I can't take anyone who thinks Adam & Eve were actual people seriously.
Geneticists have identified a mitochondrial “Eve” and a Y-chromosomal “Adam”, but they never met.
And surprisingly the species reproduces. 
I can't take anyone who thinks Adam & Eve were actual people seriously.
Geneticists have identified a mitochondrial “Eve” and a Y-chromosomal “Adam”, but they never met.
And surprisingly the species reproduces.
That's a misunderstanding of the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, which does not concern a single individual, but a population
I can't take anyone who thinks Adam & Eve were actual people seriously.
Geneticists have identified a mitochondrial “Eve” and a Y-chromosomal “Adam”, but they never met.
And surprisingly the species reproduces.
That's a misunderstanding of the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, which does not concern a single individual, but a population
You are wrong. It concerns a single individual.
I can't take anyone who thinks Adam & Eve were actual people seriously.
Geneticists have identified a mitochondrial “Eve” and a Y-chromosomal “Adam”, but they never met.
And surprisingly the species reproduces.
That's a misunderstanding of the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, which does not concern a single individual, but a population
You are wrong. It concerns a single individual.
I think you misunderstood my comment. It concerns a single individual in so much that the hypothesis is that all mt-DNA descends from a single individual, but who is still part of a larger population and not a single, sole representative originator of a species (as it is being incorrectly presented here as an "Eve" the first female human individual--which is a misunderstanding of the hypothesis), but only a most recent common ancestor. That aside, there are difficulties and criticisms of the hypothesis.
It was a shared history to the beginning of the human race; it got handed down; in addition to that, as near as I can tell, Moses was the one God told; what Adam and Eve knew about the time before they were created isn't recorded so it isn't known.
And yet, there is a record of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution in the religious texts. Of course, humanity endured as hunter-gatherers for millions of years prior.
So you say
LOL
If God inspired Genesis, he’s a plagiarist. Ever since the translation of the Gilgamesh Epic, folks clinging to literal and local (Hebrew) understanding of the story of Noah have been forced into willed ignorance.
Gilgamesh Epic was translated in the nineteenth century and confirmed some of the claims of the so-called German criticism of the Pentateuch. It is now well understood that the Five Books of Moses proceed from four distinct traditions.
Update/FYI: It is now recognized that Genesis 1 has no direct dependence on the Gilgamesh Epic, Enuma Elish, or any other ancient Mesopotamian text. There is, however, increasing evidence of a direct literary relationship between Genesis 1 and ancient Egyptian creation myths, such as those found in the Pyramid & Coffin Texts. That relationship is not one of plagiarism, though, but of repudiation. Genesis 1 is best understood--not as a scientific treatise--but as a theological polemic against Ancient Near East cosmogonies in general, and ancient Egyptian creation myths, specifically.
See, for, example, Gordon Johnston (2008), Genesis 1 & Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths.
I can't take anyone who thinks Adam & Eve were actual people seriously.
Geneticists have identified a mitochondrial “Eve” and a Y-chromosomal “Adam”, but they never met.
And surprisingly the species reproduces.
That's a misunderstanding of the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, which does not concern a single individual, but a population
You are wrong. It concerns a single individual.
I think you misunderstood my comment. It concerns a single individual in so much that the hypothesis is that all mt-DNA descends from a single individual, but who is still part of a larger population and not a single, sole representative originator of a species (as it is being incorrectly presented here as an "Eve" the first female human individual--which is a misunderstanding of the hypothesis), but only a most recent common ancestor. That aside, there are difficulties and criticisms of the hypothesis.
Of course, when you bring in things that are not there, they will be easily refuted.
If God inspired Genesis, he’s a plagiarist. Ever since the translation of the Gilgamesh Epic, folks clinging to literal and local (Hebrew) understanding of the story of Noah have been forced into willed ignorance.
Gilgamesh Epic was translated in the nineteenth century and confirmed some of the claims of the so-called German criticism of the Pentateuch. It is now well understood that the Five Books of Moses proceed from four distinct traditions.
Update/FYI: It is now recognized that Genesis 1 has no direct dependence on the Gilgamesh Epic, Enuma Elish, or any other ancient Mesopotamian text. There is, however, increasing evidence of a direct literary relationship between Genesis 1 and ancient Egyptian creation myths, such as those found in the Pyramid & Coffin Texts. That relationship is not one of plagiarism, though, but of repudiation. Genesis 1 is best understood--not as a scientific treatise--but as a theological polemic against Ancient Near East cosmogonies in general, and ancient Egyptian creation myths, specifically.
See, for, example, Gordon Johnston (2008), Genesis 1 & Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths.
You’ve supported the central point. It was not an original story revealed by God to Moses.
It's actually highly original and unparalleled as Ancient Near East literature goes. There is nothing quite like it. Just because it's an anti-pagan polemic doesn't diminish that.
As far as divine revelation goes though, that's a separate issue entirely, and I suspect you can't demonstrate that it's not divine revelation anymore than TruthMuse can demonstrate that it is, so I'll let you two argue about that one.
There's nothing really to argue about. Questions of belief are not subject to rational argumentation.
There's nothing really to argue about. Questions of belief are not subject to rational argumentation.
That fact we believe something isn't subject to rational argument, why we believe is. Otherwise, no one would ever change their minds.
There's nothing really to argue about. Questions of belief are not subject to rational argumentation.
Some are, some aren't. It depends on the belief.
There's nothing really to argue about. Questions of belief are not subject to rational argumentation.
Some are, some aren't. It depends on the belief.
Unless you are referring to blind beliefs I don’t think so, even the discussion on abiogenesis and ID as we have all agreed, neither is falsifiable, but depending on our worldviews we have faith in what we think is responsible. Both sides have rationale for the stances taken.
Right, blind beliefs without any basis whatsoever would not be subject to rational discussion. Beliefs with rational bases (to varying degrees) would.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pliosaur-discovery-huge-sea-monster-060003446.html
Leviathan, mentioned in several Old Testament books ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pliosaur-discovery-huge-sea-monster-060003446.html
Leviathan, mentioned in several Old Testament books ...
Yes, but that critter was from 150 million years ago. Long gone by the time the Bible was written. "Leviathan" just refers to some huge thing in the sea from what I can tell, probably a whale, which was about the size of a house or larger from back then.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/flying-dinosaur-skeleton-discovered-isle-192209723.html
Perhaps a distant relative of Job's dinosaur....... Job ch 40 : 15 - 19
When I read that, I kept substituting the name "Cleopatra" for the dinosaur species. LOL
It was a shared history to the beginning of the human race; it got handed down; in addition to that, as near as I can tell, Moses was the one God told; what Adam and Eve knew about the time before they were created isn't recorded so it isn't known.
And yet, there is a record of the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution in the religious texts. Of course, humanity endured as hunter-gatherers for millions of years prior.
So you say
Archaeology. You should read about it. Or, if reading is too hard, watch Alice Roberts. She’s smart and easy on the eyes, too.