Adam was born how many years ago?

[buffalo]

I’m sorry, but I honestly can’t take such a comment that evolution is not true seriously.

Indeed. The dogma is deep within you. Macroevolution and universal common descent does not/did not happen.

The better explanation is design.

 

[buffalo]

The issue is why would an all-loving God create any species (98% in fact) that go extinct prior to human beings appearing on earth? Why did God allow massive amount of suffering for animals and other life-forms? This is not a loving God.

Since you are not an animal how do you know how animals suffer?

 

[buffalo]

This article and the position by WLC confirms, evolution, not deny it.
The chances of one individual HUMAN couple being the sole ancestors of the human race is impossible. Y-Adam and Mitochondrial Eve certainly existed (although they can change), so you could progress backward in time to find a common genetic pair. But the point is that when do you claim humanity started? We are talking about AT BEST 500,000 years ago.
Is that really the position you want to take? That Adam and Eve were proto-humans that lived 500K (or more) years ago?

No one argues micro-evolution. The entire point of the article and the papers by Swamidass and Sanford are that the now outdated idea is it was genetically impossible for us to have Adam and Eve as our parents has not stood the test of time.

YAdam and MtDNA Eve were Noah and family.

So you missed my other point. Now we will refine the dating. If you followed my posts I am a middle ager.

God could have inserted Adam and Eve anywhere in the timeline he wished.

 

[buffalo]

You have never seen an animal suffer? Get real.

How do you know how they suffer?

 

[buffalo]

would design creatures whereupon 98% of them go extinct.

Is that how He designed them? Why do you claim this?

 

[buffalo]

You may not be aware but the discovery that living things can go extinct was a devastating discovery and directly contradict theological thinking at the time.

Why do species go extinct?

 

[whatistrue]

I am asking why an intelligent designer, one that is in fact as smart as possible - omniscient even - would design creatures whereupon 98% of them go extinct.

I don’t know. Nor do I subscribe to ID either, but it is not because I assume that I am smarter than God.

Just you because you would do it differently doesn’t mean God is wrong.

 

[goout]

God could have inserted Adam and Eve anywhere in the timeline he wished.

God could also make my high blood pressure disappear without medication.
God could make your arm stop bleeding without benefit of a bandage.
God could balance your checkbook, right now, give you the number, without you even exerting your brain.

And God could have saved the human race and redeemend the human condition without bothering with…the human condition. But that’s not how God has willed to work.
God has worked with the human condition, body and soul. And that includes engaging the intellect with what is revealed.

God does not spoon feed grace to us. God engages us fully, and asks us to engage fully in reciprocation. The real possibility of miracles of grace are not excuses for ignorance.
Does that make sense? The fact that God could do something does not mean that all possibilities are reasonable within the scope of human discovery. Through scientific discovery the human mind absorbs information and learns how God’s creation is made.

 

[buffalo]

I mean, fine. That is not at all what Christianity is based on. But if you want to modify Christianity so that you can marry it with evolution in that way. Go ahead.

The takeaway point is that the old thinking that Adam and Eve were impossible because of a 10,000 person bottleneck is gone. That is all.

 

[Pattylt]

The burden is upon you to prove it.

It would take an entire library of material to give you your “proof”. It isn’t a one comment answer. Jan gave you three different areas of science that have shown overwhelming evidence of the facts that lead the theory to be validated. The evidence is available but will require some reading and learning on your part. It’s up to you, not us, to disprove evolution.

 

[Randolph]

It would take an entire library of material to give you your “proof”. It isn’t a one comment answer. Jan gave you three different areas of science that have shown overwhelming evidence of the facts that lead the theory to be validated. The evidence is available but will require some reading and learning on your part. It’s up to you, not us, to disprove evolution.

You don’t seem to understand my posts. It would serve you well to read them for I don’t not wish to keep on repeating them. For the last time, I am not a creationist. I believe there are good evidences to support human evolution. The arguments made by Francis Collins in his book “The Language of God” that advocates human evolution are quite compelling. Research in DNA and biology have made good breakthroughs. But Dr. Collins stopped short of saying human evolution has been proven, nor it is settled science. He said so because the evidences we have gathered so far have not reached a point where scientists can conclude definitively (prove) that humans evolved directly from fossil organisms about 4 billions years ago. Among many questions left unresolved are the effects of genetic mutation, missing links, etc…

As loudly as you and others who have shouted that human evolution has been proven and it is settled science, it is simply not true. At best, evidences that have been known so far can at best put human evolution as either a hypothesis or a theory.

You can believe whatever you want. It would not require a library to prove human evolution. A good paper or a book (or a few) would do. Indeed, there are many papers and books speculating about human evolution. None has definitely proven human evolution to the standard which satisfies scientific methods. I am checking out of this thread.

 

[Pattylt]

But Dr. Collins stopped short of saying human evolution has been proven, nor it is settled science.

Ok, I now understand what you are saying and I agree with you. I have never stated it is proven. Only math deals in proofs. As for settled, that, too is provisional as no science is ever settled. It is always provisional to our current knowledge. It IS very, highly validated. I agree that Jan uses the word proof too loosely. Often in common talking points people tend to drift in their meanings…not understanding the difference between common everyday use of theory vs. scientific theory for example and I should have given you more benefit of doubt.

You are correct. It is not proven. It is validated by its evidences. It can be disproven but never proven. The problem we were having is how you were phrasing it and how we were interpreting it. My apologies!

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Jan gave you three different areas of science that have shown overwhelming evidence of the facts that lead the theory to be validated. The evidence is available but will require some reading and learning on your part. It’s up to you, not us, to disprove evolution.

It’s up to the person that makes a claim to provide support not the other way around.

Evolution may be true, but the parts that are relevant to this topic haven’t been explained in depth or at all.

 

[Pattylt]

Evolution may be true, but the parts that are relevant to this topic haven’t been explained in depth or at all.

True, I can not give you any evidence of how many years ago Adam and Eve lived. We do not have their bones or any evidence of their existence at all…other than a story in the Bible. With that said, I will bow out of the conversation as I do not believe the story is historical to begin with.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Okay, so you have completely ignored what I said in favor of stating the same exact cookie-cutter lines you’ve said dozens of times before. I see there’s no reason to engage with you.

 

[Randolph]

My apologies!

I also apologize to you for mis-understanding your posts.

 

[buffalo]

When asked WHY did and all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God do it that way, especially considering that 150 years ago no one believed the above, including Jesus, Moses, the great Christian thinkers, the popes, the saints, and on and on - your response is nothing more than “Well, God works in mysterious ways”.

This is the problem with theistic evolution. Atheists get it better than Catholics.

 

[buffalo]

Those three alone provide indisputable proof. If you claim to demand more evidence than the rest of the scientific community please provide a reason why and what your alternative theory is.

Actually the more we learn of each of these the worse it is for macro evolution and universal common descent.

 

[Gorgias]

We do. It is. And I’m out.

OK… if you come back, though, maybe you might point me to the magisterial document that makes these explicit assertions you’re making here? Or a CCC passage, perhaps?

Because he obvious is not “intelligent” if he created species that could go extinct.

Why is ‘extinction’ such a bad thing, let alone – as you’re asserting – an evil thing?

So you are saying an omnipotent and omniscient being that allows for untold suffering is “all-good”?

“Untold suffering” is your characterization and your opinion. Let’s just stick with “there is suffering in the physical universe.” And yeah… given that this is part and parcel of being physical, if the benefits outweigh the negatives, then “all-good” still works!

I don’t think you fully understand the Problem of Animal Suffering

I do understand it. I just disagree with your take on it.

The typical Christian apologetic response is that animals do not feel pain at all (ie, WLC).

We’ve been around this before: that’s not the Catholic response, nor is WLC a Catholic. So, it’s improper for you to claim “ya’ll are wrong”, if you’re pointing to someone other than Catholics.

No one denies the problem as you seem to be doing.

Plenty deny it, as you found out in other threads around here.

I am asking why an intelligent designer, one that is in fact as smart as possible - omniscient even - would design creatures whereupon 98% of them go extinct.

I know you are. And, your claim that I was referencing wasn’t “there is an intelligent designer”, but rather “a God who creates would not create life-forms that go extinct”. THAT’S the claim you’re making that’s completely unsubstantiated. So… let’s see your case for that claim!

You may not be aware but the discovery that living things can go extinct was a devastating discovery and directly contradict theological thinking at the time.

So what? It was devastating to find out that the earth isn’t the center of the universe… but it was true.

It was devastating to find out that the earth isn’t flat, and that there are more humans in “undiscovered” regions… but it was true.

“Devastating to your psyche” =/= “not truth.”

YAdam and MtDNA Eve were Noah and family.

With all due respect, you radically misunderstand the concepts of “Y-Chromosome Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve”…

 

[buffalo]

With all due respect, you radically misunderstand the concepts of “Y-Chromosome Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve”…

Of course I do.

What the genetics show around 30 minutes in