Common Ancestry a Religious Premise.

[jcrawford]

The fact that neo-Darwinists premise their notions, ideas, concepts and theories about common ancestry and common descent on the biblical story of Adam and Eve is proof enough that evolutionist "theory" is premised on a religious belief and concept to start with.

[Cathar1950]

My point was that there are many myths about man's origins. That Darwin talked about descent from a common ancestor hardly shows that it was from religion. The bible can not be used to claim to have invented the concept of common descent. The charge that evolution borrowed the idea make no sense. I am afraid ENIGMA made an excellent observation.
I do not see any validity to this thread. Freud use myths to describe ideas he had from his observations. That does not mean the myth were true.
It does not mean He was right either but he hit some nerves and had some good points and made some paths that many followed that lead to great insights into the human psyche.

[jcrawford]

I think before Adam and Eve there was also El and his two sons. They were fooling around and made man too. I am sure there are other myths.

Whatever the mythical or religious origins of the concept of common human ancestral origins, they remain the mythical and religious foundations of neo-Darwinist theories and premises today.

So, your evidence that evolution is supported and justified by a thus far specified then retracted to become unspecified religious creation story is....?

The idea of common ancestral origins is first presented and suggested throughout the Bible, as is the original 6-day creation and Noah's Flood. Evolutionists reject the latter concepts as being religious but continue to premise their own theories on the biblical idea and possibility of common ancestral origins.

In other words, there is nothing in the natural world to suggest the idea or possibility of common ancestral origins, and Darwin premised and created his own beliefs about common ancestral origins on the biblical idea, premise and suggestion that common ancestral origins were even possible.

[jcrawford]

My point was that there are many myths about man's origins. That Darwin talked about descent from a common ancestor hardly shows that it was from religion. The bible can not be used to claim to have invented the concept of common descent. The charge that evolution borrowed the idea make no sense. I am afraid ENIGMA made an excellent observation.
I do not see any validity to this thread. Freud use myths to describe ideas he had from his observations. That does not mean the myth were true.
It does not mean He was right either but he hit some nerves and had some good points and made some paths that many followed that lead to great insights into the human psyche.

Whether the original idea and concept of common ancestral origins was mythical, legendary or religious is a side issue because all those descriptions and qualifications may be said to be contained in the original biblical accounts of common ancestral origins; the point being that the concept, idea and premise of common ancestral origins is neither fundamentally a scientific conclusion, premise nor observation to begin with.

Obviously, Darwin used concepts and information based on historical myths to hit some nerves also.

[Cathar1950]

Darwin was not trying to hit any nerves. The Idea had been around for some time he just put the data together and formalized it.
Not only did he not get his idea of common ancestors from the bible the data and observations were his guide. I do not belive the bible says anything about common ancestors also being animals. First you trash evolutionist now you say they got the idea from the bible. You have no support for any of these contentions. The Myths of Summer predate anything in the bible and have more detail. But if you insist that Darwin got his ideas from the bible fine. Sometimes the bible does get a few things right even when they put there own slant on others ancient myths.

[jcrawford]

The Idea had been around for some time he just put the data together and formalized it.

Modern "ideas" of common ancestral origins, genealogical predecessors and inheritance by descent, are all founded, based and premised upon the historical testament and account of their prior conceptual existance in the Bible.

Not only did he not get his idea of common ancestors from the bible the data and observations were his guide.

The original biblical idea of human 'common ancestry' was around long before Darwin came along though. He just applied the biblical idea and knowledge of common ancestry to other species.

I do not belive the bible says anything about common ancestors also being animals.

The idea and concept of the common ancestral origins of human beings is fundamental in the Bible though, and is antecedent to Darwin's later application of that original idea and concept to animals.

First you trash evolutionist now you say they got the idea from the bible. You have no support for any of these contentions.

It's perfectly obvious that the original concept and idea of common ancestral descent is presented and well documented in the ancestral records of biblical Jews. Even Jesus' common ancestral origins are recorded in the Gospels.

The Myths of Summer predate anything in the bible and have more detail.

Maybe Darwin got his mythical ideas about common ancestral origins there.

But if you insist that Darwin got his ideas from the bible fine.

I'm only saying that he got the original notions, concepts, ideas and beliefs OF common ancestral origins from the Bible. I have no idea where he got any of his other ideas, but it's perfectly obvious that he premised them on religious revelations of common ancestral origins.

[micatala]

The original notion, idea, belief in, and premise of common ancestral human descent and origins is obviously apparent from the genealogies listed in the Bible, and is obviously antecedent to Darwin's reference to it.

On what evidence might my original premise be assumed to be falsified, and in what way might it be assumed to be dishonest?

First off, why should we bother to take the time to falsify an assertion for which no evidence has been presented?

Secondly, it could be falsified by showing that Darwin based his idea on something other than the Bible or Biblical geneologies. For example, he might have hit upon the idea by having the basic knowledge of how sex results in procreation, and how one person (or any other being) has a whole host of descendants.

Now, the ‘logic’ in this statement seems to be that

1. Geneologies exist in the Bible.
2. Geneologies include the idea of common descent.
3. The Biblical geneologies pre-date Darwin.
4. Therefore, Darwin’s idea of common descent is based on the Bible and is religious in nature.

1, 2, and 3 are all more or less true, although it could certainly be debated whether the Bible is the origin of the idea of common descent. I don't see that any evidence has been presented for the Bible's priority in this regard.

However, the fallacy “before, therefore, based on (or because of)” is an old one, and even has a Latin name (which I cannot remember at present). Your implication is that it would not have been possible for Darwin to develop the 'common descent' part of evolution without basing it on the Bible.

Using your logic, one could argue that all of us who believe that the sun will rise in the East this coming Tuesday do so out of a Biblically based religious belief, since such events are described in the Bible. Your implication would seem to be that it would have been impossible for us to have come to such a conclusion on our own, or to reach this conclusion on the basis of non-Biblical evidence.

Such a contention is ridiculous.

[McCulloch]

However, the fallacy “before, therefore, based on (or because of)” is an old one, and even has a Latin name (which I cannot remember at present).

post hoc ergo propter hoc?

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
However, the fallacy “before, therefore, based on (or because of)” is an old one, and even has a Latin name (which I cannot remember at present).
post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Yes, thank you, M.

[jcrawford]

The original notion, idea, belief in, and premise of common ancestral human descent and origins is obviously apparent from the genealogies listed in the Bible, and is obviously antecedent to Darwin's reference to it.

On what evidence might my original premise be assumed to be falsified, and in what way might it be assumed to be dishonest?

First off, why should we bother to take the time to falsify an assertion for which no evidence has been presented?

The fact that the idea, concept and knowledge of common ancestral descent and origins predates Darwin is "evident" in the text of both the Old and New Testaments.

Secondly, it could be falsified by showing that Darwin based his idea on something other than the Bible or Biblical geneologies. For example, he might have hit upon the idea by having the basic knowledge of how sex results in procreation, and how one person (or any other being) has a whole host of descendants.

Yes, Darwin was probably familiar with the family trees of the higher classes of Europe in his day and how the royal families of Europe often consisted of ancestors of other European countries, but the idea that all of humanity all over the world might share common ancestors AND geographic ORIGINS, was already common knowledge in the Bible.

Now, the ‘logic’ in this statement seems to be that

1. Geneologies exist in the Bible.
2. Geneologies include the idea of common descent.
3. The Biblical geneologies pre-date Darwin.
4. Therefore, Darwin’s idea of common descent is based on the Bible and is religious in nature.

1, 2, and 3 are all more or less true, although it could certainly be debated whether the Bible is the origin of the idea of common descent.

As debatable as that point may be, I am just asserting that since the Bible was a public source of common knowledge in Darwin's day, most people in England at that time first learned of the concept and idea of common ancestral GEOGRAPHICAL origins from the genealogies of Jesus Christ, the Jews, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Noah's descendents and ancestors, and the descendents of Adam and Eve.

I don't see that any evidence has been presented for the Bible's priority in this regard.

What sort of evidence might you be looking for?

Your implication is that it would not have been possible for Darwin to develop the 'common descent' part of evolution without basing it on the Bible.

Yes.

Using your logic, one could argue that all of us who believe that the sun will rise in the East this coming Tuesday do so out of a Biblically based religious belief, since such events are described in the Bible. Your implication would seem to be that it would have been impossible for us to have come to such a conclusion on our own, or to reach this conclusion on the basis of non-Biblical evidence.

Such a contention is ridiculous.

Yes, it would be, if that was my contention, which it isn't, for the simple reason that since the sun obviously rises on all, being physically observable, to compare and equate a physical object with what may only be described as a mental concept, idea or belief, is like comparing real apples with the idea of oranges.

[palmera]

jcrawford wrote:

The fact that neo-Darwinists premise their notions, ideas, concepts and theories about common ancestry and common descent on the biblical story of Adam and Eve is proof enough that evolutionist "theory" is premised on a religious belief and concept to start with.

The original notion, idea, belief in, and premise of common ancestral human descent and origins is obviously apparent from the geneologies listed in the Bible and is obviously antecedant to Darwin's reference to it.

The reason I said it was dishonest is that you've presented as fact what not only is not true, but what you only assume to be true. You've stated that common ancestry as a notion began with the Bible, which it did not. You've stated that it is a fact that neo-Darwinists premise the theory of common ancestry on the biblical story of adam and eve, which they do not. You've erroneously argued that because the Bible uses genealogies, therefore it must be the case that neo-Darwinism draws the very concept of common ancestry from the Bible. Non of these things can you back up with evidence because non of these things is true. You're argument is based on faulty logic. You've misconstrued a correlation of common ideas for cause and effect in a way that does not make for honest debate. Rather than stating your argument as an opinion, you've stated it as fact, which it is not. The idea of common ancestry precedes biblical and religious writings and is not the foundation of darwinism. Common descent is not an explicitly religious belief, not in the Bible, not in science.

Using your logic, one could argue that the Biblical geneologies dating back to adam and eve, because they are preceded by other human concepts of common ancestry are therefore not provided through divine revelation but merely based on a premise "obviously antecedant to [the Hebrews] references [to them].