Why do religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science?

[Raider5678]

How can you know that?

It's not recorded anywhere is it?

And, most of these "heroes and Godly people" only get 1 mention in the Book- and that's for the "begetting" they did.

There's nothing very heroic about getting someone pregnant.

Why not face the fact that you made that bit up in an attempt to cover up for the stupidity of the Bible?

I made that bit up? Get this straight, when we read that that's what we were taught. And I'm done with you.

 

A quote from someone,

Do not argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[iNow]

I guess they didn't teach the part about turning the other cheek that day.

[Memammal]

I'll go with this. I just have a hard time when the person who accuses me of starting arguments(memammal) continues to say stuff about the religion. And should we reply then it was obviously us who started the argument.

So you finally concede that Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans...and that as Phi for All put it "the writers of the Bible either made up the creation story (or adjusted a previous one), or God inspired them to tell a version we could intuitively understand but was wrong, for some reason.?" Where does it leave you then w.r.t. the entire human race carrying the weight of Adam & Eve's original sin and that it necessitated the Atonement of Jesus Christ?

 

I made that bit up? Get this straight, when we read that that's what we were taught.

You engaged in this argument based on what you were taught...without verifying the facts for yourself..? And then you got angry when we dared to question it?

[disarray]

 

First of all, l believe in deism .

 

Yes, deism seems to be among the most compatible of religions with science and is associated with those who strived to replace superstition with science. Indeed, there is not all that much religion left in traditional deism, in the sense that, as the allegory goes, God wound up the watch of the universe (a la Newton) and walked away. There is a moral component (natural law), which Jefferson alludes to in his introductory passage in the Declaration of Independence. He refers to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," which, he claims, includes the equality of human beings (though there is some question as to whether he personally thought women and the unpropertied poor were included in such a notion of equality).

 

I think this is the best explanation how evolution theory does still purify every lie they stated on religions.

 

Well, yes. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, so that more and more, arguing with Creationists is just shooting fish in a barrel, as the saying goes. I don't think that believing in evolution, per se, necessarily makes people more peaceful, rather I think that it is important not to take scriptures so literally that one condemns, for example, those who do not subscribe to all the beliefs in scriptures without questioning them, and indeed, many scriptural moral guidelines are quite distorted...By pointing out the unscientific nature of scriptures (e.g., Creationism) some people hope to encourage people to take what is good from scriptures and shun the rest.

 

Beliefs have belonged to person and they are not usually for open minded people.

 

Great point. I would suggest that religious fundamentalism in particular appeals to close-mindedness, greed, prejudice, and other 'baser' emotion....hence, ironically, their appeal. Therefore, I think that it is important to address the emotions that fundamentalists have for clinging to superstition as well as to address their unscientific beliefs in a hope to encourage them to question the more barbarian aspects of the scriptures that they hold so dearly as a confirmation of their way of life and way of thinking. In particular, I am referring to archaic notions relating to the uncleanliness and 'sinfulness' of those outside their religion (be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever), the alleged uncleanliness and alleged sinful nature of women (not to mention sexual double standards and notions of patriarchal ownership of women), the alleged inferiority of other races, claim that there is only one way to be saved, a blatant refusal to discuss various moral issues such as abortion, the eternal condemnation of those who do not conform to religious beliefs as well as the use of excessive punishments in general, etc.

 

It is difficult to argue such ancient ways of thinking with intellectual arguments...people must somehow be shown the error of their ways. Perhaps showing extremists that their foes hold the exact same beliefs and attitudes that they do, only under a different name or showing people that their beliefs support selfish ends will somehow bring them to reason.

 

The only thing is still same for each item they made by wise leaders of their tribes.

 

Yes, those at the top of the totem pole often have more to gain from controlling the masses than those who have to do as they're told by religious leaders. Those at the bottom need to be more vocal about their needs and less mesmerized by those religious leaders who exploit them with superstition and charisma.

 

The technology will terminate every last remaining effect of superstition on people life.

 

Well yes, science tends to eradicate superstitious beliefs, but here in the U.S., for example, technology has gone hand in hand with a scramble for more technological gadgets with the result that many people are ignoring family and community values and interaction because they are too busy focusing on acquiring televisions and iphones and stereos and impressive cars etc., etc. Science has been steadily eroding religious superstition and perhaps some prejudice for centuries, but the problem has always been that it has been rather weak in the area of providing reasons for people to care about each other.

 

People should believe whatever they want as long as they are not able to turn it out to be a threat for rest of people.

 

Most definitely. But in practice, people act on their beliefs and justify their actions by pointing to their beliefs (a vicious circle), and this is where the trouble starts.

 

That was the worst sample of how three maniacs far would go to gained their access to the heaven by killing so many innocent people

 

Science cannot prove to such people that one does not go to heaven by killing people. Again, it is necessary to show that such beliefs are often the product of (religious) leaders who wish to motivate their people to fight for a cause. It is necessary to show that the leaders are often just only looking after themselves, e.g., wanting more land, more resources, more fame, etc.

 

After Constantinople had conquered by part of crusaders they were looted in large swath of the city most of people had killed in followed days. They killed Christians in case of ruling the city.)

 

No doubt, both Christians and Muslims created many unnecessary atrocities during the Crusades....it seems that once again, the Jews largely played the role of victims, who just happened to be scapegoats who were an easy target for shaming and pillaging. (I am not Jewish by the way).

 

l wish l could see beautiful and peaceful days in my country and rest of the world when all bad effects of religion are completely removed from the earth.

 

The goal is not to eradicate religion, the goal is to eradicate its destructive parts.

 

(I too apologize for my wordiness...but sometimes that just happens when trying to pour ones thoughts out, and its not such a bad thing if it leads to sincerity.)

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Raider5678]

https://bible.org/seriespage/6-coming-grips-genealogies-genesis-51-32

[disarray]

https://bible.org/seriespage/6-coming-grips-genealogies-genesis-51-32

Good research Raider, though it would be nice if you had added a little explanation as to what your point was and which particular passage(s) supported that point.

 

It seems to me that the author is, in part, trying to explain how a literal interpretation of Genesis would hold up in terms of what we know now. Hence, the author's point might be that Genesis is in keeping with modern science because neither the chronology nor anything else in Genesis can be used to date the earth as being only a few thousand years old. Another point the author makes is to suggest that it is quite possible that people at that time could literally live to be 900 or so years old (e.g., Methuselah at 969), as if that is biologically possible. The explanation is that people at the time were probably excited about a coming kingdom, and that God had people live longer in order to populate the earth more quickly: "My wife and I have had six children in our 17 years of marriage. Imagine what could be done in 900 years?" Personally, I would find it hard to be having children with someone older than (oh I don't know), say, 300!"

 

I know of nothing in the works of, say Richard Dawkins, that would support the idea that any hominid could live, say, over 130 years of age. Nor do I know of anything in science to support the idea that humans were made holus bolus in a blink of an eye, or that Eve was made from the rib of Adam. And again, despite exceptions, most Biblical scholars and exegetes do indeed come up with a figure of, say, 5 or 6 thousand years old for the earth (and the universe as well, I gather), as opposed to the scientific estimate of 4.5 billion years for earth and 14.7 billion years for the universe. As a reminder, a billion is a thousand, thousand, thousand years.

 

So if the author is trying to make the point that Genesis is a reasonable document for modern people, I don't see how this was accomplished. I tried to find some concluding statement, but the conclusion seemed not to fit the body of the article. Indeed, the main point that the author seemed to be making was that women were responsible for the Fall:

"it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression"

 

with the result that women should make up for this transgression by having children: "she shall be saved through the bearing of children" so that (following the words of Paul), "“The most important work of all is for a godly woman to raise godly children.”

 

So the article is not particularly about the age of the earth per se, but rather about how one can understand Genesis. If nothing else, encouraging women to have children in order to reverse humankind's expulsion from the Garden of Evil sounds like a "good line," but then again, giving corny lines to a woman seems like a rather serpentine thing to do.

 

In any case, I am not sure what the point of your apparent efforts to show that the Bible can be taken literally actually is? Are you trying to show that the Bible is in keeping with modern science? Are you trying to show that everything in the Bible can be taken literally, or that there is only one possible interpretation of everything in the Bible, or that the Bible is the Word of God and other religious scriptures are not?

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

^ It seems that he was quoting a source in reference to our earlier argument re the genealogies of the Bible and the notion that it is an incomplete record that cannot be used to determine the age of Adam & Eve, or Biblical creation. My stance on this was (and still is) that even though there may be gaps in said genealogies, it can never bridge the enormous time span between the scientific established age of our species and the appearance of Adam & Eve according to the Biblical narrative. The article that he referenced mentioned the possibility of up to 10,000 missing generations which sounds absurd in light of the fact that by far the majority of reputed Biblical scholars, historians and scientists who calculated the Biblical chronology arrived at dates 5,000 BC or younger, thus maximum 7,000 years ago.

 

See this Wikipedia section: Creation according to the Bible.

[disarray]

 

^ It seems that he was quoting a source in reference to our earlier argument re the genealogies of the Bible and the notion that it is an incomplete record that cannot be used to determine the age of Adam & Eve, or Biblical creation. My stance on this was (and still is) that even though there may be gaps in said genealogies, it can never bridge the enormous time span between the scientific established age of our species and the appearance of Adam & Eve according to the Biblical narrative. The article that he referenced mentioned the possibility of up to 10,000 missing generations which sounds absurd in light of the fact that by far the majority of reputed Biblical scholars, historians and scientists who calculated the Biblical chronology arrived at dates 5,000 BC or younger, thus maximum 7,000 years ago.

 

See this Wikipedia section: Creation according to the Bible.

The chronology gaps argument is similar to the argument that a "day" in the Bible (with reference to the creation of everything in 6 days) stood for huge periods of time, so that, therefore, science can't criticize the Bible. Never mind that the general order of what happened on these days:

 

Day 1: Heaven and Earth

Day 2: The sky (earth's atmosphere)
Day 3: Dry land.

Day 4: Stars, sun, moon....help people keep time.

Day 5: Sea creatures and birds.

Day 6: Land creatures and humans to rule over living things.

Day 7: Rest day, not that God was tired, but to set an example: "keeping of this day will eventually be a distinguishing trait of the God’s chosen people (Exodus 20:8-11)"

 

All in seven 24 hour days! http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

 

In any case, trying to show that Biblical accounts of the age of the earth or the duration of creation, among numerous other things, is in keeping with modern science is quite a Herculean task indeed, if that is what is being attempted.

 

My question was rather why one would want to show that information in the Bible were non inconsistent with modern science, which is actually what one would be doing if one was trying to show that the events were plausible.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Raider5678]

^ It seems that he was quoting a source in reference to our earlier argument re the genealogies of the Bible and the notion that it is an incomplete record that cannot be used to determine the age of Adam & Eve, or Biblical creation. My stance on this was (and still is) that even though there may be gaps in said genealogies, it can never bridge the enormous time span between the scientific established age of our species and the appearance of Adam & Eve according to the Biblical narrative. The article that he referenced mentioned the possibility of up to 10,000 missing generations which sounds absurd in light of the fact that by far the majority of reputed Biblical scholars, historians and scientists who calculated the Biblical chronology arrived at dates 5,000 BC or younger, thus maximum 7,000 years ago.

 

See this Wikipedia section: Creation according to the Bible.

Annnnnnd again. They calculated the age assuming there were no gaps.

[Memammal]

Sorry I had to quickly rush out...just a correction re my previous post...the last part of the main paragraph must read "...arrived at dates 5,500 BC or younger, thus maximum 7,500 years ago."

 

In any case, trying to show that Biblical accounts of the age of the earth or the duration of creation, among numerous other things, is in keeping with modern science is quite a Herculean task indeed, if that is what is being attempted.

 

My question was rather why one would want to show that information in the Bible were non inconsistent with modern science, which is actually what one would be doing if one was trying to show that the events were plausible.

Our discussion revolved around whether Adam & Eve could have been the first humans or not (taking both evolution and the Biblical narrative into account) as that will impact on the doctrine of original sin. So not as much to do with the rest of the 6-day creation story.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Memammal

[disarray]

Sorry I had to quickly rush out...just a correction re my previous post...the last part of the main paragraph must read "...arrived at dates 5,500 BC or younger, thus maximum 7,500 years ago."

 

Our discussion revolved around whether Adam & Eve could have been the first humans or not (taking both evolution and the Biblical narrative into account) as that will impact on the doctrine of original sin. So not as much to do with the rest of the 6-day creation story.

Thanks, sorry if I missed the drift of the discussion. But again, it seems the point is to establish the credibility of the Bible. I presume that if we can show that if the existence of an Adam and Eve is not inconsistent with science, that somehow lends credibility to the claim that original sin is a valid concept. Even if we can establish that Adam and Eve were historical characters, it is a huge leap (of faith?) to suggest that such a 'fact' would somehow give a degree of credibility to the notion of original sin that Church Fathers created centuries, or rather thousands (or billions) of years later.

 

Though I might have been a little off track, i don't see how you can say that the story of the creation is off track...one is still ultimately trying to establish the accountability and credibiltiy of the Biblical account set forth in Genesis, n'est-ce pas?

 

So my first question would be how old does Raider think the earth is....and how long ago did this alleged Garden of Eden incident take place?

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

Annnnnnd again. They calculated the age assuming there were no gaps.

You keep on insisting that there were gaps that were not accounted for...but your missing gaps are speculative..it is reminiscent of a God of gaps argument. Please read this http://creation.com/6000-years. I am not a big fan of creation.com for obvious reasons, but at least they provide a clear and concise explanation of how the Biblical age of creation (and thus Adam & Eve) can be calculated based on the Biblical narrative.

 

I presume that if we can show that if the existence of an Adam and Eve is not inconsistent with science, that somehow lends credibility to the claim that original sin is a valid concept. Even if we can establish that Adam and Eve were historical characters, it is a huge leap (of faith?) to suggest that such a 'fact' would somehow give a degree of credibility to the notion of original sin that Church Fathers created centuries, or rather thousands (or billions) of years later.

I think we can safely say that the idea of a Biblical Adam & Eve as the first of our species is inconsistent with science. That would bring into dispute Paul's premise for the doctrine of original sin as alluded to in Romans 5:12 ("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned") read together with 1 Corinthians 15:45 ("The first man Adam became a living being").

Edited July 21, 2016 by Memammal

[disarray]

 

 

I think we can safely say that the idea of a Biblical Adam & Eve as the first of our species is inconsistent with science. That would bring into dispute Paul's premise for the doctrine of original sin as alluded to in Romans 5:12 ("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned") read together with 1 Corinthians 15:45 ("The first man Adam became a living being").

 

 

Theologians are not consistent as to whether Adam or Eve is more to blame for the transgression. Eve is often blamed and feminists often site this as an example of the church's bias against women. However, Augustine, for example, hones in on the fact that Adam became aware of Eve's nakedness, as I recall, and, in any case, came to know "lust" or "concupiscence." Giving this sexual dimension to the meaning of the story of the Fall made it easier to claim that the sin could be passed down in a rather sexual/physical manner from generation to generation, so that all after were born into and tainted by this original sin.

 

To be more explicit:

"Augustine argued that erections were the physical expression of the sin of lust (libido) which came about after Adam's sin of disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Erections, and spontaneous sexual desire associated with them, were the proof and penalty of original sin. They were contrary to man's pre-lapsarian nature, to Adam's lustless state before the Fall, and therefore were to be associated with sin....

man, in effect, loses full control over himself, and whatever his mental and spiritual aspirations may be, in the presence of sexually attractive females he is reduced to baser thoughts and physical urges.Under these circumstances, his power is effectively usurped by the woman. Herein resides the fundamental threat posed by women to all heterosexual men. Unable to control their own bodies (a result of Adam's disobedience), men seek instead to control the bodies of women..The sin of Adam and Eve, he argued, has been passed down intact to every member of the human race, transmitted through semen in the act of sexual intercourse." http://witcombe.sbc.edu/davincicode/original-sin.html

The notion of Original Sin is not really connected with Paul:

"St. Paul does not say anywhere that the whole human race has been accounted guilty of the sin of Adam and is therefore punished by God with death. Death is an evil force which made its way into the world through sin, lodged itself in the world, and, in the person of Satan. The moralistic problem raised by St. Augustine concerning the transmission of death to the descendants of Adam as punishment for the one original transgression is foreign to Paul's thoughts. The death of each man cannot be considered the outcome of personal guilt. St. Paul is not thinking as a philosophical moralist looking for the cause of the fall of humanity and creation in the breaking of objective rules of good behavior, which demands punishment from a God whose justice is in the image of the justice of this world. Paul is clearly thinking of the fall in terms of a personalistic warfare between God and Satan, in which Satan is not obliged to follow any sort of moral rules if he can help it. It is for this reason that St. Paul can say that the serpent "deceived Eve. The theory of the transmission of original sin and guilt is certainly not found in St. Paul." http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm

 

In a nutshell: Paul thinks in terms of humankinds Fall from grace and therefore one receives redemption as part of a group (e.g., congregation) that is redeemed through Christs victory over Satan, who had previously deceived Eve and somehow gained control over people.

 

Augustine reinterprets the story to mean that individuals need to be saved as individuals because of the actual guilt that they acquire as humans who have descended from Adam and Eve, who willingly defied God and thereby became guilty and lustful. In this sense, Christ was indeed a sort of scapegoat who was punished for our sins in order that they we be washed away and that individuals are saved if they individually accept this gift of absolution.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

 

I think you will need to elaborate about the Biblical Adam and Eve being the first of our species...Do you mean these two were literally the first or, as you say, "the idea" of these two?

Raider5678 and myself have been debated the question as to whether Biblical Adam & Eve could have actually (literally) been the first two humans. My point of view was no, the Biblical narrative and the evolutionary emergence of our species are not compatible. His opinion was that it cannot be ruled out (as there might have been gaps in the male lineage of the Biblical genealogy that could potentially place Adam & Eve back at the very beginning of our species).

 

The underlying, or secondary argument lies in the implications that it has on the doctrine of original sin. In this respect my understanding thereof is pretty much similar to what is conveyed by these extracts:

 

St Paul's idea of redemption hinged on the contrast between the sin of Adam and the death and resurrection of Jesus. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned". "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Up till then the transgression in the Garden of Eden had not been given great significance. As the Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes has said: Paul believed that Adam's transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort.

Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systemic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy (atonement on the cross). John Calvin defined original sin as follows: Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

 

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)

 

The question as to whether Adam was the first man therefore has significant implications for Christianity, although I realise that there are Christians (specifically some denominations) who nowadays perceive the Eden story as merely an allegory in order to illustrate the sinful nature of man.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Memammal

[disarray]

Memammal: I think we are on the same page here. I think that the concluding statements I made in my last post hold. Between such figures as Irenaeus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, it is really just a matter of emphasis and terminology, but the bottom line is that unless one believes that Adam and Eve were actual people who existed in history (as the first humans) within the time parameters set forth in the Creation narrative of Genesis, then, it seems to me, that there would be no need for Jesus to have been on the cross in the first place, with the result that Christianity would have no purpose, since people would have no sins that needed to be forgiven or overcome.

 

Not to be trite, but if Adam and Eve didn't actually exist, Christianity would be like a doctor who claims that one has an illness that one really doesn't have, merely so that one can give you a tablet (or wafer, as it were) in order that you are cured.

 

That is perhaps a main reason that I can't fathom how there can be those who claim to be Christians but who do not take the story of the Creation or the story of Adam and Eve literally, as if it were just some sort of significant allegory.

 

In any cases, scientists are undecided as to whether there was just one (mitochondrial Eve) or whether there were several parallel Eves. If one persists in fudging the time spans, obviously one can suggest that the Bible is not in contradiction with science, but that says nothing at all about the story being true or having any substance whatsoever. If anything, an actual first-modern hominid, scientific Adam and Eve would probably, I suspect, not be evolved enough to carry on a complex dialogue with God (or Satan for that matter) about the ethics of eating fruit from a particular tree of knowledge in order to maintain their relationship with him.

 

Indeed, I doubt that the nature of such a dialogue would be passed down through the centuries in any way so that Church Fathers could, with various interpretations, recount what transpired.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

 

...but the bottom line is that unless one believes that Adam and Eve were actual people who existed in history (as the first humans) within the time parameters set forth in the Creation narrative of Genesis, then, it seems to me, that there would be no need for Jesus to have been on the cross in the first place, with the result that Christianity would have no purpose, since people would have no sins that needed to be forgiven or overcome.

 

Not to be trite, but if Adam and Eve didn't actually exist, Christianity would be like a doctor who claims that one has an illness that one really doesn't have, merely so that one can give you a tablet (or wafer, as it were) in order that you are cured.

 

That is perhaps a main reason that I can't fathom how there can be those who claim to be Christians but who do not take the story of the Creation or the story of Adam and Eve literally, as if it were just some sort of significant allegory.

Yes, I fully agree. The issue lies very much at the heart of Christianity.

 

In any cases, scientists are undecided as to whether there was just one (mitochondrial Eve) or whether there were several parallel Eves. If one persists in fudging the time spans, obviously one can suggest that the Bible is not in contradiction with science, but that says nothing at all about the story being true or having any substance whatsoever. If anything, an actual first-modern hominid, scientific Adam and Eve would probably, I suspect, not be evolved enough to carry on a complex dialogue with God (or Satan for that matter) about the ethics of eating fruit from a particular tree of knowledge in order to maintain their relationship with him.

 

Indeed, I doubt that the nature of such a dialogue would be passed down through the centuries in any way so that Church Fathers could, with various interpretations, recount what transpired.

One should of course never confuse mitochondrial Eve with Biblical Eve. Too much confusion...akin to the " theory" in "scientific theory"...

Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living person in the present day. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa, when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.

Analogous to the Mitochondrial Eve is the Y-chromosomal Adam, the member of Homo sapiens sapiens from whom all living humans are descended patrinilineally. The inherited DNA in the male case is his nuclear Y chromosone rather than the mtDNA. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam need not have lived at the same time.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)

Here is another very insightful article that deals with two independent studies that were done to narrow down mitochondrial Adam & Eve: http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478. It concludes with: ...he, as many other population geneticists, bristles at the use of biblical names. Because of the random nature of genealogy, he says, two different genetic lineages are unlikely to have common ancestors who lived in the same population at the same time. ​(I previously asked Raider5678 about the likelihood that the actual Adam & Eve could have been a unique and isolated case of two of a new subspecies appearing at the same place (in Africa) at round about the same time).

 

As a side note, I realise that it might have seemed strange that I was "promoting" or "condoning" the Biblical narrative as being "accurate". I had to obviously present the actual Biblical story and the implications thereof i.t.o. the recorded age of Biblical Adam & Eve in order to compare it with what we know, scientifically, about the origin of our species.

 

I like your use of the word "fudging" (meaning: present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead, or to adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture) because that is the only way (and it would require some serious fudging such as what was hinted at in that bible.org link that Raider5678 provided) to remotely merge the Biblical Adam & Eve with a mitochondrial Adam & Eve. In fact, I think we should probably agree that it is a blatantly implausible claim.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Memammal

[Lyudmilascience]

As I stated elsewhere, most religious beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality.

memammal is right, religious people create a conflict or at least try to proove themselves right, because science disproves some of their belifs or things in the bible.

[disarray]

Memmamal: Your comments re Adam/Eve provide a nice clarification. Too often religious people try to hijack science in a token effort to validate scriptures. Such a roundabout approach can often be more effective and insidious than just trying to say that science is wrong because it contradicts scriptures, or to say that science is wrong by focusing on any current gaps in a scientific worldview, e.g., that of evolution. I wonder, for example, if there is any actual scientific evidence at all that the earth or the universe is around 6 thousand years old? I suspect that one might as well pick any similar number out of a hat, e.g., 50,000 or 500,000, and then try to find scientific evidence to confirm it.

 

Such argumentation obfuscates the fact that the worldview of the Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) is premodern and archaic. Indeed, in terms of modern historical analysis, the belief systems that issued from the Levant were no less primitive and superstitious than those found at the time in, for example, India or China. Unfortunately, these early tribal superstitions were not only then, but in the centuries to follow, used to gain control of the masses and to justify the often violent accumulation of land, gold, and other resources.

 

Both direct efforts to belittle and surreptitious efforts to befriend science are blatant attempts to lend credence to claims that everything found in scriptures is undeniably true (from, for example, the miraculous creation of humans in a single breath to the ascension of one back into the arms of the creator) as well as to claims that a deity has a divine plan for an elite group of followers. Obviously no group would want to relinquish its hold on the advantageous position that its divinely inspired and thus unquestionable scriptures affords them, and therefore will blindly oppose or try to assimilate any further advancements that the rest of civilization might throw at them.

Edited July 24, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

Memmamal: Your comments re Adam/Eve provide a nice clarification. Too often religious people try to hijack science in a token effort to validate scriptures. Such a roundabout approach can often be more effective and insidious than just trying to say that science is wrong because it contradicts scriptures, or to say that science is wrong by focusing on any current gaps in a scientific worldview, e.g., that of evolution. I wonder, for example, if there is any actual scientific evidence at all that the earth or the universe is around 6 thousand years old?

There seem to be different ways in which the religious deal with scientific knowledge:

​Assume the default position that their relevant scriptures and religious dogma are inerrant and try their best to ignore or to downplay anything that contradicts it - typically these are the ignorant lot who don't even bother with anything outside their comfort zone.

Assume the default position that their relevant scriptures and religious dogma are inerrant and actively counter anything that contradicts it - the apologetics, fundamentalists, etc. You asked whether there is any scientific evidence that the earth or the universe is around 6 thousand years old...well, establishments like creation.com & youngearth.com have accumulated a large collection of pseudo science for those who want to believe it.

Assume the default position that their relevant scriptures can be interpreted in different ways and that their religious dogma is thus adaptable - the Roman Catholic Church is a good example, also other progressive or liberal thinking denominations. Some, as you mentioned, even attempt to (mis)use science in support of their beliefs. They often don't understand the implications-, or the full extent of the gap between science and their own dogma...our discussion re evolution vs original sin is a case in point.

Then lastly you get those who only use selective parts of scriptures while largely ignoring everything else - for example Preterits, Jehovah's and even Evangelists.

 

Such argumentation obfuscates the fact that the worldview of the Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) is premodern and archaic...

Both direct efforts to belittle and surreptitious efforts to befriend science are blatant attempts to lend credence to claims that everything found in scriptures is undeniably true (from, for example, the miraculous creation of humans in a single breath to the ascension of one back into the arms of the creator) as well as to claims that a deity has a divine plan for an elite group of followers. Obviously no group would want to relinquish its hold on the advantageous position that its divinely inspired and thus unquestionable scriptures affords them, and therefore will blindly oppose or try to assimilate any further advancements that the rest of civilization might throw at them.

Yes and as we have established in the discussion leading up to this, often the very foundation on which a religion was formulated gets exposed for what it is...flawed...and built on sand.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Memammal

[Moontanman]

Religion was invented by women to control men, a conflict was necessary to provide fear to make control easier. Men then turned the tables and used religion to dominate women it's been that way ever since....

 

Personally I like to take turns dominating...

[Raider5678]

And if you simply reread the argument, your assuming you won because you don't like the evidence memammal. That's why I'm not bothering to argue against you. Maybe I don't Accept all the facts, but then neither do you.

[disarray]

 

Religion was invented by women to control men, a conflict was necessary to provide fear to make control easier. Men then turned the tables and used religion to dominate women it's been that way ever since....

 

Personally I like to take turns dominating...

I guess your post is somewhat entertaining if you are just trying to throw in a little humor here, but it may be a little misleading as well, seeing that you have posted comments about history in an academic forum.

 

But if you are at all serious that there is some anthropological sense to the notion that religion was first used by women to control men, I would be interested in a bit of elaboration, despite the notion, I gather, that forum posts should be kept really short. As for the idea that religion being used at various times to control women, don't bother explaining, as it think that this is quite obviously often the case.

 

When it comes to the origin and nature of religion (magic, myth, etc.), a traditional go-to book is Frazer's Golden Bough, which claims that the purpose of religion is to encourage fertility, Though I avoid quoting wiki, its description of the thrust of the book is quite apt to the discussion: "Its thesis is that old religions were fertility cults that revolved around the worship and periodic sacrifice of a sacred king. Frazer proposed that mankind progresses from magic through religious belief to scientific thought."

 

There are theories of early matriarchal religions, but (again quoting from wiki owing to its succinctness):

 

"Debate continues on whether ancient matriarchal religion historically existed.American scholar Camille Paglia has argued that "Not a shred of evidence supports the existence of matriarchy anywhere in the world at any time," and further that "The moral ambivalence of the great mother Goddesses has been conveniently forgotten by those American feminists who have resurrected them."In her book The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2000), scholar Cynthia Eller discusses the origins of the idea of matriarchal prehistory, evidence for and against its historical accuracy, and whether the idea is good for modern feminism."

 

I have not read Eller's book, but it would seem that even if we could establish evidence for a matriarchal prehistory ( in which women controlled men), we wouldn't know much about what forms such control might have taken.

 

 

[Moontanman]

 

 

I guess your post is somewhat entertaining if you are just trying to throw in a little humor here, but it may be a little misleading as well, seeing that you have posted comments about history in an academic forum.

 

But if you are at all serious that there is some anthropological sense to the notion that religion was first used by women to control men, I would be interested in a bit of elaboration, despite the notion, I gather, that forum posts should be kept really short. As for the idea that religion being used at various times to control women, don't bother explaining, as it think that this is quite obviously often the case.

 

When it comes to the origin and nature of religion (magic, myth, etc.), a traditional go-to book is Frazer's Golden Bough, which claims that the purpose of religion is to encourage fertility, Though I avoid quoting wiki, its description of the thrust of the book is quite apt to the discussion: "Its thesis is that old religions were fertility cults that revolved around the worship and periodic sacrifice of a sacred king. Frazer proposed that mankind progresses from magic through religious belief to scientific thought."

 

There are theories of early matriarchal religions, but (again quoting from wiki owing to its succinctness):

 

"Debate continues on whether ancient matriarchal religion historically existed.American scholar Camille Paglia has argued that "Not a shred of evidence supports the existence of matriarchy anywhere in the world at any time," and further that "The moral ambivalence of the great mother Goddesses has been conveniently forgotten by those American feminists who have resurrected them."In her book The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2000), scholar Cynthia Eller discusses the origins of the idea of matriarchal prehistory, evidence for and against its historical accuracy, and whether the idea is good for modern feminism."

 

I have not read Eller's book, but it would seem that even if we could establish evidence for a matriarchal prehistory ( in which women controlled men), we wouldn't know much about what forms such control might have taken.

 

 

 

 

 

After 10 pages of discourse going nowhere suddenly a sense of humor is a bad thing?

[disarray]

Moontanan....I thought so, but as there are a number of people, e.g., some feminists, who would adamantly agree with your comment in a literal sense, I thought it worth clarifying.

Edited July 25, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

And if you simply reread the argument, your assuming you won because you don't like the evidence memammal. That's why I'm not bothering to argue against you. Maybe I don't Accept all the facts, but then neither do you.

What evidence Raider5678? You only presented a highly speculative, unfounded and extremely unlikely claim in order to raise doubt about the real facts that were presented to you. You are right, I cannot accept that and neither should I. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no measure of understanding that it is entirely impossible for Biblical Adam & Eve to have been the first male and female of our species who produced their children Cain, Abel, Seth and the rest. Yet you remain steadfast in the midst of your ignorance. Feel free to do so, but please do not expect the rest of us to take you seriously.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Memammal