Thank you so much! It’s wonderful to see great intellectuals discuss a fascinating topic. Especially when one of them is Dr. Craig! I loved the book and I wish you, Jan, and the RF team all the best (and I’ll be watching to see when Professor Craig starts offering a phd program)
Love Dr. Craig and Swamidass. Keeping the focus that Jesus is God regardless of the Genesis 1:1 being the whole story in one verse and how long that played out before the special group and people unfolded that yielded Yeshua the Lord Manifest. The Son of Man is the pinnacle of our species why not come in the middle? There were fish still after Tiktaalik demonstrated ascending behavior....same with why there are still monkey even though we came from them and Adam [potentially] It would make since that [What holds the Universe together aka Col 1] may have witnessed the Younger Dryas and because of Romans 1 decided to introduce Itself to a post Younger Dryas and freaked out species who noticed It's fingerprints in Nature. The Cosmic Nature Maker wanted to let us know it's okay and that all things will be made new again....via Himself dwelling among us, first as Natural Acts and Elements then as Yeshua the Nazarene in what may feel like the "middle" of the program or reality. It makes sense and on a micro/macro and digital sense too. Jesus is the string, the cord, and that which binds the loose ends of all things.
The difference between genealogical ancestry and genetic ancestry, and why you could have genes from one ancestor but not another, could have been made more clear. I think I understand, but I’m not confident.
Genealogical ancestry & genetic ancestry are x2 things. It boils down to "way far back" were are connected genealogically but may not carry DNA of our ancient ancestors. It is an interesting distinction that "may" leave DNA/science out of the running to explain "the image of God." choice
The basic idea for genetic descent is just that there is some randomness in the distribution of the genetic material you gain from each parent. So on average you receive 50% of your genes from each parent, 25% from each grandparent, 12.5% from each great grandparent, and so on - but this is on average, the actual amount will have some randomness to it. As you go up the ancestry, the mean just becomes comparable to the extent of randomness, so it becomes possible - increasingly - for a certain ancestor to have contributed 0% of your genetic makeup.
@@Jasonmoofang With the exception of the difference between the amount of information in the sex chromosome, that is counterintuitive. What I need to know is how the variation can happen. It seems to say that, somewhere in the tree, someone was born without a father or without a mother. Would the explanation be that, for a given autosomal chromosome, it could have come from either the ancestor’s father or mother?
@@ricksonora6656 as I understand it, the randomness comes from two processes during meiosis - one is the process of genetic recombination, that shuffles some sections of a chromosome with its homologous partner, thereby creating chromosomes with a random combination of dna from both parents, the other is independent assortment, where paternal and maternal chromosomes are divided randomly, resulting in the final gamete having a random combination of paternal and maternal chromosomes. I'm not sure where in the reasoning are you stuck on. If this doesn't help, perhaps you can describe how you currently think genetic material is passed down, and we can compare notes?
This explination makes far more sense than Bill's. Whoever or whatever was before Adam just isn't covered in the Bible at all. Adam is the human father of us all and he was special in that God began a relationship or perhaps a new relationship with man at that time. We see no evidence that Neanderthals built cities, called on the name of the Lord, created metal tools or instruments. That was long after Neanderthals. IMO Adam (Genesis 2) lived about the time of widespread cultivating and livestock. Perhaps 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. Regional flood 5000 years ago-ish.
Okay, question. IF there were other people outside of the Garden, were they Sinless? Sin came into being when the Serpent deceived Eve into eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Since Eve was deceived and ate of the fruit and then gave Adam the fruit to eat, sin became part of our spiritual DNA. Had there been other people outside of the Garden, were they sinless or did they fall? If they were sinless, then if they intermarried, with Adam & Eve's offspring, then their seed would have been become sinful. That sounds counterintuitive with how God operates. Why would God allow unfallen humanity to be contaminated by fallen man, which would've condemned the offspring to eternal darkness of Hell. Then all of those extra-Garden people would've eventually been destroyed by the Flood, without recourse. Besides, how did Adam's line from Seth to Noah had not been cross bred with those extra-Garden generations? We do know, according to the Genesis 6th narrative, the females from Adam's descendants had been mated by the Angelic realm, albeit the fallen ones called the Watchers, and they produced the offspring called the Nephilim. Because these offspring were so corrupted, that they corrupted all but 8 persons of Adam's line and they also corrupted/contaminated the animals also, except for those that had been kept by God, from such corruption, whether sexually or some other manipulation of the DNA strains, that God destroyed those lives by the Flood. I don't see any way that there were extra-Garden humanity, because it doesn't appear to corelate to the Genesis narrative. As we don't have all of the information of the interaction of Adam and Eve and the number of offspring that they had produced, I can think that Cain\s wife could've very well have been a sister. Considering the DNA gene pool had been pure at that time, there would not have been any of the difficulties of intermarriage. You have to consider, that Eve was in a way a clone of Adam, since she was formed from one of Adam's rib, which means that here DNA code was his, with possibly a little tweaking by God, especially in the sexual chromosomes, since Adam would've been XY and Eve would've been XX.
Sin can't have come into being when she ate the fruit, because the Serpent is deceiving them and sinning. Who is Cain afraid of killing him? He's being exiled from his extended family--there's supposedly no one out there to kill him!
I dont really see the point in trying to reconcile the Genesis story with evolution. In doing so you have to argue that God literally made the first man out of dust by way of special creation, otherwise you are ignoring the text. And that woman was literally made from the man. Instead evolution concludes that mankind evolved over millions of years. Whilst genetics may not show that Adam did not exist, that seems to be an argument from silence - we dont have any evidence it didnt happen, therefore it may have happened! That's not a good argument. I used to try to think of Genesis 1 & 2 as presenting scientific fact, but have long since decided against that, and view those early passages as largely a polemic against other Near Eastern creation stories, but which reflect theological truth rather than scientific or historical truth. It says more about us humans and our relationship with God than anything else.
Well, I do precisely show how (consistent with evolution and the evidence!) God could have "literally made the first man out of dust by way of special creation." So that seems to totally obviate your point. :)
@@PC-vg8vnt will certainly look like there is no evidence to anyone committed to ignorant opining :). All of my scientific claims are thoroughly supported. You just have some reading to do!
@@drswamidass So you have evidence that God created the first man literally from the dust of the earth and a woman from that man? Not to mention a magic tree and a talking snake. I read your book, admittedly some time ago, and I dont remember you presenting any such evidence, just that genetics cant rule out such a special couple which as I said is an argument from silence and actually says nothing. Sorry but I think others are right, that ALL of mankind evolved. The question is, what happened in reality. I dont think it was a literal Adam and Eve living in a nice garden in Mesopotamia.
@@drswamidass Thanks for all you do. It's invaluable. I'm telling everyone about you and your work, and I've got the Four Perspectives in my hand and Genealogical Adam and Eve otw to me as I speak! 😎👍🏻
I don't really care for the Hindu, Dr. Swampass. He comes across as so smug in other discussions, and I think his work leaves so much to be desired. Dr. Craig is way better.
3 views book ( Craig, Swamidass and Loke) about historical Adam would be wonderful.
Well I've got good news for you! 😉😜
Thank you so much!
It’s wonderful to see great intellectuals discuss a fascinating topic. Especially when one of them is Dr. Craig! I loved the book and I wish you, Jan, and the RF team all the best (and I’ll be watching to see when Professor Craig starts offering a phd program)
Thanks
Love Dr. Craig and Swamidass. Keeping the focus that Jesus is God regardless of the Genesis 1:1 being the whole story in one verse and how long that played out before the special group and people unfolded that yielded Yeshua the Lord Manifest.
The Son of Man is the pinnacle of our species why not come in the middle? There were fish still after Tiktaalik demonstrated ascending behavior....same with why there are still monkey even though we came from them and Adam [potentially]
It would make since that [What holds the Universe together aka Col 1] may have witnessed the Younger Dryas and because of Romans 1 decided to introduce Itself to a post Younger Dryas and freaked out species who noticed It's fingerprints in Nature.
The Cosmic Nature Maker wanted to let us know it's okay and that all things will be made new again....via Himself dwelling among us, first as Natural Acts and Elements then as Yeshua the Nazarene in what may feel like the "middle" of the program or reality.
It makes sense and on a micro/macro and digital sense too.
Jesus is the string, the cord, and that which binds the loose ends of all things.
The difference between genealogical ancestry and genetic ancestry, and why you could have genes from one ancestor but not another, could have been made more clear. I think I understand, but I’m not confident.
Well I would say do your own research on that. He is an expert in the field so my instinct is to believe it.
Genealogical ancestry & genetic ancestry are x2 things. It boils down to "way far back" were are connected genealogically but may not carry DNA of our ancient ancestors. It is an interesting distinction that "may" leave DNA/science out of the running to explain "the image of God."
choice
The basic idea for genetic descent is just that there is some randomness in the distribution of the genetic material you gain from each parent. So on average you receive 50% of your genes from each parent, 25% from each grandparent, 12.5% from each great grandparent, and so on - but this is on average, the actual amount will have some randomness to it. As you go up the ancestry, the mean just becomes comparable to the extent of randomness, so it becomes possible - increasingly - for a certain ancestor to have contributed 0% of your genetic makeup.
@@Jasonmoofang With the exception of the difference between the amount of information in the sex chromosome, that is counterintuitive. What I need to know is how the variation can happen.
It seems to say that, somewhere in the tree, someone was born without a father or without a mother.
Would the explanation be that, for a given autosomal chromosome, it could have come from either the ancestor’s father or mother?
@@ricksonora6656 as I understand it, the randomness comes from two processes during meiosis - one is the process of genetic recombination, that shuffles some sections of a chromosome with its homologous partner, thereby creating chromosomes with a random combination of dna from both parents, the other is independent assortment, where paternal and maternal chromosomes are divided randomly, resulting in the final gamete having a random combination of paternal and maternal chromosomes.
I'm not sure where in the reasoning are you stuck on. If this doesn't help, perhaps you can describe how you currently think genetic material is passed down, and we can compare notes?
Empty audience 😮
This explination makes far more sense than Bill's. Whoever or whatever was before Adam just isn't covered in the Bible at all. Adam is the human father of us all and he was special in that God began a relationship or perhaps a new relationship with man at that time. We see no evidence that Neanderthals built cities, called on the name of the Lord, created metal tools or instruments. That was long after Neanderthals. IMO Adam (Genesis 2) lived about the time of widespread cultivating and livestock. Perhaps 10,000 - 12,000 years ago. Regional flood 5000 years ago-ish.
Okay, question. IF there were other people outside of the Garden, were they Sinless? Sin came into being when the Serpent deceived Eve into eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Since Eve was deceived and ate of the fruit and then gave Adam the fruit to eat, sin became part of our spiritual DNA. Had there been other people outside of the Garden, were they sinless or did they fall? If they were sinless, then if they intermarried, with Adam & Eve's offspring, then their seed would have been become sinful. That sounds counterintuitive with how God operates. Why would God allow unfallen humanity to be contaminated by fallen man, which would've condemned the offspring to eternal darkness of Hell. Then all of those extra-Garden people would've eventually been destroyed by the Flood, without recourse. Besides, how did Adam's line from Seth to Noah had not been cross bred with those extra-Garden generations? We do know, according to the Genesis 6th narrative, the females from Adam's descendants had been mated by the Angelic realm, albeit the fallen ones called the Watchers, and they produced the offspring called the Nephilim. Because these offspring were so corrupted, that they corrupted all but 8 persons of Adam's line and they also corrupted/contaminated the animals also, except for those that had been kept by God, from such corruption, whether sexually or some other manipulation of the DNA strains, that God destroyed those lives by the Flood. I don't see any way that there were extra-Garden humanity, because it doesn't appear to corelate to the Genesis narrative. As we don't have all of the information of the interaction of Adam and Eve and the number of offspring that they had produced, I can think that Cain\s wife could've very well have been a sister. Considering the DNA gene pool had been pure at that time, there would not have been any of the difficulties of intermarriage. You have to consider, that Eve was in a way a clone of Adam, since she was formed from one of Adam's rib, which means that here DNA code was his, with possibly a little tweaking by God, especially in the sexual chromosomes, since Adam would've been XY and Eve would've been XX.
Sin can't have come into being when she ate the fruit, because the Serpent is deceiving them and sinning.
Who is Cain afraid of killing him? He's being exiled from his extended family--there's supposedly no one out there to kill him!
I dont really see the point in trying to reconcile the Genesis story with evolution. In doing so you have to argue that God literally made the first man out of dust by way of special creation, otherwise you are ignoring the text. And that woman was literally made from the man. Instead evolution concludes that mankind evolved over millions of years. Whilst genetics may not show that Adam did not exist, that seems to be an argument from silence - we dont have any evidence it didnt happen, therefore it may have happened! That's not a good argument.
I used to try to think of Genesis 1 & 2 as presenting scientific fact, but have long since decided against that, and view those early passages as largely a polemic against other Near Eastern creation stories, but which reflect theological truth rather than scientific or historical truth. It says more about us humans and our relationship with God than anything else.
Well, I do precisely show how (consistent with evolution and the evidence!) God could have "literally made the first man out of dust by way of special creation." So that seems to totally obviate your point. :)
@@drswamidass But you have zero evidence for that, which is my point.
@@PC-vg8vnt will certainly look like there is no evidence to anyone committed to ignorant opining :). All of my scientific claims are thoroughly supported. You just have some reading to do!
@@drswamidass So you have evidence that God created the first man literally from the dust of the earth and a woman from that man? Not to mention a magic tree and a talking snake. I read your book, admittedly some time ago, and I dont remember you presenting any such evidence, just that genetics cant rule out such a special couple which as I said is an argument from silence and actually says nothing.
Sorry but I think others are right, that ALL of mankind evolved. The question is, what happened in reality. I dont think it was a literal Adam and Eve living in a nice garden in Mesopotamia.
@@drswamidass Thanks for all you do. It's invaluable. I'm telling everyone about you and your work, and I've got the Four Perspectives in my hand and Genealogical Adam and Eve otw to me as I speak! 😎👍🏻
WLC has lost his mind if he thinks Adam was evolved or created 750K yrs ago.
Packed house. 😂
"Historical" Adam, lol
Here's a guy who didn't listen to the lecture 👆
I don't believe in Jay-in-Japan. They appear to be an AI troll. 😊
@@davidr1620 They never do, do they? 😆😝
I don't really care for the Hindu, Dr. Swampass. He comes across as so smug in other discussions, and I think his work leaves so much to be desired. Dr. Craig is way better.
This is revolting. Dr. Swamidass is a Christian. Do you think you have the "Mind of God"? Where is your humility and fear of God?
@@patriciadewitt8100 I speak to God on a daily basis, more than you I assure you.
@@albertomartinez714 How do you/we know that you're speaking to the true God?
Why would you think he’s a Hindu?
@@ChristianTrinity411 He's ignorant and actually racist (I rarely call someone that--maybe I should say "negatively ethnocentric?")