Christian Discussion Thread V

[Grand Calvert]

But who was the person who first started that church tradition? Do we know?

It can probably be ultimately traced back to Philo of Alexandria, but was likely established as part of the tradition handed on by the apostles. That's just speculation, however.

Very interesting....so did they teach that the 7 days mentioned were metaphors for much longer periods of time?

[Tmutarakhan]

This also explains what the other tribe that Cain's wife came from was.

Cain's wife was the daughter of Steve and Lilith.

[Kainesia]

It can probably be ultimately traced back to Philo of Alexandria, but was likely established as part of the tradition handed on by the apostles. That's just speculation, however.

Very interesting....so did they teach that the 7 days mentioned were metaphors for much longer periods of time?

I was under the impression that the book of genesis is largely ignored and accepted as mythology by Christians outside the united states. At least that's my experience.

[Grand Calvert]

Very interesting....so did they teach that the 7 days mentioned were metaphors for much longer periods of time?

I was under the impression that the book of genesis is largely ignored and accepted as mythology by Christians outside the united states. At least that's my experience.

Well we're just discussing the 7 day creation model; even most (if not all) old-earth creationists believe that Adam and Eve literally existed and literally brought sin into the world.

[Kainesia]

I was under the impression that the book of genesis is largely ignored and accepted as mythology by Christians outside the united states. At least that's my experience.

Well we're just discussing the 7 day creation model; even most (if not all) old-earth creationists believe that Adam and Eve literally existed and literally brought sin into the world.

Which ignores the fact that the entire human race cannot be descended from two people.

[Grand Calvert]

Well we're just discussing the 7 day creation model; even most (if not all) old-earth creationists believe that Adam and Eve literally existed and literally brought sin into the world.

Which ignores the fact that the entire human race cannot be descended from two people.

Why not? Population?

[Kainesia]

Which ignores the fact that the entire human race cannot be descended from two people.

Why not? Population?

Genetics. There are humans from whom we are all descended from to be sure, but there were not two humans who spawned the entire species. The gene pool would have been ridiculously small.

[Grand Calvert]

Why not? Population?

Genetics. There are humans from whom we are all descended from to be sure, but there were not two humans who spawned the entire species. The gene pool would have been ridiculously small.

How do you know? As humanity got larger and spread out, it's very likely that there would be more variations and the gene pool would have gotten bigger.

[Uxupox]

Genetics. There are humans from whom we are all descended from to be sure, but there were not two humans who spawned the entire species. The gene pool would have been ridiculously small.

How do you know? As humanity got larger and spread out, it's very likely that there would be more variations and the gene pool would have gotten bigger.

Maybe if it was in long periods of time but we are specifically talking about around ~6000 years. The time frame is simply not enough for the genes to express themselves into something different.

[Grand Calvert]

How do you know? As humanity got larger and spread out, it's very likely that there would be more variations and the gene pool would have gotten bigger.

Maybe if it was in long periods of time but we are specifically talking about around ~6000 years. The time frame is simply not enough for the genes to express themselves into something different.

Eh, I don't know how exactly we can go about proving that, other than just saying that it's too unlikely.

[Uxupox]

Maybe if it was in long periods of time but we are specifically talking about around ~6000 years. The time frame is simply not enough for the genes to express themselves into something different.

Eh, I don't know how exactly we can go about proving that, other than just saying that it's too unlikely.

Just study a little bit of molecular biology and microbial physiology to get an idea of it.

[Diopolis]

It can probably be ultimately traced back to Philo of Alexandria, but was likely established as part of the tradition handed on by the apostles. That's just speculation, however.

Very interesting....so did they teach that the 7 days mentioned were metaphors for much longer periods of time?

Actually, no. Augustine believed that the act of creation "occurred at once"(although with the admonition that we don't have all the evidence and that we should remain open to new evidence) and that the days represent categories of creation rather than time periods.

[Grand Calvert]

Very interesting....so did they teach that the 7 days mentioned were metaphors for much longer periods of time?

Actually, no. Augustine believed that the act of creation "occurred at once"(although with the admonition that we don't have all the evidence and that we should remain open to new evidence) and that the days represent categories of creation rather than time periods.

Huh. So why believe that, but not the 7 day model? Besides church tradition, I mean.

[Kainesia]

Genetics. There are humans from whom we are all descended from to be sure, but there were not two humans who spawned the entire species. The gene pool would have been ridiculously small.

How do you know? As humanity got larger and spread out, it's very likely that there would be more variations and the gene pool would have gotten bigger.

Correct, but modern humans have been on earth for around 200,000 years. The genetic variation of humanity is incompatible with being descended from two single ancestors in that timeframe.

The lowest point human population could have reached to maintain the genetic variance is roughly 2,000 people, and that was a reduced figure, as in there had been a higher population that was reduced downwards, rather than a small population rising upwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populatio ... eck#Humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427203/

It is true that humans have less genetic variance between individuals than in other species. But such a bottleneck of genetic variance is not the result of having originated from 2 people.

There is also the fact that humans evolved from a previous homo species, and such evolution would have been exceptionally unlikely to have resulted from two individuals and their descendants interbreeding within a population of many other potential mates for thousands of generations.

So, in short, genetically, mathematically, and historically, it's impossible for humankind to be born of a single mating pair.

[Diopolis]

Actually, no. Augustine believed that the act of creation "occurred at once"(although with the admonition that we don't have all the evidence and that we should remain open to new evidence) and that the days represent categories of creation rather than time periods.

Huh. So why believe that, but not the 7 day model? Besides church tradition, I mean.

Sirach 18:1 states that all creation occurred at once, if you accept the dueterocanonical books. There also seem to be some philosophical arguments, but I don't understand them.

[Grand Calvert]

Huh. So why believe that, but not the 7 day model? Besides church tradition, I mean.

Sirach 18:1 states that all creation occurred at once, if you accept the dueterocanonical books. There also seem to be some philosophical arguments, but I don't understand them.

I don't accept them, but even then the verse just seems to be saying that he created everything in a common fashion. I might be taking it out of context though.

[Diopolis]

Sirach 18:1 states that all creation occurred at once, if you accept the dueterocanonical books. There also seem to be some philosophical arguments, but I don't understand them.

I don't accept them, but even then the verse just seems to be saying that he created everything in a common fashion. I might be taking it out of context though.

Augustine used the vulgate(or at least he quoted it in Latin), which says "creativit omnia simul" or "he created all things at once".

[Grand Calvert]

I don't accept them, but even then the verse just seems to be saying that he created everything in a common fashion. I might be taking it out of context though.

Augustine used the vulgate(or at least he quoted it in Latin), which says "creativit omnia simul" or "he created all things at once".

I see....

[Grand Calvert]

Well, I'm off to bed. Thanks for all the info Diopolis!

[Gim]

Huh. So why believe that, but not the 7 day model? Besides church tradition, I mean.

Sirach 18:1 states that all creation occurred at once, if you accept the dueterocanonical books. There also seem to be some philosophical arguments, but I don't understand them.

Sirach? (I thought you were trying to say Sriracha. )
I don't think that's from the Bible, is it?

[Diopolis]

Sirach 18:1 states that all creation occurred at once, if you accept the dueterocanonical books. There also seem to be some philosophical arguments, but I don't understand them.

Sirach? (I thought you were trying to say Sriracha. )
I don't think that's from the Bible, is it?

It's one of the deuterocanonical books. That is, Catholics and Orthodox consider it part of the bible, but protestants exclude it because of an arbitrary decision by Martin Luther the inclusion in the Jewish canon.

[Gim]

Sirach? (I thought you were trying to say Sriracha. )
I don't think that's from the Bible, is it?

It's one of the deuterocanonical books. That is, Catholics and Orthodox consider it part of the bible, but protestants exclude it because of an arbitrary decision by Martin Luther the inclusion in the Jewish canon.

Okay. "All creation occurring at once" might just refer to a selected few creatures. After creation, they may have undergone natural selection, thus evolution.

[Diopolis]

It's one of the deuterocanonical books. That is, Catholics and Orthodox consider it part of the bible, but protestants exclude it because of an arbitrary decision by Martin Luther the inclusion in the Jewish canon.

Okay. "All creation occurring at once" might just refer to a selected few creatures. After creation, they may have undergone natural selection, thus evolution.

It very well might, but it would seem to exclude an extended act of creation.

[Gim]

Okay. "All creation occurring at once" might just refer to a selected few creatures. After creation, they may have undergone natural selection, thus evolution.

It very well might, but it would seem to exclude an extended act of creation.

Extended?

[Diopolis]

It very well might, but it would seem to exclude an extended act of creation.

Extended?

A six day long act of creation is incompatible with an instantaneous act of creation.