It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yet another reason why the Genesis account is silly.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
So, according to a literal reading of Genesis 2, Adam and slightly later Eve were created and became the ancestors of everyone alive to day. Young Earth creationists put this at 6 days shy of about 6000-10000 years ago. I've heard various different time periods for when Adam and Eve existed from Old Earth creationists, so I'll just address the You

However, this becomes a problem. Well....where's the genetic evidence of such a narrow population of humans existing 6000-10000 years ago? Why is it that the common female ancestor (metaphorically dubbed mitochondrial Eve) and the common male ancestor (metaphorically dubbed Y chromosomal Adam) existed thousands of years apart rather than in the same time period?

This is just another obvious instance of the story not adding up literally, though there is allegorical meaning to it.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
If your trying to go by the bible, which I don't agree with to much there is a six day man, which is ADAM, the white man. But before man (ADAM) there were other men-women made here on earth also. If need be I can look it up in the bible for you but if you read it you will see where man was made twice. You have the six day man and another man....

Genisis chapter 1 v26 is one type man ADAM white man
Genisis Chapter 2 v 7 is the other races
I use the Kolbrin bible now. I use to use KJV until I woke up...
Hope this helps...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, according to a literal reading of Genesis 2


Its not supposed to be read as literal truth.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, according to a literal reading of Genesis 2, Adam and slightly later Eve were created and became the ancestors of everyone alive to day. Young Earth creationists put this at 6 days shy of about 6000-10000 years ago. I've heard various different time periods for when Adam and Eve existed from Old Earth creationists, so I'll just address the You

However, this becomes a problem. Well....where's the genetic evidence of such a narrow population of humans existing 6000-10000 years ago? Why is it that the common female ancestor (metaphorically dubbed mitochondrial Eve) and the common male ancestor (metaphorically dubbed Y chromosomal Adam) existed thousands of years apart rather than in the same time period?

This is just another obvious instance of the story not adding up literally, though there is allegorical meaning to it.
What you are criticizing is the interpretation of the story by a minority of Christians who call themselves Young Earth Creationists. And yes, Creation Science is an oxymoron. It cannot be falsified, therefore it cannot be science. Now if you want to compare and contrast the account in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 you will find pay dirt. IMO, Genesis 1 is the literal account, and Genesis 2 is the account with allegory and symbolism in it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caji316
If your trying to go by the bible, which I don't agree with to much there is a six day man, which is ADAM, the white man. But before man (ADAM) there were other men-women made here on earth also. If need be I can look it up in the bible for you but if you read it you will see where man was made twice. You have the six day man and another man....

Genisis chapter 1 v26 is one type man ADAM white man
Genisis Chapter 2 v 7 is the other races
I use the Kolbrin bible now. I use to use KJV until I woke up...
Hope this helps...

Umm..."the ADAM white man"? So "in his own image" means God is white? Really? Wow. Can you please provide your translations of the Hebrew regarding the great white God? And the "Kolbrin bible"? That would be the "bible" produced by Glenn Kimball who has his own mail order university? And who sells this bible? Full of "newly revealed Celtic wisdom" from ancient texts that Mr. Kimball has been collecting since he was 15 years old?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I am by no means an expert on Biblical theory or genetics, so I'm just going to put this out there although my query may seem foolish and my assumptions totally incorrect


Am I correct in assuming that mitochondrial DNA isn't subject to recombination as it passes through generations, unlike Y chromosomes? And am I correct that Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived thousands of years before Y chromosomal Adam?

If these assumptions are correct, could the difference in timings therefore be accommodated by the Noah scenario - technically all male genetic input would be descended from Noah due to the flood; which occurred thousands of years after Adam & Eve. However, because of no recombination, all female genetic input would extend past Mrs Noah all the way back to Eve.

I know the dates are like comparing apples and oranges (hundreds of thousands vs tens of thousands of years), but as a principle...

Like I said, I'm not an expert either way. Just trying to expand my knowledge & understanding

edit on 15/2/11 by lizziejayne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
And yet another reason:

Ignoring the metaphorical aspects of the story, the main problem i have is this: Adam and Eve were the only two people on the earth supposed directly created by God. Cain slew Abel and was exiled to another land...where he found a wife. Where did he find a wife if he was one of three people on the face of the earth--and left the other two?

Now, how does this make ANY sense? Unless the other children Adam and Eve had eventually moved to the same land, or there was a race of subhuman primate beings or something, the fact that Cains packs up, leaves, yet finds a wife to spawn his own lineage just...makes NO sense at all.

It makes sense if it is a metaphor, a myth, but not literally. So why do people believe it literally when there are these holes? Or did god *make* a wife for him, which we do not know or have not been supposedly told?

Absurdism at its finest.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
your point about the origins of man depicted in the bible are one of many valid arguments. it took me all the way to genesis 6 to wonder about the fantastic story. "the sons of god saw the daughters of men" and i couldnt get past that line. it is hard to take a faith based religion seriously when its opening is so ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The inconsistency of the mitochondrial/y chromasome tracing is due to problems with the science and at that time the human population was very sparse. A few large genetic bottlenecks were calculated as happening around 10,000 years ago.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Caji316
 


You use a more recent made up text now, that's...silly. Also, the statement is clearly one that endorses a horrifically racist ideology and is even more contrary to actual genetics data as we know for a fact that light-skinned individuals are less recent than darker skinned ones.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by lizziejayne
 


A little research goes a long way. Now, the Noah story takes place a few thousand years after...whereas M-Eve and Y-Adam lived tens of thousands of years apart....here's further reading.


Also,the Noah story is separately not consistent with geologic evidence, so it can just be tossed right out. We'd also see issues of the gene-pool restriction effecting us further.



 


...also, why is an Origins and Creationism thread now in the Religion forum? I'm talking specifically about creationism!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by maskfan
 


Which is why I specified the group I'm putting this out as a response to...

Also, how do you know it's not supposed to be read literally? That's the thing I never get about non-literalists. The literalists have a single standard, it's all literal unless noted in text to be allegorical (like the stories Jesus told). Non-literalists, do you just pick and choose?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SunSword
 


...wow, that's news to me. It's not like I specified that I was only arguing against Young Earthers...except that I did and I was aware that they aren't a majority. [/sarcasm]

Now, Genesis 1 cannot be a literal account either, as the Sun and Moon are created after plants and avian life precedes land animals. That's enough to show that the account is incorrect.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


Citation needed...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by maskfan
 


Which is why I specified the group I'm putting this out as a response to...

Also, how do you know it's not supposed to be read literally? That's the thing I never get about non-literalists. The literalists have a single standard, it's all literal unless noted in text to be allegorical (like the stories Jesus told). Non-literalists, do you just pick and choose?


Yes you specified a fanatical sub-group of Christians, who for the sake of this argument represents the dumb kid in the corner who can't stop drooling on himself as your target, but you attacked all of us (followers of the book) with your opening statements.

How do I know it isn't supposed to be read literally? Because its not (and has never) been taught as literal truth by the religion who created that particular book, I could go on to expand on the various ways that trained readers are shown how to read the OT, but I feel it would probably just be wasting my time, as you felt you had to take the most obviously ridiculous literal interpretation of what is clearly a set of parables and use it as an example of why religious people are whackjobs and atheists are clearly in the right.

Well bravo you showed that people who take the book literally are idiots, bravo sir, I bow to your intellectual superioty over those with IQ's less than 80.
edit on 16-2-2011 by maskfan because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-2-2011 by maskfan because: spelling / grammar
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by maskfan
 


Ah that makes more sense. So Jesus and God don't exist?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dashen
 


Citation needed...


No problem.
Although it kind of reeks of a Christian Fundamentalis rant, the science is sound.
The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Marulo
 


I would hazard that Jesus doesn't exist in the way that most Christians perceive him. However I am not a Christian and I would not have entered a discussion to argue about the merits of the New Testament so I don't really feel its my place to comment on it.

God doesn't exist ? Again the old man sitting on a throne of clouds interfering with everything we do probably doesn't exist. However just because I said the OT is made up of parabals doesn't in anyway mean I am trying to discredit the concept of a divine creator.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by maskfan

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by maskfan
 


Which is why I specified the group I'm putting this out as a response to...

Also, how do you know it's not supposed to be read literally? That's the thing I never get about non-literalists. The literalists have a single standard, it's all literal unless noted in text to be allegorical (like the stories Jesus told). Non-literalists, do you just pick and choose?


Yes you specified a fanatical sub-group of Christians, who for the sake of this argument represents the dumb kid in the corner who can't stop drooling on himself as your target, but you attacked all of us (followers of the book) with your opening statements.

How do I know it isn't supposed to be read literally? Because its not (and has never) been taught as literal truth by the religion who created that particular book, I could go on to expand on the various ways that trained readers are shown how to read the OT, but I feel it would probably just be wasting my time, as you felt you had to take the most obviously ridiculous literal interpretation of what is clearly a set of parables and use it as an example of why religious people are whackjobs and atheists are clearly in the right.

Well bravo you showed that people who take the book literally are idiots, bravo sir, I bow to your intellectual superioty over those with IQ's less than 80.
edit on 16-2-2011 by maskfan because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-2-2011 by maskfan because: spelling / grammar


When you say "the religion who created that particular book", which of the 34.000 different christian subsets are you then referring to (many of whom claiming to be THE 'true' christians).

And on what criteria are "the various ways that trained readers are shown how to read the OT" chosen? Some highly a-doctrinal method for textual analysis, a course in logic, knowledge of scientific methodology or (I suspect) some 'authority' telling you what to believe.

How is genesis 1 supposed to be read? Literally or symbolically? extra DIV



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by maskfan
 



Originally posted by maskfan
Yes you specified a fanatical sub-group of Christians, who for the sake of this argument represents the dumb kid in the corner who can't stop drooling on himself as your target, but you attacked all of us (followers of the book) with your opening statements.


Well, the Genesis account is silly for multiple reasons aside from literal interpretations, but I'm not going into that. I wasn't going to specify young Earthers in my title, and my opening statements specifically pointed out that I referred to a literal interpretation. The fifth and sixth words are 'literal reading'.



How do I know it isn't supposed to be read literally? Because its not (and has never) been taught as literal truth by the religion who created that particular book,


This is an appeal to tradition. That's a logical fallacy.

Of course, you also have to prove this statement. Can you show me a tradition of Rabbinical writings which state that the Torah's account of creation isn't literal?



I could go on to expand on the various ways that trained readers are shown how to read the OT, but I feel it would probably just be wasting my time, as you felt you had to take the most obviously ridiculous literal interpretation of what is clearly a set of parables and use it as an example of why religious people are whackjobs and atheists are clearly in the right.


Um...I never said religious people were crazy...of course your automatic paranoid assumption that I'm saying that doesn't help those who think they are.

Now, can you show me how Genesis is actually a set of parables? I mean, just the first two chapters is enough.



Well bravo you showed that people who take the book literally are idiots, bravo sir, I bow to your intellectual superioty over those with IQ's less than 80.


This sort of stupidity is unnecessary. I'm not trying to show my intellectual superiority over anyone, I'm addressing a very specific interpretation of the Bible and made it incredibly clear that I was doing so.

Of course, this post has the awful odor of 'didn't actually bother reading the OP'.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join