Tuesday, September 27, 2011

So what if my science is wrong? The bible is wrong – part 1:



I remember back in the 1980s when a story was circulating around within the religious community, that “genetic science,” had finally proven that the description given in the bible of “human creation,” was in fact true. That science had proven that the ancestry of every human alive on the earth today, had all been traced back to one single woman – that science had proven the story of Adam and Eve in the bible, was in fact true. The only problem was that the “proof” which they were offering, was not based on real science – in fact, in the 1980s; we simply hadn’t yet developed the technology to base such a conclusion on. So just what was the big deal about proving that the story of Adam and Eve in the bible was in fact true, and why were the religious (mainly the Christians) even willing to manufacture stories, and even tell outright lies? Because the theory of evolution was fast gaining acceptance as a fact, and without dirt man and rib woman, and the talking-snake and the original “sin” (sex) that opened up the door for every other type of “evil,” then there was also no need for a savor – the whole story about Christ dying for our sins, then all falls apart like a house of cards in the wind.



So fast forward to the twenty first century; there are mountains of evidence, which all support evolution as a fact, and with 99.999% certainty; we now know that there was never any less than 5,000 pairs of genes (10,000 almost human and human beings) involved on the road to becoming the human beings that we are today; and we now know with 99.999% certainty, that both humans and all of the great apes, all evolved from a common ancestor – so where does this leave both the stories of Adam and Eve, and the story of “our” “savor” “Jesus Christ”? It leaves them all in the dirt, where they all belonged in the first place.



You really wouldn’t think that there would be much more here to debate on this subject? But there are current debates going on among the Christian scholars:






From NPR:


According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.


Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.


But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."


Researching The Human Genome


Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.


To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."






You can click (here) or anywhere in the above text and the link will take you to NPR and the whole story – it is well worth the read.


In the video below Ken Miller (a catholic) does an excellent job of explaining of how we now know that both humans and the great apes, both evolved from a common ancestor.






I’m going to explain what all of this really means to me in part 2 of this story – but I forewarn you, it will be done in the foul mouth style of The Dyslectic Atheist! But what does this all mean to you as an atheist?

Comments (12)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
How do Christians ever get around the fact that the biblical creation story required incest to get our species up and runnning?
My recent post The Lieutenant Governor Of Florida Is Against Blasphemy
1 reply · active 705 weeks ago
Maybe on the 6000 something day of “creation,” the Lard said: “let there be incest”?

It’s amazing that Christians don’t question how we got from 1 vagina and 3 penises, to over 6 billion people in 6000 years – but that sort of question requires a brain?

My recent post So what if my science is wrong? The bible is wrong – part 1:
One vagina,and three cocks ? The christian creation story. Sounds like a video on You porn.
1 reply · active 700 weeks ago
Or more like that C porno movie: “3 on a whore.”

Back in the 1990s, I wrote a story about what really happened in that garden! And in the story, the father and both sons had all 3 of her holes, all going at the same time – and why one son killed the other; however, my story didn’t go over so well with Xtians, lol.

My recent post So what if my science is wrong? The bible is wrong – part 1:
Gee john ,I wonder why ?
Hey Jon just stopped by to say hello can't wait for your next post it seems like they get further ,and further apart,I know life complicated hope your doing well sbj1964
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
Thanks Sbj1964, I’m doing just fine; and I hope that you’re doing great as well.

I have been spending most of my free time working on a physics model with my son via snail mail. And I found that I just can’t do scientific math and religious-bullshit, both at the same time – so I have just been blogging a lot less this year.

John

My recent post Ass-Clown Michele Bachmann:
Well good luck with the math homework. I will be going on over-sea's assignment at the London office for a new company for a few months . So I will be off line for awhile. Talk at you when I get back.
I thought the original sin was greed. Eve couldn't resist eating the forbidden fruit. The snake convinced her that God wasn't serious and that there would be no consequences for her choice. They were not aware of there sexuality until after her and Adam ate the fruit. There are a lot of things to pull from the story and they are found in many origin stories in other religions. I do concede that the story is an alegory, not solid fact, about creation and the eternal human conflict. Though the story is divinely inspired and embedded in the human consciousness.
1 reply · active 696 weeks ago
“I thought the original sin was greed”

You just might be surprised that there are many different versions of this story; and even many more translations and interpretation of these stories. In one such variant of this story, the “forbidden fruit,” was not hanging on a tree, it was hanging from between Adam’s legs, and Eve’s “forbidden fruit” was between her legs – the snake simply explained the other functionality of their ‘fruit' and Eve then seduced Adam. Then “god” got pissed, and cursed Eve to bare the pain of child birth, and “he” also made her a once a month, unclean bleeding creature. And this version of the story was fundamental in many of the desert cults that predate both Islam and Christianity. And as these cults became more wide spread, woman were also blamed for everything which was deemed as being “sinful” (when a man raped a woman, it was not his fault, his actions were simply a part of the curse that “god” had placed on women).
And Islam was not the first religion to fully cover the bodies of these “unclean” and “sinful vile creatures” from the eyes of men, or the first religion to practice female genital mutilation; however most of Islam adopted these practices – and this variant of the story was also one of the basis for the practice of male castration in the early Christian church as well.

Whichever one of these “divinely inspired” stories that one subscribes, we know that all of them are not true, in fact, all of these stories are flat out false – and they have all been used by men, for justifying the oppression of women. Moreover, none of the stories told in the bible or any of the other “creation” myths, have any basis within reality – and were all simply inspired by ignorant man, and are only “embedded in the human consciousness,” of the willful ignorant.

My recent post Ass-Clown Michele Bachmann:
That was an awesome reply John.I had never considered the forbidden fruit to have been the Adams Cock&Balls.Eve went for the truly low hanging fruit. Now the story actually makes sense.The feeling of shame,covering themselves.I guess they left that part out during the re-wright.A really silly story to start with.The bible is about as Divinely inspired as a Harry Potter Novel.
1 reply · active 696 weeks ago
And one of the even more fascinating facets of the Jewish creation myths is the fact that the various stories of Adam and Eve, also predates the advent of the Hebrew god (or the morphing of the volcano god(s) and the earthquake gods, into the Hebrew god). And one main issue in translating these ancient scrolls written by ancient scribes was the difference in the complexity of the linguistics (even today, Chinese people who speak different dialects, have one hell of a time communicating with each other). And if you think that the OT/NT in the bible is convoluted and conflicts itself, just try comparing the King James Version with some of the copies of the early Jewish scripture, and the early Xtian text that didn’t make it into the King James Version

Divinely inspired? More like subjective bullshit, half-ass translated from subjective bullshit!

My recent post Ass-Clown Michele Bachmann:

Post a new comment

Comments by