The scientific case for Adam and Eve: Joshua Swamidass & Nathan Lents

[@nostaticatall]

This was the most refreshing conversation between a person of faith and an atheist I've seen on the internet. We need a lot more of this and a lot less hostile arguments between us. Thank you for sharing.

[@roma544216]

Rom 1:20-21: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse: Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Rom 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting."

[@suzettemacey9632]

I have always believed that Christianity and Science go hand-in-hand. One does not exist without the other. If you would like a bit more information, consult Dr. Hugh Ross who is an Astrophysicist and Astronomer.

[@frankwhelan1715]

Joshua says one of the reasons he believes, (apart from bible stories)is 'things he's seen' like to know what he's seen

[@Papasquatch73]

At 30:49 he is correct. There are a lot of Christians who are embarrassed by our lack of scientific acceptance Joshua at 33:21 said it is about values. Is atheism or science more important. I would say for a Christian neither science or scripture should be more important if both come from God Psalms 19 48:45 Nathan said he bases his life on evidence. I don’t think anyone does that. Some more than others. I am just a little more clear with myself where decisions are based on philosophical reasoning. Joshua covers this at 53:02

[@progidy7]

At 14:35, Joshua Swamidass says, "And, it just turns out that we all have the same family. And, in fact, if we just go back a few thousand years, everyone alive today shares ALL the same ancestors. ALL of our ancestors are the exact same people". But if Australian Aboriginals split off completely 100-140 *thousand* years ago (and people first crossed the land bridge in the Bering Sea around 16,000 years ago), then how many is this "few"? Especially if at 1:11 he is quoted as saying "a single human couple only several thousand years ago". (Worryingly, the atheist Nathan Lents says at 18:50, "Within the last 10,000 years, the odds are very good that there is someone, multiple people in fact, that we all share as ancestors.") At 1:02:10, "Those are 4 grand questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, why is there life, why is there animal minds, and why is there a human mind?" Survivorship bias. Also, there are lots of worlds with none or fewer of those 4.

[@drswamidass]

Yup! There is a lot of new evidence that they were not totally isolated during that time. Don't miss out learning about it.

[@progidy7]

@@drswamidass Link, please? Also, economic/trade isolation isn't the same as genetic isolation. The current understanding of their isolation is based on their genetic makeup, which is also important when it comes to the inheritance of sin.

[@blueskiesrivers]

Agree, I was disappointed the question of human migration/isolation pre-6K years ago didn't come up in the discussion as that seems to me to be the most obvious question to the hypothesis presented.

[@drswamidass]

@@progidy7 um, who thinks that original sin is inherited by DNA? That is a seriously far our their idea, that is not consistent with anything I've put forward. A recent book Adam and the Genome claim that original sin had to pass by DNA, and almost uniformly that notion was resoundingly dismissed as a strawman. As for the evidence behind my claims, I have a whole chapter looking to isolated populations in detail. I'll be curious your thoughts on it. Turns out the ancient DNA revolution changes everything.

[@drswamidass]

@@blueskiesrivers Don't despair! I covered this in the book.

[@jmicone6895]

Joshua Swamidass, oh what a tangled web we weave...

[@I.B.R.G.]

Great program guys. Kind regards from Costa Rica.

[@st.mephisto8564]

I wish there were more unobnoxious, humble and sensible atheists like Nathan. The know-it-all almost religious attitude of New atheist movement is really off putting.

[@kimmyswan]

If you go back even further all life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago.

[@loisduncan6968]

Really like this intro Justin and team. Will be great if you could get some African theologists on the show too!

[@dorarie3167]

This does seem to be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and giving the Christian creation myth of humans primacy, ignoring any other religion’s myths. As well, what of the talking serpent, the Tree of Knowledge, the Fall, etc. and what does it say about other parts of the Old Testament? Is it also, in harmonising Adam and Eve with evolution, putting the Adam and Eve myth on the same footing as the accepted evidence-based theory of evolution, a false equivalency?

[@20july1944]

Are you an atheist and knowledgeable about science?

[@dorarie3167]

20july1944 An atheist yes, scientifically knowledgeable no. But to me, this is a case of trying to interpret a religious book so it makes sense with evolution and not as merely a conjured myth to explain humanity’s origin. What do you think about it?

[@20july1944]

@@dorarie3167 If you don't know the relevant science, your opinion has no suasion. I think science shows us clearly that everything about our universe requires a nonmaterial Creator.

[@dorarie3167]

20july1944 There are clearly many who disagree with you, including most scientists. Naturalism answers many questions and those without answer yet are being worked upon. In the meantime, we still require evidence of a god, if that is the hypothesis you are going with, and other theories also exist. Arguing for a non-material non-contingent creator may sound philosophically and logically correct, but evidence is clearly not compelling enough to convince many in the scientific community who look to verifiable evidence and not merely faith.

[@20july1944]

@@dorarie3167 Since you're ignorant of the science, I can't converse with you on that basis.

[@benscraftymusings]

I don't understand when he says there is evidence Jesus rose from the dead - how can an empirical claim (evidence) account for something that is 'beyond' empirical/material fact; a resurrection? This is as absurd as thinking that you can gain empirical facts from mysticism, or any other nebulous phenomena.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

How do you not understand that? If you see a man being raised from the dead, do you not have direct strong evidence of a supernatural occurrence? If you witnessed a man parting the sea, would you not have empirical evidence for the supernatural? The same goes if you have indirect empirical evidence, i.e. reports of such occurrences. You might reject such events, but it's not like it's in principle impossible or nonsensical to have empirical evidence of the supernatural. It's pretty straightforward.

[@benscraftymusings]

@@mickeyesoum3278 Right, so you have to believe the accounts. Fair enough, but believe is all you can do. Unless you have actually seen these things for yourself, the supposed evidence from the past is not the same as evidence you can see for yourself. And as it is supernatural/magic events we are referring to, it can only be relegated to belief or speculation, not evidence. Which is in accord with the faith required to believe in God. To try and relocate such events to the realms of proofs and evidence is as misdirected as the young earth creationist beliefs.

[@mickeyesoum3278]

@@benscraftymusings but it's still empirical evidence, only indirect. In which case our belief will be inferential, but that's perfectly fine. Most of our beliefs are based on inferences from data we have, including claims. That goes for most of science, as well (it's virtually impossible for any scientist to go on testing and seeing for himself every accepted scientific theory out there). And, of course, history. We go by sources, claims, inferences to the best explanation. We can have data for the Resurrection which (one may argue) is best explained by a miraculous event instead of other hypotheses. Though of course that will depend on how one assesses the prior probability of the hypotheses. I see nothing childish about that; it's just standard inference to the best explanation and probability assessment. Rational people can also reach different conclusions.

[@benscraftymusings]

@@mickeyesoum3278 thanks for that explanation Mickey. I certainly do hope God in whatever form does exist. But I think I am still having a problem with this use of rational, logical scientific discourse in relation to myths. Terence mckenna may help here when he says that mysteries bear no relation whatsoever to unsolved problems.

[@EnglishMike]

@@mickeyesoum3278 Claims are not evidence. If a friend of yours makes an extraordinary claim, like an alien has just taken him for a ride on his spaceship, you wouldn't accept their claim as evidence that it happened. There are certainly claims made about the Resurrection in the Bible, but there is nothing that rises to the level of evidence. I see Christians argue that the Biblical account claiming over 100 people saw the risen Christ is powerful evidence for the Resurrection, but again, there is no way to test the truth of that claim. There is no evidence. People widely believe that Washington chopped down a cherry tree when he was a boy, even though we know the story was made up and inserted into a book about Washington less than a decade after his death.

[@aerroneousgaming]

it really feels like Joshua is having to bend over sideways and backwards to slot his faith based belief into scientific understanding. Its just sad.... just admit its based on faith and leave it at that. should we start slotting all other faith based beliefs into science too....like the story of Gilgamesh. how many origin stories are there that the adam and eve story were plagiarized from?

[@brendanbutler1238]

Catholicism has never been at odds with science, indeed Catholicism was mainly responsible for starting science, schools, universities and funding research. Even the Galileo affair wasn't a conflict with science as much as it was a conflict with Galileo, as heliocentrism was only a theory at the time, not proven science.

[@Patrick-hb7bk]

You mean it's never been been at odds with scientism .

[@EnglishMike]

This is patently untrue. The Catholic Church maintained the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" ("List of Prohibited Books") for over 400 years, and for much of that time, included scientific works they considered blasphemous, including Kepler's "Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae". Books on heliocentrism were not removed from the Index until the middle of the 18th century. Banning books on scientific theories you don't like is the antithesis of encouraging science. As always, the truth is never as black and white as some people want to make it.

[@brendanbutler1238]

@@EnglishMike Book censorship doesn't show that the Church was at odds with science, it shows that the Church protected it's members from possibly harmful as yet unproven ideas, just as any responsible organisation has a duty to.

[@EnglishMike]

@@brendanbutler1238 That's nonsense. It wasn't some type of medieval peer review process, these were works that were considered heretical and immoral. It was only after the science was so undeniable that not even the Catholic Church could deny it that these works were removed from the list decades or centuries later.

[@brendanbutler1238]

@@EnglishMike You still haven't shown that the Church was against science only what I said previously, that the Church protected it's members from possibly harmful printed materials, until such time as they were no longer deemed harmful. Only your trying to put an anti science spin on it, which is patently absurd as there is no and has never been a known scientific fact which the Church suppressed. On the contrary the Church was the predominant instigator of scientific research firstly through it's metaphysical beliefs that the universe comes from a rational law giving God, and that therefore there are God's laws to be discovered in nature, through it's founding of a rational society with more just laws, schools, hospitals, universities, and through it's direct patronage of scientific research. Not to mention that many contributors to the sciences were Catholic clergy. You can't judge the past as if those times were the same as today. Back then Europe was being torn apart by wars which claimed Biblical justification, and it was the Church's duty to protect it's members from possibly harmful doctrines. Even today Governments censor ideologies they deem dangerous. Stellar parralax, the phenomenon that ultimately proved heliocentrism, wasn't observed until 1838, so the Church removed it's ban on heliocentric works long before that time.

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

The biggest problem with your Theory is Human DNA isn't that diverse to show other Population "Outside the Garden".

[@bananicat8842]

this was a very weird "debate"... the host kept trying to get the party started but it wasn't happenin

[@martinploughboy988]

Justin seems to have developed a liking for 'debates' where both sides agree.

[@petermeichan3160]

2:34, fortunately he educated himself and got out of this religious nonsense

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

The new book by Dr Nathaniel Jeanson's "Traced" will blow the Human Evolutionary Paradigm away. He does this thru the Human Genome Studies and connects Y-DNA Haplogroups to Biblical Framework and known Human History.

[@janebaker966]

This was such an interesting discussion for me because I spent a most enjoyable twenty years of my life in pre-internet days,thank goodness tracing my family history. In those days you actually had to travel to far flung places to see archives. I got to meet fascinating people and enjoy long correspondences of actual letters,remember them!,it was the best time of my life. It must be so boring nowadays just sat in front of your boring computer doing it all in one evening but totally missing out on the thrill of the chase and getting to know the places they came from. I am a descendant of Charlemagne but then so is everyone else in Europe like most people in Asia are descended from Ghenghis Khan,one perk of being rich and successful was you got to spread your genes widely.

[@rejectevolution152]

The truth is the earth is 6k years old which explains why human population is so related and connected.

[@Hezron389]

How often do we need to keep “reinterpreting” scripture before we ask ourselves “Is this even true ?” It seems the more we find out about the world the less literal scripture becomes, the more we have to eisegete ideas in between the lines of Scripture. Very frustrating.

[@benavila6345]

I could flatten Joshua in a debate. His statement about the bible are FALSE in claiming that it does not say that all mankind did not descend from Adam. Please explain what "first man" means? and "All descended" means.

[@imabeast7560]

The latest studies show the couple were somewhere in Ethiopia.

[@UK_WMB]

How about a source for that nutty claim

[@imabeast7560]

@@UK_WMB google it.

[@samueldelgado1458]

I heard a whole lot of double talk... been going on a long time... science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive.

[@samueldelgado1458]

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I will say amen.

[@MadebyJimbob]

Nathan, you can’t justify Why should we pursue science and to what end.

[@UK_WMB]

Because we like cell phones and computers.

[@briemma2545]

A lacuna in the discussion: Adam and Eve are inextricably linked with the entrance of sin into the world. Human evil had evolved long before 6000 years ago, so the recently directly created Adam and Eve would not have been responsible for it. And Jesus is meant to be the second Adam who makes restitution for the sin of the first. Does Joshua deal with these issues in his book?

[@briemma2545]

Having said that, as a theologian I think that the concept of a genealogical as opposed to a genetic first couple has a lot of theological potential in reconciling the scientific and Genesis accounts of human origins

[@drswamidass]

Yes, that is a big component of the book, in the Forth part of the book.

[@briemma2545]

Hi Joshua, yes I’ve downloaded your book and am reading it. It’s very relevant to my own one (Homo Lapsus) which focuses on the fall and the implications of evolution for Christian morality. Your book is fascinating. In the context of my own book I’d apply the genealogical Adam and Eve to the outset of our species as perhaps being the first leader and his wife prepared by God to guide the species! Even though they got carried away with themselves and disobeyed, they still led us. Your book is also very helpful in offering new possibilities for speculation as to how the sin was transmitted. My book focuses mainly on the genetic aspect of transmission, but the spiritual aspect is still open, and will be crucial to the new theological paradigm that is developing out of the classical one.

[@drswamidass]

Briemma 2 where did you see me advocate genetic transmission? I don’t think that makes sense. Perhaps you found a typo.

[@briemma2545]

S Joshua Swamidass No you didn’t advocate genetic transmission, but I focus on that in my book. Leading evolutionary biologists like EO Wilson point out that the Darwinian and Christian accounts of human nature are near identical. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. My argument is that the first humans’ spiritual failing would have affected the evolution of our genes. The desire ‘to be like God’ was bound to lead to excessive desire for wealth, status and prestige among other things. We could have been the most peaceful and lovingly cooperative species on the planet

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

there is definitely more than one couple from who we all descend... Noah and his wife

[@jamesdeburiet3919]

That’s right, a lot of people forget that and then they use arguments like “Well if the flood wiped out all humans then why are they here.” Obviously they didn’t do research

[@TestMeatDollSteak]

I hope this was intended as sarcasm.

[@UK_WMB]

The implication is god created dna, bone structure, brain development out of dirt which was essentially identical to the evolved dna existing seperately?

[@HickoryDickory86]

There is no need to intepret the creation of Adam from dust as literal. Dust, clay, ash, etc. are common descriptors of man in the ancient Near East to communicate man's mortality, separate and apart from immortal divinity. Christians who take Genesis 2 as literally factual (and no theological messaging) neglect to do the same consistently when it comes to Abraham, who called himself "nothing but dust and ashes" (Gen 18:27), and Job, who said he was being "molded like clay" and returning "to dust again" (Job 10:9), and who also described all of mankind as perishing and "returning to the dust" (Job 34:15). But no one thinks God literally formed Abraham from dust and ash; we know he was born like every other human, having a father (Terah) and a mother (he and Sarah, his wife and half sister, had different mothers). Nor was Job formed uniquely from dust or clay, yet he describes himself and mankind as being formed and shaped from both. Not to mention that dust and clay are different materials, which throws a wrench in the literalists' cog---which is i, dust or clay? Abraham and Job, both members of the ancient Near East and its cultural context and so having that worldview, knew what they were saying. Mankind is perishable and mortal, especially when contrasted with the imperishable immortality of divinity. So, man is spoken of as being made of mundane junk like dust, clay, ash, etc. If it is not literal regarding Abraham or Job, then it is not necessary to be literal for Adam either. Interpreted in its contexts (literarily, theologically, culturally), we would understand that Genesis 2 is a sequel to Genesis 1 (humanity exists in Gen 1, Adam's creation therefore follows), and Adam's unique creation from dust is a theological metaphor for the fact that, though merely a mortal human, he was uniquely anointed/chosen by Yahweh (a consistent theme throughout the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament; see Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Saul, David, Solomon, etc.) to be the first human priest-king, representing all of humanity before Yahweh and Yahweh before all of humanity. And because he was explicitly described as a mortal man just like everyone else, and yet he was to represented all of humanity before God, an antidote to his mortality was provided via the tree of life in the garden (God's temple on earth). This theological interpretation in its proper ancient Near Eastern context makes so much more sense of the biblical narrative being launched (e.g., "as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ" [1 Cor 15:22]) than does a slavishly literal interpretation that seeks to turn an ancient holy book into a modern scientific text book. And that Adam is not literally the first man ever created in this interpretation does not at all do damage to the biblical narrative. For one, it upholds what the Bible itself reveales. For another, even Paul treats Adam, who he believed to be a real person, typologically when he wrote, "The first man [Adam] was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man [Christ] is from heaven" (1 Cor 15:47). _Literally,_ the actual "second man" was Cain, not Christ. But Paul understood what most Christians in the western world, reading the Bible as a science book, don't: he knew that Genesis 1 and 2, while very real, were not to be taken literally; the way they were written intentional, and it was all about powerful theological messaging about the nature of man and man's relationship to God his creator.

[@philipmcclure6273]

Whence the casual dismissal of intelligent design? I'm not interested in common ground between variants of unbelief.

[@martinploughboy988]

Because they have no real arguments against the position.

[@StandingForTruthMinistries]

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson Vs. Dr. Joshua swamidass!😁😀

[@joelrodriguez1232]

That would be epic!

[@jimmyjasi-]

It just twists facts to match fiction

[@captainzappbrannagan]

It seems like the focus went off topic and the scientist missed the opportunity on saying here's why a 6000 year old adam and eve are not possible, from a genetic standpoint, from archeological standpoint, from every science based logical standpoint. There are lots of proofs out there why this is not possible so maybe focus conversations more targeted for what the claim is and what the response is and go from there. Otherwise these seem open in the air when they do have answers and good responses.

[@EnglishMike]

The scientist was on there specifically because he agrees with the premise of the book (in the sense of wanting to harmonize science and religion), so he was never going to make those points you list.

[@colonalklink14]

There's no acceptable mixture of creation and evolution. Let God be true and every man a liar. I've heard enough.

[@YoungEarthCreation]

M. G. Evolutionism is desperate for creation to not be true. All they can do is dodge the observable evidence for creation and in particular this topic, Adam and Eve. They have so many pathetic rescue devices it’s actually funny

[@blueskiesrivers]

Putting aside evolution, how does one explain Adam and Eve in contrast to human migration pre-6K years ago, pretty much across the globe?

[@colonalklink14]

@@blueskiesrivers Your dating methods are way off.

[@YoungEarthCreation]

blueskiesrivers There were no LanBridges before 4300 years ago or around that time because the continents were all connected in one giant landmass. The flood with the fountains of the great deep broke fourth a.k.a. mid Atlantic Ridge. This is what separated the continents. I have a video on this if you really want to see including lots of written work.

[@blueskiesrivers]

M.G. what dating methods did I use that are off?

[@blueskiesrivers]

Scientifically Genesis 5:5 cannot be true, correct? So, why consider Adam as historical?

[@blueskiesrivers]

just made a simple observation that humans don't live over 900 years, that's all

[@blueskiesrivers]

M4JTC FYI your posts are double-posting. I once believed in a pre-Flood canopy surrounding the earth creating conditions on earth, like the greenhouse effect, that allowed life to be different and people to live longer. I've changed my mind through years of research. I would recommend the book The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 Billion Years, From Stardust to Living Planet by Robert M. Hazen, as a counter to your reference. People were in the Americas and Ireland more than 10,000 years ago and I don't think I'm wrong when I say people were the same then as they are now, modern homo sapiens. If anything, because of modern medicine and scientific knowledge, life spans are possibly longer today than they were back then.

[@lakejesusisreturningsoon1659]

If God, a supernatural, created this world, is it possible that science and evidence can’t demonstrate it evidentially ? I am a Christian who believes that science will never be able to get to the point where they can actually evidentially show that a supernatural act happened and that’s the reason why we’re here. Does that mean the scientific atheist community is right in saying that since we can’t prove with physical evidence then the notion of intelligent design is false.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

Science is bound by observation of our natural world and has nothing to say about an imagined supernatural realm or your "notion of intelligent design". All we atheists are saying is that we see no plausible reason to imagine that a supernatural realm or 'God' even could exist. As Joshuah admits, his 'science' is constructed to make 'space' for the god he believes must exist by extension of his faith in Jesus. Add to that that each believer represents a religion of 1, whose god and religion typically betrays the scripture, doctrine and dogma of the religion they claim.

[@lakejesusisreturningsoon1659]

Greg Pearcey I’ll make it simple. Here’s what am saying ..... if there a God , ( and I believe there is ) , would we be able to prove it scientifically? I don’t think so. Does that mean there’s no God? Absolutely not. The fact that you can’t prove something scientifically by observation and experimentation does not mean it isn’t there. You can’t use the natural to prove the supernatural can you ? That’s basically my point. So for me it’s kind of odd when people like Matt Delahunty or Richard Dawkins and the whole atheist community say they demand evidence for God.

[@lakejesusisreturningsoon1659]

Greg Pearcey I’ll make it simple. Here’s what am saying ..... if there a God , ( and I believe there is ) , would we be able to prove it scientifically? I don’t think so. Does that mean there’s no God? Absolutely not. The fact that you can’t prove something scientifically by observation and experimentation does not mean it isn’t there. You can’t use the natural to prove the supernatural can you ? That’s basically my point. So for me it’s kind of odd when people like Matt Delahunty or Richard Dawkins and the whole atheist community say they demand evidence for God.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@lakejesusisreturningsoon1659 "So for me it’s kind of odd when people like Matt Delahunty [sic] or Richard Dawkins and the whole atheist community say they demand evidence for God." How is it "odd" to ask for credible and persuasive evidence for extraordinary claims? Do you ordinarily believe things without evidence or plausible argument? Does that work for you? I would argue that the absence of credible evidence for god(s) (after all this time and inquiry) may and should be construed as evidence that god(s) do not exist. All god claims can't all be true but they can all be false. Believe what you will about supernatural realms and being beyond investigation by science, but please stop demanding that the rest of us just believe your particular imagined god claim.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist That's a lot of words. 'Morality' is the process we employ in determining the right and wrong or good and bad of a thing/action. I would argue that we all learn morality the same way, with feedback from from parents, siblings, friends, classmates, teachers, your community, law and self-reflection, amongs others. If you claim an 'objective' moral foundation in the scripture, doctrine and/or dogma of the religion you claim you're either: 1) simply compliant/obedient; 2) employing your best judgment - same as the atheist. We can compare and maybe even agree on the better of our our different judgments - would that be objective enough for you?

[@MadebyJimbob]

Brah, the preconditions for doing science is anti science and entirely metaphysical.

[@gfujigo]

What do you mean? Can you provide a few examples? Thanks.

[@MrLydeck]

What if the other blood lines are actually in the Bible as well and are explained by the sons of God taking the daughters of man it's is in the Bible but also explains your people outside the Garden theory. I haven't actually studied any of it I'm only asking.

[@Vidlumper]

That's an interesting theory but that event happend after Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden and by then their descendants had populated a portion of the earth.

[@NN-wc7dl]

2020 and people are debating Adam and Eve? This world is really a fucked up place. Fuuuuucked up!

[@MrSeadawg123]

Man, this is really stretching it. The genetics is what matters. And Chromosome #2? How is this supposed to fit in?

[@JerryPenna]

ALLAN BELL also Endogenous retrovirus: viruses that have left genetic trails in the genome 🧬. There are many many examples of Endogenous retrovirus that their locations all match in a the genome in a variety of animals. You’d have to accept that either the Endogenous retrovirus entered the genome in a common ancestor or they happened to insert into the genome at the same location, several times over many species by chance.

[@MrSeadawg123]

@@JerryPenna All these guys are showing is cognitive dissonance. They would take any mole hill and make it mountain created by their God. How, anyone can not see through these people is what boggles my mind. I guess a sucker really is born every minute.

[@JerryPenna]

ALLAN BELL and they often take an unknown area of the most complex least understood aspects of astrophysics, neuroscience, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics or philosophy and assert god

[@MrSeadawg123]

@@JerryPenna Uh huh, they will take something that is completely unknowable with our current technology. And claim it as there evidence. It makes absolutely no difference how fantastical our universe is. You can't just simply a God did it. Correlation does not equal causation.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@JerryPenna Nice claim.

[@willyh.r.1216]

Religion and Science are 2 different realms. Mixing them up creates madness. Mind is a reservoir of fancy thoughts.

[@martinploughboy988]

Not really, theology was always known as the queen of the sciences.

[@traceyedson9652]

It’s possible in Christianity to speak of Christ as the first complete human being. Eastern Orthodox theologian Fr. John Behr in his studies of St Iranaeus treats this.

[@LJrock101]

Evolution is bunk. We need to leave it behind.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

Evolution is directly observed in real life. New genera and species have evolved in your own lifetime.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

In favor of what? Each person making shit up about god(s) and creation myths.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

It's essential to life as we know it. Without our knowledge of evolution we wouldn't be able to do anything about antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms or pesticide resistance in agricultural pests. Even the food we take for granted is the result of farmers and plant breeders using artificial selection and mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones. Evolution is directly observed on a daily basis in laboratories around the world, and speciation (macroevolution) has been directly observed dozens of times both in the laboratory and in nature.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

As I've said, it is up to the person who owns the channel to turn the option allowing Google links on or off and this channel doesn't allow it. You can verify it for yourself by going to one website and typing two words because the scientific literature can be found catalogued online in its entirety at Google Scholar and PubMed. Step 1) Go to Google Scholar or PubMed. Step 2) Type "biological evolution" into the search bar. You will find 30,000 plus scientific papers on the subject including hundreds of examples of observed micro AND macroevolution along with thousands of different evolution experiments.

[@roma544216]

Evolution theory has long been dead why even mention it?

[@joelrodriguez1232]

Very interesting. This unifies young and old Earth Creationists with non-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

[@jimmyjasi-]

Nah. It just twists facts to match fiction

[@moun.bouzabouj6209]

WHICH ADAM AND EVE? THE JEWS, THE CHRISTIANS OR THE MUSLIMS?

[@bigwill7097]

Sounds like just another apologetics excuse for Genesis.

[@bigwill7097]

@Caratacus Watched video. Just Godsplaing

[@cliffwilson7258]

Actually, It tells you that Genesis isn't testable, so you need to move along to other topics.

[@bigwill7097]

@@cliffwilson7258 maybe not testable but plausible

[@cliffwilson7258]

@@bigwill7097 I'd argue that the degree of fine tuning we see in the Universe makes the Idea that it was created very plausible, but this kind of Data doesn't tell us which God did it. And really, If Jesus was raised from the Dead then I'd argue that it just doesn't matter what cosmologists think about the origin of the universe at all. So to me the arguments regarding evolution , the origin of a fine tuned universe, and even why it's fine tuned are interesting but aren't as important as those concerning Christ. And as it is plausible that God exists it's certainly plausible that he could do whatever he wanted.

[@doug196]

I couldn't get more than 5 minutes in....I felt my brain getting dumber.

[@jerehaw]

The assumption that there was a need for other people in the Genesis account for Adam and Eve to be the possible ancestors of all humans, depends on the assumption that recessive genes were present in Adam and Eve. Otherwise they believe that if it was only Adam and Eve then the recessive genes would cause genetic breakdown in the offspring if they inbred. The problem with their "theory" is that God created Adam and Eve and he said that this creation was "Good" or perfect. It's idiotic to assume otherwise. Why would God create Adam and Eve with recessive genes???? The answers is He didn't. So, there is absolutely no need for other people other than Adam and Eve. Their offspring could inbreed like the Bible says they did, because there was no recessive genes in them. Evolution science assumes recessive Genesis were always present, but they forget about the impact it would have on all animals let alone humans with inbreeding. Evolutionary theory has no way of circumventing recessive genes when it comes to inbreeding. The Bible provides the only solution to the problem - there were no recessive genes in the first place. To me, the fact that these authors omit this obvious aspect of the record makes their attempt to revise the simple understanding of Genesis, seem jaded and shallow, and a definite attempt to discredit it. Give the evolutionists this inch, then they will take a mile and ultimately conclude that Genesis is a redundant explanation of origins and a myth.

[@bradwhelan4466]

Genesis is a redundant explanation of origins and a myth.

[@jerehaw]

Martyr4JesusTheChrist Yes I am

[@jerehaw]

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Yes I am

[@dohpam1ne]

This is exactly the problem with religious stories. They can be interpreted to fit ANYTHING that we might learn about the universe, which makes them useless as explanations. It explains nothing, just restates what you learn from science in a magical way.

[@marapaprr4930]

It would be amazing to have John Walton from Wheaton Colleage on the show. He shows perfectly consistent what the authors of Genesis intended to communicate to their ancient audience - no genetics, no science, nothing of that sort. A book that deals with human identity - a much more fundamental question than the interesting facts we find out with the help of science.

[@marapaprr4930]

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I don't know what you are talking about. And Jesus is not God, he never claimed that. He is the Messiah just as it did was predicted, thus he was by definition a human.

[@allanmichel1041]

Adam, read this Bible verse Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Don't be a fool!

[@johncook19]

Has Joshua got to William Lane Craig to understand the nonsense of Adam and Eve. Joshua himself has a little further to go to finalize he conversion to Atheisim. I do not understand how Joshua can claim a resurrection took place either bodily or spiritually. Come on joshu you appreciate the truth, finish of the resurrection off for the sake of history and to prevent our children being lied too any more.

[@zephyr-117sdropzone8]

In your dreams dumbass. Naturalism is dying XD get ready for hell!

[@pinoysarisari7374]

Original sin is the easiest doctrine to prove...that's the whole point why We give 4 years to Presidents...We believe that humanity STRUGGLE with Power and Corruption... Original Sin gave us inclination to do Evil... That is why Democracy depend on Separation of Powers theory and Limitation of Terms of office... And the WORSE part is.... Porn Sites are Rank 11 most visited Websites in the World.... How can you now deny the problem of Evil and Original Sin...??🙄

[@theresevoerman7109]

Nope, we can't. It doesn't square with science.

[@Robwolf28]

I apologize I don't wish to put people down, it was obvious people responded to my comments on the livestream (I am out of whack today), though it is true scientist make up a lot reconstructive history that is more probability than actuality. It is the true. I mean it is like they are saying trust us, when there is no way of knowing it ever happened as they say. The Book of Genesis describes actuality and how things really work, so it is very realistic concerning good and evil. Then someone said misunderstanding something I wrote according to Genesis they were all made from the same material, and what I meant is we are all flesh. Though Genesis is very brief just to give a basic layout not expounded apond in full detail someone then said something about a debunked science based on a probable process anyways. It doesn't prove anything false scientist want you to trust them as the clergy wanted you to trust everything they were sayng was true. The scientist want to pretend to be the authority concerning reality of this age, just as the RCC wanted to claim similar authority. So no I don't have to trust science fully, maybe a little bit at times but not fully, for they do go by probablity alot and their imagination. See Genesis writes we are all flesh so same substance, so when God created things he created them with similarity, notice most creatures have male and female, and how they are able in like manner to reproduce more life through reproduction. See Proto-Indo-European is a reconstructive language their exist no writings nor has anyone ever today heard it spoken no true historical evidence for it. See I have realized this is how most fields of science are, they tell a story that you couldn't know yourself because there exist no tangible evidence for it. They expect you to trust their words, see Mars crashed into the earth and formed the moon so many billion years ago we have no way of knowing if that is really true. See it is like they have creative license to make up stories of times before actual written history. The Bible is written, or they orally tramsmitted history of things, and that is evident because they did, See lets claim time as before man existed then we will have creative license to make up story of something that is not actuality but probablity. Though I don't fully distrust what scientist say, sometimes I believe them, other times I think they are fooling themselves.

[@belleepoque3631]

Robert Wayne Vernon Jr yeh makes sense... to accept that the garden story was obviously passed down by oral storytelling such as the practice was back then, so the idea of the narrative is kind of a non issue for science. It’s what has happened outside the garden that we can physically quantify! Woah. I am trying to take the approach in my life of breaking things down to their tiniest parts... focusing on grasping the first priorities as closely as I can perceive what they are.. sooo... if we deal with and accept what science can verify then perhaps other truth will be revealed also.... 👌

[@bradwhelan4466]

The bible made specific claims, which at the time were unfalsifiable. Due to scientific advancements in the fields of cosmology, biology, genetics etc. We now know these claims are patently false. To quote Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

[@bradwhelan4466]

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist My assertions are predicated on empirical evidence, unlike theism which is bereft of any kind of epistemic justification. Ergo, your accusation of my alleged deceit is not only unwarranted, its patently fallacious.

[@Patrick-hb7bk]

1.04: 10 " husband !!!!!!! " enough said .

[@EnglishMike]

Yep, all we need to know you're a bigot.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@EnglishMike On the contrary, a man cannot have a husband. Marriage is between a man and a woman, it must be consummated, an impossibility between two of the same sex.

[@Patrick-hb7bk]

@@EnglishMike We have a reprobate here who uses name calling instead of a coherent answer why am I not surprised.

[@smitisan4984]

@@Patrick-hb7bk Bigot whines what?

[@Patrick-hb7bk]

@@smitisan4984 Whatttt

[@bobgehrls8538]

Once he started out saying his theory depended on one miracle (creation from dust of a couple), I was lost. First, a miracle must be demonstrated. Science doesn't allow for and would be useless if the supernatural just popped in occasionally.

[@allenrhoades8482]

We humans use science as a method to study the physical, natural world. It neither stands nor falls on anything outside that scope. Like math that is a tool that our scientific study depends on is itself abstract and outside the scope of science.

[@lakejesusisreturningsoon1659]

And if in fact his theory is correct and that creation began from the dust which is a miracle in itself, how do you demonstrate that miracle in a natural world. Basically am asking how do you demonstrate the supernatural by natural means ?

[@allenrhoades8482]

@@lakejesusisreturningsoon1659 we determine something to be real and/or true by differing methods. For the physical natural world we use empirical valid and repeatable experiments and observations. If you tried that method to prove Fermat's theorem you'd be laughed out of the math department. Neither the scientific nor the mathematical method can be used to show that Washington was the first American president. Human history its own methodology to determine what is real. If you think nothing is true unless it is shown true by the scientific method then you have a very different definition of science than I do. Based on comparisons just to math and history wouldn't the idea that the scientific method explains everything demonstrable false?

[@bobgehrls8538]

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist TL:DR (just kidding). I was not refuting the word science, but, when the starting point is a miracle. I'm out. There is no evidence of a miracle ever occurring. The concept of Adam and Eve being our earliest relative but not really related to us at all was just plain word salad. There were clearly people at the same time of Adam and Eve since Cain was scared to leave the garden and God put a protective spell to protect him. Sadly, watching this is an hour I will never get back. Since Paul probably didn't write Timothy (or Titus) and since Paul never met Jesus (except as a spirit), I give him less credence than the rest of the bible, if that's even possible.

[@bobgehrls8538]

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist No, I am a very happy atheist, My wife of 37 years is a Methodist lay minister. Atheist because, the problem of evil, no "good" evidence of a god, and If god existed, and he cared about my salvation, he would do what was needed to convince me. He convinced Paul/Saul and, being omniscient, it would take no effort on his part to convince all atheists and every other non christian on the planet. If it isn't important to him, he isn't important to me.

[@neilcates3499]

Didn't the mythical god kill everyone in the mythical flood, except for the passengers on the mythical ark? In which case everything sort of resets and we are all descendants from that mythical group of survivors.

[@davidpayne8413]

Totally utter nonsense

[@pazuzil]

agreed... wizards and magic dont mix with science

[@thesheffinator7124]

I usually like listening to this debating forum, but for goodness sake, even L'Oreal had a "Science Bit". Apart from a concession regarding descent from Great Apes which can't be disputed genetically, I really struggled to hear one decent bit of science out of these two, sounding like more creationism via the back door. It turns out that following their logic there would have had to have been more people born than have ever lived which is just complete rubbish.

[@EnglishMike]

While I can understand a Christian writing this type of book to help justify their faith, I really don't see any reason for scientists to spend any time on this topic. On the one hand, many Christians already accept the veracity of the evolutionary origins of human society, and are more than happy to agree that Genesis is allegorical and mythological in nature. Sure, it presents some difficulty with the precise logistics of the "original sin" doctrine, if you believe that, but again, most non-fundamentalist Christians aren't bothered by such issues. On the other hand, the fundamentalists -- those who take the Bible literally -- are going to be completely unimpressed by this effort to harmonize science with Scripture, with many of them treating is as an underhand attempt to undermine the authority of the Bible. It's going to fall on deaf ears. Frankly, I don't believe there's an audience for this -- or if there is, it's a very small one made up of Christians who are caught in a narrow strip between the Biblical literalists and those for whom evolution isn't an issue anyway. For those who think about this issue deep enough of it to matter, they either accept the science or they don't. There's no in between. At best it gives creationists one more thing to cherry pick toward justifying their young-Earth claims.

[@allanmichel1041]

there was no one outside of the garden. that's ludicrous and confusing! i don't think that any man regardless of his ingenuity can comprehend the complexity of the world even if The LORD, the creator of all things would reveal the intrinsic knowledge to that person. there is a valid reason the Bible expresses world views on origin, creation, life's meaning, etc. in simple terms. people of simple mind like me don't have to be a scientist and need the help of one to understand it.

[@jimmyjasi-]

. It just twists facts to match fiction

[@neilcates3499]

God didn't know about DNA until we learned about it.

[@imabeast7560]

Even if evolution were true, which so far it seems impossible according to science, the ammount of info in dna alone is incredibly intelligent. So either way Intelligent Design is the truth. Its because of science we dont believe in evolution. How ironic.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

*facepalm* Evolution is directly observed in real life. There are 30,000 plus scientific papers on the subject including hundreds of examples of observed micro AND macroevolution along with thousands of different evolution experiments. It's accepted as fact by every scientific institute on the planet, every academy of science on the planet, and every accredited college and university on the planet.

[@imabeast7560]

@@chimpanzeethat3802 lmao. Thats entirely false. They run the committees and ban anyone who disagrees with them from joining. So of course it looks like they all agree. And no evolution has never been witnessed. Only new forms have been observed. But thats not witnessing the morph at all. And that doesnt prove evolution. All dna has the ability to adapt to some extent. Dna does not show a animal can ever be a diff animal bc you cant add info into dna. The adaptation that you think your seeing is already written and allowed. You clearly dont understand evolution. Sit down A aron

[@imabeast7560]

@@chimpanzeethat3802 not to mention your whole post fails to disprove or say anything against what i orginally stated. This must be your first time

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

You can verify it for yourself in less time than it takes to type out a comment, and unfortunately you will have to because it is up to the person who owns the channel to turn the option allowing Google links on or off and this channel doesn't allow it. I would like to be able to link stuff for you but Unquestionable? would have to go into his settings and change them to allow people to post links. Here's how to prove it to yourself: The scientific literature can be found catalogued online in its entirety at Google Scholar and PubMed. Step 1) Go to Google Scholar or PubMed. Step 2) Type "biological evolution" into the search bar. You will find 30,000 plus scientific papers on the subject including hundreds of examples of observed micro and macroevolution along with thousands of different evolution experiments. I hope you're willing to go to one website and type two words.

[@UK_WMB]

This is the very definition of willful ignorance

[@Patrick-hb7bk]

" Evolutionary science " , what an oxymoron .

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

Evolution forms the backbone of all the biological sciences.

[@Patrick-hb7bk]

@@chimpanzeethat3802 The complete opposite is true , you mix in evolution into science with the same results as mixing in arsenic with water , it poisons it and everything else for that matter .

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

Wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.

[@Patrick-hb7bk]

@@chimpanzeethat3802 If it were only 0.1 percent true , no one would be debating it , it is a fairytale for adults no thinking person believes in such nonsense.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

Evolution is accepted as fact by 99.86% of living scientists, every academy of science on the planet, every scientific institute on the planet, and every accredited college and university on the planet. You don't know what evolution means or how it works. You don't know what you're talking about.