@kquinn909 saidInteresting scientific find. I'm sure they'll be more research on this. I'm reminded of something a young Rabbi said on TV a few years ago. "If one has to research scientific and archaeological evidence to support or give evidence of their faith, then how much faith do they have??"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6424407/Every-person-spawned-single-pair-adults-living-200-000-years-ago-scientists-claim.html
@kquinn909
They looked at mitochondrial DNA so the Daily Mail has no basis for the "solitary pair" statement, this is just a relatively recent mitochondrial Eve, and I suspect that the author's conclusions will be challenged since the implied level of inbreeding isn't viable. However, I haven't read the original paper (there's a link on the Wikipedia page "homo sapiens", see reference 51), and I suspect their conclusions are being garbled.
@sonhouse saidOr if it is proven even to Christians and Jews there was no WW flood, how do you keep your faith?
Or, on the other hand, if science proves life started in mud flats or some such, how can you keep your faith in the bible or whatever religious book you follow? Or if it is proven even to Christians and Jews there was no WW flood, how do you keep your faith?
I keep my faith with the firm understanding that faith is a gift. It doesn't spring from logic, mathematics, science or any other earthly discipline, and since the best scientific and math oriented minds on earth all agree that their knowledge is limited, this fits in nicely with my faith as well as my understanding of how things operate.
26 Nov 18
@sonhouse saidRight, but this only creates a bigger debate...
Or, on the other hand, if science proves life started in mud flats or some such, how can you keep your faith in the bible or whatever religious book you follow? Or if it is proven even to Christians and Jews there was no WW flood, how do you keep your faith?
I've heard an Orthodox nun discuss the Old Testament as divinely inspired text but one that is not vital in the least, like it is a thing which describes events in poetic terms and is not even necessarily meant to be handled in this way. I've also heard Orthodox fathers who are like Young Earth creationists, and Orthodox fathers who are believers in a sort of theistic evolution like that of the Catholics... And you can hear just as great of a diversity in literally any denomination.
Indeed, Fr. Lemaitre was the guy famous for finalizing the Big Bang theory...
What I think your error is, Sonhouse, is that you are eager to assign to Christianity an extremely inflexible position that is not necessarily reflective of Christianity because that is the position that is easy to combat.
You know, there have been people saying that the 'worldwide flood' is not even what the text says? I read a text dealing with this topic that was first published in the 17th century. I've read the works of St. Basil the Great discussing aspects of the Creation as profound symbols in addition to discussing them as mysterious yet also literal events -- this, of course, 4th century material.
It's very convenient for you to take & cling to the hardest, most unflinching interpretation of Genesis or wherever because it suits you now... Yet, this actually isn't fully reflective of our tradition and our beliefs.
26 Nov 18
1 edit
@philokalia saidI agree. The multiplicity of interpretations is what facilitated the survival of Christianity. If any single interpretation had ever been imposed on the doctrine, the faith would have died out long ago, along with Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and a thousand other now-dead religions, because it would have appealed to too few people to replicate itself.
Right, but this only creates a bigger debate...
I've heard an Orthodox nun discuss the Old Testament as divinely inspired text but one that is not vital in the least, like it is a thing which describes events in poetic terms and is not even necessarily meant to be handled in this way. I've also heard Orthodox fathers who are like Young Earth creationists, and Orthodox ...[text shortened]... ause it suits you now... Yet, this actually isn't fully reflective of our tradition and our beliefs.
26 Nov 18
1 edit
@kquinn909 saidI haven't yet read the original research paper, only the Daily Mail review. Bearing in mind that the DM is a sensationalist rag ... even the DM article makes clear that the findings, if borne out by further research, do not support a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Indeed, the findings confirm deep time, at the very least. What they indicate is a re-iteration of something which other research has already concluded, namely, that there have been several mass extinctions in the distant past; moreover, the findings assume that evolution did occur, for millions of years, prior to a mass extinction event. There have been other findings which indicate that the human population may have dropped to a few thousand at very distant periods in the past; this is the first I have heard that the population might have dropped to only two (which could be an artefact of their data base).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6424407/Every-person-spawned-single-pair-adults-living-200-000-years-ago-scientists-claim.html
26 Nov 18
@kquinn909 saidFrom the link:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6424407/Every-person-spawned-single-pair-adults-living-200-000-years-ago-scientists-claim.html
The study has been misunderstood by some religious parties who thought it meant that we all came into being in some seminal Big Bang-typed event 100,000 ago, but this isn't what the findings actually suggest.
One thing the article fails to mention is that our genetic Adam and Eve weren't a couple, meaning that they didn't have children together. A & E (better known as Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve) lived several thousand years apart, with "Eve" living about 200,000 years ago, and "Adam" approximately 97,000 years ago. Scientists believe all modern humans are related to both these of these two.
There are studies that suggest that perhaps these two lived during closer times than first thought. But these two never actually copulated with each other.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
27 Nov 18
@philokalia saidNot just his error. In fact, I know of only two kinds of people who have such an inflexible view on what Christians "must" believe: fundamentalists, and atheists.
What I think your error is, Sonhouse, is that you are eager to assign to Christianity an extremely inflexible position that is not necessarily reflective of Christianity because that is the position that is easy to combat.
27 Nov 18
@philokalia saidRubbish.
Indeed, Fr. Lemaitre was the guy famous for finalizing the Big Bang theory...
He proposed the idea.
27 Nov 18
@kquinn909 saidWell I cannot argue with that!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6424407/Every-person-spawned-single-pair-adults-living-200-000-years-ago-scientists-claim.html
You posted a link and it works.
Well done!
We have evolved from apes.................