Adam and Eve

[dessert]

Mostly correct, but we don’t all have the same mtDNA; although, we can all trace our mtDNA to the same woman who lived 140,00 years ago. There have been many mutations since (mtDNA mutates more often than nuclear DNA), and mtDNA is quite useful in numerous fields, since it can be used to determine or track a person’s ancestry through female lines.

Umm… no. The unfortunately named Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, from whom all living humans can trace their ancestry through strictly matrilineal and patriarchal descent respectively were not alive at the same time nor were they the only woman or man alive at the time.

While the idea of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are interesting, they do not prove that we are all descended from only one original couple. The two lived tens of thousands of years apart (“Eve” having lived around 140,000 years ago and “Adam” 60,000 years ago).

Currently there is no science that proves–or even suggests–that we’re all descended from exactly one original pair of humans.

You must be talking about the Neandrethal man.

I have had thoughts that Eve was cloned from Adam as from the rib. I know the bible says made Adam was created and Eve was made from the rib but we know so much about cloning today that
it makes more sense.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Can the reality of the message of a story be “real” such that the “actors” (characters) within the story existed, are real, in some way unknown to the storyteller?

In other words, if I tell a “fable” in which a man called Fnert meets a woman caled Grooj and they fall in love and she is taken captive by the Trooglit GLARRRR from whom Fnert rescues his beloved and they finally get married and live rather uncomfortably with the children of GLARRRR due to having deprived them of their one parent and in charity took them in,…

… does that ELIMINATE the possibility that some man/woman pair overcame difficulties and got married and had to deal with their actions which were difficult?

You are using a lot of words and saying nothing.

Adam and Eve were real persons, as the Church defines persons, whom we have come to call “Adam” and “Eve” who erred in such a way as to “call forth” bodily death, with all the implications of that fact, from which all human beings are descended as the Church defines the word “descended”, with the purpose of bringing mankind to eternal salvation, as a remnant, while allowing some individuals the choice of eternal damnation.

It doesn’t matter how the church defines people, the story of Adam & Eve is still just a story.

Be careful and precise by what you mean when you say “real”.

If you need “real” to be carefully and precisely defined, there’s no hope. This isn’t The Matrix.

 

[R_McGeddon]

OK.

So it’s OK for you to be judgemental and not me?

Am I being judgemental?

Since I’m claiming that it’s a good thing to be judgemental when it’s called for

Who gets to say when it’s called for?

you SEEM to be condemning all “judgementalism” as always “bad”, who is “bad” in your eyes if not both of us?

If people being judgemental are not whiter than white, then they have no right to judge.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Meanwhile, back at “dense”. Excellent illustration thereof!

I like the way you quote what is largely your own post, to illustrate dense.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I may do that, so keep looking for it, but I can’t right at the moment.

I look forward to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
The reason that the “atheistic mind” is “dense” is that it “blocks” from it’s own awareness it’s own “god” such that it can both HAVE (and follow) a “god” and deny “gods” (or God) exist.

The reasons why that kind of mentality would generate “noise” (irrational conceptualizations verbalized) and “hatred”, which is the invariable result of frustration at not being able to “overcome” truth, are rather obvious.

…which if not understood by you says both I didn’t communicate with you in a way you could understand, and that you didn’t understand what I did say.

Now, I could be perfectly understandable and you might not understand me because of your “denseness”. I could also be utterly objectively indecipherable.

You may have a message to get across, but you are unsuccessful in achieving it.

 

[R_McGeddon]

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

I know.

Just remember the basis of science, my friend:

The “strength” of a theory is the amount it answers in the WEAKEST way possible!

That is not the basis of science.

The BEST theory is the one that is MOST easily provably wrong while not having BEEN proved wrong.

The BEST theory is the one that eventually becomes fact.

I do love it when “atheistic materialists” are hoist on their own petards!

It’s even better when theists, attempting to be scientific, fail to get their point across.

 

[drpmjhess]

The BEST theory is the one that eventually becomes fact.

You need to understand the relationship between facts and theories. Theories do not ever become facts, because facts lie at a lower epistemological level than theories.

Fact: things fall down. The theory that has been developed to explain this is that the force of gravity attracts objects.
Fact: everything is genetically related. The theory that has been developed to explain it is descent from common ancestors with modification and differential survival.

Thus, people who refer to evolution as “theory, not fact” have no idea what “theory” means in science. See talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html.

 

[Benedictus]

You must be talking about the Neandrethal man.

No, the individuals I was describing are indeed Homo sapiens, not Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis).

I have had thoughts that Eve was cloned from Adam as from the rib. I know the bible says made Adam was created and Eve was made from the rib but we know so much about cloning today that it makes more sense.

I’m not sure I follow. Strictly speaking, if Eve were cloned from Adam, we would expect Eve to be genetically identical to Adam–and thus male.

 

[JMMK]

It has mythological elements, but it is all true. In that I mean that eatting the fruit from the forbidden tree might not have been the actual transgression, but there was a command levied upon our first parents and the broke it. So the individual terms like fruit, days, rib, etc might not be the way it happened if you hit rewind and watched it, but what the story says true.

The thing to take away from Adam and Eve is that God created (perfectly) Man seperate from the rest of creation, He created Eve from the Man he created, a command was laid upon them, they broke the command at the suggestion of the deceiver, as such they lost their immortality and communion with God, all of the world decends from these two.

There are actually 7 points Catholics are to believe from the early part of Genesis, but that is the basics of it.

I would recommend the Theology of the Body for this topic, it goes into great detail about creation.

I would also recommend this free talk called “Catholics and the Bible”. biblechristiansociety.com/download

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Can the reality of the message of a story be “real” such that the “actors” (characters) within the story existed, are real, in some way unknown to the storyteller?

In other words, if I tell a “fable” in which a man called Fnert meets a woman caled Grooj and they fall in love and she is taken captive by the Trooglit GLARRRR from whom Fnert rescues his beloved and they finally get married and live rather uncomfortably with the children of GLARRRR due to having deprived them of their one parent and in charity took them in,…

… does that ELIMINATE the possibility that some man/woman pair overcame difficulties and got married and had to deal with their actions which were difficult?

You are using a lot of words and saying nothing.

A persons inability to draw meaning from the words of other people could be because the others words are actually unintelligible, or could be due to the hearers listening or communication skills are lacking in some fashion.

I’ll let you decide if you wish to try to understand my words better by asking questions in the spirit of understanding or not.

Thanks for playing.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Adam and Eve were real persons, as the Church defines persons, whom we have come to call “Adam” and “Eve” who erred in such a way as to “call forth” bodily death, with all the implications of that fact, from which all human beings are descended as the Church defines the word “descended”, with the purpose of bringing mankind to eternal salvation, as a remnant, while allowing some individuals the choice of eternal damnation.

It doesn’t matter how the church defines people, the story of Adam & Eve is still just a story.

I agree with you that it is a story, but not that it is JUST a story.

It is a statement of reality, and what you think, or I think, is really quite irrelevant to the existence of that reality.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Be careful and precise by what you mean when you say “real”.

If you need “real” to be carefully and precisely defined, there’s no hope. This isn’t The Matrix.

I agree again. This isn’t the “matrix”.

But if you don’t understand that reality isn’t a thing that we “simply know and must always agree upon between ourselves because it’s self-evident”, such that there’s no need to explain to each other what our perception of reality is and that perception isn’t actual reality, then one’s presumption will have some VERY interesting consequences!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
OK.

So it’s OK for you to be judgemental and not me?

Am I being judgemental?

You judged my “judgementalism” as “bad” (which is at least what people USUALLY mean when they invoke the charge of “another being judgemental”), and if that isn’t being judgemental then what might it be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Since I’m claiming that it’s a good thing to be judgemental when it’s called for

Who gets to say when it’s called for?

We each do at the behavior of other people in every instance! We judge the worth of others behavior, both good and bad.

The tricky part is what we use as the “yardstick”, the standard, to which behavior should be measured against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
you SEEM to be condemning all “judgementalism” as always “bad”, who is “bad” in your eyes if not both of us?

If people being judgemental are not whiter than white, then they have no right to judge.

Ah, and you probably get that from the “judge not lest you be judged” line within the bible, perhaps?

This applies not to the behavior of people, but the worth of people.

We are never to give up on people because of the way they are, but we are never to accept the bad behavior of others and are to reproach them as effectively as possible to persuade them of their error.

All sinners, even while still sinners, can and MUST call their fellow sinners sinners when they see them sin.

Why would my state as a sinner allow me to allow sin to go uncorrected?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
The reason that the “atheistic mind” is “dense” is that it “blocks” from it’s own awareness it’s own “god” such that it can both HAVE (and follow) a “god” and deny “gods” (or God) exist.

The reasons why that kind of mentality would generate “noise” (irrational conceptualizations verbalized) and “hatred”, which is the invariable result of frustration at not being able to “overcome” truth, are rather obvious.

…which if not understood by you says both I didn’t communicate with you in a way you could understand, and that you didn’t understand what I did say.

Now, I could be perfectly understandable and you might not understand me because of your “denseness”. I could also be utterly objectively indecipherable.​

You may have a message to get across, but you are unsuccessful in achieving it.

That it was unsuccessfully gotten across I would most definitely agree with!

The reason for that lack of success, I’ll leave to the opinions of whoever might see the exchange above.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Just remember the basis of science, my friend:

The “strength” of a theory is the amount it answers in the WEAKEST way possible!

That is not the basis of science.

The basis of science is to get to the truth of reality. The way science tells us to do that is to use hypotheses which describe phenomena in the simplest and MOST TENUOUS manner possible so that when they (the hypotheses) “break” they tell us where we assumed wrong.

Just as the most sensitive measuring instrument, the easiest to “break”, will tell us most precisely where we might be “wrong” (inaccurate), the most flimsy structure (hypothesis) will react most to where it is “wrong”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
The BEST theory is the one that is MOST easily provably wrong while not having BEEN proved wrong.

The BEST theory is the one that eventually becomes fact.

That is ENGINEERING strength, not SCIENTIFIC strength!

Atheists are NOT scientists, but rather ENGINEERS. Their goal is to build firm structures for their own purposes, to FORCE nature (using natures rules of course) into something useful to whatever their desires are.

Scientists, who are non-atheists (true religious) if they ARE true scientists, have the goal of DISCOVERING reality in precise terms and do that by building easily breakable structures to measure with.

The reason that atheism always produces slavery (natural forces used to create and perpetuate “creations of utility” which are what slaves are) is it’s unconcern with discovery of any aspect of reality not connected directly with “desired utility (enslavement of ‘tools for comfort’)”, and the suppression of those discoveries that it can’t use for it’s “enslavement”.

Also, theories don’t “become fact”. They are always approximate descriptions of reality, and can never BE “complete” fact.

If the “best theory is the one that eventually becomes fact” is the measure of the value of a theory, then there is no way to know the relative value of “competing theories” until one of them “becomes fact”, and consequentially there is no way to winnow down which theories are closer to true descriptions of reality (other than by “accidental” [unconscious] use of the true scientific method), which leaves one in the abject chaos of proliferating theories.

But, since you’ll just see another unitelligible mass of pixels where I’ve written words, I’ll dedicate this little exercise to me talking to myself,…

…again.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
I do love it when “atheistic materialists” are hoist on their own petards!

It’s even better when theists, attempting to be scientific, fail to get their point across.

That is true!

It truly IS amazing how dense people can be, isn’t it? And especially when they’re atheists, as atheists are SO well practiced in being so!

I would suggest a little study as to what the scientific method is, but my suggestions seldom go very far with atheists, or the “simply dense” of any stripe.

 

[anthony022071]

I am trying to defend that Adam and Eve are not a myth. How do I explain that Adam and Eve were the only two people and we all came directly from them?

The word “myth” does not necessarily mean a false story.
It simply means a story which is handed down through a cultural tradition. The story of Adam and Eve was handed down to us from the Jewish culture,and Christians believe that the Jews are God’s chosen people;and as Jesus said,salvation is from the Jews – Jesus himself being salvation.
Jesus himself,being a Jew,believed in the story of Adam and Eve,and so did the writers of the books of the New Testament. Jesus was known by the early Christians as the New Adam who conquered death,which was brought about through the sin of Adam.
So the credibility of the story of Adam and Eve is tied in with the credibility of Jesus Christ. If Jesus can be believed in,then he is the greatest witness to the truth of Adam and Eve.
So then the question becomes: “Is Jesus believable?”
The believability of Jesus,in turn,is tied in with the believability of the saints. The saints are the ever-present witnesses,down through the centuries,to the truth of Christ’s resurrection.
The saints forgive even those who persecute and torture and kill them,they pray for their enemies,they practice works of charity for the poor and needy even when they are poor and needy,they preach the gospel and hold to it even under the threat of death.
Now,people who behave in this exemplary manner cannot be following a false way. People just don’t behave like that unless they are sustained by the truth above all truths. The natural inclination of human beings is in the direction of selfishness and unforgiveness,self-sufficiency,lack of charitable works for the poor and needy. This is true even of the best practitioners of other religions,because other religions do not emphasize love unto death,or forgiveness of sins,or works of mercy.
So if the saints are believeable,then the gospel that sustains them must be believeable. And if Christ is believeable,then Adam and Eve are believeable,because Christ said that nothing in the scriptures can be set aside,and he believed in the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread has had to undergo some serious pruning.

If you cannot post with common courtesy and charity reconsider posting at all.
MF

 

[steveandersen]

My understanding of the word myth is its Greek origin (mythos) which means fable or fairy story.

Maybe that is what it meant in Greek but in English that is not how scholars use the word
They mean a usually sacred story that a people use to define their world view.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Maybe that is what it meant in Greek but in English that is not how scholars use the word
They mean a usually sacred story that a people use to define their world view.

That is exactly what a fable is. When words are taken from foreign languages, they retain their meaning for the language that took the word.