I suppose we could then give them a gender change…
-XT
Do you believe Adam existed?
<QUOTE>Originally Posted by timtupp
“What do you hope to prove”
Only that the bible and science don’t have to be mutually exclusive.</QUOTE>
I would think a major problem with this approach is that the biblical account is fixed, and you start with the premise it has to be right. If science accumulates new evidence on a topic/theory - science will change.
If new hard evidence changed what we know about the Big Bang, science would change/scrap the Big Bang theory.
A few hundred years back scientists believed classical Newtonian mechanics explained things very well. Turns out that’s only within certain parameters and quantum mechanics explains other things better. So ‘science’ had to admit that Newtonian mechanics wasn’t the be and end all.
Over the centuries plenty of people tried to match the bible to ‘current’ evidence. You’re doomed to a never ending cycle of shoe-horning a past account to new evidence. The science is going to keep refining/changing. IMHO a pointless exercise.
Mutually exclusive. You bet.
It seems pretty clear that the God of Genesis created, if not all, at least a great number of species all at once. Fish and birds first, then cattle and insects next. This doesn’t jibe with the science unless you view it purely as metaphor. Someone reading this account literally would have trouble accepting the completely different timeline that a believe in Evolution would require, but I could see him or her accepting “micro” changes that don’t contradict it outright.
My personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion.
There are theists, (Jewish and Christian, to stay in the frame of refereence of this thread), who accept evolutionary science without any problem. They may take “Adam” to be the first human or proto-human to develop self-awareness and be infused with a soul. They may take “Adam” to be a general reference to “first” (and, therefore, all subsequent) humans. They may view the mythology of the two separate Creation myths at the beginning of Genesis in some other way. The point is that imposing a literal meaning on mythology* violates the actual purpose of mythology and compels one to deny facts and twist other facts and words in order to reconcile statements that are clearly contradictory.
- In the anthropological sense of a story told to express a truth held by a people. Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:2 tells one story that demonstrates to the believers that God created order from chaos, matter from non-matter, and that the Creation was good. It was not the result of warring gods creating the world as a byproduct of their feuds or that it is built by a sub-god who was evil.
Genesis 2:3 ff tells a completely different story regarding the way that God created the world for the use of humanity and that humanity has always failed to measure up to God’s promise and delight. Much later theology has accreted to those stories (for good or ill), but imposing a 19th century view of literalness on them that requires a reconciliation of theology and science is simply a way to create non-believers who can see that the discrepancies are mopre real than the claims for reconciliation.
I’ll ask it again, then.
Did Adam exist?
No.
But what’s that got to do with the price of bread?
If you are going to ignore what I post, why should I respond?
Because you didn’t answer the question.
Please define or describe “Adam.”
I’ll tell you what; I’ll ask a different question.
Did the OT, and the later Christian Jews and Gentiles, believe in a literal Adam?
This discussion has to do with reconciling the words of Genesis (not the beliefs of tomndebb) to the scientific observations regarding the development of life with a slight hijack into the OP’s current beliefs regarding the Creation myths.
My beliefs continue to be irrelevant to that discussion.
The Adam described in the bible, with the attending details about his creation, wife, kids etc.
OK then, does it seem clear to you (it certainly does to me) that the views that the OT Jews, and NT Jews/Christians were in error about the Adam account?
Many did. (The more interesting question is whether earlier Jewish believers believe in a literal adam. 
)
Augiustine of Hippo, on Genesis:
While I peruse your cite, tell me what you mean about earlier Jewish believers.
Earlier than what specifically?
Very interesting cite.
Please elaborate on it please, as I don’t want to assume what your point is. (for I do not to remove the wrong organs from you. 
)
Microevolution and macroevolution are bad terms.
The usual sets of definitions I see offered put microevolution synonymous with adaptation, and macroevolution as synonymous with speciation. Another common interpretation is the idea that they’re simple timescale prefixes: macro- is just a whole lot of microevolution. All of this is bedded in the understanding that we’re talking about visible changes.
The problem with these definitions is that the imply things about biological evolution that are not particularly accurate. Visible differences between populations of organisms imply little about the barriers to gene flow between those populations (i.e., whether they’re different species). Mutations effecting interfertility can have no obvious physiological effects. Speciation can occur and go undetected until the inability to share genes with parent populations causes the genetic structure of the new species to diverge.
And “barriers to gene flow” is a fuzzy concept. What if you have a species with two distinct subpopulations that are capable of interbreeding, but mating pairs with a member from each group have reduced fecundity? What if it’s only 10% less? What if it’s 50%? 80%? Are they different species at 80% reduction in interfertility? Or only at 100%? What if they can interbreed, but don’t for a poorly understood reason?
That said, this is a problem of terminology, not biology. Life has no obligation to fit into the neat little boxes we define for it.
There are two essential questions being asked by the OP.
“How did we evolve?” and “Did we evolve?”
The first has a lot of controversial answers. Scientists bicker about it constantly. A new fossil is discovered that requires revisions to evolutionary theories that have been in textbooks for decades. To be replaced with an updated evolutionary theory.
Why only an evolutionary theory?
Because the answer to the second question is “Yes.”
The pattern of genetic similarities observable across all life on earth is of the type predicted by evolution from a common ancestor. It’s not necessary to know the entire biological history of every species, charted from the common ancestor through every intermediate to each modern species alive today, to know that every species alive today evolved from a common ancestor. It’s a settled question that things evolved, so most folks are more interested in the “just so stories” of how things evolved.
Many? Wouldn’t that be All?
Is there any contemporary account that indicates that any believed Adam to be mythical?
Psst…nofloyd…preview is free. Don’t be afraid to use it. And square brackets () work better than angle brackets (<>). Try 'em, you’ll like 'em.