[_ Old Earth _] Adam in light of evolution

[Grazer]

A lecture by Peter Enns on viewing Adam in light of evolution. His book "The evolution of Adam" is very good what I've read of it (had to stop as I concentrate for more than a few moments at a time at the moment)

Anyway, hope you find this useful;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV4Sf2_l3nI

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[cupid dave]

A lecture by Peter Enns on viewing Adam in light of evolution. His book "The evolution of Adam" is very good what I've read of it (had to stop as I concentrate for more than a few moments at a time at the moment)

Anyway, hope you find this useful;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV4Sf2_l3nI

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

The lecture was very interesting.

Of course, the Prof makes a few mis-statements in regard to his science.
But he lays out a good case for interpreting the Old Testament in a way which I not only agree with, but have time and again stated, albeit differently.

He focuses in that regard on what the message of the Bible is, rather than whether what the Bible says in also inherently true, academically and scientifically speaking.

He is talking about the philosophical message of the story.
He is avoiding the issue of the moment, which is whether Genesis contradicts Science or if Science is wrong based upon one'sbelief in God.
He foolishly believes he just ignore this growing thorn in the side of relgion.
He will discover that atheism is not only winning out the next generation, but is also making sure he will have no audience for his philosophical constructs, those which are what is so important about religion.


What he does tell us is actually immaterial to what I have been asserting, and he says he just avoids the issue, and focuses on th psycho-philosophical objectives of the Bible message.
Ridicule and mocking will take away the young people who ought hear him unless he faces the Facts of Life, and shows that Genesis is absolutely right from the Big Bang forward.

He also tells us that, in his opinion, Genesis is technically wrong because it can not be aligned with Science as far as he knows.
There he is wrong.

But great power in to be found were he to incorporate his philosophy concerning human behavioralism with the authority of an interpretation that compelements Science rather than ignores it.


IMHO, of course.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm if adam is an ape then so was jesus. if you all want to gentilize( if there's a word) the book of genesis be my guest. but you will be missing the depth of hebrew words and thoughts that is later shown in prophecy.

 

[Grazer]

I don't think Dr Enns has ever suggested that Adam was an ape. In.fact its a suggestion he seems very much against. His current thinking is that the genesis story is a metaphor for the Israel story or a retelling of it.

Another one of his lectures here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36T3tbygQgA

This is a great interview with him - http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/...nd-the-question-of-evolution-with-peter-enns/

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[jasoncran]

so how then does he justify telling the jews and by the jews that men died for not following the shabat? and they based it on the creation week?

uhm moses got his story from those hebrews who taught him. he just penned what he was taught.

 

[Grazer]

so how then does he justify telling the jews and by the jews that men died for not following the shabat? and they based it on the creation week?

uhm moses got his story from those hebrews who taught him. he just penned what he was taught.

I don't know Jason, why don't you ask him?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[jasoncran]

i dont have to. this is what happens when people take genesis from what is meant to be.the hebrews take it literal and do all there feast on the idea of the week in genesis. so they took it literally and they are the ones that speak hebrew!

any hebrew scholar will say that langauage of genesis one and two is literal.

 

[Grazer]

i dont have to. this is what happens when people take genesis from what is meant to be.the hebrews take it literal and do all there feast on the idea of the week in genesis. so they took it literally and they are the ones that speak hebrew!

any hebrew scholar will say that langauage of genesis one and two is literal.

What difference does the language make over whether its literal or not? Also you mean "take it from what you think its meant to be" afterall, isn't the point that there are those who disagree and they just might be right?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[cupid dave]

uhm if adam is an ape then so was jesus. if you all want to gentilize( if there's a word) the book of genesis be my guest. but you will be missing the depth of hebrew words and thoughts that is later shown in prophecy.

When you or any layman who is not a scientist calls some creatures Apoes, in a rather derrogatory way, with the intent of distinguishing the non-hominoid apes from humans they do not realze thast the term as is used scientifically also includes man.

Hence, scientifically speaking, man is an Ape, a member of a taxonomic classification system which places him in therr with these other very similar creatures.

But I do agree with you, that man ought not be in that classification any longe.
Seven, (7(, million years ago in the womb of a surrogate moithe Ape, out of the atomic dust of this Earth and by a direct Act-of-God, two apes chromosome fused together.
That mutation was the cause of creating a new creature into the world of God, called man.

These facts seem better in support of the Bible than by ignoring them and evolution, support science against the Bible.

 

[Adam]

Those aren't facts, Cupid.

That isn't what happened at all.

 

[cupid dave]

Those aren't facts, Cupid.

That isn't what happened at all.

'tis so...

That's what happened for sure.

 

[Adam]

Sir, please let's not reduce our comments to childish tit for tat.


The artifacts, the genetic evidence, the nature of species origins all tell us that a species is not created in a single generation, and certainly not from a chromosome fusion.

 

[cupid dave]

Sir, please let's not reduce our comments to childish tit for tat.


The artifacts, the genetic evidence, the nature of species origins all tell us that a species is not created in a single generation, and certainly not from a chromosome fusion.

Me?
You consistently respond with subjective opininated comments which are unnecessary in the first place, since your bias has been expressed from the being.

If you respond to my posts say something other that this nay -saying, as if your feelings about these issuse matter to me or have any value in regard to the conversations.

You opinion again, above, is unsupported but that fact will not deter your comments to the contrary in the face if scientific opinions on the matter of fusion of two ape chromosomes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"Chromosome 2 presents verystrong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo,
"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to giverise to human chromosome 2.

Because the fused chromosome isunique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after thehuman–chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, thatis, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu etal. 2001) (Fig.5).



References:

1.Fan Y, et al.Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.

 

[Adam]

Sir, my only bias is for truth.

My comments are not opinionated.

Facts are facts. My feelings about these facts are immaterial to the point:

You are making unfounded claims and confusing a phrase "gave rise to chromosome 2" to mean "gave rise to a new species."


That is an assertion that has no backing, whatsoever.


For the, I don't know, tenth time, I will say again, save the ad homs for someone else. I am only going by the facts, not my feelings.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't think Dr Enns has ever suggested that Adam was an ape. In.fact its a suggestion he seems very much against. His current thinking is that the genesis story is a metaphor for the Israel story or a retelling of it.

Another one of his lectures here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36T3tbygQgA

This is a great interview with him - http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/...nd-the-question-of-evolution-with-peter-enns/

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

In his lecture, he said he bypassed the matter of explaining Genesis in regard to a factual description of creation.

He decided to use what was written as if it was a parable.
He said that when Adam and Eve behaved morally, they were safe inside Eden, but otherwise, they were put out of their land, into Nod.
The message continues as we see moral Israel living in the promised land, but when their culture becomes immoral, they are cast out.

I believe he stopped short of what is actually the Old Testament overview of the Battle of the Sexes.
The Old Testament repeats the idea that God made two kinds of men, perhaps emphasized by the two lines, Cain and Seth.

This dicotomy becomes more clear as the Hebrew patriarchs leave Egypt and begin to attack, plunder, even rape and kill the Gentile nations surrounding them, all characterized by their sexually promiscuous cultures.
These gentiles are in stark contrast with the sexually prudent, god-hearing and fearing patriarchs wo claim god speaks to them and has given themLaws that regulate their sexual behaviors amog other things.

We see this today as the West is opposed by these same patriarchs of Islam who are almost identical in their attitudes and world view as we read concerning those Hebrew patriarchs in 1362AD.

Dr Enns needs to follow throug and see the New testament as a solution to this battle that has repeated itself as one empire has fallen after the next over the centuries.
He needs see more into this idea he suggests explains the Eden story as a sociological thme, because Christianity is a story about the Dialectic Synthesis out of these two opposing social forces, the Thesis of sexual morality Vs the Anti-thesis of promiscuity.







Rev. 17:3 Sohe carried me away (in the spirit of thought), into the wilderness (of my imagination) and I saw(as if) a woman, ...

.... (those who have Institutionalized a system of sexualseduction into a failed matrimony), sit upon a scarlet coloured beast(of a brazen and corrupt sexually misdirected economic system: [Dan3:1-5]), full of names of (Pagan) blasphemy, having seven heads:

(which existed in (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon,(4) Persia/Mede, (5) Greece, (6) Rome (7) the whole of Western Culture tofollow)...

... having ten horns upon these sevenheads:

(1. Undivided Empire; capital Rome: [305 AD],



2. Western Roman Empire: (Romulus Augustus): [to 476 AD],



3. Eastern Roman: Byzantine Empire, [1453 AD]



4. Charlemagne, [800 - 1000 AD]



5. Holy Roman Empire, [1200 AD-1492 AD]



6. Italy, [Renaissance, 16th century]



7. Spain, [17th century]



8. France, [18th-19th Century]



9. Britain, [19th-20th century]



10. Nazi Germany, [20th century])





11. America next…?

 

[Adam]

There is not a battle of the sexes in the Ot, David.


And, once again, you post a picture of a book that has absolutely nothing to do with what you are claiming.

 

[cupid dave]

Sir, my only bias is for truth.

My comments are not opinionated.

Facts are facts. My feelings about these facts are immaterial to the point:

You are making unfounded claims and confusing a phrase "gave rise to chromosome 2" to mean "gave rise to a new species."


That is an assertion that has no backing, whatsoever.


For the, I don't know, tenth time, I will say again, save the ad homs for someone else. I am only going by the facts, not my feelings.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locuscloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomerefusion and marks the point atwhich two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

 

[Adam]

Yes, to give rise to chromosome 2.

Not the human species.


Your own source says

1) between 6 million years and 1 million years (not 7 million years) ago

2) AFTER the human-chimpanzee split.


Chromosome 2 is unique to humans, because the fusion happened AFTER the hominid species was already under development, which was millions of years in the making, not magically in the womb of a single ape.


Please, learn what evolution is before you comment further.

 

[cupid dave]

Yes, to give rise to chromosome 2.

Not the human species.


Your own source says

1) between 6 million years and 1 million years (not 7 million years) ago

2) AFTER the human-chimpanzee split.


Chromosome 2 is unique to humans, because the fusion happened AFTER the hominid species was already under development, which was millions of years in the making, not magically in the womb of a single ape.


Please, learn what evolution is before you comment further.

Your hope to reject this evidence blinded you to the phrase "strong evidence in favour of the common descent."
If we accept the way you read the article, you would contradict this and conclude it is immaterial to common descent.

1) Your reading comprehension is poor here, in that the previous comment was that:
"Chromosome 2 presentsvery strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. "

2) What the sentence meant in context was that this now observable fusion must have occurred immediately after the time when we claim chimps branched from humans, as part of the separation of the two species, otherwise it would NOT be "strong evidence in favour of the common descent."

In fact the report says to the comprehensive reader:
"is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestralape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."
2) In regard to 7 million years, they guess 1-6 million is mor probable, but other paleonotogical evidence suggests that 7 is a better number.

 

[cupid dave]

There is not a battle of the sexes in the Ot, David.


And, once again, you post a picture of a book that has absolutely nothing to do with what you are claiming.

... is too.
... am not.