Could all humans begin from just two people?

I dont remember which abstract I was reading but there is a genetic disconnect, it proved the link of all humans being dna related is severed.

 

Please go into more detail. What fundamental principles am I missing here?

 

False. They are related to people observing the universe - here on Earth and throughout, as picking and choosing what to look at is obviously nonsensical.

That field of endeavor involves many Christians and is well documented, ensuring that all get to look.

If you don't like what is seen, you can't blame that on a conspiracy against you religion.

 

You know it would really help if you quoted the people you are responding to so we have an idea of what you are talking about.

 

In nature, a population of 2 of some species goes extinct. Period.

Science observes that for humans the minimal requirement for species survival numbers in the thousands.

A foundation of all biology is evolution - the method by which our Earth became populated by living organisms - not first life. That would be abiogensis. Scientists are making progress on abiogenesis, but there isn't a single theory for which there is soid evidence.

The creation of our solar system came about as have other solar systems in the universe that we observe in the creation stages - as a condensation of free hydrogen and the mass emitted by other stars going nova.

 

I posted that to a specific post by a specific individual as can be seen above.

 

Let me stop you at people living for 800 years.

The direct doubt concerning biology is only one of the issues here. It would also mean that humans were flooding out of Eden. And then what happened? Did God search out all those living outside Eden and severely damage them in punishment for Adam's sin? Why did all these people who left Eden want to kill Cain? How come Genesis relates essentially zero of this? Is it of no interest that Adam and Eve had huge progeney while they were "perfect"? Did they only start having kids after they were damned? Is our very existence dependent on Adam and Eve being damned? (You seem to deny this one, as you claim perfect children from perfect Adam and Eve.)

Look, I don't see any reason for struggling with this. Genesis is about more important topics than childbirth pain, or survival of 2 humans, etc.

I don't believe Christianity lives or dies by whether Genesis is literal. In fact I think there is more richness in Genesis if the early parts as seen as allegories meant to impart spiratual truth, not science truth.

We may find life on other planets. That wouldn't kill Christianity either, would it?

 

Not all Christians believe in the young earth, but the old earth belief came from unbelievers.
http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/old_earth-young_man.htm

 

Genesis is God's word and has scientific information in it. https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/genesis-history/

 

What am I supposed to take away from that cite??

Science is based on observation of our universe. That doesn't mean attacking religion.

Those of all religious beliefs from the world over take part in that.

When it comes to the basics involving the age of the universe, the age of Earth, evolution, relativity theory, etc., there isn't any disagreement that comes even CLOSE to the magnitude of those Christians who think Earth is young and refuse to observe how our universe works.

 

This is what I am talking about. This follows a post of yours that responds to me. So is this a follow up post to me, or are you responding to someone else?

 

Evolution is impossible because everything would have to come together all at once.

 

Why? This is a claim of the Bible. I am not claiming that it is, or is not for that matter, accurate. I am only pointing out that if that factor is indeed accurate, then it renders the quite possible.

Maybe, maybe not. How big was Eden? How long of child making went on before the Fall? These would be prime factors

Wouldn't have necessarily have to have. For that matter, given that children and their actions are rarely referenced, the children could have eaten of the fruit as well, with the incident only a few years in (remember that Adam and Eve would have been created as sexually mature adults). Or it could have been initially referenced with men deciding to edit out the passages. Certainally men editing scripture for their own ends is a common accusation.

Ask Cain. He was the one with the fear.

I never claimed they had huge numbers of off spring prior to the Fall. Only that they had to have had some, because God added pain to childbirth. He didn't say that you will now give birth to children and it will be painful.

A good question indeed. However, my point is looking at the logistics of the possibility of two people populating the earth given the conditions listed in the Bible. Since the Bible did not mention the lifespan, and the adding of pain, but didn't mention the gaps of time between events, not any requirements for childbirth, what I proposed is a logical conclusion, although not necessarily the only one. The only real assumption I made is the one of perfect genetics in the initial pair, but I don't feel that is an unwarranted assumption.

I agree. Nothing in the Bible precludes God creating life on other planets.

 

That is based upon current lifespans and the fact that our genetic code now has errors within it that causes birth defects, especially when inbreeding occurs. Again, I am making the conclusion based upon the biblical conditions given, not claiming that they are what actually happened, which in either case are a guess.

I have no problems with God having created the universe via evolution and the other scientifically guessed means that we currently assume are the universal mechanics, today. I am a proponent of creation through evolution (to use the term incorrectly to encompass all for simplicity's sake)

I am just pointing out that given the conditions listed in the Bible, a large enough population could have been achieved before enough genetic damage occurred (via radiation and other damage sources), to make inbreeding problematic. I do not claim that we could do it again, save maybe if our genetic knowledge and skill grew enough that we could make a pair of humans that had no flaws (in the health sense, and with no claims to any cosmetic "superiority"), and would live multiple centuries.

 

My apologies on this. I have discovered what is happening. You have been responding to people I have on ignore. On my laptop, I have an indication that I can view the content, but such is not showing on my phone. So it's looked as if you were responding to someone without quoting, when viewed from my phone.

 

Your proof and or evidence that Genesis is God's word is what exactly?

 

Could all humans begin from just two people?

No. Evolution isn't so selective that only two humans would result from the process.

 

Cool. I've never put anyone on ignore, reported their content, etc.

 

Sorry this is so long, but it may help with where I'm coming from:

My problem is that there is NO possibility of meaningful discussion of ANY topic (not just religion) when the rules are that supernatural interention must be accepted whenever it supports one's personal view - not just personal religious view, but ALL view as there is no way to draw a line. (I'm not referring to beliefs that a caring god helped you out, I'm talking about how the universe works in general.)

In my world, there is a universe that has a set of physics that is constant across time and space. Humans may observe that univerese and figure out how it works. Obviously, humans haven't learned everything there is to know about how this universe works, but we have come a long way and we have some solid ideas about where we are weak - the important part being that it is at least theoretically possible to figure out answers to questions using the tools we have developed. And, humans have come a LONG way.

That is a VERY different world from the world where miraculous interventions must be accepted over and above all eveidence that we see through observation.

We see that happening today. Our nation is having a seriously tough time of accepting the idea that those who have spent their LIVES studying specific aspects of this universe could possibly have something to offer.

I'm not referring to the issue of there being factors that rightfully lead to suboptimal policy decisions - like the fact that we have a limited budget, that we have a large and varied population, etc. I'm pointing to cases where what humans have learned through decades of serious study is purposefully eleiminated without ANY cause, basically on the premise that what humans have learned about how this universe works is irrelevant and in many cases is to be derided without cause or argument.

I'm fine with religion, though I'm atheist. Everyone needs philosophy. I see Matthew 25 verses from about verse 30 on as hugely instructive and far stronger than the golden rule. Religion includes philosophy that our society needs and is not getting from other sources.

But, some forms of Genesis interpretation do lead directly to serious problems we face today. Religion can (and in some cases certainly does) form a foundation for disregarding ALL knowledge gained by mankind on how this universe works. In too many cases it teaches that how this universe works can't be known and what is found must therefore be considered somewhhere between irrelevant and wrong. That claims of knowledge are empty self pride.

I'm not interested in opposing any religion, but I have to oppose that disregard for what we have learned, as it is a monsterous mistake and is damaging America today. It doesn't just lead to bad policy. It removes a foundation for any discussion when gathering information becomes irrelevant.

For those reasons, I see Genesis as a seriously important topic today.

 

This has been one of the arguments made by people through the ages and clung to by those who are young Earth creationists.

But, what is actually seen is that even the complex structures of various life forms have a long history of development through increasing complexity guided by competitive advantage.

 

You don't need an instruction manual on how to breath. Anyway, the point is to learn while experiencing existence, and to learn from mistakes.

The Bible says that God values a repentant or reformed sinner more than one who has never sinned. Consider some examples: Adulterous David who arranged for the battle casualty of the woman's husband (an army general) who was away when David impregnated her. Drunken Noah. Cowardly Jacob and his thieving wife who hid the loot from her father, insisting on sitting on it with the excuse of menstruating.

Germs are a human concern, not a problem in God's scheme. An absentee Sheppard doesn't need to demonstrate anything to the herd that has been given a planetary garden to occupy. If some get sick and die, well either they're an unfinished product that needs to be recycled (reincarnated) or their seasoned soul is quality harvest contributing to the growth of God. Rev 14:14-20 and blood came out of the winepress.

 

There is one author who suggests that Gen chapter 1 is a phony substitute for an original that has not been found. Some evidence: In Gen 2:5, "...there was not a man to till the ground" but in Gen 1 man has already been created.

Bingo. The documentary hypothesis. In Gen 1 the Elohist is doing most of the talking. In Gen 2 it's the Jhwhist. Various other priestly characters put their two cents worth in here and there, including more than one Deuteronomist, and finally the Redactor did a number of rearrangements, mostly in later parts of the Bible.

Regarding the vegetative sequence in Gen 2, it's obvious that matters involving prephysical archetypes are being described.

 

Niagara Falls is seven miles from where it originated from glacial meltwater about 12,000 years ago. Scientists can see what the erosion rate is for the effect of backward travel of the falls, and they can adjust for accelerated erosion that would have occurred with max flow at the end of the ice age. The scenario does not support a young earth timeline.

 

The Bible itself contradicts the idea that Adam and Eve were the only people on earth.

when Kane kills Abel he begs God not to banish him because he fears the people of the outside world killing him. If Cain Abel and their brother Seth were the only children of Adam and Eve then there would only be five people on Earth if Adam and Eve were the only people created.

 

Erosion also supports a young earth. There are dinosaur paintings in caves too.
Quoted from creation.com. https://creation.com/continental-erosion