Category Archives: Common Descent

“If your doctrine of the atonement pivots on a physically inherited quality then the chronological primacy of Adam is absolutely critical. If it depends on a universally shared characteristic then Adam can be seen as an exemplar (in the strict sense) not as everyone’s ultimate ancestor.”

Some limited further reading:

Advertisements

We are not alone in this “debate”

Debate about creation is not unique to our community.  This link leads to a resolution described by an evangelical church who suddenly wrestled with evolutionary creation.  They came up with 10 points on which they agreed.  To quote the article:

“The upshot was the development of a series of ten theses on creation and evolution that we believe (most) evangelicals can (mostly) affirm. We weren’t looking for perfect unanimity. Our ultimate goal was to maintain the “unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) and to prioritize the gospel as of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). It was important for us to arrive at a position on creation and evolution that was in keeping with that faithful Christian saying, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.””

Continue reading

The 3 billion character tweet

[a contribution from a regular follower]

Roboam begat Abia,” says the King James version at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, and in 1 Kings 14:31 we learn that Rehoboam’s mother was Naamah the Ammonitess. This means that we are left with the intriguing possibility that the Lord Jesus was descended from Lot on account of his younger daughter’s misguided attempt to save the world.

If the earthly Jesus of Nazareth were alive today it could be confirmed by a simple test. The truth of it, or otherwise, was written inside almost every cell of his body. Our cells include a large protein molecule full of information – think of it as a three billion character tweet – which tells the story of our ancestors. For Jesus, if the technology had been available, it would have confirmed those “begats” in his genealogy and told him if he had an ancestor among the ancient Ammonites.

Three billion characters makes a big tweet! It’s about the size of three King James Bibles. But that’s how much information is used to set out the biochemical specification of a new human being. By comparing it with “tweets” from other people – and other living things, actually – a remarkably full story can be found out. This is because each person in each generation has one to two hundred non-lethal mutations, allowing the family tree to be inferred. Recently a criminal was tracked down by comparing his genetic information with a public genealogical data base, and finding his relatives. (https://theconversation.com/how-cops-used-a-public-genealog…)

For a relatively small amount of money you can have your own tweet read, if you want. There might be a chance that you too are descended from an Ammonite! A human Ammonite, that is, from the first or second millennium BC. Fossilised Ammonites are a story for another day.

Stonehenge – monument to ancient man

Stonehenge is one of the best known ancient sites in Britain.  The remains of significant construction at what is now the bluestone henge on Salisbury plain date back to around 3,000 BC.  Prior to the existing stones, archaeologists have found evidence of older circular structures as well as the remains of people buried at the site.  Some of the human activity in the site date back as far as 8,000 BC.  Fascinatingly, chemical analysis proves the cremated remains of non-locals were carried in leather bags to the site and interred.  The Stonehenge (past and present) doesn’t reconcile with either a global flood or the literalist creation 6,000 years ago. Continue reading

DNA and Adam

Young man in denial is caught out by paternity test; argues that the scientists are mistaken, that conception was a special act of God, and that physical similarities are merely the result of common design.

Sorry…not very convincing.

Don’t be a fool. Don’t deny the genetic evidence. Face the facts. We were wrong about evolution, we were wrong about Adam. Admit the truth and move on.

humanoids and evolutionary creation

High profile creationists decry evolutionary creationists/theistic evolution using their powers of exposition, logic and rhetoric.  But the same creationists don’t even understand basic words.  How they remain credible is incredible.

Archaeology shows Genesis 1-3 does not mean what you think

Does the claim ‘archaeology prove the bible true’ have merit?  Well yes and no.  Why the equivocation?  Because often those who make the claim ‘archaeology proves the bible true’ fail to distinguish between their understanding of the bible and what the bible says.  They might as well say ‘archaeology proves my understanding is true’.  Archaeology categorically undermines the creationist claims about the bible.  The writers of this blog don’t question the inspiration of the bible.  But we certainly reject the exaltation of one reading of the bible to be as certain as scripture itself. Continue reading