Taxonomic jargon - how close is too close?

[klaus54]

Humans (ordinary humans, that is) fit into taxonomy, as far as I can tell, in the way that the Theory of Evolution describes.
Genesis describes what happened in Eden.
There are in consequence two possibilities:
Eden was on Earth and has ceased to exist - in which case the Biblical account of the Garden and development of the universe is incorrect.
Eden was not on Earth and continues to exist - its alternative name being Paradise - in which case the section you highlighted in red is a real possibility.
As to which is correct, I tend to the second option ... though I don't claim to have been able to make a determination ... not a theory, just a hypothesis.

Neither a theory nor a hypothesis since there is no testability or falsifiablity.

So Cain was in Eden and got booted out??? (From your penultimate post)

But thanks for giving your answer to the taxonomy question, although I have no idea what you mean by "ordinary" humans. Is there any other type?

So you would have no objection to humans being in the same taxon as Great Apes?

K54

[tabibito]

Neither a theory nor a hypothesis since there is no testability or falsifiablity.

I'm still evaluating precisely what the Bible has to say. Currently I have a hypothesis, which I am testing, about the content of the Bible itself. Once that process is complete, I'll be able to test the Biblical record against the physical record. The best I expect can be achieved would be "no conflict": and only on certain parts at that. Given that the terminus ad quem for the highly unlikely Noah would be the Eemian period, the listed genealogy (Adam to Abraham) is definitely incorrect.

So Cain was in Eden and got booted out??? (From your penultimate post)

Gen 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.
"Got the boot" seems a reasonable interpretation to me. Adam and Eve were denied access, but their children don't seem at first to have been given that same penalty.

But thanks for giving your answer to the taxonomy question, although I have no idea what you mean by "ordinary" humans. Is there any other type?

The Bible makes statements about the establishment of life in Eden, otherwise known as Paradise, the then and current location of the tree of life. The Bible does not make any reference to the establishment of life outside of Eden. So by "ordinary humans" I mean humans who developed by ordinary means.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.
... Who would have occupied a city? At this stage, there certainly weren't enough descendents of Adam and Eve to even make a village.

So you would have no objection to humans being in the same taxon as Great Apes?

K54

No objection whatever.

[klaus54]

I'm still evaluating precisely what the Bible has to say. Currently I have a hypothesis, which I am testing, about the content of the Bible itself. Once that process is complete, I'll be able to test the Biblical record against the physical record. The best I expect can be achieved would be "no conflict": and only on certain parts at that. Given that the terminus ad quem for the highly unlikely Noah would be the Eemian period, the listed genealogy (Adam to Abraham) is definitely incorrect.


Gen 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.
"Got the boot" seems a reasonable interpretation to me. Adam and Eve were denied access, but their children don't seem at first to have been given that same penalty.



The Bible makes statements about the establishment of life in Eden, otherwise known as Paradise, the then and current location of the tree of life. The Bible does not make any reference to the establishment of life outside of Eden. So by "ordinary humans" I mean humans who developed by ordinary means.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.
... Who would have occupied a city? At this stage, there certainly weren't enough descendents of Adam and Eve to even make a village.



No objection whatever.

You certainly have an interestingly unique exegesis. I never heard anyone claim that Adam's children were allowed to go into Eden. "dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden" doesn't sound like "in" Eden to me. And the colored sentence appears tautological.

[funny=on]I dwell in the Land of Nod about 7 hours every day from midnight to 7 a.m.
[funny=off]

Anywho, you provided your answer to the taxonomy question, and I thank you for that!

Any anti-evolutionists want to give this simple and theologically important question the Ol' College Try? Jorge perhaps?

K54

[tabibito]

Dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden isn't the part that shows a possibility of Adam's children having access to Eden - it is the "went out from the presence of the Lord" that shows the possibility.

"ordinary humans" -It seems reasonably solid that Eden is in Paradise and not on Earth. Genesis 1 and 2 only deal with the creation of life in Eden. What happened in the universe after the creation of Heaven and Earth isn't mentioned. That would allow for evolution in the universe, and enough people to populate a city built by Cain. If anything shows up that disproves the chain, Genesis, at least until Abraham, would have to be relegated to myth. That would be a comfortable resolution for me, but I'm not willing to scrap any part of the Bible unless it can be proven inaccurate.

[klaus54]

Dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden isn't the part that shows a possibility of Adam's children having access to Eden - it is the "went out from the presence of the Lord" that shows the possibility.

"ordinary humans" -It seems reasonably solid that Eden is in Paradise and not on Earth. Genesis 1 and 2 only deal with the creation of life in Eden. What happened in the universe after the creation of Heaven and Earth isn't mentioned. That would allow for evolution in the universe, and enough people to populate a city built by Cain. If anything shows up that disproves the chain, Genesis, at least until Abraham, would have to be relegated to myth. That would be a comfortable resolution for me, but I'm not willing to scrap any part of the Bible unless it can be proven inaccurate.

OK, I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite.

1) How can one live "to the east of" somewhere that's not on Earth?

2) Are you trying to say there were humans (but not "ordinary" humans) outside of planet Earth? (Bear in mind the ANE Hebrews had no idea of a planet anyway.)

3) If Cain were allowed to stay in Eden after mom and pop were given the boot, what of the notion of original sin? Why the heck am I condemned by the first couple's peccadillo when their brat son got to hang out in paradise for awhile?

To me your attempt is indicative of what happens when one tries to force these stories into a hyperliteral context.

Why don't you start a thread on this?

But, anyway... Let's get back to the OP.

K54

[tabibito]

OK, I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite.


1) How can one live "to the east of" somewhere that's not on Earth?

In the Bible everything on Earth is seemingly east of Eden. In Australia (other places too?), if things go west they have disappeared (but still perhaps exist) and any compass bearing they may have taken is irrelevant. Consider the possibility that Eden is somewhere west of Earth. Current scientific theory is that the dimensions of this universe are not the limit of existing dimensions. What language would you use to describe the location of a place that had only length, or only length and breadth, in common with the dimensions of this universe - and how would you go about getting there? Note that the Bible does record at least one instance of heaven palpably touching Earth.

Paradise
the part of Hades (Sheol) which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise

the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the heavens, but above and beyond the world

heaven

2) Are you trying to say there were humans (but not "ordinary" humans) outside of planet Earth? (Bear in mind the ANE Hebrews had no idea of a planet anyway.)

Yes, the first having been created of the Earth and then moved to Eden.

3) If Cain were allowed to stay in Eden after mom and pop were given the boot,

It would seem that he commuted, not that he lived there.

what of the notion of original sin? Why the heck am I condemned by the first couple's peccadillo when their brat son got to hang out in paradise for awhile?

Adam's and Eve's sin was their own. Sin isn't heritable. Even that Old Testament concept analogous to original sin (that the sins of the fathers would continue to impact through 7 generations) was denied by God.

To me your attempt is indicative of what happens when one tries to force these stories into a hyperliteral context.

And yet, in the process of checking these matters, I have found that prior records (some dating back millenia) show that others were postulating similar conclusions, Jewish Rabbis, Christian scholars, and even Mahommed. 1500+ years before Darwin, Augustine made 4 attempts at an explanation of the Genesis account of creation and was never satisfied that he had a correct exposition. He argued that the creation was not effected immediate upon speaking - that God had simply created the seed from which creation developed.

Why don't you start a thread on this?

But, anyway... Let's get back to the OP.

K54

So far, it doesn't seem that any anti-evos are excited about joining the discussion.

[shunyadragon]

Why would an "offline" creation of humans result in a physical body that fits in so well with an evolutionary taxonomy?

Intentional deception vs. common ancestry -- which is "worse" for the anti-evolutionist?

Please --- what is the human taxonomy to an anti-evolutionist?

K54

Actually, the fundamentalists I have talked to believe there is a common way of Creation by God for humans and animals. Taxonomy, both human and animal, to them is simply an understanding of how God Creates anatomy.

I am not defending this view, but simply stating how many fundamentalist Creationists consider this issue. There are bigger elephants in the room in our knowledge of Evolution, other then physical taxonomic similarities. The evidence for the whole scope of the history of life, intimate and progressive genetic relationships, the physical fossil evidence of evolution of primates and all of life over millions of years.

[klaus54]

Actually, the fundamentalists I have talked to believe there is a common way of Creation by God for humans and animals. Taxonomy, both human and animal, to them is simply an understanding of how God Creates anatomy.

I am not defending this view, but simply stating how many fundamentalist Creationists consider this issue. There are bigger elephants in the room in our knowledge of Evolution, other then physical taxonomic similarities. The evidence for the whole scope of the history of life, intimate and progressive genetic relationships, the physical fossil evidence of evolution of primates and all of life over millions of years.

One thing I'm trying to tease out from anti-evolutionists is their emotions regarding their classification with other animals.

A few might object to being called "animals",

Many more DO object to being called "primates".

Almost all (of which I'm aware) object to the "ape" moniker - even though we fit into the taxonomy with apes just as we do with primates, mammals, etc.

I realize there are bigger fish to fry for the defenders of science (and the opponents!!), but the external and internal physical characteristics of humans definitely have to fit in with a YEC/anti-evolution/de novo creation ideology somehow.

K54

P.S. Of course the tack most theists take is to append "not only an" before "animal." As a theist, I agree with that.

[shunyadragon]

One thing I'm trying to tease out from anti-evolutionists is their emotions regarding their classification with other animals.

A few might object to being called "animals",

Many more DO object to being called "primates".

Almost all (of which I'm aware) object to the "ape" moniker - even though we fit into the taxonomy with apes just as we do with primates, mammals, etc.

I realize there are bigger fish to fry for the defenders of science (and the opponents!!), but the external and internal physical characteristics of humans definitely have to fit in with a YEC/anti-evolution/de novo creation ideology somehow.

K54

P.S. Of course the tack most theists take is to append "not only an" before "animal." As a theist, I agree with that.

As a theist, I also agree with 'not only an animal.' In the Baha'i writings it is described that humans indeed did change forms through the matrix of evolution from the simplist forms of life to the complexity of humans, the intent was always that humans would evolve to be spiritual humans.

[klaus54]

I'd love to hear Jorge's take on this.

Are you out there, Young Fella?

K54

[klaus54]

Jorge,

Yoo hoo!! Where are you??!!

K54

[phank]

Jorge,

Yoo hoo!! Where are you??!!

K54

He's busy banning everyone who disagrees with him, from threads he started. Which is a time-honored internet creationist tradition. Either ban disagreement, or disallow comments.

[klaus54]

He's busy banning everyone who disagrees with him, from threads he started. Which is a time-honored internet creationist tradition. Either ban disagreement, or disallow comments.

Yep.

And one can always block seeing a particular poster's comments. That's easy. At least then one could get some balance for the lurkers.

K54

[phank]

Yep.

And one can always block seeing a particular poster's comments. That's easy. At least then one could get some balance for the lurkers.

K54

If you were able to block seeing BOTH Jorge's blithering posts, AND anyone else's responses to them, you'd basically block out all but a few posts on the entire natural science forum. And those few would be sufficiently uninteresting that no discussion would be generated anyway.

Jorge is like water - he has no points, everyone gleefully slices him up every which way, and this doesn't alter the water a bit. And without him, the whole forum dries up.

[klaus54]

If you were able to block seeing BOTH Jorge's blithering posts, AND anyone else's responses to them, you'd basically block out all but a few posts on the entire natural science forum. And those few would be sufficiently uninteresting that no discussion would be generated anyway.

Jorge is like water - he has no points, everyone gleefully slices him up every which way, and this doesn't alter the water a bit. And without him, the whole forum dries up.

The water analogy is excellent, as is "nailing Jello to a wall."

But if Jorge and whatever supporters he has here (and I suspect there are many) block out the "evolutionists" then they can go their merry way patting each other on the back -- kinda like a Cornell ID "professionals" meeting. ...or a Creationist Forum.

The point is that Jorge doesn't have to boot us but can simply block us and proceed blithely spewing prose in his chartreuse-sky world.

K54

P.S. I'd REALLY to hear Jorge's or other anti-evolutionists' take on the human taxonomy issue - But especially Jorge's.