Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Mar 01 2009 - 15:10:08 EST

James -- still waiting for your responses here.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:42 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>wrote:

> James -- reading what you've said here, I'm wondering if we've been
> disagreeing when we really basically agree.
>
> You said: *to deny what Genesis tells us about Adam and Even being the
> ones God chose to impart spiritual existence to, and who chose to sin.*
>
> I respond: Personally, I believe Adam and Eve were real individuals whom
> God chose, into whom God breathed something "more" for the first time, and
> who chose to sin, the results of which propogated throughout the entire
> human race. So I don't think we disagree here.
>
> You also said: *thereís some genetics back there with Cain wandering off,
> it seems. What does one do with the aborigines that appeared in Australia at
> circa 40 kBC?*
>
> I respond: yes, exactly! So there are "humans," not descendants of Adam,
> around when Cain wanders off (hence his fear and the need for the mark of
> Cain). Cain and other descendants of Adam intermingle with them and the
> resulting generations are therefore also descendants of Adam, in some
> mysterious way propogating the imago Dei and original sin. Certainly by the
> time the scriptures are written, all living people can trace their geneology
> to Adam, though *genetically *the human population is more diverse than n
> of 2.
>
> To me, the foregoing sort of model at present seems to do the best job of
> integrating all the information we have available, including the data
> (however mushy) from population genetics, and preserves some important
> theological considerations concerning how scripture treats Adam. It leaves
> some interesting questions -- what about the spiritual status of those
> "pre-Adamites" with whom Adam's descendants mingled? -- but if scripture
> doesn't tell us, maye we don't need to know.
>
> If we agree that the foregoing is a viable model, I don't think we really
> have any substantial disagreement. If you want to say -- *"let's hold a
> model such as the above as a tentative possibility, with another possibility
> being that there's enough fuzziness in the pog gen data that maybe somehow
> all the genetic diversity can trace to an n of 2 as well"* -- I'm
> perfectly fine with that and would happily welcome robust data to show that.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM, James Patterson <
> james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > -- I've read many of the scientific articles you cite before, but I'm not
> sure I've read all of them. Do any of them suggest an "n=2" for the origin
> of modern humans? I don't think that's the case, but I could be wrong.
> >
> > Nope. Not a one. To do so would be considered a religious bent, and would
> be unacceptable in a scientific (read: naturalist) journal. I think that, if
> Adam and Eve were the progenitors of mankind, or even the Hebrews, then God
> stirred the pot. Russellís OSP if you donít like miraculous intervention.
> >
> > -- When you say "n=2", do you insist that "n" consist of the origins of
> the modern human genome?
> >
> >
> >
> > Not insistent, but I donít presume itís impossible. However it is worth
> pointing out here that even RTB states that the dawn of man was *sometime*
> 10-100 kBC, mankind spread out from its origins at ~40 kBC, the flood was
> about ~20 kBC, was universal and not global, and that Noahís lineage was the
> origins of the Hebrew race. SoÖthereís some genetics back there with Cain
> wandering off, it seems. What does one do with the aborigines that appeared
> in Australia at circa 40 kBC?
> >
> >
> >
> > Can "n" consist instead of spiritual properties?
> >
> >
> >
> > I think so.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me offer something I think is an analogue: if Abraham was the
> father of the Hebrew nation, was it necessary that every "true" Hebrew have
> genetic material derived only from Abraham and Sarah, or was it possible to
> be grafted into the Hebrew nation through marriage or other spiritual
> relationships (follow up query to this question: were the children of Moses
> and Zipporah Hebrews?)?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well I certainly hope itís possible to be grafted into the Hebrew nation!
> Iím counting on it! I think I answered this question above, tho.
> >
> >
> >
> > JP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 1 15:10:32 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 15:10:32 EST