Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne

[hecd2]

Denisovans, Neanderthals, what the evolutionists call Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus are all just racial variations of humans as created by God in 4004 BC. They are all descendants of Adam.

 

[jonesdave116]

Denisovans, Neanderthals, what the evolutionists call Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus are all just racial variations of humans as created by God in 4004 BC. They are all descendants of Adam.

But we were created in God's image! Does God have a brow ridge? Did Adam?

 

[MikeG]

Denisovans, Neanderthals, what the evolutionists call Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus are all just racial variations of humans as created by God in 4004 BC. They are all descendants of Adam.

Some of this **** is so funny!

I've personally handled 250,000 year old ice cores. I've seen local dendochronology records going back unbroken to the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Neanderthals died out 40,000 years ago.

Either people are just doing this nonsense for a giggle, or the American education system is in crisis spewing out ignorami at a rate of knots.

 

[Craig B]

Denisovans, Neanderthals, what the evolutionists call Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus are all just racial variations of humans as created by God in 4004 BC. They are all descendants of Adam.

I suppose all these descendants of Adam were bumped off by God in the Flood because they were sinful, infants and all.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Some of this **** is so funny!

I've personally handled 250,000 year old ice cores. I've seen local dendochronology records going back unbroken to the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Neanderthals died out 40,000 years ago.

Either people are just doing this nonsense for a giggle, or the American education system is in crisis spewing out ignorami at a rate of knots.

My first debate with a creationist happened on the bus to school with my good friend and neighbor. Even back then (35-40 years ago) the published "creationist" literature proclaimed that Neanderthals were just humans and not some separate species.

I can't speak for all US education. But the reason my friend talked to me about this was because he knew I was both an A student in science often even correcting or helping the teachers and a Christian at the same time.

All his creationist literature said these were incompatible. And for many months every day we discussed the flaws in the creationist dogma, both from a scientific POV and a Biblical POV. They really are glaringly flawed and if anything, even more flawed from a Biblical POV than science! Believe it or not. Considering how flawed it is scientifically, that's saying a lot.

The other reason he chose me to discuss this is that the public school did NOT teach creationism. He was getting that outside of the public school system. Even his own church didn't teach creationism. The pastor simply skipping over any controversial topics like that and rather teaching the moral points imbedded in those same scriptures. So my friend was simply going by pamphlets published and distributed by 7th day adventists if I remember correctly. Pretty much an overgrown cult IMHO.

ETA: BTW You can teach a Christian actual evolutionary science pretty easily actually. But to do that you must not threaten their faith. If you try to convert them to atheism by using science as a tool, you will shut them down and they will reject both by simply not listening to you.

 

[wobs]

What about that Eve from a rib thing? How come we've still got the same number of ribs?

There is a "theory"* that Eve was actually made from Adam's penis bone. As human males are one of the few mammals not to have one, it would fit into the narrative. The only other mammalian male not to have one is the spider monkey. I would be surprised if Biblical scholars who wrote Genesis were aware of spider monkeys as intimately as that.

* - Theory about the what the bible is saying, not a theory about where we come from. Obviously.

 

[Slowvehicle]

There is a "theory"* that Eve was actually made from Adam's penis bone. As human males are one of the few mammals not to have one, it would fit into the narrative. The only other mammalian male not to have one is the spider monkey. I would be surprised if Biblical scholars who wrote Genesis were aware of spider monkeys as intimately as that.

* - Theory about the what the bible is saying, not a theory about where we come from. Obviously.

That interpretation is not widely held, given its problems. Particularly the problem with the plural...

http://blog.chron.com/iconia/2011/0...s-to-say-eve-created-from-penis-bone-not-rib/

 

[zooterkin]

ETA: BTW You can teach a Christian actual evolutionary science pretty easily actually. But to do that you must not threaten their faith. If you try to convert them to atheism by using science as a tool, you will shut them down and they will reject both by simply not listening to you.

Not all Christians are creationists; in fact I'd say the majority are not, at least outside the USA.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Not all Christians are creationists; in fact I'd say the majority are not, at least outside the USA.

agreed

 

[Red Baron Farms]

There is a "theory"* that Eve was actually made from Adam's penis bone. As human males are one of the few mammals not to have one, it would fit into the narrative. The only other mammalian male not to have one is the spider monkey. I would be surprised if Biblical scholars who wrote Genesis were aware of spider monkeys as intimately as that.

* - Theory about the what the bible is saying, not a theory about where we come from. Obviously.

Just as wrong as the literal rib dogma. Goes to show you how the very concept of trying to apply literalist dogma to ANYTHING Biblical corrupts it beyond recognition. It is not a literal penis bone any more than a literal rib. It is a metaphor for sex and marriage, not literally anything. When married you are not literally one person joined from two people, you are symbolically joined in marriage and become "one flesh".

YECs corrupt in a similar way almost all the teachings of the Bible. In my opinion it is ignorant.

 

[MikeG]

Just as wrong as the literal rib dogma.......

Now and again it would be nice if some here might allow for their opinion not being the sole arbiter of right and wrong on an issue. Qualify the absolutes a little. "In my view" would help. You have an opinion on this, and others hold a very different one, just as well supported by the evidence.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just as wrong as the literal rib dogma. Goes to show you how the very concept of trying to apply literalist dogma to ANYTHING Biblical corrupts it beyond recognition. It is not a literal penis bone any more than a literal rib. It is a metaphor for sex and marriage, not literally anything. When married you are not literally one person joined from two people, you are symbolically joined in marriage and become "one flesh".

YECs corrupt in a similar way almost all the teachings of the Bible. In my opinion it is ignorant.

You again repeat the Adam's Rib is really his penis and the story is metaphorical. This sounds as reasonable as anything else I have heard or read. But "blaming" we poor atheists for being so clueless as to not understand this is surely pointing the finger at the wrong group of (non-)believers.

This apparently is the Roman Catholic Church's explanation:

Why was Eve created from Adam’s rib?

In the second story of creation, Genesis 2:21 reads: “So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man.” Some important literary imagery needs to be considered.

First, the “deep sleep” denotes God’s divine activity. God Himself is the one creating. In Chapter 2 of Genesis, God created Adam from the earth and breathed life into him, and now He takes from the flesh of the man to create the woman.

Second, why God used a rib is a mystery. However, some scholars suggest that the word “rib” in the ancient Sumerian language means both “rib” and “life.” Accepting this meaning of “life,” all of the phrasing — “rib,” “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh,” and “man and woman,” — denotes the creative love of God and the original unity of man and woman. Remember in Genesis 1:18, we read, “God created man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them.” While each person is made in God’s image and likeness, the complete image and likeness of God is found in marriage when man and woman become one as husband and wife, when the two become one flesh.

Finally, one could find an allegorical or prophetic meaning to this text. Eve, the wife, comes to life from the side of Adam, the husband. Following the teachings of St. Paul and the church fathers, the church, the spouse, comes to life from the side, the heart, of Christ, the Spouse.

This is taken in its totality from Catholic Straight Answers at http://catholicstraightanswers.com/why-was-eve-created-from-adams-rib/

And these folks are very, very upset at Pope Francis for doubting the literality of the story.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-denies-eve-came.htm

Francis: The fact is that woman was taken from a rib … (he laughs strongly). I’m kidding, that’s a joke.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Gord,
A better quote from your source would be,

the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls

My bold. Sure people have strong feelings and get angry when this is pointed out to them. The fact remains that this literalist view is a relatively new thing, and in my opinion mainly driven by those trying to attack religion in general, and using science to do it. It's the old if someone pushes, the natural reaction is to push back. If you don't push in the first place and simply discuss it rationally, you will find that it was NEVER intended to be taken literally. At least not by educated people.

ETA; Just to clarify, by push I mean try to convert to atheism.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Just as wrong as the literal rib dogma. Goes to show you how the very concept of trying to apply literalist dogma to ANYTHING Biblical corrupts it beyond recognition. It is not a literal penis bone any more than a literal rib. It is a metaphor for sex and marriage, not literally anything. When married you are not literally one person joined from two people, you are symbolically joined in marriage and become "one flesh".

YECs corrupt in a similar way almost all the teachings of the Bible. In my opinion it is ignorant.

I am, frankly, curious: What is it that makes you so certain that this bit, in the middle of the Creation Story MkII, is "metaphorical", and the rest (presumptively) is "literal"? What feature of language or imagery supports your claim?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I am, frankly, curious: What is it that makes you so certain that this bit, in the middle of the Creation Story MkII, is "metaphorical", and the rest (presumptively) is "literal"? What feature of language or imagery supports your claim?

Your presumption is incorrect. There is plenty of symbolic language, nearly all in fact. Why else a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" You can't see that eating from the tree is a symbol of mankind's development of a moral code? How more obvious can one make it? Practically everything about that part of the Bible is symbolism, not literal.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Gord,
A better quote from your source would be, My bold. Sure people have strong feelings and get angry when this is pointed out to them. The fact remains that this literalist view is a relatively new thing, and in my opinion mainly driven by those trying to attack religion in general, and using science to do it. It's the old if someone pushes, the natural reaction is to push back. If you don't push in the first place and simply discuss it rationally, you will find that it was NEVER intended to be taken literally. At least not by educated people.

ETA; Just to clarify, by push I mean try to convert to atheism.

How...odd...that your quotation does not appear in the source Gord_in_Toronto quoted, as you seem to be claiming it does.

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/why-was-eve-created-from-adams-rib/

Your interpretation also flies in the face of the RC dogma that there was, in fact, a literal "Adam" and a literal "Eve", giving meaning to the "sacrifice" of the "New Adam".

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

And you are still sort of dancing past the plural problem...

 

[Craig B]

Gord,
A better quote from your source would be, My bold. Sure people have strong feelings and get angry when this is pointed out to them. The fact remains that this literalist view is a relatively new thing, and in my opinion mainly driven by those trying to attack religion in general, and using science to do it. It's the old if someone pushes, the natural reaction is to push back. If you don't push in the first place and simply discuss it rationally, you will find that it was NEVER intended to be taken literally. At least not by educated people.

ETA; Just to clarify, by push I mean try to convert to atheism.

Here's another source.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.​

Encyclical Humani Generis Pius XII, 12 August 1950

 

[Red Baron Farms]

How...odd...that your quotation does not appear in the source Gord_in_Toronto quoted, as you seem to be claiming it does.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-denies-eve-came.htm

Craig,
I understand that there are many doctrines like original sin we could discuss, but that's really a topic for a different forum, and for people who are formally trained in religious dogma. My sole purpose for posting on this thread is to dispel the YEC myth that the Bible must be interpreted literally with regards to creationism. In fact those chapters were meant to be taught as symbolism and have NOTHING to do with evolutionary science, pro or con. It should be a non issue to any rational person.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Your presumption is incorrect. There is plenty of symbolic language, nearly all in fact. Why else a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" You can't see that eating from the tree is a symbol of mankind's development of a moral code? How more obvious can one make it? Practically everything about that part of the Bible is symbolism, not literal.

And yet, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, among other sources, disagrees with you.

I repeat my question: What feature of language or content distinguishes, in your mind, "...one-of-the-penises-of-him..." from "...YHWH created he them in his own image..."?

More simply, which bits are to be taken "literally", and which may be dismissed as "metaphorical", in your confession? How are the bits distinguished?

 

[Slowvehicle]

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-denies-eve-came.htm

You continue to answer the questions you wish I had asked.

Where, in the source Gord_in_Toronto quoted (you know, what you called "your source" in your post to him) does your contention appear?

Further, do you understand the idea of the Novum Ordo? Is it your contention that Franky was speaking ex cathedra, and overturning 2000 years of dogma?

DId you miss this bit?

Laughing heartily about the matter, having alluded to this passage, Francis explicitly says: “That’s a joke.” He points to the true teaching about the creation of woman but then makes fun of it by using it in the context of a joke, in the face of an unbelieving world that dismisses as silly and mythological the creation accounts in Genesis anyway, and pretty much all that reeks of the supernatural in Sacred Scripture.

I encourage you to read the catechism.