Adam. Man or Myth?

[FromTheCrossroa]

Back to the myth and its purpose - the story clearly indicates that there is suffering when one goes against God’s commandments. The myth of creation says that God created everything, including us.

And yes, both myths are true. They are also both fiction.

I wouldn’t call either myths in the sense that creation was a real event as was the fall of Adam and Eve. In the definition of a myth, the story can be true as I believe both to be. Where these run into problems is when the creation and fall of man are incorrectly understood. Heaven and Earth are obviously NOT 6000 years old no matter how much young earth creationists beg to differ. The language of the myth is symbolic yet represents a true picture of real events. Its poetry and a prologue folks!

Genesis was never meant to be a work of physics nor a complete account from creation to the fall of man. Only the important facts needed to place the rest of Jewish history in context were included. In this way Science, history and faith co-exist quite peacefully.

 

[buffalo]

I

Genesis was never meant to be a work of physics nor a complete account from creation to the fall of man. Only the important facts needed to place the rest of Jewish history in context were included. In this way Science, history and faith co-exist quite peacefully.

Science is the observations of man. There are statements of observation in the bible that in fact are also true scientific statments.

While I agree the Bible is not a scientific textbook one shouldn’t discount true observations as unscientific.

 

[patg]

I wouldn’t call either myths in the sense that creation was a real event as was the fall of Adam and Eve. In the definition of a myth, the story can be true as I believe both to be. Where these run into problems is when the creation and fall of man are incorrectly understood. Heaven and Earth are obviously NOT 6000 years old no matter how much young earth creationists beg to differ. The language of the myth is symbolic yet represents a true picture of real events. Its poetry and a prologue folks!

Genesis was never meant to be a work of physics nor a complete account from creation to the fall of man. Only the important facts needed to place the rest of Jewish history in context were included. In this way Science, history and faith co-exist quite peacefully.

Let me talk to this and a few other related posts (and clarify a few things I alluded to also). A good definition I have found for “myth” as a literary form is the following: A myth is an imaginative story that uses symbols to speak about reality, but a reality that is beyond a person’s comprehension.

Thus, a myth is about reality. This is very important. Myth is not a synonym for fiction. In fact, we are not commenting on the truth or falsity of the content of something we call a myth at all, we are talking about the form. A myth represents a serious attempt to come to grips with reality. The myths that are revelation have succeeded in coming to grips with the reality of God’s relationship with human beings in a profound way.

If a myth is about reality, why is it an imaginative story that uses symbols? Because the reality the myth explores is one which is beyond the author’s comprehension.

A myth deals with reality but not with a specific event in recorded history. So instead of saying that a myth grows out of an event, I would say that it grows out of an experience - an experience of trying to understand realities beyond the author’s and/or the reader’s comprehension.

The mystery of our origins and the mystery of our suffering are the two realities that are dealt with through myth in the first chapters of Genesis.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

That is absolutely false. The fossil record is very strong evidence for evolution regardless of what Lee Strobel, the note JOURNALIST believes.

Peace

Tim

micro-evolution, yes!

survival of the fittest? absolutely!

macro-evolution? The jury is still out on that one. Its beyond the scope of provable science as is the existence of a benevolent creator. Belief in either takes a leap of faith.

Life from no life? The Bible agrees.

A big bang? Why not.

Man’s soul/sin/suffering and redemption? N/A

Did I miss any major doctrine from the church of evolution?

 

[buffalo]

macro-evolution? The jury is still out on that one. Its beyond the scope of provable science as is the existence of a benevolent creator. Belief in either takes a leap of faith.

Correct - it not emperically provable. In addition we should observe DNA gaining information and we don’t.

 

[steveandersen]

…when did a microscopic organism like an ameba give birth to a trilobite?

That is just so far removed from what evolution actually says that I don’t know where to begin.

To paraphrase Fulton Sheen; there are probably only a handful of people who object to evolution. But there are millions who object to what they think evolution is.

 

[hecd2]

Correct - it not emperically provable. In addition we should observe DNA gaining information and we don’t.

I’ll let your error in saying that common descent is not empirically supported pass (note that proof is for liquor and mathematics, not for science) and focus on the information thing.

You confidently, nay magisterially, say that ‘we should observe DNA gaining information and we don’t’. Right. Please explain precisely what you mean by ‘DNA gaining information’ (actually defining information in the context of DNA would be a major step forward), not omitting to tell us what test we should apply to determine whether DNA has ‘gained information’. I suspect that you are parroting something that you have read but don’t understand, but you can prove me wrong by telling us how we would unambiguously determine whether DNA has or has not ‘gained information’.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

micro-evolution, yes!

survival of the fittest? absolutely!

macro-evolution? The jury is still out on that one. Its beyond the scope of provable science as is the existence of a benevolent creator. Belief in either takes a leap of faith.

The conclusion of common descent is certainly within the scope of science. Scientists have overwhelmingly concluded for more than 100 years that common descent is a fact. It requires no leap of faith but merely a knowledge of the hard evidence. The jury is certainly not out - it gave its verdict generations ago, and everything that we’ve learned since strengthens it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

I’ll let your error in saying that common descent is not empirically supported pass (note that proof is for liquor and mathematics, not for science) and focus on the information thing.

You confidently, nay magisterially, say that ‘we should observe DNA gaining information and we don’t’. Right. Please explain precisely what you mean by ‘DNA gaining information’ (actually defining information in the context of DNA would be a major step forward), not omitting to tell us what test we should apply to determine whether DNA has ‘gained information’. I suspect that you are parroting something that you have read but don’t understand, but you can prove me wrong by telling us how we would unambiguously determine whether DNA has or has not ‘gained information’.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The DNA combination is information. As DNA replicates it can copy exact or mutate (rare). It can remain information neutral or lose information (which may indeed give it survival of the fittest capabilities). We do not see DNA gain information.

Oh and don’t let it pass.

 

[steveandersen]

The DNA combination is information. As DNA replicates it can copy exact or mutate (rare). It can remain information neutral or lose information (which may indeed give it survival of the fittest capabilities). We do not see DNA gain information…

I still don’t understand what you mean by “gain information”.

If there is an error in copying the new molecule will have different “information” not necessarily more or less (if I understand how you’re using the term). Depending upon the particular error that occurred there could be something missing, something added, or a combination.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[namguy69]

Has anyone got any thoughts as to wethere Adam was a real person or not. Here’s a starting point.

People seem to trust the OT less in terms of how litteral it is or how true (this irritates me), so i’ll start in the NT. Both Matthew and Luke’s gospels contain geneologies of Jesus. We get as far back as Abraham and no-one doubts that any of those people actually excisted. But after that ( and like wise before genesis 11) many people decide…actually it can’t be proved historically/archeologically/scientificaly so i won’t believe it. Is this any reason to disbelieve the bible, understanding that it is the pure inspiried word of God? (2 tim 3:16, 2 peter 1:20, Pro 30:5)

This isn’t the only place in the NT in which scripture refers to Adam like he was a real person. Romans 5 speaks of how jesus had to come to erase adams error. If Adam wasn’t real does that mean jesus wasn’t real either? Or if Adam is metaphorical is Jesus metaphorical? if Adam is only a spiritual truth is Jesus only a spiritual truth? I know Jesus was a flesh and Blood man, and scripture leads me to believe that Adam was the same. Any thoughts anyone???

Adam is no myth, nor Eve.

 

[buffalo]

I still don’t understand what you mean by “gain information”.

If there is an error in copying the new molecule will have different “information” not necessarily more or less (if I understand how you’re using the term). Depending upon the particular error that occurred there could be something missing, something added, or a combination.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

A copy exact will have exactly the same information, not more or less. A copy that fails to replicate exactly (a mutation) is a loss of information. It is a failure which is less than it was. Can we copy up? Can a mutation create a DNA that possesses more information than when it started?

Mutations generally lose information. In the case of bacteria gaining resistance to a particular antibiotic can be either a neutral or loss that just happens to give it properties that give it that resistance.

 

[dessert]

What do you mean?

Sorry it has taken so long to get back onto this, I have a job. I mean did someone lie to you about something that you really trusted at one time? Did something you really wished for never happen?
The story of Pinnochio teaches morals etc.so will you agree the bible is a story? Yes?
return

 

[Hubriss]

micro-evolution, yes!

survival of the fittest? absolutely!

macro-evolution? The jury is still out on that one. Its beyond the scope of provable science as is the existence of a benevolent creator. Belief in either takes a leap of faith.

Life from no life? The Bible agrees.

A big bang? Why not.

Man’s soul/sin/suffering and redemption? N/A

-FromTheCrossRoad

Why big bang and not macro-evolution?

A copy exact will have exactly the same information, not more or less. A copy that fails to replicate exactly (a mutation) is a loss of information. It is a failure which is less than it was. Can we copy up? Can a mutation create a DNA that possesses more information than when it started?

Mutations generally lose information. In the case of bacteria gaining resistance to a particular antibiotic can be either a neutral or loss that just happens to give it properties that give it that resistance.

-Buffalo

… Where the hell did you get that from? Are you saying that DNA chains can’t get bigger from generation to generation? Where did you get that from? Huh? With each new generation there is always some mutation. About 1/1,000,000,000 genes mutate during reproduction.

I found this on Wikipedia under mutations. It’s probably true, but I don’t have enough time to look up another source right now, you can if you want and see for yourself.

“Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats). Insertions in the coding region of a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA (splice site mutation), or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element.”

“Amplifications (or gene duplications) leading to multiple copies of chromosomal regions, increasing the dosage of the genes located within them.”

Two ways which DNA can gain more mass.

BTW, Dessert, you are missing R McGeddon’s point. His fantasy stories were an analogy to the bible. Yes of course he considers the stuff in the bible stories.

 

[namguy69]

In the Encyclical “Humani Generis” we are taught by the Church that the human race began with one man and one woman. (Adam and Eve). Many gloss over this teaching.

Indeed it was…

 

[Orogeny]

Touche…but in retrospect, this does not negate the existence of God or His act of creating…

Corect. Science cannot negate the existence of God. And, since you are relatively new here, let me say that I absolutely accept God as the creator of everything.

…let me give my opinion…I used to believe in evolution…now I’m kind of indifferent to it…if it happened, so what? It was still God who did the creating and behind the development of every living thing.

I agree with that.

There are many other ideas that rule out the things you presented here. I’ll look for it and present it when I get it.

Ideas cannot negate facts. I’ll look forward to your presentation.

By the way, many of the Pre-cambrian organisms that are described in that study were microscopic…when did a microscopic organism like an ameba give birth to a trilobite?

While you “believed” in evolution, you never really understood it, did you?

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

The DNA combination is information. As DNA replicates it can copy exact or mutate (rare). It can remain information neutral or lose information (which may indeed give it survival of the fittest capabilities). We do not see DNA gain information.

I am sorry but a confident assertion of nonsense demands quite a strong response. I asked this:

Please explain precisely what you mean by ‘DNA gaining information’ (actually defining information in the context of DNA would be a major step forward), not omitting to tell us what test we should apply to determine whether DNA has ‘gained information’. I suspect that you are parroting something that you have read but don’t understand, but you can prove me wrong by telling us how we would unambiguously determine whether DNA has or has not ‘gained information’.

You haven’t begun to respond. Let’s take this one step at a time. The first thing we need to do is define what we mean by ‘information’ in the context of DNA. You said this: ‘The DNA combination is information’. That definition is useless - it’s like saying matter is gravity - utterly facile and useless. If you make claims about information increase or decrease, you have to define exactly what you mean by information in DNA and exactly how you would determine whether infiormation has increased or decreased from one generation to another.

Since we are talking about a quantity - ie how much information there is in the DNA of generation X+1 compared with generation X, we need a quantitative measure of information. So, give us a measure by which we can compare the information content in the genome of a range of prokaryotes, say, brewer’s yeast (*Saccharomyces cerevisae), *humans and lung fish (Protopterus aethiopocus) and amoeba dubia or the amoeba *Chaos chaos.

*So, since you make the strong claim that scientists are mistaken in holding to common descent because evolution is precluded by the impossibility of information increase, you must define a quantitative measure for information in the genome that we can all agree and a means for measuring genome information in generation X and X+1 so we can say whether information has increased or decreased between the generations.

If you can’t do this, your claim that evolution is precluded by information science is obviously pure rhetoric without the slightest support from real science. If you want to be taken seriously we need to start with a definition and a method of measurement. Define information content in a genome and describe the method by which we would measure it. How do I or anyone else measure information in a genome and thus determine unequivocally whether information has increased or decreased from generation X to generation X+1?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

A copy exact will have exactly the same information, not more or less.

Correct.

A copy that fails to replicate exactly (a mutation) is a loss of information.

BONG! Wrong - no this is not so in information theory

It is a failure which is less than it was.

BONG! No, not necessarily. What about a gene, a chromosome or a whole genome duplication? How about a point mutation that enables speech?

Can we copy up? Can a mutation create a DNA that possesses more information than when it started?

Absolutely yes. Duplication and mutation absolutely, in formal information theory, add information to a genome. Every point mutation adds information to the gene pool of a population.

Mutations generally lose information.

BONG! NO! mutations do not lose information. One would have to be very ignorant of information theory to claim such an erroneous thing.

What we need from you is a definition of information in genomes and an unambiguous way to measure the information in any single generation so we can see clearly whether information increases or decreases as a result of mutation and selection. That is not currently forthcoming, nor, I predict, will it ever come from you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[namguy69]

Corect. Science cannot negate the existence of God. And, since you are relatively new here, let me say that I absolutely accept God as the creator of everything.I agree with that.Ideas cannot negate facts. I’ll look forward to your presentation.While you “believed” in evolution, you never really understood it, did you?

Peace

Tim

I am sorry but a confident assertion of nonsense demands quite a strong response. I asked this:
You haven’t begun to respond. Let’s take this one step at a time. The first thing we need to do is define what we mean by ‘information’ in the context of DNA. You said this: ‘The DNA combination is information’. That definition is useless - it’s like saying matter is gravity - utterly facile and useless. If you make claims about information increase or decrease, you have to define exactly what you mean by information in DNA and exactly how you would determine whether infiormation has increased or decreased from one generation to another.

Since we are talking about a quantity - ie how much information there is in the DNA of generation X+1 compared with generation X, we need a quantitative measure of information. So, give us a measure by which we can compare the information content in the genome of a range of prokaryotes, say, brewer’s yeast (*Saccharomyces cerevisae), *humans and lung fish (Protopterus aethiopocus) and amoeba dubia or the amoeba *Chaos chaos.

*So, since you make the strong claim that scientists are mistaken in holding to common descent because evolution is precluded by the impossibility of information increase, you must define a quantitative measure for information in the genome that we can all agree and a means for measuring genome information in generation X and X+1 so we can say whether information has increased or decreased between the generations.

If you can’t do this, your claim that evolution is precluded by information science is obviously pure rhetoric without the slightest support from real science. If you want to be taken seriously we need to start with a definition and a method of measurement. Define information content in a genome and describe the method by which we would measure it. How do I or anyone else measure information in a genome and thus determine unequivocally whether information has increased or decreased from generation X to generation X+1?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I’m new at these forums, so please forgive me if I’m addressing the right person or the wrong…this is all a bit confusing to me, add to that I only have a high school education so!!!

I personally totally believe in creation of man. I believe, as the Bible teaches that God took the dust from the earth and blew life into it. I do not believe He used any type of science, which is based mostly on theory. I don’t believe God made use of apes, dolphins or any other creatures in the ‘creation of mankind.’

 

[hecd2]

I’m new at these forums, so please forgive me if I’m addressing the right person or the wrong…this is all a bit confusing to me, add to that I only have a high school education so!!!

I personally totally believe in creation of man. I believe, as the Bible teaches that God took the dust from the earth and blew life into it. I do not believe He used any type of science, which is based mostly on theory. I don’t believe God made use of apes, dolphins or any other creatures in the ‘creation of mankind.’

Well that’s fine, you are free to believe whatever you like. If you want to believe that humans are the result of an act of special creation that’s entirely up to you. A belief in a miracle always trumps science. (I happen to think that there is overwhelming evidence for the fact of common descent and the idea that human beings, physically at least, are the product of evolution.)

But buffalo goes further than saying than man was created miraculously. He says that evolution doesn’t happen, and he points to an empirical scientific reason for that. He claims that evolution does not happen because mutations are not observed to increase the information in DNA (his words not mine). That is a purely scientific claim that makes no reference to God or miracles, and I am simply asking him to back up his claim from a scientific point of view. The fact is that his claim is scientific rhubarb and he will be unable to back it up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com