The Search for Adam
Could we all be descendants of an Adam? And if Adam existed, who was he, where did he live and what did he look like?
Join leading geneticist and National Geographic Explorer-In-Residence, Spencer Wells, as he embarks on a quest to trace every man's family tree back to an ultimate ancestor.
His extraordinary journey ultimately lands him in Africa where he pinpoints the birthplace of human kind. Using the latest technology in DNA research and forensic anthropology, Wells and others reconstruct the life and face of Adam.
His latest adventures have led him to discover that Thomas Jefferson’s ethnic background is not quite as one would expect. He has hunted down possible descendants of Solomon, the third king of Israel.
And, he has entered a world where science and religion converge—the search for what he calls the “scientific Adam,” the man who gave rise to all men today and the trunk of the human family tree. Wells has used DNA to trace this common ancestor back to Africa and perhaps to the very plains where he may have hunted.
He has even identified a living tribe with an ancient lineage that offers a window into the life of scientific Adam - and, the face of one of the tribe members served as a model to determine what he may have looked like.
Explore a world where science and religion converge as we shed new light on our ancient past in The Search for Adam.
What fundamental truth does that teach us about humanity and human destiny?
That religous dude chris,is scared of truths
i like the way they just assume it's a man.
I'm guessing the rest of the documentary goes on in that manner, chasing assumptions rather than searching for an answer?
You sound like another man without faith, not a deep thinker either. I cannot and do not agree that Holy Books are "utterly useless" for fact-finding. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never referred to them as "historical documents" which you have in single quotations; I hope you do not suggest I did; in fact I never used that phrase.
Do you not think the report of an occurrence, or the presence of an
occurrence--any number of times--2,000 years ago, more or less -- perhaps something now a mystery -- is worthy of note and mention?
Do you not think the location and time it is noted to have been experienced or witnessed, etc., in the scriptures might be of significance, especially if it is now still a mystery, since that could suggest, e.g., (2) sightings? From a scientific standpoint, with scientific method-type thinking in mind where you begin with a wide set and eliminate as you rule out -- I certainly do see value in such reports.
Even those who are interested in extraterrestrial sightings -- many think there are references in the Bible to such experiences. While I am a believer, I do not discount that some descriptions taken to be one thing by the ancient witnesses, might have been actually another, especially if the experience were an out-of-this-world occurrence; further I do NOT suggest or believe that if there were to be a confused matter of old, as to determining the essence of anything -- that it means we are without a God or the scriptures mean any less.
We are humans. God is God.
We are not perfect and should not expect the ancients to have been; and I speaking from my faith and beliefs, prefer to defer to what the scriptures define something to be, unless and until I were to study an example that I for Godly reasons believe the definition to be different. I have NOT studied the scriptures about extraterrestrial sightings, but I have heard of what I stated above.
I see your point in the scriptures perhaps not being a study in precision. That is and was not my point though. Neither do they have to be, to be worthy of inclusion in a fact-finding mission. Would have been nice if this didn't need explanation.
As for your statement, " These fine principles on which your nation was founded have been steadily eroded or altered over the years to include [God] in various forms, and I'm certain they would be furious were they [our Founding Fathers] alive to see the vast corruption that has been done to them in various individual states."
I do agree that the world is getting to be a worse place in general. As long as this is included in my point in reply to your statement(s), I would mention here that such is clearly stated as to how it will be in this world, in the Bible.
However, I disagree with your talk of ". . . fine principles . . . been steadily eroded or altered over the years to 'include [God]' in various forms, . . . ." I SEE IT THE OPPOSITE ENTIRELY. We once had more law and order BEFORE atheists and whiners presented their arguments why their views should be honored just as much as our adherence to Godly values. I DO TOTALLY DISAGREE THAT OUR NATION IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT REVERENCE FOR GOD IN OUR GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLS, ETC.
Should there be coordinated structure regarding spiritual consideration and weight, e.g., in government & schools? This would be wise, to ensure smooth operation without excessive differences in processing. I am not a politician, but am speaking my opinions as a believing citizen. It is my right to express my spiritual views and my opinion, and I do not expect to have to continue to defend them to you or anyone else. Please read this again if you are unclear on my points just made.
You and I are polar opposites spiritually, I can see from your content. So we have little in common in that regard, and in my value system, that "regard" is of high importance. You state that our Founding Fathers are not alive; I believe our spirits live on. I believe I can state the following for those who revered God. I say this with far more certainty than I have relative to YOUR hypothetical assessment concerning them. I am certain that for any erosion of our society, any increase in lawlessness, any confusion as to what is right and wrong that has evolved to exist in our society today (& any related negativity) -- certainly our Founding Fathers would NOT blame these on THEIR reverence for and inclusion of God then. Neither would they blame these on OUR reverence for and inclusion of God since. God is not our enemy and your beliefs will never amount to making that be the case, as I expect you will come to know.
I would have to study individual quotations from history to say that I agree with your statement regarding all of our Founding Fathers--I don't believe on its face that they all (as you imply) wanted secular government; I recognize there was reverence for God and mention of God in many a wise word spoken by them.
I disagree with your irreverent phrase that today our Founding Fathers are "rotating at high speed in graves as we speak," and cannot encourage such arrogant talk, even if meant rhetorically. From your comment, I don't also think you are qualified to speak for our Founding Fathers. You don't for one sound like a man of faith, and THAT is a primary reason you would not be likely to accurately even GUESS -- indeed I believe you have already "guessed" incorrectly -- the content of a mindset lined up with a spiritual state of faith -- let alone the opinions of anyone speaking from a deeply spiritual base of faith.
Six days ago, in the midst of many racists and haters and to make a point, I posted 2 posts regarding the beginning of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which posts read:
"Gettysburg, PA Nov 19, 1863"
"[On] June 1, 1865, Sen Charles Sumner eulogized slain Pres Abraham Lincoln, calling Lincoln's Gettysburg Address a "monumental act," saying Lincoln was mistaken that 'the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,' remarking, 'The world noted at once what he said, and willnever cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.' These racists would be a source of shame to the thoughtful man who
became the great President Lincoln."
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war."
"So racists & haters: remember that you lost that war, and against Godly principles you will never win."
[Since I see that those verses did NOT include reference to God as I had thought one of them did, here is the rest of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- THAT THIS NATION, UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."]
[Caps added for emphasis.]
As for your attack on me and criticisms of my sharing love with the person I replied to; as for your negative categorization that amounts to a FALSE ACCUSATION that I was "proselytising nonsense," I STRONGLY DISAGREE -- both with your categorization, as well as your points.
First of all, "proselytising" implies trying to or attempting to "convert" the person whose post I responded to from his religion or belief, to another. A conversion I say suggests far more than the little I stated. I am entitled to make points, to state my beliefs, to expound on them a bit, and I believe I did all of that respectfully.
If all you could get out of what I typed is a negative categorization of my sharing, and demeaning and ugly accusations of my content as you have presented in response, then sadly for YOU that might be all it is; however be mindful there are many different people in this world and as I stated to the first gentleman (having researched it I think in 2010 or so) most peoples in the world believe in God. It goes without saying that your perceptions are not everyone's. IMO, I perceive you to be over-reactive without considering everything, and think you err by trying to speak for people you ought let speak for themselves.
My encouraging to seek God, someone who sounds like they have a rather destitute spirit such as that person and also yourself -- I am fully aware that a person has the ability to choose this or decline and no, in a comment or post, I don't make it my business to go about trying to "convert" people but SHARING LOVE AND MY VIEWS I DO -- AND THAT IS MY RIGHT -- JUST AS IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO GRIPE AND WHINE ABOUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. Those types of responses are WHY I encourage people to seek God, because there is a world full of hate, criticism and ugliness without Him, and He can help by teaching us better ways to love.
One of the beautiful things that we are encouraged to do thru the Bible that has helped change my life for the better, is to build one another up rather than tear one another down. What I pointed out is INFORMATIVE, not an attempt to "convert," per se. My guess is what little I said and say now, might or might not be thought about deeply; it totally depends upon God and a person individually. A "conversion" of sorts ordinarily would require any amount more to accomplish, were that my goal; and whether it would ever happen or not is not in my hands, but in the hands of God and the person. I don't feel a public page is the place to do that, and resent your categorization, as do I dislike and disagree with your further ugliness, that I "spouted mythology and ancient books of manipulation." However you are entitled to your ugly opinions.
And frankly I rather hope I won't hear further from you since I dislike your ugly perceptions and feel I have adequately clarified my stand. I find your negativity a drag and not worthy of further discussion; it seems you've made yourself rather clear. (If for some reason you wish to write me further, you may; I might not respond right away however; this has been enough for awhile.)
And of course you are entitled to remain the product of your spiritual state and views. Surely you don't deny me my spiritual state and views, do you? We have free speech and freedom of religion here; not sure where you are.
I don't personally care if YOU think I "seem insane," I think you'll agree that what others say about us often says more about them than it does the person of whom they speak . . . and I'll spare you from describing how YOU seem to me. I've clearly stated my views and I stand by them. And if you will excuse me, I have a birthday to celebrate :). I pray your day is blessed.
What complete and utter claptrap, shame on you National Geographic.
I just watched the first 10 minutes and they mentioned religion believes adam exists and always quoted as saying half the world believes in adam, which is ludicrous. Even in places considered Christian a lot of people are atheists. 90% of china's 1 billion people are atheist. I could go on but you get my point this documentary is making stuff up to fit its agenda. On top of that religion has no place in this type of science and shouldn't even be mentioned if they want any credibility.
In actuality, its way more complicated then this documentary makes it out to be. They should stick to ancient alien shows and ghost specials and leave real science to the scientists. By the way I like those conspiracy shows, but it in no way gives credibility to these people.
so , he was the most badass of his people
I don't get it. Why wouldn't Adams father be the common male link or his paternal grandfather?
Man just discovered Aliens in 2012 . But it maybe years before they tell any one .
Two parts of the movie was left out . But it is in the Biology books . About commit and the Ice age , the earth broken In so many different parts .
I learn this in high school and college . Before the D N A movie . But We have so many arrogant people in the world . I could not tell any one the truth out side of my Biology class . You just have to put arrogates a side an Be educated and listen . To the law of Biology . It brakes down the hair and skin color . of different tribes . And life styles of all men .
It's amazing how arrogant so many people are on this site. I have been coming to this site for quite a while now because of so many good videos. But the comments are EXTREMELY one-sided...no doubt about it. The vitriol that comes from so many here toward what they see as "religion" and "faith" is very telling.
Ancient creation stories can come true in the minds of man, easily, it's repeated in religion generation after generation. Haven't renown researchers found the creation story in Sumerian text? 2460BC) I'm no expert but maybe there was a manipulation like the Sumerian text says, not a rib but an added strand of DNA. Simple mistakes like this leads humanity away from truth. Clearly done to get Sumerian workers to mine for gold using their newly obtained enhanced logic, even if it took 20 years to enlighten their workers, alien dictators ruled and left the planet with it's minerals and what they needed. How many different copies of the creation story is there before someone sees around it's cast of directors?
if there was a god there would be no arguments about religion
Religion tells us All these super Aliens (Gods are not Human) created the Universe etc yet ALL Religion is focused on Humans, odd that and if He/She created us in their image how come there was so many different types of Homnids? and 30K years ago at least 5 types living together on Earth??, whose image were they created in????
It seems that insinuations about everyone’s ancestry to be out of Africa persist and brainwashing campaign is taking more speed. I would like to ask the DNA scientists to present the data about how many mutations they found in Y chromosome and why they picked this particular mutation? Moreover, Where is the hidden clock in DNA, which shows exactly timing of exact mutation to occur? How about the genetic material and lineages lost during endless wars, natural disasters, pandemics, est.?
Attempts to push forward with “politically correct” agenda do not represent real science.
It's amazing a documentary that may very well explain where all human life originated from. Instead people are blinded by religion to see that the truth is right in front of them. We need to reconstruct OUR history from the beginning using science and preach truth rather than faith.
Wow. So I read the comment I posted much earlier, when there were few. How did it spiral into members leaving?
@vlatko- I do agree with your comments. Calculus, Algebra...these mathematical formula and concepts actually translate into real-world applications(e=mc^2-used to make bombs), such as geometry. Math is meant to be representative of truth. Honestly, I'm not sure where your two arguments were going, but I did enjoy them. Hopefully Chris will be back, because I hate when the intellectually driven battle eachother, and not the fools who could careless and USE the intellectuals for their own perverse purposes.
Man I love your website, great docs. I've never posted before but I've been coming here for over a year now. I normally don't read many of the comments but I got sucked in with you and Chris's conversation.
I'll be the first to say I don't really know when it comes to Religion vs Science and which one is right. My 'belief' is that science makes alot more sense due to facts you guys have stated already. I definately 'think' the three great monotheistic are false for a multitude of reasons.
Before I ramble on for too long I just want to thank you for showing me there are alot of open minded people like me out there. I live in the southern US and free thinkers are few and far between... and I'm totally using your Cinderella story as an example of different interpreting of the same text. Keep up the good work!
Long time watcher & reader of comments (@Achems Razor, one of my faves :P)
I decided ill join in on this one as i feel its a very important subject
Chris scares the shit out of me & ill tell you why
If people like him are teaching the next generation about the "options" of what you can belive, its doing nothing but holding back the evolution of mankind for generations to come
Some people seem to think its ok to be open minded about being either "spritual" (i still would like to know what defines this term) or reason & science based.
Well, its NOT
The longer we entertain belief in works of FICTION written by MAN (no christians im not just targeting you so dont get on your spiritual horse) a very short time ago does absoultly nothing for us as an intellectual species
I agree religion has served its purpose to help us reach a point were technology has now surpassed the basic human desire for answers but if we dont put the books like the bible, koran & the bhagavad gita next to a Jules Verne or Arthur C. Clarke book in the library human society will be forever held back by such strongly held delusions
@TDF i really think all your comments on this page were totally spot on & hopefully it will be less than a 1000yrs before we reach a truly utopian point where your morality is not judged on anything but your own worth as a contributing & caring member of society
Cheers dudes \m/
I have been reading these posts and I am surprised how heated this debate got. Why are people so attached to either science or religion, is it really an either/or kind of thing? I try not to automatically discount any opinion no matter how "wrong" it may seem at first, as many unlikely things turn out to be true and many "proven" facts turn out to be false with time. I don't see these two camps as opposed to each other. I think they are both important pieces to the puzzle we are all trying to figure out. I truly appreciate other peoples points of view if expressed without contempt because I am at a point where I seem to be rethinking many things I took for granted to be true. To me all these comments are ideas to think over and learn from, (like a brain storming session), ideas I probably would never have thought of. Please don't take other people's ideas or beliefs as invalid or take them too personaly as this causes people to "shut down" and I really want to hear them all. Thank you to all my teachers.
Wow thins is amazing i was 100% sure that Adam is black. :)
In Arabic Adam mean dark skin person .
how come a lot of the things written in all bibles were written on walls in Egypt long before any bibles like the ten commandments and so forth...i need to know.
If they ever found Adam in DNA form or the missing link; I think religion would feck science and make a baby relience. :-)
Peace and Harmony to all
@TDF who wrote:
"Yes, TDF is biased… towards science. I guess it is obvious judging by the content and the visitors.
And yes you have all the Internet in your hands. You have many other places where you’ll be left alone to preach your gospels."
Yes. I try very hard to stay away from the docs that you post, (very democratically, and admirably...), that are religious/superstitious in nature. I assume the lunatic-fringe can have their party there.
I only get angry and "peevish" at the christians/superstitious/hippies that invade the scientific docs that you post.
I mean, it goes along with my constant assertion, "Join us or don't, but either way, leave us alone, we have lives to save...".
Don't get me wrong, I love the occasional UFO/Conspiracy thoery/magical-thinking doc as much as the next guy...
But, only as a way to understand what mistakes the dazed and confused are making, so that I can make a solid argument...
Also, to try and save those that seem way too far gone for their own good...
But, that's just my whole-- wanting to be a doctor/lawyer stuff surfacing, until I realize, nothing I say, or do, can save anyone... best to just focus on my own responsibilities...
Anyways, where was I? Yes, thank you.... I guess... is what I am saying...
A wonderful documentary!
Vlatko, keep up the good work.
Knowledge is indeed power and power is having that knowledge.
Just to through a spanner in the works, a quote from the bible: The meek (the teachable) shall inherit the Earth!
Everyone, lets take a step back and a deep breath. There's too much hyper-ventilating happening here. ha-ha.
Now that things have settled down a bit, has anyone even considered that Mankind is to blame for this kind of reaction to this simple investigatory documentary to determine the origin of the 1st man? I mean Religion specifically!
Religion is a man made concept to praise what ever deity that you believe in! FACT. I can't recount reading about a God asking for us to build churches, synagogues etc to praise him/her.
Through these religions (not wholly comprising of the Christian religions) all your Scientific measuring sticks were based. From Astronomy to your usual sciences, i.e. Biology etc.
So without Religion we would not have the scientific knowledge that we now have. Is it not in Man's nature to learn from our mistakes?
Today we are heading ever closer to 2011 and People are we really that more advanced than our ancestors from a millenia ago? Our ancient ancestors knew a lot more about our world and the cosmos above us than we think is possible and through our science of today are only beginning to realise this.
Another point is, Science was never brought about to disprove the lack of a God(s). It was a tool to explain the unexplainable. Granted it has never proved that God didn't exist, but on the same hand it didn't disprove that God exists.
The only gullible organism to ever live on planet earth.
Regardless of intellectual capacity.
I always find it incongruous why religious people always try to push there gods on other people.
Almost as if they are trying to cement there own beliefs in there own minds.
The more they try to convince people of there gods the more they are themselves convinced??
Atheist or non-believers could not care less on pushing any beliefs about god's, until the religee's bring it up.
Before you leave i just want to add that it is your arrogance and can't fit your head through the door ego that makes you a target for many non-believers, and it is also what will have you coming back here to justify yourself again...
You are smart but you have just backed the wrong horse on this one. Don't hate the players hate the game.
see you tomorrow.
I think I'm done here. Great site, Vlatko. A bit biased, a bit too angry for me, but all in all, it's a decent collection. There are a couple of other sites I think I'll use. Good bye.
Good grief, calm down! After all, I teach science, specifically, "Introduction to Astronomy" among other subjects. If it wasn't for science, I would not have this job. I hardly sit on the sidelines of the discussion and I'm hardly a Luddite.
Don't you think my vantage point from within academia just MIGHT give me a perspective most people lack? Most researchers have some bent to a favorite direction or another, to which they are beholden, usually because of their own philosophy or because that is where the money is coming from, and not because of some great love of the truth (after the first year, it's just work). I've witnessed worthwhile research shut down because the funding source didn't like it. It's only peer review that provides some semblance of balance, even if any.
I do not laugh at science, but neither is science the alter at which I worship. Science is only a tool. But many would have science become a cultural force for a Godless interpretation of science. I have many doubts as to what some people do with the science and what they teach as gospel truth when it is only their opinion. They have just as much a gospel to teach as any priest.
This and many threads on this site eventually boil down to this:
If you don't believe in God, then you are a reasonable person seeking the truth. If you do believe in God, then it doesn't matter what you believe, you are a fool.
The defining factor is not reasonableness, logic, understanding of the available facts, or consideration, education, etc. It is whether you believe in God or not.
If you believe in God, then any and all views of science, history, logic or opinion are tainted with error. You could not possibly be correct. If you do not believe in God, then any fringe beliefs you may hold must have some legitimacy.
Many times, I have agreed that RELIGION was an evil upon the earth. But I have witnessed just as much "science religion" here, in my students, in colleagues, and elsewhere.
It is your conviction that there cannot be a God, not your open mind, that acts as your gatekeeper as to what is true and what is false.
So, I ask you; who is being reasonable?
And I hardly know what to do with your Cinderella story.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.
I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.
i dont know how your random Nietzsche quote had anything to do with what was being said. but i find the irony in you quoting him entertaining at least
"On the other hand Science is not interpreting anything."
(gasp! gurgle..) What you now hear is the sound of milk squirting out of scientific researchers noses everywhere. Science does little else but interpret data, desperate to fit known and popular paradigms.
I think the best example is to see how the "interpretation" of data that gave us dark energy and dark matter is upsetting the Standard Model applecart. The only way to "interpret" the data while preserving the Standard Model is by pushing all known and understood matter/energy to 4% of the total.
My boss, a dept associate professor, talked about how the interpretations of data and observations in order to fit current understanding was getting us into trouble while answering a audience question during a Q&A during an alumni presentation almost a year ago (lifted directly from transcript unedited):
"Clearly, this is a theory in serious trouble. Uh.. There may be another way to interpret ... observations while preserving the model, or we're back to square one which nobody wants with everything we know is wrong. ... And... uh... I don't..., I don't think that is where we are going. I hope not. ... We've been on a bit of a roller coaster ride for the last few years. ... I don't...uh... Funny how its predictions can be so right with observations until you get down to brass tacks with measurements. ... Those darn measurements! ... It's like, you know, ... getting married when you're so happy with each other, ... then find out all the little stuff you can't live with. (laughter) Perhaps its time for a divorce... Right? Right? ... We've been to marriage counseling trying to work this out. ... But 4%! That's all I mean to you? After all we've been through? .. Com'on now! (laughter)... So, no, I don't know... to me, 4% signals a possible breakdown of the model,.. the Standard Model,... the theory. ... That's just me. What observations say makes little sense... like dark matter. ... We don't know what it is but there must be a lot of it. ... We may need a new way to see the data. ... a revolution in how we see it. But that's on our side. I think the observations are correct, but our interpretations must be off. ... I don't know if that helps you. I guess we have to wait to see what CERN turns up."
One final FN quote for you, my friend: "Anyone who has declared someone else to be an idiot, a bad apple, is annoyed when it turns out in the end that he isn’t."
You gave, clearly an example of a classic rebuttal to end all rebuttals.
An "Excellentia" "Eximus" rebuttal. To Chris CA. Et al:
You are the victor in my books.
o.k. That was a tough question, it's not surprising that you cannot / will not answer it. Here is an easier one for you!
If god is some otherworldy spiritual being and the O.T. is the word of god, why is it that the nature of the blessings / curses section of the O.T. is completely materialistic in nature?
Lets not even touch on the fact that it is racist, elitist, vicious and destructive.
The evidence that resulted in the Big Bang's victory over the steady state model, at least in the minds of most cosmologists, included the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s, the distribution of "young galaxies" and quasars throughout the Universe in the 1980s, a more consistent age estimate of the universe and most recently the observations of the COBE satellite in the 1990s and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe launched in 2001, which showed unevenness in the microwave background in the early universe, which corresponds to currently observed distributions of galaxies.
anyways judging by your post chris you are open to the idea that the bible is myth in the same way any other religious book is. there may be certain historical accuracies in there but the supernatural claims are all just superstition put forth by iron age men with very little understanding of the universe they lived in.
and chris what you said to epicurean_logic is often how i feel about you while reading your texts. you constantly appeal to authority figures who are relatively old and outdated. and like vlatko said you disregard logic and reason for rhetoric and sophistry. its disingenuous at best.
"Interpretation is not the point. Hard core solid proven facts are the real point… and the Calculus."
Really? Sir Fred Hoyle took the same hard core solid facts used as proofs of the Big Bang to "prove" Steady State. And he was no fool -- he developed important foundations of our modern theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. The things you consider to be the most solid and unquestionable are disproved everyday by someone with better math skills, better powers of observation, and more smarts.
Just as science continues to develop new and better means of understanding the physical nature of the universe; historians, linguists, biblical historians and scholars continue to unlock knowledge shrouded in thousands of years of history and tradition.
Yet, while you allow science the opportunity to advance out of its dark ages, you insist that belief in God remain in the dark ages of religious tradition. As what, some sort of punishment?
Again, I yield to the stage to Friedrich Nietzsche:
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
You make me laugh. But the question remains! which version of the creation myth are you talking about? The one written by the followers of El or the one written by the followers of the devil god Jahweh?
You must not know the history and languages of the Scriptures or you would not say that the bible says that God created the earth in 6 days. That is a relatively recent, shallow, and uninformed interpretation.
Even the early church fathers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, did not interpret Genesis in such a way. They knew and understood a time gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
Other scriptures point to a time gap, as well. For example, Job 38:4-7 clearly indicates that the angels were created before the earth, indicating a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.
Regarding the matter of "my interpretation of the Bible", I would refer you to two quotes by Friedrich Nietzsche, someone who did not believe in a theistic God.
"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."
"We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us."
You have an axe to grind. You have an agenda. You have an ulterior motive. You have made the decision that nothing spiritual exists and this colors everything you see and speak.
Because of this mindset, nothing spiritual passes through the Epicurean gates, and you have become your own proof. You have become trapped within your own circular logic.
If you had any historical research experience, you would know that all cultural knowledge, myths and legends are not created equal. Since you have no actual experience, you repeatedly parrot the things you have read in books from authors that agree with your mindset. By this you justify your opinion and feel that your positions are well-founded.
But you don't have an original thought in your head. In fact, original thoughts scare you. I suggest you avoid graduation at all costs and remain within your cloistered university environment.
Epicurean Logic Argument
1. I have read books that say God does not exist.
2. It is easier to read and believe the opinions of others rather than doing the hard work of my own research.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
Which version of the creation myth are you talking about? The one written by the followers of El or the one written by the followers of the devil god Jahweh?
You can read into basically anything, on most anything, even what it says on the backs of cereal boxes. Snap, Crackle, "Pop" here comes the universe!
No. You make a common mistake because you do not know the history or language of the Scriptures.
The bible does not say that God created everything in 6 days. There is a time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. It is correctly read, "And the earth became waste and void..." Also, it also says, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." The bible does not supply the Time when the beginning happened. However, science supplies an answer that would seem to fit with the biblical narrative.
If we were simply to use Logic to make a firm determination on anything, we would not even be able to say, "I think, therefore I am."
You confuse Logic with Rhetoric and Debate. If we were having a debate, you might have a point. However, the purpose of Logic is clarify understanding. If understanding is obfuscated by process, it is the process that needs to be revised.
Therefore, a reasonable inference and meaning can be derived and understood to mean the beginning of all time by the opening statement of Genesis.
Am going to watch doc.
I don't teach my students religion. I do teach them logical thinking which includes learning not to take everything at face value when it comes from a supposedly scientific source, but then to view a religious or other sources narrowly simply because of their concepts.
You would be hard pressed to find mainstream, conservative biblical colleges or historical scholarly authorities that held that Gen. 1:1 did not refer to the beginning of creation. And since science has discovered that beginning to have occurred almost 14 billion years ago, I don't see any conflict.
What's your point?
i'd like to reccomend a doc series i just started watching.
The Fall of America and the Western World.
it's 6 hrs long i think. david icke amongst others.
And @Chris do you have any reasonable explanation backed up by evidence about this:
The "beginning" refers to the original beginning of all things, supposedly almost 14 billion years ago. God moving upon the face of the waters occurred an unknown time after that, but most likely after many billions of years.
Are you teaching this to your students for Gods sake?