The Theological Hypothesis of Adam in Science?

We shouldn’t even consider Adam and Eve a serious hypothesis, scientifically. That’s not the point. The point is that it can’t be falsified. It’s not science. It’s theology uncontradicted by science. Big difference.

Now as for the YEC hypothesis with intentionally deceptive God, that also can’t be falsified, but it’s theologically problematic, which is one difference between that and the genealogical Adam scenario. Another difference is that no intent to deceive is necessary for GA; it’s undetectable without requiring God to make any effort to cover his tracks.


Theologians can excuse God for committing mass genocide. Excusing him for a little prank about the age of the universe should be a doddle for them.

So far I haven’t seen any of them attempt it. At any rate, do you acknowledge that there’s a difference? You seem determined to start fights whenever possible. Why?



Genealogical Adam scenarios only consider the hypotheses that seriously need considering.

De novo Adam & Eve seriously need considering because Creationists put a high premium on Romans 5.

Evolution is seriously considered because of all the evidence supporting Evolution.

If Romans 5 required a Young Earth as well, things would start to get tangled up. But as it stands, we can allow for miraculous creation of Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, in the midst of an old Earth and an evolved population of humans.

1 Like

The issue isn’t so much Creationists as Christians who rely on relatively conservative hermeneutics. Evangelicals, conservative mainline and Catholic, for instance. There is a significant overlap, but it does really seem like Romans 5 matters more than Genesis for many.

1 Like


I spent 3 years in the trenches on this one. Romans 5 is a poorly crafted reason… but it is more immobile than anything else in the Creationist universe.

It doesn’t even matter that millions of Eastern Orthodox Christians have lived for centuries with full and sensible Christian lives … and rejecting Romans 5 the whole time.

Augustine crafted something with amazing appeal to the Western mind, even if it is total poppycock. But…

… since I have adopted Genealogical Adam scenarios as my primary point of discussion, when the Creationist zealots break out Romans 5, I don’t even have to flinch. I don’t have to undo centuries of pscyhic damage. I simply say… yep, that’s why Adam and Eve’s special creation is a special part of Genealogical Adam!

No arguments… no toxicity… no digging down real deep into the epistemology of truth… just AGREEMENT. And I’m cool with that.

@Jordan, after a couple of conversations like that… you never wanna go back to the old days!

1 Like

And you know why that is? Because they realize they’ve beaten you. You’ve capitulated to their main demand: That science be subservient to religion, and if any conflict arises between the two, religious faith must take precedence over scientific fact.

Well done. (Golf clap.)


I don’t see why it should. You’d just make up some more stupid crap like “God created the universe to look old.” That is no more ridiculous than “Geneological Adam” being magically poofed into existence and then taking his place in the human lineage.



So much toxic hostility. Typical atheist.
You sir, are no visionary. And you probably aren’t that good at golf either.


Fortunately for both of us, my comments you quote were a hypothetical case.
The fact you took up a hypothetical to argue about THAT as well, tells me you
are a TROLL with an MD license.

@gbrooks9 That was very Unitarian Universality Christian of you. LOL

@Faizal_Ali I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for annoying @gbrooks9. May one of George’s cosmic rays emitted a billion years ago in a star in a distance galaxy bestow an advantageous mutation to one of your decedents such that all of humanity inherits this wondrous trait 2000 years from now.

1 Like


You don’t know UU very well, do you?

The only thing they won’t tolerate is intolerance.

And the one thing that @Faizal_Ali (and you, as well, Patrick) have in spades is intolerance.

Go bang your head against a godless tree.

1 Like

Nope, and I have no interests in any cults, sects of any religion.

Yes, I have intolerance of your intolerance of others and me.

No, I am not going to bang my head against a godless tree as it may cause brain damage. Self inflicted brain damage is not something anyone should do.

1 Like

Why should I tolerate your intolerance?

Why the gratuitous insult to others who are uninvolved? Typical theist.

1 Like


“Typical atheist” … in the context as the sentence “John Harshman is an atypical atheist.”

So your intent was to insult all atheists other than me?

1 Like

Hmm. Are there Godly trees?

1 Like

No he isn’t atypical at all. He is a good and devout atheist.

This topic was automatically closed after 2 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.