Isn"t it possible that our predecessor, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, The First Wise Man was Adam in scriptures? Maybe the Bible just got the timeline wrong. Adam lived 200,000 yrs ago in East Africa.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

Mitocondrial Eve could have been one of the 15 sub-species of humans who co-existed in East Africa 200,000 years ago, not 6,000, who were closely related enough to reproduce fertile offspring.
Just like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals in Europe or HS and Denisovans in Asia/Australia/Micronesia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/08/y-and-mtdna-are.html

This is why Y-Adam never even met Mitchondrial-Eve.


HH =)

Also:

https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/genetic-adam-eve-traced-they-didnt-know-each-other-6C10822690

HH =)

Its just an origin myth, no more connection to reality than any other ancient people's myths.

First: Studying, or parsing out, the Adam and Eve (or any other Old Testament) story doesn't mean "believing" in it, as if it were a factual account which (for example) might appear in a police or a scientific report, or (from a cultural or philosophical standpoint) in a serious scholarly journal published by one of the leading world-class universities.

Jews study "Torah" (in this sense: the Old Testament, plus related materials and other works which did not make the final cut into what we now call the Bible) all the time, throughout Jewish lifetimes from earliest school age up to the day they die, for many different reasons-- but the number of Jews who believe that the surface story is factual are a small (and ever-dwindling) percentage of those who, overwhelmingly, do the studying.

This is exactly similar to anyone who studies the Gilgamesh, or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead or any other ancient work of value, except that more Jews are involved in these kinds of studies over a lifetime than are those who study most of the other ancient texts.

However, just because someone studies a creative work doesn't mean they "believe" it--and my question was not about "belief."

For the record, I do not believe that an original single male homo sapiens sapiens named Adam, and an original single female homo sapiens sapiens named Eve, ever existed as described in the Old Testament. Adam and Eve are literary metaphors for something which occurred long before, and involved many individuals, over a very long period of time.

I do believe that, if we knew more than we know now, we could draw a "line" (which may well include a number of "lines," each one devoted to a somewhat different, interim, species of ancestral-to-us life) which would classify animal life "below" (by our parochial standards) from animal life "above" (Yay, Humans!!).

This is what I am interested in:

What species of primates (possibly), and what INTERIM (on-the- way) species, tip over into what "we" (at least the scholarly among us) would accept as "human beings"--EVEN IF THESE SOMEWHAT PRE-HUMANS WERE NOT "FULLY" HUMAN BY MOST PEOPLE'S STANDARDS TODAY?

This would also necessarily include some work on other non-human species who, the more we know, are obviously more like us in "human" ways than we have previously suspected.

For example: elephants and octopi and dolphins and crows are extremely intelligent (and in extremely "human like" ways such as their problem solving, spatial, and mathematical calculation abilities, etc.).

Many species of so-called "lower" animals are extremely "human" in their emotional lives, and in their concern about caring for others (in many cases, "others" of other species, such as cats caring for birds in "humanlike" ways).

I am very much interested in that fascinating nexus space between humans and humanlike "pre-humans"--and also in the "lower" species who often exhibit strong "humanlike" capabilities and concerns.

"Adam and Eve" are intellectual code, written by people living a few thousand years ago, about some of those somewhat "intermediate," in some way, species who, when they lived, were (by our standards now) betwixt and between.

I want to know where those lines are drawn--even though I am fully aware that, in the future, those lines will require re-drawing, and re-drawing yet again, as we discover more facts both on, and in, the ground.

In Western civilization, the place to begin is with the story of Adam and Eve--who symbolize an important evolutionary development which had occurred previously in the evolution of our species--quite obviously long before the Adam and Eve story was created.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2019 09:37PM by Tevai.

Kind of sad that you have to educate 'intelligent' people about archetypes.

Arch Types:

Flat Arch
Segmental Arch
Semi-Circular Arch
Horse Shoe Arch
Pointed Arch
Venetian Arch
Florentine Arch
Relieving Arch
Roman Arch
Fallen Arch


Archetypes:

Sage
Innocent
Explorer
Ruler
Creator
Caregiver
Magician
Hero
Outlaw
Lover
Jester
Regular Person



I have deduced that I am a Regular Person with fallen arches.

Jester with Roman Arch right here. Roman aqueducts and stand-up comedians in cars drinking coffee... a colosseum too far.


HH =)

I have deduced that I am a Fallen Person with regular arches.

As one who believes in the creation story because it's the most rational and believable of all the stories, I would say the evidence of the East Africa theory is lacking. These pretend scientists find an old bone and imagine up a story. It get's sold to the public who are easily swayed by those with big heads and glasses who hate religion or something?

The facts are we just simply don't have reliable methods of tracing how old a bone really is. We can get accurate to a few hundred years but after that it's anyone's guess.

There are lots of con men waiting to deceive most are presently working in higher education, and the government. Let's follow Galileo's example and not trust the establishment.

For someone who thought HS algebra was a waste of time, you seem awfully confident in your understanding of exponential growth and decay. Care to give us a thumbnail description of how C14 dating works, what date ranges it is effective for, and why you think it won't work for dating the beginnings of modern human civilization?

Galileo didn't simply disbelieve the establishment. He looked at actual evidence, and if it conflicted with the establishment view, he accepted the evidence.

So what part of the genesis creation myth do you accept as literal and what part is metaphorical/symbolic? Inquiring minds want to know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2019 08:39AM by Brother Of Jerry.

If the scientific explanation is missing the tiniest gap in the big picture you reject, but yet you demand zero evidence for your particular mythological origin story. OK.

After reading multiple origin stories from other mythology, I wouldn't say the creation story (I assume you mean the Bible version) is the most believable but it gets maybe a B+ for creativity.

The great irony is that macaRomney, that foe of the quadratic equation, is typing on a computer and posting on an electronic bulletin board that stem directly from the very same math and science that explain the origins of the universe and of life. One cannot logically accept the Biblical creation story and use modern technology.

Unless, of course, that person doesn't bother with logic at all. As Hie, a man of considerable mathematical and scientific facility, once said after a macaRomney post, "I weep for the education of some Americans."

I can't believe you actually stated you believed anything the Bible said on this board.

If you want to believe the Bible... POST SOMEWHERE ELSE.

But, in all fairness, if one is going to live life with a closed mind, one does need a source for directions. And it's pretty easy to rely on the bible and to find people who applaud you for that decision.

The difficulties arise when the bible as an answer to all life's questions is preached here. And the excuse is, "Hey, I'm just telling you what I believe! What's wrong with that?"

The art of interpreting to one's benefit. We all do it.

My theory about why there are few Bible thumping posters is that they do have lots of other options for on-line and in person community/validation.

Macaromney’s post didn’t feel preachy so they are welcome to put in their two cents according to me.

Dorothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My theory about why there are few Bible thumping
> posters is that they do have lots of other options
> for on-line and in person community/validation.
>
> Macaromney’s post didn’t feel preachy so they
> are welcome to put in their two cents according to
> me.

Well and we dont want them posting here either.

Take your bible and preaching elsewhere.


Mods have done a really good job deleting posts of anyone quoting bible verses or trying to make a biblical argument.

Believers are as welcome to post here as non-believers are. This site is open to both. We are welcome to share our experiences and why we believe what we do, without preaching. That includes not using this forum as a bully pulpit for atheism.

The one thing it stands opposed to is Mormonism. No Mormon apologetics are allowed.

There is no policy about not believing in other religions or creeds, and no rule against religion in general.

So go back and re-read the forum posting rules if you need a refresher course to get reacquainted with the posting etiquette.

Your beliefs are not the only ones that count here.

Some former Mormons are as fanatic Atheists as they were fanatical Mormons. They just traded their zealotry from one form of bigotry for another.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2019 04:50PM by Amyjo.

I think it's open to interpretation, and so far things have gone the Amyjo way, which is the basis of my 'protected category' remark.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2237401

At the bottom we find:

"Here are some examples of posts that will likely get removed:

1. ----
2. ----
3. Preaching"


I'm sure other online definitions will be found, depending on the needs of him or her who does the finding. Nonetheless, the following is the very first one to come up when I 'favorite-search-engined' it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=preaching+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS815US815&oq=Preaching&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.4345j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

preaching /ˈprēCHiNG/

noun

the delivery of a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.
"large numbers of people would come to hear his preaching"

the giving of moral advice in a pompously self-righteous way.
"your preaching won't make me change my mind"


So it's going to be a matter of interpretation. I believe I'm safe in assuming that some will declare, "Oh, I'm just making a statement, I'm not giving moral advice in a pompously self-righteous way."


Others will agree with me: "Amyjo posts moral advice in a pompous self-righteous way."

Humans! Let's give'em a round of applause!

I hope you're not equating atheism with bigotry.

I'm as atheist as they come AND I just defended Macaromney's right to state their belief in the Bible.

As long as you’re pulling back the fig leaf, of course there’s a double standard but that’s why it’s called a recovery group.

Rapid decompression from Mormonism will give you worse than dry heaves. It’s so unfortunate that Mormonism degenerated into a disease, although apparently it’s always been that.

Mormon God, I never knew thee. The creator, different story.

> Mods have done a really
> good job deleting posts
> of anyone quoting bible
> verses or trying to make
> a biblical argument.

I used to think this way. But check this out:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2240324,2240356#msg-2240356


I think a 'protected category' now exists on RfM.

Do I believe in God or not?

Yes, I do. It's a poll. But you knew that. https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2240324,2240324#msg-2240324

I believe hands down, and thumbs up.

I shared a scripture stating that God is a living God. That is part of why I believe as an ex-Mormon.

Which is fine per the forum posting rules, which you should already be familiar with, Mr. Stir-the-Pot to incite more invectives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2019 04:54PM by Amyjo.

Holy Crap! Maybe there is a ghawd!

Although there may be other, more prosaic explanations for the deletion of the post you cite above.

Maybe the rules do mean something.

Protected categories may only be restricted after strict scrutiny. And in practice nothing has ever passed the strict scrutiny test, so calling it protected is the end of the story.

You know that, counselor!

"That's not fair, pa! Remember, you made quit school after I flunked 4th grade the second time!"

--or something along those lines from "Support Your Local Sheriff."

I dreamed I was in a Hollywood movie.

And I was the star of the movie.

This really blew my mind.

Or something like that. But I still won’t read the chapter!

https://www.kcet.org/shows/kcet-must-see-movies/episodes/the-bible

And it does look like the former LDS Temple Film (which you can now find online) -- which The Brethren plagiarized (along with Disney's "Fantasia")

At the risk of being a burden...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i0DMbCKnAg

And there I was, naked to the world.

LW, what are you doing in my movie?

Millie,I think you have a very
warped view of the boards rules. You have only posted a few times amd yet you are telling people what they can post according to what you like and your interpretation of rules. That isnt the way this board works. There is a difference between telling others what you believe which is allowed and preaching it as absolute truth, which isnt.Sometimes the.line is unclear, but I didnt see the post you object to as preaching. This is not an atheist board and there are a lot of various believers here.If you find something you think is a violation,press the report button and explain why you reported it. The.mods may or may not agree with you. If a poster says he believes or someone starts a discussion on how a scripture may be interpreted bothers you so much, you may want to find an atheist board. Just a thought.We do discuss religion here a lot.Another option is skipping posts and posters you dont like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2019 01:02AM by bona dea.

People are allowed.to say that they believe.in the.Bible or that they dont believe. What they cant.do.is tell.others what they can believe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2019 05:04PM by bona dea.

The variety of Y-chromosomes in humans is proof that Noah's wife
fooled around on him before the flood.

EOD rants away at my beliefs non-stop. He can't be comfortable with his own or he wouldn't feel so compelled to attack a believer for her beliefs. A secure Atheist wouldn't need to attack a believer continually out of an irrational fear he may be wrong after all.

If you look at his posts on my posts they are to attack my beliefs or make verbal barbs of some kind or another. I do not go out of my way to post to his other than to post in replies such as the following: (I otherwise ignore his posts most of the time, he isn't worth the bother. He stirs the pot enough as it is.)

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2240241,2240346#msg-2240346

Amy, it isn't about security. It's about the shoddy defenses you use for your belief claims.

Quoting the Bible to defend the Bible will most certainly warrant comment about standards used to justify belief. I'm not saying a believer should be held to any standards, but presenting flawed "evidence" to support a belief probably will not not go unchallenged. It's how we treat adults. We wink and nod when children pull beliefs out of nowhere, but at some point if there is no defense, you might not want to pretend there is.

I, for one, thank the survivors of the Battlestar Galactica fleet for seeding our species when they joined with the native humanoids 500,000 years ago.

I thought that was Arthur Dent.