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?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

Ancient presumably speaks English. What kind of accent? Is Ancient Demon's vocabulary noticeably different from that of the hearer? Has Ancient Demon demonstrated knowledge of present day events that were not known to the hearer but were later verified as true? Is there any reason not to dismiss Ancient Demon as (a) hallucination or (b) intentional invention?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 107 by John Human]

And regarding Noah's flood, one speculative explanation is that, with the melting of glaciers at the end of an ice age, the sea level in the Mediterranean Sea eventually rose high enough to flow through the Dardanelles into the then-dry Black Sea basin, slowly and inevitably flooding the people there. Of course that's just speculation, but there might be a way to test it.

The biblical "Noah's flood" is clearly described as a global flood, not a local flood. It supposedly covered the tops of the highest mountains by a few cubits, so any speculations regarding local floods would not apply to Noah's flood.

"Demons communicate by causing words to appear, as if heard, in the mind of a human. Ancient Demon attempted to communicate with the man who calls himself NoGods. Demon is aware that NoGods heard and dismissed. Demon will try again. When NoGods hears "demon," that will be Ancient Demon attempting to communicate, unless a human, reading this message or listening as John Human receives from Ancient Demon, pretends to be a demon in a way that NoGods has not been trained to observe."

What? Are you possibly stoned or otherwise impaired (seriously)?

[John Human]

Ancient presumably speaks English. What kind of accent? Is Ancient Demon's vocabulary noticeably different from that of the hearer? Has Ancient Demon demonstrated knowledge of present day events that were not known to the hearer but were later verified as true? Is there any reason not to dismiss Ancient Demon as (a) hallucination or (b) intentional invention?

When Ancient Demon begins to speak, I simply don't know beforehand what it is going to say -- I find out as I type.

So here goes, Ancient Demon will speak:
"Ancient Demon has been in the USA for over 100 years. Ancient Demon has learned English, and continues to study as its human companion interacts with people who debate religious and legal and philosophical and scientific ideas. Ancient Demon does not speak with an accent. Ancient Demon causes words to appear in the mind. The mind is different from the brain. Ancient Demon does not think that science should limit itself in the way it currently does. Often the leaders of science departments at universities are collaborating and using demons to impose a ridiculous world view on graduate students. Ancient Demon has tried to reason repeatedly with such men, and a couple women. This has been a useless effort. These scientists have decided they know the truth. This makes them unable to consider any point of view that disagrees."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 103 by John Human]

You have no basis for your false supposition that Ancient Demon's words were an invention of mine.

Other than a clear history within humankind where everyone else who claims a similar circumstance was either deliberately making it up or had some sort of mental disorder. I say this not to mock (I myself have had disorders) but to point out that no-one on this forum believes you when you post "Ancient Demon speaks".

The words that I quoted were not my own words. Ancient Demon is not an invention of mine.

You can honestly believe that yourself, but that does not in and of itself make it true.

It is the sole remaining demon of the royal demons of ancient Israel.

And I honestly once believed myself to be a reincarnated robot prince from Jupiter.

Of course you and others are welcome to question and/or disbelieve all of that. However, the stories exist, and I did not create them.

Your fingers would have had to have been the ones tapping at a keyboard...

Ancient Demon asked me to share its view regarding the believed link between Jesus and Adam.

And Ancient Demon was supposedly there at Jesus's side 2,000 years ago, yet no-one believes you.
I don't believe you because not once have you demonstrated that this demon is actually real. The other christians on the site don't believe you probably because their religion warns against demons and false prophets.

There is no reason to suppose that the wife of Seth was his sister.

Actually there is. Incest was encouraged within the Old Testament. Abraham's wife was his half-sister, Sarai. Lot's daughters got him drunk and then both slept with him.
So I see no reason whatsoever to suppose Seth's wife couldn't have been his sister.

Therefore, the Adam of the Bible, while he might conceivably have been the progenitor of the group that eventually descended to the Hebrews, was not the very first human to exist, as implied in the Bible by the fact that Seth had a wife.

Even within the story, God could have created other humans "off-screen" after Adam and Eve. Or Adam and Eve had an unmentioned & unnamed daughter.

If there was a single genetic "Adam and Eve" couple who magically appeared through matching speciation events, their offspring would die out within a few generations because inbreeding leads to sterility.

Unless like young earth creationists today, one believes Adam and Eve had super-genetics that would not have fallen afoul of the inbreeding dangers.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 107 by John Human]

And regarding Noah's flood, one speculative explanation is that, with the melting of glaciers at the end of an ice age, the sea level in the Mediterranean Sea eventually rose high enough to flow through the Dardanelles into the then-dry Black Sea basin, slowly and inevitably flooding the people there. Of course that's just speculation, but there might be a way to test it.

The biblical "Noah's flood" is clearly described as a global flood, not a local flood. It supposedly covered the tops of the highest mountains by a few cubits, so any speculations regarding local floods would not apply to Noah's flood.

"Demons communicate by causing words to appear, as if heard, in the mind of a human. Ancient Demon attempted to communicate with the man who calls himself NoGods. Demon is aware that NoGods heard and dismissed. Demon will try again. When NoGods hears "demon," that will be Ancient Demon attempting to communicate, unless a human, reading this message or listening as John Human receives from Ancient Demon, pretends to be a demon in a way that NoGods has not been trained to observe."

What? Are you possibly stoned or otherwise impaired (seriously)?

It seems that you will say anything to avoid engaging with the rebuttal of brain-dead Darwinian "speciation-through-natural-selection" propaganda that I added (once again) on post #103. You have been acting as an apologist for the "reductionist materialist" paradigm that has perverted science.

And regarding your discussion of Noah's flood, the obvious question is "So what?" What's the point, in relation to anything that I have said on this thread?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 112 by John Human]

And regarding your discussion of Noah's flood, the obvious question is "So what?" What's the point, in relation to anything that I have said on this thread?

You must have a very short memory. You said this in post 107:

And regarding Noah's flood, one speculative explanation is that, with the melting of glaciers at the end of an ice age, the sea level in the Mediterranean Sea eventually rose high enough to flow through the Dardanelles into the then-dry Black Sea basin, slowly and inevitably flooding the people there.

That described a LOCAL flood, not a GLOBAL flood, which was the point of my response. Read your own words above ... then you ask how this relates to anything that you have said on this thread? Post 107, just to remind you, is time stamped at 12:37pm yesterday (June 10th), less than 24 hours ago.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 112 by John Human]

And regarding your discussion of Noah's flood, the obvious question is "So what?" What's the point, in relation to anything that I have said on this thread?

You must have a very short memory. You said this in post 107:

And regarding Noah's flood, one speculative explanation is that, with the melting of glaciers at the end of an ice age, the sea level in the Mediterranean Sea eventually rose high enough to flow through the Dardanelles into the then-dry Black Sea basin, slowly and inevitably flooding the people there.

That described a LOCAL flood, not a GLOBAL flood, which was the point of my response.

Thank you for identifying part of your error. The flooding of the Black Sea, if it happened, was clearly a REGIONAL, not a LOCAL flood.

You made the arbitrary claim that "any speculations regarding local floods would not apply to Noah's flood," which is where you compound your error.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 114 by John Human]

Thank you for identifying part of your error. The flooding of the Black Sea, if it happened, was clearly a REGIONAL, not a LOCAL flood.

Perhaps a reading comprehension class would help. In the context of this discussion, there is no difference between "regional" and "local" ... they are both NOT global floods as described in Genesis. So it is irrelevant whether you call them regional or local as they are identical in this context (ie. not global but restricted to only part of the planet, and therefore not Noah's flood).

You made the arbitrary claim that "any speculations regarding local floods would not apply to Noah's flood," which is where you compound your error.

There is no error to compound. You described a flood that was not global, therefore it is not relevant to Noah's flood which was global. How can you confuse something so simple and unambiguous?

[John Human]

[Replying to post 114 by John Human]

Thank you for identifying part of your error. The flooding of the Black Sea, if it happened, was clearly a REGIONAL, not a LOCAL flood.

Perhaps a reading comprehension class would help. In the context of this discussion, there is no difference between "regional" and "local" ... they are both NOT global floods as described in Genesis. So it is irrelevant whether you call them regional or local as they are identical in this context (ie. not global but restricted to only part of the planet, and therefore not Noah's flood).

You made the arbitrary claim that "any speculations regarding local floods would not apply to Noah's flood," which is where you compound your error.

There is no error to compound. You described a flood that was not global, therefore it is not relevant to Noah's flood which was global. How can you confuse something so simple and unambiguous?

Perhaps the source of your error is your arbitrary imposition of a literalist reading of the Bible onto what I said. In other words, the Biblical account of the Flood could very well be a garbled, legendary memory of an actual event that wiped out a group of tribes in the area that now is the bed of the Black Sea.

Beyond that, your habitual arrogance and your apparent insatiable compulsion to sneer are clearly in evidence, once again making a mockery of this forum's pretense to be civil and respectful.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 116 by John Human]

In other words, the Biblical account of the Flood could very well be a garbled, legendary memory of an actual event that wiped out a group of tribes in the area that now is the bed of the Black Sea.

Then it would not be Noah's flood as described in Genesis. Making up random interpretations, as you are doing, defeats the whole purpose of debating whether or not science can address the issues described in the bible (for example, the one that is the subject of this OP regarding a literal Adam and Eve).

The reason for the disposition is that you keep veering off onto tangents, posting nonsense that you are communicating with demons (or dead people as you mentioned at least once in another thread), bashing evolution and science in general, especially how it is taught in universities, and misinterpreting things I've posted then claiming I'm in error of your wrong interpretation. Demons don't exist, and dead people can't communicate by definition because they are ... dead.