Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Even Richard Dawkins is Right Sometimes (Is the Biblical story of Adam and Eve a myth?)
Religious Dispatches ^ | 11/28/2011 | Paul Wallace

Posted on 11/29/2011 12:32:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind

For the last several months there has been a flurry of discussion—mostly online, of course—about the impossibility of a literal Adam & Eve (see, e.g., here and here and here). This ruling-out has been accomplished recently by the Human Genome Project, which indicates that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago, from a population of something like 10,000. In short, science has confirmed what many of us already knew: there was not a literal first couple. So what else can we learn from this story?

Plenty, it turns out. Peter Enns, a biblical scholar who blogs at Patheos, has been following the discussion with some care. Lately he has done us all a great favor: written a series of posts pointing out recurring mistakes made by many of those doing the discussing. Many of these mistakes are rhetorically effective but collapse upon even modest inspection.

But not all of them.

On Friday, he listed one held mostly by the pro-science crowd: “Evidence for and against evolution is open to all and can be assessed by anyone.”

Enns declares that this is not so. “The years of training and experience required of those who work in fields that touch on evolution rules out of bounds the views of those who lack such training,” he writes.

This is true but it misses the point. The open-access-to-science cliché, usually trundled out by those who wish to contrast the transparency of science with the supposed obfuscation of religion, carries some truth.

Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. That’s because, in science land, there is nothing but to follow the evidence. It’s out on the table, after all, able and willing to be poked and prodded and analyzed and figured out and held up and turned around and looked at from new angles. Also, what counts as evidence in science is pretty well-defined. And if you do become an evolution expert, you actually will see that 99% of all scientists back evolution for a reason: the evidence demands it.

This is the great generosity of science, and its great strength: It is actually all right there, ready to be seen and understood. It is relievedly explicit. It takes effort, sure, just as Enns suggests; it’s not easy to become a professional research biologist. But the reason biologists agree on evolution is because it’s a relatively simple matter to be objective about fossils and genes. Unlike the objects of religion—the divine and humanity’s relation to it—the objects of science give themselves up for abstraction and analysis without a fight.

Therefore Richard Dawkins (for example) is right when he says, as he has on many occasions, that the evidence for evolution is there to be inspected by anyone. It is sitting out there on the table, waiting patiently for most of humanity to catch up to it, waiting to tell us it’s time to bid the historical Adam & Eve a final, if fond, farewell.


TOPICS: History; Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: adam; antichristspirit; creation; evolution; folly; fools; gagdadbob; onecosmosblog; paulwallace; peterenns; richarddawkins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-418 next last

1 posted on 11/29/2011 12:32:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I thought I heard a hummingbird break wind. God will not be mocked. In a hundred years, it will be Richard who?


2 posted on 11/29/2011 12:36:43 PM PST by BipolarBob (Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world and she walks into mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not.

Ya, just like global warming science. The author drank too much of the coolaid.

3 posted on 11/29/2011 12:39:11 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Actually, there was a literal first couple. Because God's bible says so. Simple as that.

But also, this is nothing but conjecture. Studies prove this and studies prove that and chewing gum causes cancer but the other study says no, gum PREVENTS cancer.

Studies come and studies go -- God's word is forever.

4 posted on 11/29/2011 12:40:09 PM PST by NakedRampage (Puttin' the "stud" in Bible study)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
...anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago, from a population of something like 10,000.

I am not a scientist, so sometimes the subtlety of their arguments escapes me, but don't those "10,000" have a genome that originated somewhere, or is the assumption that those 10,000 spontaneously generated?

5 posted on 11/29/2011 12:42:04 PM PST by newheart (When does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

6 posted on 11/29/2011 12:42:04 PM PST by trumandogz (In Rick Perry's Nanny State, the state will drive your kids to the dentist at tax payer expense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Enns declares that this is not so. “The years of training and experience required of those who work in fields that touch on evolution rules out of bounds the views of those who lack such training,” he writes.”

What arrogant claptrap! I dare those who have been steeped in an academic “doublethink” are often those with the least ability to evaluate the reasonableness of the evidence.

7 posted on 11/29/2011 12:43:45 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Human Genome Project is just renamed and repackaged Eugenics of the sort that led to over a quarter million forced sterilizations OF US CITIZENS, IN THE US, and ultimately led to the Nazi gas chambers.

Make no doubt about it, these folks are cultists of the worst type, funded by the worlds ruling elite. They want massive depopulation and world government.

I highly recommend this shocking book for those wanting a more in depth, well researched and documented explanation.


8 posted on 11/29/2011 12:43:47 PM PST by SENTINEL (Romney is to Conservatism what Mormonism is to Christianity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Actually I’ve always thought natural science museums could do a bit better job with displays of the innumerable examples of transitional fossil sequences.


9 posted on 11/29/2011 12:43:49 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Those who accept literally the story of Noah - and think all species on Earth are descended from those “kinds” of animals that could fit on a Ark - believes in evolution and the (semi) common descent of species.

Moreover they believe evolution happens at a rate far in excess of that ever proposed by any competent evolutionary biologist.

And yet they claim to not believe in evolution.

They are obviously quite confused.


10 posted on 11/29/2011 12:43:54 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

>> Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. >>

Yep, that was the tip off for me too. Another junk science BS piece.


11 posted on 11/29/2011 12:44:34 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright (Moderator of Florida Tea Party Convention Presidential Debate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage

The bible was assembled by a Council that had human hands and a human agenda. It isn’t one monolithic book, it is many books that have some errors - intentional, and unintentional.


12 posted on 11/29/2011 12:46:21 PM PST by rokkitapps ( Hearings on healthcare waivers NOW! (If you agree make this your tagline))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A lot of the stories in the Bible are used to make a point rather be literal. “Eating from the tree of knowledge” is obviously a description of humans learning and retaining what they learned. That is when humans separated themselves from the animals after all, when we became “self aware”. Actions have consequences, Adam and Eve hid themselves because they realized their thoughts and actions are transparent to God, they are “naked” to him.

I guess that is one way to interpret Genesis, I guess.

Would Dawkins say that this is also wrong? lol.


13 posted on 11/29/2011 12:47:07 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"...what counts as evidence in science is pretty well-defined."

Didn't they say something similar about the AGW scam as well?

14 posted on 11/29/2011 12:48:52 PM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We can all look and enjoy a beautiful garden but only the children believe there are fairies at the bottom of it.


15 posted on 11/29/2011 12:50:39 PM PST by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newheart; little jeremiah; Morgana

10,000 just popped out of the ground.... yeah, that makes more sense than God making them. lol.

NOT.


16 posted on 11/29/2011 12:51:14 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist; allmendream

Evolution does exist, but humankind did not evolve from any other creatures.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2807739/posts


17 posted on 11/29/2011 12:51:35 PM PST by thesaleboat (Pray The Rosary Daily)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

IF the Bible says it’s a myth, then it is. If It don’t, then it ain’t.


18 posted on 11/29/2011 12:51:47 PM PST by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

God created science.


19 posted on 11/29/2011 12:53:02 PM PST by Grunthor (pro-illegal alien "conservatives" piss me off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
...anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago, from a population of something like 10,000...

This is ignorance on display.

The author is apparently unaware of the population bottleneck caused by the Toba volcanic eruption some 70,000 years ago. Many theories suggest that we all evolved from as few as ten females. Plus or minus nine.

20 posted on 11/29/2011 12:53:32 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Even Richard Dawkins is Right Sometimes

“It ain’t necessarily so...
“It ain’t necessarily so...“

21 posted on 11/29/2011 12:54:03 PM PST by RichInOC (Palin 2012: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newheart; SeekAndFind
I am not a scientist, so sometimes the subtlety of their arguments escapes me, but don't those "10,000" have a genome that originated somewhere, or is the assumption that those 10,000 spontaneously generated?

That was my thought too. They didn't answer it, only kicked the can down the road.

22 posted on 11/29/2011 12:54:42 PM PST by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. That’s because, in science land, there is nothing but to follow the evidence. It’s out on the table, after all, able and willing to be poked and prodded and analyzed and figured out and held up and turned around and looked at from new angles.”

A two word rebuttal:

Global Warming.


23 posted on 11/29/2011 12:54:42 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd
The author is apparently unaware of the population bottleneck caused by the Toba volcanic eruption some 70,000 years ago

That's been challenged in several recent papers.

24 posted on 11/29/2011 12:55:06 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thesaleboat
Yes, it has long been known that non-genetic DNA is not as highly conserved between species as genetic DNA.
Creationists conflate the 99% genetic DNA similarity between humans and chimps and the 95% or so similarity between genomic DNA, knowing the woeful lack of education on average of their target audience - they are pretty confident the dupes of their disinformation will not catch on.

They also assume that any non-genetic DNA is “regulatory” and that is not at all true. A lot of it is just “junk” DNA - possibly previously of use, possibly of future use - but currently in the genomic “basement” boxed up in chromatin.

Moreover the non genetic DNA comports exactly with what one would expect if humans and chimps diverged from a common population some six or seven million years ago, as does the genetic DNA. The pattern of little change in highly conserved DNA and more change in less conserved DNA and a lot more change in “junk” DNA is exactly what is observed in other animals of known common ancestry.

25 posted on 11/29/2011 12:56:40 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: thesaleboat

Basically people would rather believe humans didn’t evolve from other creatures. That’s not much of an argument.

So if some deity created humans but evolved everything else, why make humans so similar to other hominids and apes that so many people get confused?


26 posted on 11/29/2011 12:57:29 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And yet they claim to not believe in evolution. They are obviously quite confused.,

Actually the big difference is that most creationists believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Most darwinists deny the distinction has any meaning. Hence your critique makes sense to you but not to a creationist. And the crosstalking continues.

27 posted on 11/29/2011 12:57:41 PM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Absolute and utter nonsense.


28 posted on 11/29/2011 1:01:16 PM PST by arjay (NOMOBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
Only if you completely miss my point that they believe in “micro” evolution at thousands of times the rate that anyone has ever observed.

Moreover most creationists define “macro” evolution as a speciation event leading to the common descent of species.

Apparently they DO believe in the (semi) common descent of species - and thus “macro” evolution.

Would you consider the differentiation between a mouse and a rat to be a “micro” change or a “macro” change? How about between a gorilla and an orangutan?

29 posted on 11/29/2011 1:02:48 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What makes a human unique is that he has a soul. The story of Genesis is the truth and science does not contradict it, but instead supports it. The Big Bang theory is the same sequence of events described in Genesis. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, but was made in 7 days - those are consistent statements. Science has shown by Einstien, that time is relative to the frame of reference. The 13.7 billion year age is from an earth reference. Seven days is from the reference envelope of the entire universe. An excellent easy to read book on this is the Science of God by Gerald Schroeder who is a physicist

Adam obtained his soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Whether there were other homo erectus on earth is not addressed in the Bible and not terrbily important. Events then began unfolding rapidly for humans once he has a soul with the beginning to farm, and the bronze age.


30 posted on 11/29/2011 1:05:25 PM PST by rigelkentaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

“with displays of the innumerable examples of transitional fossil sequences”

The displays you have seen are primarily artists renderings, NOT hard evidence. Remember that soft tissue, depicted in most of these displays, does not survive time.

The term “transitional” for creationists is usually employed to discuss transitions between, rather than within, species. The former transitions are clearly not innumerable if demonstrable at all.


31 posted on 11/29/2011 1:06:27 PM PST by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This ruling-out has been accomplished recently by the Human Genome Project, which indicates that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago

The author appears to be ignorant of the media's seamless record of slanting and falsifying scientific data to support the establishment worldview. Remember global warming (cooling?) and the "scientific" proof that gays are born that way?

Macro-evolution (as opposed to micro-evolution) has never been proven methods that do not require begging the question. Recent discoveries on the previously unimaginable complexity of cellular organelles demonstrate the impossibility of macro-evolution.

32 posted on 11/29/2011 1:12:11 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
..or is the assumption that those 10,000 spontaneously generated?

...anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago

I am sure it was an oversight that you missed the explanation of the genesis of the 10,000

33 posted on 11/29/2011 1:12:56 PM PST by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NakedRampage

The Bible talks about a first couple, I agree. I don’t see anywhere that it talks about a “literal” first couple, though.


34 posted on 11/29/2011 1:14:58 PM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Yeah, When the Price is Right, he's right!


35 posted on 11/29/2011 1:16:31 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arjay

RE: Absolute and utter nonsense

Can you elaborate please?


36 posted on 11/29/2011 1:18:40 PM PST by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not.

So Michael Mann, prof of bullshit, at Penn State, has always been transparent with his published findings about global warming.

37 posted on 11/29/2011 1:19:00 PM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke The Terrorist Savages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Most creationists believe that ‘macro’ evolution is something that hasn’t been observed. Like Santa Claus. It has a name but that doesn’t mean you believe in it.

Both rats and mice (Or gorilla and Orangutan) could be on an Ark of course so I’m not sure how that makes a point here.


38 posted on 11/29/2011 1:19:06 PM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rigelkentaurus
Adam obtained his soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Whether there were other homo erectus on earth is not addressed in the Bible and not terrbily important. Events then began unfolding rapidly for humans once he has a soul with the beginning to farm, and the bronze age.

Thank you for pointing this out. The specific revelation in scripture was not written as a scientific or even a complete text. All that is necessary for the account to be true is that God made Adam, a unique being with a soul made in God's own image. To force more precision onto the account than the facts require is a bad way to read scripture, especially when the general revelation of creation suggests that particular accounts are not likely unless God did some extreme messing with reality.

39 posted on 11/29/2011 1:20:19 PM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Everything is a myth.

History is written by the victors.

And science is sold to the highest grant-bidder.

40 posted on 11/29/2011 1:21:26 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("The very idea of a community organizer is to stir up a mob for some political purpose." Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It is sitting out there on the table, waiting patiently for most of humanity to catch up to it, waiting to tell us it’s time to bid the historical Adam & Eve a final, if fond, farewell.

Uh, no.

The first eleven and a half chapters of Genesis are written in a style that can be understood as quasi-history. It's a story fashion that contains spiritual and internal meaning that goes far deeper than the literal sense lets on. Why? To prevent the spiritual sense from being profaned.

Swedenborg puts it this way:

Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 1 sRef Matt@6 @33 S0' 1. THE BOOK OF GENESIS

The Word of the Old Testament contains heavenly arcana, with every single detail focusing on the Lord, His heaven, the Church, faith, and what belongs to faith; but no human being grasps this from the letter. Judging it by the letter or sense of the letter, nobody views it as anything more than a record, in the main, of external features of the Jewish Church. Yet at every point there are internal features that are nowhere evident in the external, apart from the very few which the Lord revealed and explained to the Apostles, such as that sacrifices mean the Lord; that the land of Canaan and Jerusalem mean heaven, which is therefore called Canaan and the heavenly Jerusalem; and that Paradise is similar in meaning.

Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 2 2. But that every single detail, even the smallest, down to the tiniest jot, means and embodies matters that are spiritual and celestial is a truth of which the Christian world is still profoundly ignorant, and for that reason it pays insufficient attention to the Old Testament. Nevertheless they are able to know this truth from the single consideration that because the Word is the Lord's and derives from Him, it cannot possibly exist if it does not contain within itself such things as belong to heaven, the Church, and faith. If this were not so it could not be called the Word of the Lord nor be said to have any life within it. For where does its life originate except in those things which belong to life, that is, in having every single detail go back to the Lord, who is life itself? Therefore anything that does not interiorly focus on Him has no life; indeed any expression in the Word that fails to embody Him within itself, or does not in its own way go back to Him, is not Divine.

Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 3 3. Without such life the Word as regards the letter is dead, for it is the same with the Word as it is with man, who, as the Christian world knows, is internal as well as external. The external man if parted from the internal man is just a body and therefore dead. It is the internal man which lives and imparts life to the external. The internal man is the soul of the external man. The same applies to the Word which as to the letter alone is like the body without a soul.

Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 1 sRef Matt@6 @33 S0' 1. THE BOOK OF GENESIS The Word of the Old Testament contains heavenly arcana, with every single detail focusing on the Lord, His heaven, the Church, faith, and what belongs to faith; but no human being grasps this from the letter. Judging it by the letter or sense of the letter, nobody views it as anything more than a record, in the main, of external features of the Jewish Church. Yet at every point there are internal features that are nowhere evident in the external, apart from the very few which the Lord revealed and explained to the Apostles, such as that sacrifices mean the Lord; that the land of Canaan and Jerusalem mean heaven, which is therefore called Canaan and the heavenly Jerusalem; and that Paradise is similar in meaning. Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 2 2. But that every single detail, even the smallest, down to the tiniest jot, means and embodies matters that are spiritual and celestial is a truth of which the Christian world is still profoundly ignorant, and for that reason it pays insufficient attention to the Old Testament. Nevertheless they are able to know this truth from the single consideration that because the Word is the Lord's and derives from Him, it cannot possibly exist if it does not contain within itself such things as belong to heaven, the Church, and faith. If this were not so it could not be called the Word of the Lord nor be said to have any life within it. For where does its life originate except in those things which belong to life, that is, in having every single detail go back to the Lord, who is life itself? Therefore anything that does not interiorly focus on Him has no life; indeed any expression in the Word that fails to embody Him within itself, or does not in its own way go back to Him, is not Divine. Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 3 3. Without such life the Word as regards the letter is dead, for it is the same with the Word as it is with man, who, as the Christian world knows, is internal as well as external. The external man if parted from the internal man is just a body and therefore dead. It is the internal man which lives and imparts life to the external. The internal man is the soul of the external man. The same applies to the Word which as to the letter alone is like the body without a soul.

Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 4 4. As long as the mind confines itself to the sense of the letter alone one cannot possibly see that its contents are such. Take for instance these first sections of Genesis: From the sense of the letter the only subject matter people recognize is the creation of the world, and the Garden of Eden which is called Paradise, and Adam as the first man to be created. Who thinks anything different? The fact that these things contain arcana however which have never been revealed up to now will be sufficiently clear from what follows - especially clear from the fact that the subject of Genesis 1 is, in the internal sense, the NEW CREATION of man, that is, in general his REGENERATION, and in particular the Most Ancient Church. And the subject is presented in such a way that not the smallest part of any expression fails to have a representation, carry a spiritual meaning, or embody something within itself.

Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 5 5. But unless he has it from the Lord no human being can possibly know that this is the situation. By way of introductory remarks therefore it can be disclosed that in the Lord's Divine mercy I have been allowed constantly and without interruption for several years now to share the experiences of spirits and angels, to listen to them speaking and to speak to them myself. I have been allowed therefore to hear and see astounding things in the next life which have never come to any man's knowledge, nor even entered his imagination. In that world I have learned about different kinds of spirits, about the state of souls after death, about hell (the miserable state of people who do not have faith), about heaven (the very happy state of those who do have faith), and above all else about the doctrine of the faith that is acknowledged in the whole of heaven. In the Lord's Divine mercy more will be told about these matters in what follows.

41 posted on 11/29/2011 1:22:27 PM PST by DaveMSmith (Evil Comes from Falsity, So Share the Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
A lot of it is just “junk” DNA - possibly previously of use, possibly of future use - but currently in the genomic “basement” boxed up in chromatin.

You are behind the times. That "junk" theory was revised years ago. Do a search.

42 posted on 11/29/2011 1:22:53 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I have always interpreted the Adam and Eve story as allegory. It teaches us many things, including mankind's fall from paradise, in the process acquiring consciousness but at the cost of entering the state of sin which leaves us in need of God's redeeming grace.

But, Dawkins would know nothing of these things.

43 posted on 11/29/2011 1:24:02 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Therefore Richard Dawkins (for example) is right when he says, as he has on many occasions, that the evidence for evolution is there to be inspected by anyone. It is sitting out there on the table, waiting patiently for most of humanity to catch up to it, waiting to tell us it’s time to bid the historical Adam & Eve a final, if fond, farewell.

Nope! Not going to do it. God give the account of creation, through the pen of His scribe, Moses. That account is an eye witness account by the Creator of heaven and earth and all things in them and one them.

Now what has this R. Dawkins got to his credit? Where is the universe he created?

God's word and His Son Jesus are the only things we have left to cling to. One would have to be an absolute arse to give that up.

44 posted on 11/29/2011 1:25:19 PM PST by JakeS (This would be a good time to read John chapter three 1-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
And science is sold to the highest grant-bidder.

Heretic! Abjure your blasphemy against Holy Science.

45 posted on 11/29/2011 1:26:20 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
You are misinformed, which is all too typical from Creationist sources. They know that the average education level of their target audience is below average - and they tailor the message thusly.

Endogenous retroviral sequences are “junk” DNA. Pseudogenes are “junk” DNA. Short repeat sequences are “junk” DNA.

Which is not to say that they are of no use. The “junk” in the basement may or may not be of use someday - but it is not presently being used - so it is deemed “junk”.

46 posted on 11/29/2011 1:30:55 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“In short, science has confirmed what many of us already knew: there was not a literal first couple.”

Already knew? Really? Not just believed, or thought, or hypothesized, but KNEW?

Hm.


47 posted on 11/29/2011 1:34:05 PM PST by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In the Last Days scoffers will come. Dawkins is leading many over a cliff. Fools follow him at their own peril vs. the Word of God.


48 posted on 11/29/2011 1:34:46 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arjay

“Ideas passing as descriptions lead us to equate the tentative with the unambiguously factual.” No one has seen, nor measured, nor used methodological investigation to prove Darwinism. It is a metaphysical concept rooted in philosophy. These notions do, however, have conequences, and those consequences for the past 150 years have been a series of unadulterated tragedies. But as Dawkins says, evolution is pittiless, remorseless, and purposeless, so...who can lay responsible at the feet of anyone. As Neitsche said, “all things are allowed.”


49 posted on 11/29/2011 1:36:11 PM PST by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
That helped little to differentiate “macro” evolution from the type of semi-common descent of species that creationists obviously accept.

I didn't ask if they could have been on the Ark - I asked you if you would consider the change between a mouse and a rat to be a “micro” change or a “macro” change.

As is all too typical - Creationist is of absolutely no use and has no answers - you are apparently far too confused about the subject to even give your opinion.

The point is that Creationists apparently are quite willing to accept evolution and the (semi) common descent of species - at many thousands of times the rates observed - resulting in changes well in excess of the DNA difference between humans and chimps.

So a 2% change in genetic DNA between two rodents of the same “kind” is easily accomplished in a few hundred years - and is only a “micro” difference - but a 2% change in genetic DNA between humans and chimps is absolutely impossible even over six to seven million years and is obviously a “macro” difference.

Do you see a problem with the above formulation?

If not you might be a Creationist!

50 posted on 11/29/2011 1:38:15 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-418 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson