Adam and Eve as Genealogical vs Genetic Ancestors

[Enoch2021]

20 hours ago, one.opinion said:

In this post, I hope to generate much more theological discussion than scientific.

Neither exists in your post.

 

Quote

I have a friend (and this really is a friend, and not me :-P) that is a professional biologist

And...?  How does this relate to your spiel?  If we need to arbitrarily categorize something, we'll be sure to give him a call. 

 

Quote

He affirms an historical Adam and Eve and has some interesting viewpoints on genetic science.

Good to know.

 

Quote

While many scientists (Christians included) argue that genetic evidence suggests that the human population never dipped below roughly 10,000 and thus suggesting that Adam and Eve are not historical figures

"thus suggesting"?? Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

Validate the premise please...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

he argues that this genetic evidence cannot eliminate the possibility of an original pair. He further argues that this pair could be the genealogical ancestors of all humanity today, without having signs of being genetic ancestors.

This sounds like a Prep for a Fairytale.

Yep (2.) ...

Quote

(1.) A quick explanation of the difference would be that genetic ancestors could be traced by DNA evidence, but genealogical ancestors would not necessarily have any remaining trace of their DNA after only a small number of generations. 

(2.) His argument leaves open the possibility of Adam and Eve as the first pair of humans, created de novo, and with a God-given ability for a spiritual relationship with God, but amid a larger population of biological humans that lacked that ability for a spiritual relationship with God.

(1.)  Pointless.

(2.)  Where in the "Great Googly Moogly" did this come from...?  Book/Chapter/Verse...?

I suppose this is the 'Punch-Line' from the Fairytale above...: "genetic evidence suggests that the human population never dipped below roughly 10,000 and thus suggesting that Adam and Eve are not historical figures".

 

So essentially your argument is...: 

Premise: While many scientists (Christians included) argue that genetic evidence suggests that the human population never dipped below roughly 10,000 and thus suggesting that Adam and Eve are not historical figures.

Conclusion: This leaves open the possibility of Adam and Eve as the first pair of humans, created de novo, and with a God-given ability for a spiritual relationship with God, but amid a larger population of biological humans that lacked that ability for a spiritual relationship with God.

Non-Sequitur Fallacy due to the Begging The Question Fallacy Premise and the Non-Existence of your ^^^^ green conclusion here.

And... the entire charade is pointless anyways.

 

Quote

The potential conflict might be that he also accepts the standard evolutionary explanation of life outside of humanity.

1.  The Actual Conflict is that the entire yarn is Non-Sequitur.

2.  What is the "standard evolutionary explanation of life outside of humanity", Pray Tell...?

Since you can't answer it, bring your 'Professional Biologist' friend here so he can give account.  K?

 

Quote

This particular viewpoint could satisfy those that argue that references in other parts of the Bible to Adam and Eve require an historical pair, and still possibly satisfy those that argue that argue that scientific evidence supports an ancient earth and evolution of OTHER living organisms.

 Ah HA!!!    I should have known that there was a "Cloaked"--'Rooster in the Hen House' from the Convoluted Pointless Trainwreck 'yarn' above .  Too funny.  

So you conjure Non-Sequitur Pointless Fairytales with all manner of mental gymnastics (See Entire 'Spiel' above) in a feeble clumsy attempt to support your REAL "Pre-Ordained" Fairytales "The RUB", eh? smh   

You've given up on your feeble Frontal Assaults with your Fairytales (Long Ages, 'evolution'--whatever that is??) so now you, quite clumsily, attempt to outflank us with a "Cloaking" Maneuver--(Convoluted Buffoonery Spiel) with the same ends??   

That's pretty darn funny sir!!! 

OK (Remember these ??)...

1.  Show the Scientific Evidence in support of an Ancient Earth...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

2.  'evolution'  What's that? Define evolution...?  

a.  Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? 
b.  Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?
c.  Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?
d.  Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

 

Quote

My question is this -- Would taking such a view help bridge the gap between individuals that adhere to a young earth viewpoint and individuals that adhere to an evolutionary creation viewpoint?

It's an Unfordable Abyss!! On one side "Coherency" the other... "Abject Nonsensical Buffoonery"!

 

Quote

Again, I'm not interested in discussing the science in this thread

Oh, we know that 

 

Quote

but would like to know if this could be theologically acceptable to young earth creationists.

This wouldn't be 'Acceptable' to Incoherent 2nd Graders in Sunday School !!

 

my word sir

[Guest shiloh357]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is the biggest problem in my estimation, as well. My friend suggests that those outside of the genealogical connection to Adam and Eve would not have access to redemption, but would also not be subject to judgement.

How would one go about determining which person is part of Adan's line and which isn't?   Furthermore your friend doesn't understand the biblical teaching about the fall of man and its affects on the world beyond its effects on Adam and Eve.  Sin changed EVERYTHING, not just Adam and Eve.  And the world and all it contains, outside of the redeemed community will be judged and destroyed by God in the end.  

Quote

He continues the hypothesis by suggesting that those in the lineage of Adam and Eve could have completely replaced all those outside the lineage within about 1,500 years.

Based on what?
 

Quote

 

On a side note, I haven’t asked him about his view of Noah’s flood. A view that would wipeout all humanity outside Noah’s family would certainly eliminate all those outside the Adam/Eve lineage.

 

 

 

 

But that doesn't work, either.  Humanity was wiped out because it was so irretrievably wicked that God judged them.   So how can he argue that they would not be subject to judgment, but then claim they died when God judged them by sending a great flood??

No, the simple and most reasonable answer is that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans on earth when they sinned.   The Bible's claims are true, 100% and those who reject its claims are taking a huge gamble with eternity.

This attempt to reconcile YEC with the evolutionary viewpoint is pretty much futile.  If you take the creation account as figurative, as you have so often said, then why would you need to reconcile the evolutionary position with YEC'ism which you think is based on a purely figurative text?

Why can't the Bible be trusted in what it says in Genesis? 

 

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I am certain he would not say that other details are unimportant, but God’s relationship with mankind is of primary importance. Regardless of how one views the creation account (as well as the rest of the Bible), this teaching is clear.

So my issue is that I don't understand the objective standard by which you (or your friend) could presume to extract some details as historical, from an overall narrative you consider to be "figurative".

This proposed story is not derived from the text of Genesis, but read into the text in an attempt to reconcile Genesis to the secular narrative. I don't see that as necessary. There is no objective reason to distrust the most obvious reading of the Genesis account. God has given us the details. There is no fact or objective argument obligating any distrust of the detailed account given by God in Genesis. No new stories are required.

[SkyWriting]

On 11/4/2017 at 6:06 PM, one.opinion said:

Would taking such a view help bridge the gap between individuals that adhere to a young earth viewpoint and individuals that adhere to an evolutionary creation viewpoint? Again, I'm not interested in discussing the science in this thread, but would like to know if this could be theologically acceptable to young earth creationists.

I used to be a Young Earth Creationist, but a "young earth" is the foundation of that particular sect 
and the only way out is to no longer believe in a young earth.   But this is possible. 

Henry Morris taught me to follow the most simple and natural reading of scripture.  Since scripture
offers no "simple and natural" young age for the earth eventually I moved on to what scripture does say
regarding an "ancient" and "everlasting" earth. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by SkyWriting

[SkyWriting]

11 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Why can't the Bible be trusted in what it says in Genesis? 

The purpose of the genealogy is to link Adam with Jesus, not document every person on earth's existence. 

God is Spirit, not a creation machine like a factory. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by SkyWriting

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, SkyWriting said:

The purpose of the genealogy is to link Adam with Jesus, not document every person on earth's existence. 

That doesn't answer my question.

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, SkyWriting said:

I used to be a Young Earth Creationist, but a "young earth" is the foundation of that particular sect 
and the only way out is to no longer believe in a young earth.   But this is possible. 

Henry Morris taught me to follow the most simple and natural reading of scripture.  Since scripture
offers no "simple and natural" young age for the earth eventually I moved on to what scripture does say
regarding an "ancient" and "everlasting" earth. 

You cannot get a billions of years old earth from the Bible.

[SkyWriting]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You cannot get a billions of years old earth from the Bible.

Have you searched for "Ancient hills"  or "Everlasting mountains"?

 

Ancient has a few meanings, but "everlasting" is a long time.

Edited November 6, 2017 by SkyWriting

[SkyWriting]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You cannot get a billions of years old earth from the Bible.

Anyways.  Thanks to Henry Morris, I did find an old earth, not a young one. 

The best example is Adam and The Garden.    I found no way to find "Day Zero"
Even Adam was never Scientifically age zero.
With no age zero, then you can't define "young".

When was Adams 18th birthday?    or creation day?

Edited November 6, 2017 by SkyWriting

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, SkyWriting said:

Have you searched for "Ancient hills"  or "Everlasting mountains"?

I am not sure how either of those terms translates into  millions or billions of years old.  And is that how the biblical writers would have defined "ancient" or "everlasting?"

Terms like that are used poetic or prophetic passages and is simply a manner of speaking, the Bible uses poetic imagery about the earth and the heavens without establishing any kind of cosmology.