Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
John Bauer
Student
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm

Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #1

Post by John Bauer »

In the thread "Genetics and Adam and Eve," DrNoGods claimed that the creation narrative in Genesis describes Adam and Eve as the first humans. He said that
  • Adam and Eve have an "explicit role in the biblical creation myth as being the first humans."
  • "Their explicit role as the first humans [is] described in Genesis."
  • "According to the biblical creation myth there was (...) only two" people originally.
  • "Genesis very clearly does describe Adam and Eve as the first humans that this God created."
I would appreciate DrNoGods substantiating this claim of his, for I don't agree that Genesis says this. I would like to see this explored further.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #131

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to brunumb in post #130]
I don't care what the Bible states. I find it a truly abhorrent view of humanity. When you can demonstrate that any of it is true then that is the time to consider taking it seriously. Even then, demeaning human beings does not really warrant any consideration at all. To think that it is then up to God's will to act on the human heart (mind actually) to remove this depravity does not reflect well on this allegedly all-loving deity. What an appalling doctrine.
The entire western culture was built on the doctrine of total depravity. That is why they put so many safeguards in their political systems against men who would seek to abuse it. Communism has no safeguards like that. Well the proof is in the pudding.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #132

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #129]
Good thing you aren't running global atmospheric science efforts! Most of this is pure speculation on your part, and it is a fact that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions are contributing to rising atmospheric temperatures. The quantitative implications of this temperature rise over time is being studied because it is, in fact, something to potentially worry about. Fortunately, the science community doesn't have the attitude that any problems that humans may create are no big deal because some god will take care of it. 30 billion people on this planet is not a good idea!
I never said anything about God taking care of this situation. Global warming is not rational when the facts are examined. I even argued the worst-case scenario as if all of the global alarmist assumptions are true. Even using their own assumptions does not create the direr emergency that is predicted. Quite the contrary is predicted if those assumptions are true.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1298
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 62 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #133

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #133]
Quite the contrary is predicted if those assumptions are true.
What assumptions? Rising global temperature is an observable fact. There are no assumptions involved with that observation. The questions are ... what are the short and long term implications, how much of the effect (quantitatively) is due to anthropogenic activity and how much is natural, and if there are negative implications for the future what can be done to stem the rise if it is indeed largely caused by human activity?

You are only looking at one side of the issue (plants like CO2 and would benefit), but like any complicated system there are other factors to consider. 30 billion people on this planet is not a good goal to strive for, even if we completely removed fossil fuels from the equation, which are used for far more products than just fuel or electricity generation:

https://www.ranken-energy.com/index.php ... petroleum/

This is an interesting article:

https://ourworldindata.org/how-long-bef ... ssil-fuels

It illustrates the tradeoffs in continuing to use fossil fuels, vs. global temperature rise, and suggests that some 50-70% of fossil fuel reserves need to be "stranded" in order to meet a 2C temperature rise cap. No doubt technology will continue to make this issue a moving target with a lot of uncertainty, especially when trying to predict things many decades ahead. But the resource needs of 30 billion humans is something to worry about and plan for (or better ... to try and prevent), independent of the fossil fuels and climate change issue.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #134

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #134]
What assumptions? Rising global temperature is an observable fact. There are no assumptions involved with that observation. The questions are ... what are the short and long term implications, how much of the effect (quantitatively) is due to anthropogenic activity and how much is natural, and if there are negative implications for the future what can be done to stem the rise if it is indeed largely caused by human activity?
The assumption is that CO2 is causing it.
1] Global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are examined for the top‐of‐atmosphere radiation changes as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases build up from 1950 to 2100. There is an increase in net radiation absorbed, but not in ways commonly assumed. While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures. Instead, the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts. These findings underscore the need to ascertain the credibility of the model changes, especially insofar as changes in clouds are concerned. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 20amounts.
And then the question becomes what causes clouds to form.
Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... formation.
So the theories that you believe to be true are based on the assumption that global warming is due to carbon dioxide. It seems much more likely that increase solar radiation from the sun because sunspots decreased the cloud cover on the earth and increased the temperature of the oceans. This increase in the temperature of the oceans caused a solubility decrease of CO2 in the oceans. This decrease in solubility is the CO2 increase that is being measured. So if you want to stop global warming stop the sunspot activity.
You are only looking at one side of the issue (plants like CO2 and would benefit), but like any complicated system, there are other factors to consider. 30 billion people on this planet is not a good goal to strive for, even if we completely removed fossil fuels from the equation, which are used for far more products than just fuel or electricity generation:
When people say it is a complicated system, they usually mean that the facts do not support their narrative. Like in the case of global warming.

Neither link worked but that does not matter I am familiar with the argument you are trying to make.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1298
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 62 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #135

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #135]
When people say it is a complicated system, they usually mean that the facts do not support their narrative. Like in the case of global warming.
Or they mean that it actually is a complicated system, as in this case, and not enough facts are in (ie. measurements) to formulate models that are as quantitatively accurate as everyone would like them to be. From the same paper, there is this comment:

"Linkages between clouds and the energy budget are well established, and changes in cloud as the climate changes are a key feedback and the largest source of uncertainty in climate modeling."

There is no particular narrative that the science community is pushing, as you seem to suggest, and instead it is the usual process of analyzing data and trying to explain it. But this has transitioned into a climate change discussion with no linkage to religion so I won't comment further.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2038
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 243 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #136

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #135]

OR, the change in temperature and climate is actually affecting the cloud cover.

https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/08/24/cli ... y-big-deal
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Post Reply