Re: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 10:41:48 EST

*There is no other option that will fit the data. In this regard, the true
answer either does lie with Dick or with me. In my opinion, all other views
are hopelessly contraobservational.*

Why doesn't the possibility of God creating Adam out of the "dust of the
ground," with such "dust" including existing hominid genetic material, work?

On 2/28/06, Donald Perrett (E-mail) <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net>
wrote:
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> I suspect it is the only workable approach. Then the question becomes how
old is Adam. Genetics says he can't be recent if he is the progenitor of
all humanity. One either ditches progenitorship, or move Adam way back.
There is no other option that will fit the data. In this regard, the true
answer either does lie with Dick or with me. In my opinion, all other views
are hopelessly contraobservational.
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> [Don Perrett]
>
> Assuming that one first holds to Dick's view of Adam, then the idea I
expressed would account for the age problem you mention. But while this
might make the age issue more palatable, it can't address your issues on the
flood. The idea I had was mainly to find a possible common ground for you
on the age issue. Being one that holds the view that Dick does on Adam as
first "Godly" man, the age issue has been one I too have wrestled with. The
only solution for me was either they had very unique DNA and perhaps a
Christ like ability to heal themselves or the ages referred to family
reins. While not sold on myself, due to lack of evidence, there is some
ancient sociological evidence that the family rein was likely. On the other
hand there is no evidence of long life spans, as you have pointed out.
>
> As for Adam as the first actual human, I guess you would have to first
define (based on biblical interpretation) what a man is. Then you might
have luck working the time frame out. I do not believe that H.S.Sapiens are
by default a man as termed biblically. Besides if Adam is the first man and
Christ was the last man, then using logic one must conclude that there have
been no humans since Christ if Adam was the actual first human. So
biblically and logically speaking just as there have been humans since
Christ, then there too were humans before Adam. The idea that the
patriarchs were spiritual messengers has never been denied. So why should
the idea that Adam was here for the same reason not be implied, whether
mentioned or not.
>
> As for humans prior to Adam performing worship of some sort, of course
there was, just as you have pointed out. The citations you have given in
the past have been things such as bear worship. All animals worship or
cower to anything greater than themselves. Most everyone is aware of the
animal alpha/beta male relationship. God through Adam was trying to get us
away from this animal behaviour, to a better understanding of his creation
and our purpose in it. Worshipping animals, nature, and other created
things, is not the same as worshipping the creator. Adam of course failed
and Christ had to come and make it right. While there are a few out there
that still worship other things, etc, the vast majority now worship the
creator alone. Which also fits into my interpretation of brother fighting
brother. Spiritually, a creator-theist fighting a nature/animal/man-theist
is not a brother fighting brother. One is a child of God (spiritually) the
other is a child of something else (that which he worships). The future
will be brother against brother because those fighting now and in the future
worship the same God (creator).
>
> The only difference between the creator-religions is that with the
exception of Christians, most everyone believes God redeems us directly in
the end (at judgement) and Christians believe that we can be redeemed before
the judgement comes.
>
> Sorry if some of this is off track. Not trying to start another thread.
>
> Also, I realize that some like yourself Glenn would have issue with the
idea that some people are biblically man and others not. This does not mean
that they are less human. Racism, or any ism, is an excuse for not
accepting people who are different. And rather than try to bring those
others into ones culture or religion (not forcing) they will simply
suppress, denounce, and destroy. All of which is against God's will. Even
if everyone truly believed that we were related directly from Adam
1,000,000,000,000,000 years ago or from yesterday, siblings always fight.
If we cannot teach our own children to love each other, then how can we ever
think that hatred for non-family will ever be stopped. So, regardless of
whatever biblical or scientific conclusions are formed and supported, there
will always be those who hate. All we can do is ensure that our own
children love and respect one another so that their love and respect will be
passed on to the next generation and perhaps one day everyone will learn to
accept people who are different physically and culturally but who can share
their love of mankind and God.
>
> Don P
>
> Don P
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: glennmorton@entouch.net [mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 08:10
> To: '' Dick Fischer ''; 'Donald@broadbandsupport.net; E-mail)' <
donperrett@theology-perspectives.net>
> Cc: 'ASA@broadbandsupport.net; E-mail)' <asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity
>
>
>
>
>
> This is for Dick and Don Perrett
>
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>AbrahamR17;s bones are in the tomb of the patriarchs. Dig them up and
check him out.
>
>
>
> Look, Glenn, Genesis says Noah lived 500 years and begat three sons.
Okay, so we say that isn't possible he must have been younger than that.
Fine, make him younger. Then the flood came 100 years later. Too long we
say. So we shorten that up. Next, he lived 350 years after the flood.
Again, too long so we shorten that up. Let's just divide through by a
factor of ten and make Noah 95 when he died. That works. Now Abraham lived
to 175. Too long, so we divide that by ten and get 17.5. Oops! That's too
young. We have to choose a different factor to get a reasonable age for
Abraham. In other words, we would have to decide how long is a reasonable
age for each patriarch and just give him that age disregarding whatever age
Genesis reported.<<<<
>
>
>
> GRM: See my note to Terry this morning on how to handle the Genealogies.
It is a bit different. You are correct that one can't do a simple division
and expect to have things turn out right.
>
>
>
> >>>>But that isn't really what the issue is. What you want is missing
generations. By questioning their ages you are saying there must be missing
generations. A half dozen or so unnamed patriarchs would make the average
age a more reasonable number, perhaps. But you then have a precedent for
positing missing generations. If there are half a dozen missing there may
be several thousand, it's only a matter of degree. Glenn, you might be able
to sneak a swallow or two of the old man's whisky without him noticing, but
you can't just drink the whole bottle!<<<<
>
> GRM:Precisely. If there are some, there can be lots. I know that one guy
in my genealogy (which I don't have with me in Boston and thus can't quote)
lived over 300 years before his son took over the throne. But I also know
that no one in the 2-400s lived that long, so, there must be extra guys. I
also know that there is not a shred of evidence for hyperlongevity in the
Sumerian period. How are we to resolve this? My suggestion to Terry seems
reasonable.
>
>
>
> >>>>Furthermore, the Jewish scribes were far more careful than that. Up
until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD the temple held the genealogies
of every Jew. It was public record. It might be possible to miss a few
names over the centuries when you consider periods of bondage, wandering in
the desert, wars, and so on. But omitting thousands of generations? Uh,
uh, somebody would notice. <<<<
>
> We are not talking about the genealogies during the kingdom. We are
talking about a time before the Jewish nation. There seems to be a hole in
your argument here because prior to Joshua's time, there was no place to
keep such records in such detail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Donald Perrett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>Not that I hold one specific way on the issue of patriarch ages, but
both of you could be right. While I do agree with Dick's view that Adam is
the spiritual (monotheic) first man, Glenn may also be right about the age
problem. If one were to consider that the ages are not necessarily the
person but rather the family line. [snip]
>
>
>
> For Dick or Glenn:Does this idea have any specific evidence against
it?<<<<
>
>
>
> I suspect it is the only workable approach. Then the question becomes how
old is Adam. Genetics says he can't be recent if he is the progenitor of
all humanity. One either ditches progenitorship, or move Adam way back.
There is no other option that will fit the data. In this regard, the true
answer either does lie with Dick or with me. In my opinion, all other views
are hopelessly contraobservational.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 28 10:42:24 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 10:42:24 EST