don't see how my combination of genes is that improbable given my ancestry.

 

[The Barbarian]

Still doesn't make sense. A shuffled deck of cards has a pretty limited amount of possibilities..

If you think so, you don't know much about probability. There are about:
810000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to shuffle a deck of cards.

and I still don't see how my combination of genes is that improbable given my ancestry.

There are 8,324,608 possible combinations of 23 chromosome pairs. So even given your parents, you have a likelihood of about 0.00000012. But you have four grandparents and eight great-grandparents and sixteen great,great-grandparents. And yet here you are.

Amazing, um?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like regeneration, so too the Incarnation is a cinch to explain in my simple ontology.

I'm glad to hear you've found an ontology that you feel fits the bill. I have yet to find one, but being the Existentialist that I am, I'm unlikely to find one any time soon.

It's literally a joke to explain. For 2,000 years, theologians have found these simple things impossible to explain because they allowed Plato's Greek philosophy to muddy the water.

Oh, I quite agree. Old Greek philosophy always was a problem and in more ways that one, Plato being one such headache, and not just for the 1st century Church. This is part of the reason I tend to avoid it and instead concentrate on both Modern and Contemporary Philosophy, even if of specific sorts.

Anyway, it's always good for me to see brother and sisters in Christ finding a place in their thoughts where they feel anchored in Christ. You seem to be anchored.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been insisting on coherent/comprehensible doctrinal statements. Let me be frank - I don't have any unclear doctrines in my theology, as far as I know.

That's good to know. At least one of us feels that Christian theology is thoroughly coherent and comprehensible... I haven't as yet reached that logical plateau.

 

[renniks]

If you think so, you don't know much about probability. There are about:
810000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to shuffle a deck of cards.



There are 8,324,608 possible combinations of 23 chromosome pairs. So even given your parents, you have a likelihood of about 0.00000012. But you have four grandparents and eight great-grandparents and sixteen great,great-grandparents. And yet here you are.

Amazing, um?

Not really. All the ingredients already exist... it's just how they combine. Unlike the impossibility of life coming from something that is not alive.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you think so, you don't know much about probability. There are about:
810000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to shuffle a deck of cards.

Not really. All the ingredients already exist...

Nope. In fact ,most of those have never actually been done. But all the ingredients exist for ribosomes.

This is why the probability argument is such a loser. But there's another reason. You're assuming random processes. But observing the way short proteins spontaneously form on hot volcanic rocks, we see that the process is not random:

Peptides, one of the fundamental building blocks of life, can be formed from the primitive precursors of amino acids under conditions similar to those expected on the primordial Earth, finds a new UCL study.

The findings, published in Nature, could be a missing piece of the puzzle of how life first formed.

"Peptides, which are chains of amino acids, are an absolutely essential element of all life on Earth. They form the fabric of proteins, which serve as catalysts for biological processes, but they themselves require enzymes to control their formation from amino acids," explained the study's lead author, Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry).
Origin of life insight: Peptides can form without amino acids

J Phys Chem Lett
.2021 Jun 24;12(24):5774-5780
Water Microdroplets Allow Spontaneously Abiotic Production of Peptides

J Phys Chem Lett
2022 Jan 20;13(2):567-573
Aqueous-Microdroplet-Driven Abiotic Synthesis of Ribonucleotides

So all the parts needed for ribosomes are already known to form abiotically.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is what God actually said about it --

Gen 2:
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

7 the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.


Ex 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

a good example of the text itself saying it is literal in Ex 20:11 - in legal code --- no symbolism --- as it points directly to Gen 2:1-3

Since the text itself says that it's not a literal timetable...

until you read the text.

 

[JAL]

a good example of the text itself saying it is literal in Ex 20:11 - in legal code --- no symbolism --- as it points directly to Gen 2:1-3

until you read the text.

Great argument that the text seems to indicate six literal days. But to be fair, in my view six literal days does indeed allow for an old earth, as explained here.

Actually I would go so far as to opine that the text INSISTS on an old earth, but I'm not sure I want to go into detail here.

 

[Tolworth John]

Are you going to pretend that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally?

I use the normal literary skills that everyone has and understand that prose is passing information, that poetry isdiscriptive with vidvid imagary and prophet/apopelitic passages can use picture language.

Jesus was a real historical person, who died, was burried and who rose again.
That is literal historical fact.
Jesus also said that man was from the begining of creation. That is, there is no evolution of man.

Genesis 6 day creation is a literal 6 days otherwise the ten commanments are nonsence .

 

[Tolworth John]

I do not deny Jesus ever lived, died, and rose again, but there are problems with some of the events in His life, if we were to take it all historically. In Matthew, Jesus was born under the reign of Herod (c. 4 BC). In Luke, He was born under Quirinius' jurisdiction (c. 6 AD), who, by the way, replaced Herod's son Archelaus over the Judean province. This is an inconsistency that shows that these events must be interpreted differently.

Luke records that a census took place that covered the whole empire (Luke 2:1), but no such thing ever happened. He must have mistaken the census Quirinius issued for the Judean province when he annexed it to Syria after he took office.

Clearly ypu have investigated this throughly and know that there is a case for Quirinius hold office at that time, even though he was not physically present.

 

[Tolworth John]

And speaking of Babylonians, who is Darius the Mede (Danial 5:31)? According to the book of Daniel, he reigned after Belshazzar (v. 32), but we know that he fell before Cyrus the Great in 539 BC. He is a central figure in the events of Daniel's life, but historically, he does not exist. We do not even have records of the existence of Daniel, who was an official in the kingdom.

It is likely that Daniel is not meant to be a historical book, but full of imagery and symbolism. None of the events mentioned therein, such as the decree Darius issued, appears in any documented writings of that time.

again redo your research, your information is out of date.

 

[disciple Clint]

I use the normal literary skills that everyone has and understand that prose is passing information, that poetry isdiscriptive with vidvid imagary and prophet/apopelitic passages can use picture language.

Jesus was a real historical person, who died, was burried and who rose again.
That is literal historical fact.
Jesus also said that man was from the begining of creation. That is, there is no evolution of man.

Genesis 6 day creation is a literal 6 days otherwise the ten commanments are nonsence .

Genesis 6 day creation is a literal 6 days otherwise the ten commanments are nonsence .

Why do you believe that?

 

[Tolworth John]

Why do you believe that?

If you believe Jesus is a myth you are believing what ignorant atheist believe.
The historical facts are that he lived, was excuted, burried and that his tomb was found to be empty.

Have you never read the ten commandments.

For in 6 days the Lord created the earth and rested on the seventh, so you will labour for six days and rest on the seventh.

Do you believe that we are to work of umpteen million years befor resting for millions of years?

 

[disciple Clint]

If you believe Jesus is a myth you are believing what ignorant atheist believe.
The historical facts are that he lived, was excuted, burried and that his tomb was found to be empty.

Have you never read the ten commandments.

For in 6 days the Lord created the earth and rested on the seventh, so you will labour for six days and rest on the seventh.

Do you believe that we are to work of umpteen million years befor resting for millions of years?

well all that is fine but what does it have to do with a literal interpretation of Genesis and the 10 Commandments? You said that if Genesis is not literal then the Ten Commandment are non sense, please explain

 

[JAL]

Have you never read the ten commandments.

For in 6 days the Lord created the earth and rested on the seventh, so you will labour for six days and rest on the seventh.

Do you believe that we are to work of umpteen million years befor resting for millions of years?

As explained at Post 3, six literal days allows for billions for years.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's not precisely my view. But in any case, my view does involve hominids outside of Adam and Eve - people with whom Adam's children mated with instead of practicing incest. I can thank science for finding hominids in the fossil record.

Well it’s certainly a good thing that you view incest as sexual immorality but it was God who declared that and given the circumstances at creation I don’t think that God actually viewed it as detestable at the time. I think that was something that He decided to decree once man’s population was established.