Where Did Humans Come From?

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I don’t understand why it would seem figurative. Can you please elaborate?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don’t understand why it would seem figurative.

For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Taken literally, it's logically absurd. But it makes sense as a figurative listing of creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Could you show us that if the text somewhere repeats a figurative text, that converts it to a literal text? How do you figure that?

 

[JAL]

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.

To me incest is gross, was never God's intention, and not likely commendable at any time. And I'm not convinced that Cain married one of his sisters. Yes Adam had more children but the text seems to indicate that Cain and Abel were the only children of Adam at the moment when Cain left for Nod. Notice how the chapter ends:

"Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

This suggests she did not have other children as yet. Another problem is that Cain feared wandering into the hands of a killer living in a foreign land - what killers, if there were no hominids?

I'm not saying your position is unreasonable but, given the fossil evidence, I'll go with the hominids theory.

 

[JAL]

For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Taken literally, it's logically absurd. But it makes sense as a figurative listing of creation.

Not absurd, as explained at post 3. Genesis defined a "day" as a period of light followed by a period of darkness. That's all. Hence the Light of Christ's face can produce Daylight.

 

[BNR32FAN]

For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Taken literally, it's logically absurd. But it makes sense as a figurative listing of creation.

Light was created on the first day. God called the light day and the darkness night. So evidently God had it under control.

 

[BNR32FAN]

To me incest is gross, was never God's intention, and not likely commendable at any time. And I'm not convinced that Cain married one of his sisters. Yes Adam had more children but the text seems to indicate that Cain and Abel were the only children of Adam at the moment when Cain left for Nod. Notice how the chapter ends:

So what about Noah and his descendants? The entire population of the world came from Noah and his 3 sons.

“Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Again this would’ve again required interbreeding since no humanoids could’ve possibly survived the flood.

The text does not give any indication that they did not have other children before Cain & Able. It only provides proof that Seth was born after them. Able could’ve been the first man to die and Seth was Eve’s next born which would justify Eve’s statements that Seth was a replacement for Able. In any case you still have Noah and his offspring having sexual relations with their nieces & nephews & cousins at the very least. There’s no way of getting around that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Light was created on the first day. God called the light day and the darkness night. So evidently God had it under control.

But no sun. And you need a sun to have mornings and evenings by definition. So the text itself says that it's not a literal six days.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not absurd, as explained at post 3. Genesis defined a "day" as a period of light followed by a period of darkness.

But "morning" and "evening" are quite specific in Hebrew. And defined by a sun. So this clearly shows that the text is not a literal history. If you have to bend definitions to make it work the way you want, that's a pretty good clue that you're not following the meaning.

 

[JAL]

But "morning" and "evening" are quite specific in Hebrew. And defined by a sun. So this clearly shows that the text is not a literal history. If you have to bend definitions to make it work the way you want, that's a pretty good clue that you're not following the meaning.

Bending definitions? That's a narrow-minded take. How about capitalizing on the sheer flexibility of words? At post 3, I said that Christ's Light both:
...(1) Produced Galactic Days/Nights AND
...(2) Functioned as a "tiny candle" in our galaxy (and thus a sun) for planet Earth.

Do you see what I did? I capitalized on the flexibility of words to use "tiny candle" as a stand-in for "planetary sun". Clearly I was NOT literally referring to a cylinder of candle wax. Does this mean that the entire Post 3 was figurative? Nope the entire post was about literal history.

Secondly, define "evening" however you like - such as a gradual fading of Light. Here too, Christ's facial Light could produce the same kind of effect, and probably did so. (Same thing with "morning"). Why would He do that? Again, because He wanted to lay down HIS six-day work week as a model for OURS.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Definition of "miracle." In other words, it's an event that can't be explained by science.

mir·a·cle
[ˈmirək(ə)l]
NOUN
miracles (plural noun)

1. a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:
   "the miracle of rising from the grave"
   synonyms:
   supernatural phenomenon · mystery · prodigy · sign
   • a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:
     "it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed or injured.

 

[renniks]

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



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.

Well it should be easy to create life in a laboratory then. It is, if you already have the sperm and eggs. Not if you are starting with non life.

 

[JAL]

For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Taken literally, it's logically absurd. But it makes sense as a figurative listing of creation.

You seem very adamant and one-sided about this. Maybe that's understandable. Somehow for me this happens to be one of those areas where I'm less invested. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the debate. I personally think Genesis 1 is very literal but find it very understandable that science-minded people disagree.

 

[JAL]

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


...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.

Wasn't following this discussion - sounds like you're talking about abiogenesis?

Another big area of skepticism because I'm not sure that probability estimates fully take into account the assembly of all this stuff. The environmental conditions would have to be just right, from what I've heard, for a component part to randomly assemble. And then other component parts might need a slightly different set of conditions (e.g. a different temperature) to stand a chance of assembly. I used to think that human cells were just uniform protoplasm, but now I hear that they actually contain machines. Randomly assembly? I don't believe it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But no sun. And you need a sun to have mornings and evenings by definition. So the text itself says that it's not a literal six days.

No, not according to God’s definition of day and night before He created the sun. If day and night existed before the sun was created then morning and evening can also exist.

 

[The Barbarian]

No

Yes. If you have to redefine morning and evening to fit your new doctrines then it's clear that there's a problem with them.

 

[JAL]

Yes. If you have to redefine morning and evening to fit your new doctrines then it's clear that there's a problem with them.

Again, flexibility of words. Jesus said you must be re-born. Nicodemus soon found out that it did NOT literally mean a return to the womb.

I take it you feel justified in dismissing, as figurative text-to-ignore, all chapters of the Bible that refer to born-again?

 

[The Barbarian]

Wasn't following this discussion - sounds like you're talking about abiogenesis?

This is actually about probability. I was just pointing out that the probability of a ribosome is greater than the probability of any particular human person or a shuffled deck of cards.

We already know that the earth brought forth living things because God said so. Scientists are just beginning to find the evidence that shows He is right.

Another big area of skepticism because I'm not sure that probability estimates fully take into account the assembly of all this stuff.

Chemistry depends on random movement of atoms, but it's not random. That's another reason why the probability argument is so faulty.

And then other component parts might need a slightly different set of conditions (e.g. a different temperature) to stand a chance of assembly.

Since we've found abiotic protein sequences in the interior of meterorites and we have evidence of abiotic synthesis of nucleotides, that's been debunked by existing matter.

I used to think that human cells were just uniform protoplasm

In freshman high school biology, in the early 60s, we knew better. How old are you?

Randomly assembly? I don't believe it.

Turns out, it's not random. God set the rules, remember? He's a lot wiser and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

Would you like to learn some of the details of those "machines" and how they evolved from very simple antecidents?

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, flexibility of words.

If you don't accept words as they are used by others, you'll always be misunderstood. Take them as they are.

I take it you feel justified in dismissing, as figurative text-to-ignore,

You think that if God uses figurative language, we can ignore Him? Seriously?

all chapters of the Bible that refer to born-again?

Why would it bother you, if He wasn't referring to a literal biological birth?

 

[atpollard]

I read somewhere that "little boys" come from "snakes and snails and puppy dog tails" while "little girls" are made of "sugar and spice and everything nice". Since I do not intend to try to create any "homonids" from scratch, that definition works good enough to allow me to function in society and get through the week. My wife and I create new "people" through a process euphemistically referred to as "the birds and the bees" that actually has nothing to do with either birds or bees (If you never heard of it, ask your parents to "have the talk" with you about where babies come from.)