The problem here is you dont seem to think the dilemma is serious and/or that the YECs involved dont represent a serious problem for established science.
I find your blaise views (or the blaise nature of your refutations) to be utterly bizarre.
I dont think you are ready to believe me when i tell you.
They believe that there cant be Original Sin unless there is an historical Adam and Eve.
Dont argue about it with me; I dont agree with them.
But i also see that NOTHING will change their minds on the matter.
What did Pascal have to do with this? (Or did you mean āblaseā?) 
1 Like
Why is the dilemma serious? Serious to whom? How do YECs represent a serious problem for established science?
Why do they believe that? Are there Christians who donāt think there can be original sin without a historical Adam and Eve, but who donāt also require the recent, genetic Adam? Who donāt also require other impossible things?
@John_Harshman,
You exhaust me with your interrogations . I am confident you can figure out the rest of your questions.
Supposedly, we engage in dialogue here. One aspect of dialogue would be questions, and another would be answers. If you arenāt interested in dialogue, of course, you are free to refrain.
1 Like
But some people arent ready to discuss some topics productively.
The answers for the questions you are now asking are either self evident or have been answered many times before.
When you are able to come to some of these answers on your ownā¦ you will be ready for more dialogue with me.
That seems very smug and sanctimonious. Are you sure you want to be like that? It hardly seems consistent with the spirt of Peaceful Science. The questions were honest attempts to understand what you think. I donāt find the answers to be self-evident, which is why I asked. If theyāve been answered many times before, I donāt know where.
Are you sure you need to ask me for answers that are obvious? I reacted nagatively because your questions do not appear sincere to me.
They seem to come from someplace inconsistent with Peaceful Science.
Ask me a more authentic question and i will answer it.
The answers are not obvious to me, the questions were sincere, and I will thank you not to accuse me of acting in bad faith. If you donāt want to talk to me, just say so.
I did.
And you berated me.
So i had to explain in more detail.
Now you are attempting to justify your questions. But see below!
Are you serious? Why do you suppose we discuss this matter daily?
Here (above) you ask a better question!
I have never met oneā¦ but there must be a few somewhere in America!
But i would replace the term āgeneticā with āhistoricalā. And im not sure ārecentā is relevant.
You did what? I berated you for what? Where is this matter discussed daily?
YECs donāt accept established science, but they arenāt a serious problem because their influence is limited. Despite the current administrationās best efforts, they have had no influence on science funding, publication, or academic hiring/curricula. So far. Theyāre an annoyance that might in the future rise to the level of a problem for science. But not yet. And this is why I asked you for clarification.
Are you sure? Why? Then again, if you replace āgeneticā with āhistoricalā, that destroys the question. There are several possible Adams. To list a few:
- Created, recent (6-10ka), genetic Adam.
- Created, ancient (>700ka) genetic Adam.
- Uncreated, ancient (>700ka) genetic Adam.
- Created, recent genealogical Adam.
- Uncreated, recent genealogical Adam.
- Uncreated, recent historical Adam.
By ācreatedā I refer to fiat creation of the couple (and Adam is short for Adam and Eve), out of the dust of the ground/rib or whatever. By āuncreatedā I refer to descent from parents in the ordinary way. Genetic Adam is the sole ancestor of all humans: either the only couple, or a bottleneck of 2, or (requiring further miracles) the sole coalescent of the human genome. Genealogical Adam is one of many ancestors of all humans. Historical Adam is a couple that existed but are neither the sole genetic nor genealogical ancestors of everyone, and presumably original sin is transferred in some other way than by descent.
#1 is straight YEC. #2 is possibly OEC. #3 is the bottleneck scenario. #4 is what Swamidass is pushing. I donāt know anyone who favors #5, and Iād like to know why. I think @vjtorley favors #6. Itās not clear which the Catholic church is for. And I donāt know anyone who favors any other notion.
1 Like
There is also:
- Created, ancient (100kya to 200kya) genealogical Adam and genetic ancestor
- Uncreated, ancient (100kya to 200kya) genealogical Adam and genetic ancestor
Though, I would use the terms āDe Novoā vs. āChosenā rather than Created/Uncreated. Here, genetic ancestor just means we all inherit some, but not all DNA from them, because they did interbreed with other lines.
A lot of people do. Ben McFarland is an example, so is @Guy_Coe . That is one variation of the GA. Iām not pushing for de novo creation per se.
So why would anyone demand created Adam?
Why is āgenetic ancestorā necessary or desirable here? Does the scenario differ in any significant way if all of Adamās genetic material has been lost, or at least is not present in everyone? Does anyone go for either of those scenarios?
@swamidass,
If we run out Adamās genetic legacy after around 7 generationsā¦ how is #7 even possible?
Remember that what you say is true on average, but that we still have genetic ancestors going back as far as you want. Any particular genealogical ancestor is unlikely to be one of the genetic ancestors, but some of them must be. Adam could, by chance, be one of those ancestors. Or he could have had some highly selectable trait that became fixed in the population for that reason. Or God could have caused fixation by a miracle.