Genetics and Adam and Eve

[amortalman]

I began to wonder about this after reading a post by rikuoamero wherein he made mention of it. It sounded like a worthy subject to explore.

So the question for debate is:

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?

[John Bauer]

This is the crux of my argument against your interpretation that there were millions of people alive at the time of the biblical Adam and Eve.

Prehistoric world population estimates are not drawn from the text of Genesis, ergo, it is not an interpretation issue. It doesn't matter how badly you want it to be.

Hints, or comments that certain biblical stories are outside of the realm of science (a very common theist position), essentially remove the topics from a discussion regarding the intersection of the topic, and science. If the position is that science can't address the issue because it is outside of the realm of science, then it should be discussed in a section on philosophy, or apologetics, or theology and doctrine (all sections of this forum).

Unless the question is about whether or not genetics can disprove a literal Adam and Eve. That's at the center of the intersection of science and religion. However, what the Bible has to say about the purpose and significance of Adam and Eve is strictly theological and outside the purview of science, belonging to one of the subforums you listed. I think this means we are in agreement.

If science is going to be brought into the discussion, then hints and unusual interpretations go out the window unless they can be supported in some concrete way. [...] I think your interpretation that there were millions of other people at the time of Adam and Eve [...]

If by "out the window" you mean they are not relevant to a scientific context, I would agree. But then you seem almost willfully blind to the fact that my claim about the world population 7,000 years ago was not drawn from Genesis and is thus not an interpretation, unusual or otherwise. You really need to stop imposing conclusions on me that I don't own and deal with what I'm telling you about my claim.

I read Genesis literally in terms of debating Adam and Eve [...]

No, you don't. You read Genesis but not literally. A literal interpretation involves dealing with the text in its original linguistic, historical, and cultural contexts. The English translation of the King James Version doesn't cut it.

If the whole subject is open to interpretation, what is the point?

Interpretation IS the point. It's about trying to get at what the original author meant and what his audience would have understood. What it means to YOU is not a "literal interpretation," it's an autobiographical one, telling us something about you but nothing about the text itself.

I'm pretty sure the overwhelming view of Adam and Eve among Christians is that they were indeed the first humans [...]

And you're this confident because you talked to 23 of the 2.2 billion Christians ... *long pause*

Huh. Your confidence really doesn't require much.

The belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans is actually the minority view among Christians, less than a quarter, in fact. The overwhelming view is that humans evolved. See David Masci, "For Darwin Day, 6 Facts about the Evolution Debate," Fact Tank (blog), Pew Research Center, February 11, 2019 (accessed June 16, 2019). I'm glad that 100 percent of your 23 Christian friends agreed with one another, but they're still the minority.

I think your interpretation that there were millions of other people at the time of Adam and Eve is not the typical view among Christians [...]

I can see that. However, it is.

-- John M. Bauer

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 138 by John Bauer]

Prehistoric world population estimates are not drawn from the text of Genesis, ergo, it is not an interpretation issue. It doesn't matter how badly you want it to be.

And I made no such claim. You are, yet again, intentionally misrepresenting what I said and then commenting on your own recasting of the comment to suit your argument. I never made the comment that world population estimates are drawn from the text of Genesis.

Unless the question is about whether or not genetics can disprove a literal Adam and Eve. That's at the center of the intersection of science and religion.

Yes ... except you aren't debating that issue. You're either intentionally misrepresenting what I say to try and make some unrelated point (like the example above), or dodging the request to support your unusual claim that there were millions of other people around during the creation week, and specifically day 6 when Adam was created according to the Genesis myth. Another example of your misrepresentation is similar to the above where you commented that there were millions of people around a mere 7,000 years ago, and made that comment without any reference to Adam and Eve as if that were somehow related to the point at hand. The issue is whether or not Adam and Eve were the first humans as described in Genesis, not just 2 of millions as you are claiming. Try to stay on topic ... or maybe diverting and misrepresenting others comments is intentional to avoid having to address your unusual claim?

But then you seem almost willfully blind to the fact that my claim about the world population 7,000 years ago was not drawn from Genesis and is thus not an interpretation, unusual or otherwise.

And yet another intentional complete misrepresentation of what I said. Never once have I stated that your claim of world population 7000 years ago came from Genesis. You just completely made that up and repeat it as if it is something I said in a prior post. It is very simple but let me repeat it as you are very obviously confused and having trouble understanding, and/or intentionally misrepresenting my comments.

I am claiming that a literal interpretation of Genesis, King James version or otherwise, describes Adam and Eve as the first humans that god created. You are claiming that this is not the case and that there were millions of other people on Earth when Adam was created (which is, specifically day 6 of the creation account in Genesis). My position is based on a literal reading of Genesis from the King James translation. Your position is based on WHAT? That is the issue. But instead of providing an answer to that you are intentionally diverting with comments about world population 7,000 years ago independent of the biblical Adam and Eve story, claiming I said that world population numbers came from Genesis when I never made any such comment, etc.

Interpretation IS the point. It's about trying to get at what the original author meant and what his audience would have understood. What it means to YOU is not a "literal interpretation," it's an autobiographical one, telling us something about you but nothing about the text itself.

Sigh ... another dodge. A literal interpretation is just that ... an understanding of what the text literally says as opposed to a guess at what the author MAY have meant. Can't you see the difference? Trying to get at what the author may have meant is NOT what literal interpretation means. If something is so vaguely written that its meaning is not clear, then it is open to interpretation and you can have a discussion on that the author may have meant. But if the text is specific and not vague then it is not open to interpretation, and the description of the creation of Adam in Genesis is not vague. It very specifically describes god creating man in his image as the first instance of a human being (Genesis 1:26-27), and he placed "the man" (not millions of men) into the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8).

The English translation of the King James Version doesn't cut it.

Then what does cut it? Give us the John Baeur translation that is evidently different, and explain why your version should be considered over the King James translation, and how it supports your idea that Adam was not the first human being on this planet but rather just one of millions at the time he was created on day 6 of creation week.

The belief that Adam and Eve were the first humans is actually the minority view among Christians, less than a quarter, in fact. The overwhelming view is that humans evolved.

Of course humans evolved. This is just an exact repeat of what appears to be a standard tactic of yours. Misrepresent something entirely and take it out of context, then claim it either refutes the other person's point, or supports your own. First, nothing in the article you linked suggested that less than a quarter of Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. In fact, that question was never even addressed in the article, and there is not a single mention of Adam and Eve even once in the article. Second, whether humans evolved or have always existed in their present form (something that was addressed in the article) says nothing whatsoever about who the first humans were or how/where they were "created."

Again, nothing in that article addressed the Adam and Eve story at all ... it was mainly on beliefs about evolution vs. humans being created fully formed as we exist today, what percentages of people believe in evolution in general, etc. So it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, which you seem to be adept at dodging (like referencing this article which said nothing about Adam and Eve) and changing the subject, but unable to address. Why don't you give us the John Bauer translation of the Genesis Adam and Eve story, and explain how it supports the existence of millions of other humans being alive on Earth when Adam was created. And don't try more tricks like using world population 7,000 years ago independent of biblical accounts, with world population according to Genesis at day 6 of the creation account.

I can see that. However, it is.

Based on what? Apparently just another empty claim.

[John Bauer]

And I made no such claim. [...] I never made the comment that world population estimates are drawn from the text of Genesis. [...] Never once have I stated that your claim of world population 7000 years ago came from Genesis. You just completely made that up and repeat it as if it is something I said in a prior post. [...] [You are] claiming I said that world population numbers came from Genesis when I never made any such comment [...]

In this thread:

1. Post # 96: "According to the biblical creation myth there was not ~7 million people on this planet, but only 2 that were explicitly created by God at the end of week one of the creation narrative."

2. Post # 122: "This is the crux of my argument against your interpretation that there were millions of people alive at the time of the biblical Adam and Eve."

3. Ibid.: "I think your interpretation that there were millions of other people at the time of Adam and Eve is not the typical view among Christians (whose holy book the story appears in), and so far your support for that idea here is only that you think there are hints of it in Genesis, and you personally believe it to be true for some reason."

4. Post # 139: "[You are] dodging the request to support your unusual claim that there were millions of other people around during the creation week, and specifically day 6 when Adam was created according to the Genesis myth."

5. Ibid.: "The issue is whether or not Adam and Eve were the first humans as described in Genesis, not just 2 of millions as you are claiming."

6. Ibid.: "You are intentionally diverting with comments about world population 7,000 years ago independent of the biblical Adam and Eve story [...]"

7. Ibid.: "Genesis [...] very specifically describes God creating man in his image as the first instance of a human being (Genesis 1:26-27), and he placed 'the man' (not millions of men) into the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8)."

8. Ibid.: "Give us the John Baeur translation that is evidently different, and explain [...] how it supports your idea that Adam was not the first human being on this planet but rather just one of millions at the time he was created on day 6 of creation week."

9. Ibid.: "Why don't you give us the John Bauer translation of the Genesis Adam and Eve story, and explain how it supports the existence of millions of other humans being alive on Earth when Adam was created. And don't try more tricks like using world population 7,000 years ago independent of biblical accounts, with world population according to Genesis at day 6 of the creation account."

And in the other thread:

10. Post # 5: "Which I did by referencing the text (ie. Genesis) that tells a different story than you are imagining. You can make up stuff all you like, but so far all you've done is present your unusual opinion without any support from Genesis, which is where the story is told."

11. Ibid.: "Why don't you try some offense and support your claim that there were millions of other people around [...] when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. There is no evidence for that in Genesis, yet you throw that out as if it were something to take seriously and debate."

12. Ibid.: "You are the one offering up an unusual and unsubstantiated (so far) interpretation of the text."

13. Post # 9: "No critical thinking skills are needed to read a straightforward story like the creation myth of Genesis and conclude that Adam and Eve are described as the first humans created. You seem to be using your imagination skills to arrive at some different interpretation, and then claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you can't think properly, or read properly. That doesn't make your unusual interpretation any more valid or reasonable."

14. Ibid.: "Is reading something into a story that isn't there, as you are doing, somehow a better alternative?"

15. Ibid.: "So my reading of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, and taking it literally, is literally the dictionary definition of what I am doing. Yet you claim just the opposite because you have imagined a different interpretation and are trying to support it (still without any evidence) by arguing that my literal interpretation is not a literal interpretation [...]"

16. Ibid.: "This is just another example of you intentionally misrepresenting what I said in an effort to support your claim of there being millions of people on Earth during the week that Adam and Eve were created according to the Genesis creation myth. The discussion is not about how many people were living on Earth some 7,000 years ago independent of the Adam and Eve story, it is about your claim that there were millions of people on Earth on the 6th day of the creation account of Genesis, which is when Adam was 'created'."

17. Ibid.: "It is you who are making an unusual claim (ie. that there were millions of other people around on day 6 of the Genesis creation account) [...]"

18. Ibid.: "The only support for your unusual claim so far is that you have a personal interpretation that leads you to believe that there were millions of people around on day 6 of the Genesis creation account (taking that account literally as described in English translations). Your repeated attempts at deflection don't change the fact that this is your unusual interpretation [...]"

19. Ibid.: "Why don't you provide this 'correct' translation if it can somehow support your unusual claim? [...] Deflection attempts [...] just make it appear you don't actually have anything to support your interpretation other than that it is a personal opinion."

I'm sorry but you are not honest enough to deal with.

-- John M. Bauer

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 140 by John Bauer]

I'm sorry but you are not honest enough to deal with.

Fine ... no need continuing this discussion if you're going to continuously evade the question and play diversion games, as you just did again with post 140. Difflugia asked the same basic question I've been asking on your duplicate thread (post 10 there) and you didn't respond to him either.

So I think it is clear that you don't intend to address this basic question that is being asked (ie. what support is there for millions of people being alive on planet Earth at the time the biblical Adam was created) and are only interested in changing the subject to avoid it. No point in wasting more time on that game.

[John Human]

I read Genesis literally in terms of debating Adam and Eve because if the whole subject is open to interpretation what is the point?

So it would seem that your starting point for discussing Adam and Eve is just as arbitrary as your groundless embrace of the Darwinian fantasy of species originating through natural selection. Once again, part of my rebuttal of both a Darwinian origin of homo sapiens and a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story is that, without a sufficient gene pool at the very beginning, the descendants of the single early breeding pair would die out because of inbreeding.
_________________

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 142 by John Human]

So it would seem that your starting point for discussing Adam and Eve is just as arbitrary as your groundless embrace of the Darwinian fantasy of species originating through natural selection.

Seriously? So in a thread discussing whether or not a literal Adam and Eve exists, it is "arbitrary" to use a literal reading of the biblical story of Adam and Eve? If that is arbitrary, then what is the alternative description of Adam and Eve that isn't arbitrary? Maybe one of your demons could help you out with the definition of the word literal (or you could perform an arbitrary act like looking it up in a dictionary).

The Darwinian [strike]fantasy[/strike] theory of evolution by natural selection is not embraced "groundlessly" by the majority of the scientific community (or myself). It is the current best explanation of speciation on planet Earth because it is supported by mountains of actual evidence (the opposite of things like demons, for example). Don't you think it is more than a bit ironic that you describe a solid scientific theory like evolution by natural selection using words like "groundless" and "fantasy", yet you actually think demons exist when they are nothing but fantasy.

Once again, part of my rebuttal of both a Darwinian origin of homo sapiens and a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story is that, without a sufficient gene pool at the very beginning, the descendants of the single early breeding pair would die out because of inbreeding.

There is nothing in a Darwinian origin of Homo sapiens that precludes a sufficient gene pool at the "beginning." In fact it describes exactly that if "the beginning" is the population of the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos and that we all evolved from. Your inbreeding rebuttal isn't even relevant to the topic of actual Darwinian evolution..

[Clownboat]

I read Genesis literally in terms of debating Adam and Eve because if the whole subject is open to interpretation what is the point?

So it would seem that your starting point for discussing Adam and Eve is just as arbitrary as your groundless embrace of the Darwinian fantasy of species originating through natural selection. Once again, part of my rebuttal of both a Darwinian origin of homo sapiens and a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story is that, without a sufficient gene pool at the very beginning, the descendants of the single early breeding pair would die out because of inbreeding.
_________________

I assume it must be empowering to think that all of science is wrong on a topic, but little ol you just happen to know how things actually happened unlike the rest of the scientific community.

I have read that this is how many conspiracy theories start (by convincing oneself that they have knowledge that escapes most everyone else). It is explained as an empowering feeling that some are more predisposed to then others.

So with that said, what evidence do you have that would support there were millions of people alive on planet Earth at the time the biblical Adam was created (inbreeding has already been addressed and shown to be a non issue).

To the OP. Genetics certainly does seem to disprove a literal Adam/Eve though.