Comments on Time for Genealogy

Comments

(George) #22

@T_aquaticus

By what criteria do you think Geneal.Adam fots God of the Gaps?

The scenario says God created a man and a woman… ONLY because Genesis says so… and because science cant really deny miracles just because they are miracles.


#23

We don’t have complete knowledge of population dynamics that would allow us to evidence or falsify a genealogic Adam. GA is slipped into this gap in our knowledge.


(Jordan Mantha) #24

But (as a non-biological scientist I’m curious) is it really a gap in our knowledge or is it a fundamentally unknowable thing? In quantum mechanics, we don’t assume that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just a gap in knowledge, it fundamentally limits the precision of what we can say. Could it be the similar for the ability to spot something like a de novo GA inserted into an existing human population? It’s just fundamentally unknowable using science?


#25

That would be a good question for @swamidass . In my uninformed opinion, I think it could be detected if we had hundreds of millions of genomes available for sequencing over that time period. Hypothetically it may be possible, but not in practice. Of course, I am very open to correction on this point.


(George) #26

@T_aquaticus,

Come on. Fair is fair. The God of the Gaps is a reference to invoking God because science has no immediate explanation!

That is not what is happening here. In fact, we probably need to invent some new vocabulary here (@swamidass, can you come up with a sporty alternative?)

We are not surmising de novo Adam and Eve because science has no explanation. We make the surmise DESPITE science already having provided Evolution as an explanation.

There is a precedent that @swamidass can include as a footnote in his book:

When pro-evolution Christians also assert the divine birth of Jesus … i have never heard it described as “God of the Gaps”!


#27

I see no need to argue over semantics, so call it whatever you want. The main point is that the belief is preceding the evidence.


(George) #28

No… semantics makes all the difference.

This belief is DESPITE the evidence… just like belief in Jesus as God!


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #29

But you don’t have to believe in GA to be a Christian. Taking Genesis as an allegory is just fine for most Christians.


(George) #30

@patrick, yes of course.

GA is only a solution for Creationists that want to ac ept evolution, but vale Romans 5 too highly to allow it.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #31

Well don’t hold your breath for Ken Ham to embrace GA.


(George) #32

@mung (@swamidass)

Would you say the belief that Jesus was and is God is a “God of the Gaps” theology?

I dont think anyone can make that definition work.

There is no gap in the science of paternity. We have a COMPLETE understanding fpr how humans are fathered.

But the faithful arent solving a gap. . They are IGNORING a non-gap.

The same applies to de novo birth of Adam and Eve.


#33

That’s why I am holding back most criticisms. Matters of faith are personal and are not dependent on what I may think or feel. Matters of science, however . . .


(George) #34

@T_aquaticus

Yes, I can see that you are doing so.

But one of the theological matters is how Genealogical Adam can be characterized.

In my view, it is neither Concurrent-ist nor “God of the Gaps”.