Skip to comments.Christian Professor Claims Genetics Disproves Historical Adam
Posted on 08/27/2011 10:07:19 AM PDT by fishtank
National Public Radio recently interviewed Trinity Western University biologist Dennis Venema, who stated his belief that humans did not descend from Adam and Eve.1 Venema, an evangelical evolutionist, claimed that genetics studies show "there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple."2 Do the data really contradict the biblical account of human history?
"Given the genetic variation of people today, [Venema] says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history," NPR reported.2 But this claim fails for three reasons. First, it relies on the presumption of "evolutionary history," not scientific data. Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible. Third, a descent from Adam and Eve actually does explain the patterns in modern human genetics....
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
More political/Marxist attempts from the evolutionists to obscure the truth ...
Thank you ICR for your work!
I believe in the Biblical Story of Creation AND I believe in Evolution. They are NOT mutually exclusive (Smiling as I toss a grenade!)
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)
We know the future of the "Christian" professor. God's word will be vindicated, and everyone will stand before Him and give an account.
I would honestly like to see a few articles or references to this point of view.
P.S. I’m familiar with Hugh Ross’s work already ...
I agree with you. Nobody I know has ever asked God how long one of his days was.
I can live with that.
“I believe in the Biblical Story of Creation AND I believe in Evolution. They are NOT mutually exclusive (Smiling as I toss a grenade!)”
So Adam was accidentally created by god who shall remain nameless? LOL!
Book II “Question of the phase in which the moon was made” 15, 30
“God, after all is the author and founder of things in their actual natures. Now whatever any single thing may in some way or other produce and unfold by its natural development through periods of time that are suited to it, it contained it beforehand as something hidden, if not in specific forms and bodily mass, at least by the force and reckoning of nature, unless of course a tree, void of fruit and stripped of its leaves throughout the winter, is then to be called imperfect, or unless again at its origins, when it had still not yet borne any fruit, its nature was also imperfect. It is not only about the tree, but about its seed also that this could not rightly be said; there everything that with the passage of time is somehow or other going to appear is already latent in invisible ways. Although, if God were to make anything imperfect, which he then would himself bring to perfection, what would be reprehensible about such an idea? But you would be quite within your rights to disapprove if what had been begun by him were said to be completed and perfected by another.”
—Augustine, “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, ca. A.D. 401-415
Then you might like...
He ain’t that Christian. “Adam” means first man. there had to have been one...........
Since Hulu didn’t specify what he meant, you made up your own obtuse and mal-informed logic in an effort to humiliate him?
Should we make up things and pretend you said them?
The answer is “no, because it wouldn’t be Christian.”
Creationists should know this one ~ did God install the Heart first, or the Liver?
“But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.” 2 Peter 3:8.
I think the biggest problem in the discussion of GOD and EVOLUTION is that the term EVOLUTION is only loosely defined and understood by the public, and is misused in debate and conversation. Most likely the term GOD is loosely defined and misused as well.
“So Adam was accidentally created by god who shall remain nameless? LOL!”
I don’t believe ZULU said that... Your part of the problem.
I believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution.
I think God created the laws of biology and physics and made everything out of nothing ( The Big Bang). I believe he directs the actions of things here on earth - both with respect to evolutionary processes and, at times, the activities - and punishments of mankind when we disobey him.
There’s always some dolt that attempts to revamp the Adam and Eve Descendant Theory, without any verifiable scientific evidence, at all? They all just wail away in the mire, so to speak, and eventually fall by the wayside? God and his minions always rule here and disbelievers just waste away into obscurity??
Better question. Did GOD create VIRUSES or PROKARYOTES first, and why?
God is the Supreme Being, Infinitely Perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.
Evolution addresses the how; religion addresses the why. The two really don’t cross much at all, and trying to force each study to cover the other is when you run into problems.
Forget the Bible, there’s too much discussion of Adam and Eve in midrashic sources to believe that it’s all fabricated and that they were not historical people. The “Book of Adam and Eve” can probably be found on the web.
I agree. In my view, God gave us our soul and that is what lives forever and longs to be back with Him. Without that, we are just a bunch of hairless apes.
Where I fell off the evolution band wagon and began to doubt a dozen years of solid indoctrination was the complete lack of evidence for trans-speciation (sp?) and how little physical fossil evidence is actually out there for older extinct primate species. The presumption that those ancient chimps changed over time into modern humans is a nice theory but (IMHO) it has yet to be proven. Plus, since all humans but no other modern primates possess certain traits that are only seen in aquatic mammals (furless, large brained, subcutaneous fat layers, with slightly webbed fingers and toes) I think the experts are looking in all the wrong places for our ancestral stock.
Therefore, if by "evolution" you mean change over time within species (that one can in good faith believe were created by a benevolent G*d) there is no conflict. But self-described "evolutionists" these days tend to also be vocal atheists who push their beliefs well past where physical evidence warrants.
Just because I picked the Nom de Plume “ZULU” everyone assumes I’m black. Guess they never saw the movie “ZULU” with Stanley Baker. I’m NOT Black and Danny Glover is a mental midget.
The literal DNA data does NOT contradict the biblical account. Genesis 1:26 is the flesh men/women created on the sixth day.... (course Peter says that a day with the LORD is as a thousand years...) And the Genesis 2 account where it says there was NO one to tend the 'garden' or otherwise called farmer. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 according to what Peter says in the Heavenly Father's methodology of calculating 'time' are at minimum 2 and most 3 thousand years apart.
Can’t argue with that.
If there is no first Adam then there can be no ‘2nd Adam’ hence no ‘Gospel’, no ‘Good News’, no hope for anything beyond the here and now. Christianity without Adam is meaningless....
It must have been the Nephilim that added diversity.
nope we are featherless bipeds according to Plato
Well, the fossil record seems to indicate that those “intermediate” creatures existed once at a time when other creatures did not exist. The fossil records is a snapshot in time of a breeding population. He provides precious little about where that population PRECISELY came from and where it PRECISELY went. A lot of the pre-modern humans may have been dead-ends, biologically.
God added diversity, or dna change, as needed.
Color has nothing to do with it. Have you seen the video?
That too. It’s been too many decades since I last read Plato.
Entirely too complex ~ note, though, “everybody” has a liver. Not “everybody” has a heart!
All of us get that ~ dogs, cats, people, monkeys.
I agree, revelation suggests rather strongly that Adam and Eve were historical individuals.
Not sure when we can place them within the archaeological and paleontological record, but it’s best when we are not sure of something to simply admit we’re not sure and keep trying to find out, rather than forcing bad conclusions in either the science or theology.
Evem some top religious figure say there is room for both, if you are willing to believe in Creationism for the starting line. I know ther is proof-positive for mutations, but they are almost exclusively fatal changes. Then there is breeding bad traits out for survival (or because the bad traits died out) like monkeys having almost no neck - a longer neck tends to break easier when young ones fall out of trees.
While ther is must evidence that seems to point at evolution, it cannot be proved (as of today anyway) any more than Creationism can be disproved.
Here's your grenade back - it looks like you forgot to pull the pin - although there are sure to be some who will pull it themselves...
Some of modern humans are dead-ends also
Evolution says you are an accident with no purpose.
Religion says just the opposite.
Evolution has never been proven, but religion keeps getting proven based on our studies of the universe.
Kinda like the old Dixiecrat bumper-sticker.
"I love God, I own a gun, I vote Democrat."
Always wanted to add, "I are stupid"...
What evolutionary processes where? I have never seen the theory of evolution ever proven. As of today it is still a theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.