Adam and Eve did not Exist!
16 Jun 2014, 3:51 am
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA_46qTBag0[/youtube]Yet another biblical fairytale completely destroyed perhaps I should destroy Jonah and the Whale as well as the Tower of babel since Noahs ark was destroyed with ease! Oh well!
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
16 Jun 2014, 11:08 am
I think you posted the wrong video, I couldn't find anything in that that "completely destroyed" Adam and Eve, just some Woman telling us her religion is the right religion and doing the usual tactic of employing sarcasm in lei of this "evidence" she keeps claiming to have without actually showing us.
Besides which, what happened to the "scientific evidence" that we all "evolved" from the same African Woman, ( whose name just might have been Eve)? That meaning that science has also proved we came from a single solitary female.
16 Jun 2014, 11:33 am
It's a crap video and she does a terrible job of debunking.
This wiki article (about mitochondrial Eve) does a far better job in its "misconceptions" section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Not the only woman[edit]
One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[8][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent.[citation needed] Alternately, hybrids between Eve-descended males and non-Eve females necessarily produced sterile females, and thus non-Eve males could pass along only non-mitochondrial genes.[citation needed]
Not a fixed individual over time[edit]
The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the person in prehistory who will fit this definition can change, not only because of new discoveries, but also because of unbroken mother-daughter lines coming to an end by chance. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. In every generation mitochondrial lineages end ? when a woman with unique mtDNA dies with no daughters. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.
Not necessarily a contemporary of "Y-chromosomal Adam"[edit]
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, from whom all living people are descended patrilineally, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa. A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam" ? some 140,000 years later.[10] (Earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam".)[34] More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time.[35]
Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans[edit]
Main article: Most recent common ancestor
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor. Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however, this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestry of modern human populations:
The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[36]
The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans was the time at which all humans who were then alive either left no descendants alive today or were common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors" alive at the "Identical ancestors point" in time. This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[36]
Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent female-line common ancestor of all living people.
"Y-chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living people, is currently thought to have lived long before Mitochondrial Eve.
Not the biblical Eve[edit]
Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:
is not a fixed individual
had a mother
was not the only woman of her time, and
Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.
There is also a good wiki on Y chromosomal Adam but I won't quote the misconceptions section since it overlaps with the Eve one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Chromosome_Adam
Nambo is presumably referring to Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam but the Misconceptions section of both wikis show that these concepts do not map so neatly onto the biblical story as Creationists had hoped. The terrible video didn't even bring them up, just some reference to "evolutionary science shows.....". How about actually showing at least some of the evolutionary science.?!
Terrible video.
Last edited by Janissy on 16 Jun 2014, 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
16 Jun 2014, 11:35 am
Except we also know that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam never met since they lived apart thousends of years. So there is a woman that everyone alive now has as an ancestor, but it's still different from a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.
16 Jun 2014, 12:15 pm
This wiki article (about mitochondrial Eve) does a far better job in its "misconceptions" section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Not the only woman[edit]
One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[8][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent.[citation needed] Alternately, hybrids between Eve-descended males and non-Eve females necessarily produced sterile females, and thus non-Eve males could pass along only non-mitochondrial genes.[citation needed]
Not a fixed individual over time[edit]
The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the person in prehistory who will fit this definition can change, not only because of new discoveries, but also because of unbroken mother-daughter lines coming to an end by chance. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. In every generation mitochondrial lineages end ? when a woman with unique mtDNA dies with no daughters. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.
Not necessarily a contemporary of "Y-chromosomal Adam"[edit]
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, from whom all living people are descended patrilineally, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa. A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam" ? some 140,000 years later.[10] (Earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam".)[34] More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time.[35]
Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans[edit]
Main article: Most recent common ancestor
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor. Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however, this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestry of modern human populations:
The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[36]
The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans was the time at which all humans who were then alive either left no descendants alive today or were common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors" alive at the "Identical ancestors point" in time. This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[36]
Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent female-line common ancestor of all living people.
"Y-chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living people, is currently thought to have lived long before Mitochondrial Eve.
Not the biblical Eve[edit]
Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:
is not a fixed individual
had a mother
was not the only woman of her time, and
Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.
There is also a good wiki on Y chromosomal Adam but I won't quote the misconceptions section since it overlaps with the Eve one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Chromosome_Adam
Nambo is presumably referring to Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam but the Misconceptions section of both wikis show that these concepts do not map so neatly onto the biblical story as Creationists had hoped. The terrible video didn't even bring them up, just some reference to "evolutionary science shows.....". How about actually showing at least some of the evolutionary science.?!
Terrible video.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
16 Jun 2014, 1:01 pm
i think "adam" and "eve" were both using false identities, which would be strange due to the fact that there was no one else in the world at the time who they could tell their names to, so they must have been trying to fool each other. my guess is that it will never be known what their real names were.
----------
i wish to be a bit more serious this time. i am prone to literal interpretation, but my proneness to interpret things in a literal way is on a plane above the fundamental and basic substrates of a story, so i am not caught up in rejecting things that sound absurd on initial inspection. you (OP) seem to try to parade your propensity for literal interpretation in a way that seems unlikely to be true to me. you do not even grace your assertions with any original analysis, but instead just point the way to videos made by others and leave it at that. whatever.
--------
i have my own idea of what the story of adam and eve may be alluding to.
once when i was about 18, i imbibed an LSD trip to see what it would do, and at one stage i freaked out at the lack of control that i realized i had over the eventuality of the universe. it seemed that every miniscule aspect of the manifestation of the the universe was infinitely complex and could never be reduced to zero, but nobody held the strings to it all.
i had never contemplated the process of natural universal procedure ever before that time, and prior to that time, i had always felt snug in my trust that all was happening as it should. i did not have a care in the world about the way the universe was unfolding because i just trusted that "unfold" was what it did and did not contemplate it further.
when i was on the trip, i wondered how it all was so miraculously interconnected, and how the laws of physics just magically existed everywhere in the universe all at once, and how did they get there so fast and fill all points of existence and .... who wrote them? they must have been written (or in other words "devised") as no chaotic semblance of serendipitous calamity could ever permeate everywhere so perfectly and instantly, and my mind was quickly swamped by the "enormity of it all", and i felt a coldness inside me as if i had been abandoned by my previous sensation of blind trust, and i was now in a position where i had to try to use my puny brain to return to my former state of blind innocent trust, but i found i could not go back. my brain was not enough to be able to quell the sudden distrust i had in the equilibrium of things, and i could not resolve the threads that invisibly wove together my previous notion of "simple inevitability".
i thought of the story of adam and eve in bliss in the garden of eden, and a snake slithering down out of a tree that asks one of them (whoever is not important) if they really trust god blindly, or if they want to see a "glimpse into how it all works" (apple of knowledge). the choice to see how it all works is such a bad mistake. it condemns one to eternal doubt and insecurity because one can never encompass the entirety of reality with a deliberate conscious sweep.
thank goodness i recovered from that trip and i returned to taking things for granted that i know that i can not ever fully understand, but i did see a parallel between my subjective situation at that time, and a possible meaning in the story of adam and eve.
i have not the capacity to reason existence to it's floor, and so i just have to live within it with trust that it is well fabricated. to deny the existence of god is to put yourself on a flimsy pedestal that you delusively believe is equal to elevating you to the task of rationalizing the entirety of existence and arriving at a conclusion.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
16 Jun 2014, 7:33 pm
I love the last line in that video when the woman mumbles for a bit about how she does not want to be blinkered and how she has come on this trip wanting be open to new ideas then says " I cant, Icant, i cant really tell you because of the faith that I have that if I start accepting all of this then I have got to accept that everything else is a pile of crap and I dont accept that"
That my friends is the level of brainwashing that goes on in some religious circles and is why I cannot abide creationists, this woman has, I suspect been told since she was a kid about the 'TRUTH' of the Lord and the "TRUTH' of the bible and when confronted with factual evidence that she knows completely destroys her understanding of creation she simply has to wilfully refute it in order to save her faith.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
17 Jun 2014, 3:47 pm
It was not a whale. The scripture says a Great Fish. Fish are not mammals Whales are.
ruveyn
17 Jun 2014, 4:23 pm
After Cain slew Abel, he fled and lived among the "people" in the Land of Nod. Where did they come from? Who did Cain and Seth marry to perpetuate the race?
It doesn't take much critical thinking to understand that the creation story in Genesis (BTW, there are two, written by different hands) is allegorical. As is much of Genesis.
_________________
AQ 34
Your Aspie score: 104 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 116 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
17 Jun 2014, 4:50 pm
Oh look, another terribly composed religion flame bait post. You do realize that attacking people for their personal beliefs makes you a bigot as much as a Christian is for not liking gays right?
I hear it all the time from the left and gay community." We dont care what Christians believe as long as they dont do or say anything bad about gays." Its funny, because this spammed to death forum section indicates that is clearly not the case.
My libertarian beliefs dictate that everyone should be able to do say or believe what ever the fk they want as long as their not hurting some one else. Because of that I lump gays and many religious Christains into the same bucket of sht together. When you honestly believe that people should just leave each other alone you start to view the religious and militant secular community as both being equally disgusting.
I dont consider my self religious and dont believe that my sexual preference is anyone elses business. To me, both groups just look like they have massive daddy issues that they are unable to deal with. Its really quite pathetic. Not that this thread is about sexuality, its just a good case example.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
17 Jun 2014, 5:04 pm
^ I couldnt give a s**t what nonsense people believe, I have a sister in law who thinks she can read cards and sees ghosts everywhere, but as far as I can tell she does not try and force card reading onto those who do not approach her and most certainly does not demand the government bring it into the classroom and teach it as a bonafide science. This is where the issue lies, creationist demand that all kids are taught the "controversy" between evolution and their completely unsubstantiated beliefs.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
17 Jun 2014, 5:20 pm
And gays demand that gay sex is taught in school. The entire public school system is a giant cluster fk. It just goes to show you how fked it really is, kids are coming out of school stupider and stupider every year and you idiots are fighting over this kind of crap. FFS kids can graduate HS without really being able to read this is the kind of crap you want to make an issue of. The classroom agenda is being decided based on how were going to indocternate kids these days. Its not even a question of are they being indoctrinated, no, that is clearly out in the open, now its just a question of how were going to do it. F it all.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
17 Jun 2014, 8:14 pm
If creationists accepted creation be taught in classes to do with comparative religion or philosophy I would not mind. But they don't they want it taught as a legitimate alternate theory in science which by any standard of science it most certainly is not.
Teaching kids how other people live their lives is a great idea, but not when it requires lies and deceit.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
