> But I think it is questionable in either sense that Native Americans could be descended from a couple that lived in the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago since they were already living in the New World by then and (presumably) cut off from the Old World population until 500 years ago.

Swamidass's theories are still being evaluated by the academic community, so we'll have to see how they play out. I just view them right now as an intriguing idea that is worth consideration.

> Of course if you aren’t going to take the genealogies in the Bible literally, then you could just say Adam and Eve lived longer than 10,000 years ago.

I take the genealogies as literal but not complete. Ancient genealogical records were different from modern ones. We work hard to discover and list every ancestor and put them all in their proper places with dates. In the ancient world, genealogies were often for royal records or to authenticate priestly lines, so there was no effort to include every generation. Telescoping, and even rearrangement, was common.

In the Bible there is no evidence or notion of rearrangement, but there is definite evidence of telescoping. Multiple generations would be skipped to fit the thesis of the writer.

So while I would say that the genealogies of A&E are historical and literal, they are not complete, due to the practices of the day. In that sense, for instance, Jesus was a son of David even though there were 1000 years between them.

I listened to the Unbelievable? podcast episode with Swamidass and he used the terms genetic and genealogical. His use of genealogical actually corresponds to what you are saying is biological.

I’m well aware that people descended from distant ancestors often don’t share DNA. But I think it is questionable in either sense that Native Americans could be descended from a couple that lived in the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago since they were already living in the New World by then and (presumably) cut off from the Old World population until 500 years ago. Of course if you aren’t going to take the genealogies in the Bible literally, then you could just say Adam and Eve lived longer than 10,000 years ago.

Of course humans were living in North America by 15000 BC (possibly even 20000). That is firmly established. I was hoping that you read what I said: "There is an interesting theory published by Dr. Joshua Swamidass that says that computer models of genetics show that all humans genealogically converge on one couple in about 6000 or 7000 BC. (Meaning through this one couple we are all genealogically related, though not biologically related.)" There is a distinction between being genealogically and biologically related. They are universal genealogical ancestors but not universal biological ancestors. Eventually all homo sapiens will become human because they interbreed with Adam’s descendants. We all have universal genealogical ancestors.

> There is an interesting theory published by Dr. Joshua Swamidass that says that computer models of genetics show that all humans genealogically converge on one couple in about 6000 or 7000 BC.

People were living in North America by 15.000 BCE, so how are they descendants of Adam and Eve.

> So he's guiding the laws of physics consistently?

Hebrews 1.3 says He is continually carrying the universe on, keeping creation in its proper state in its progress towards the end, when He will redeem it from sin. Everything would quickly disintegrate if it is not sustained by Him. The universe holds together by the power of His being.

He is perpetually engaged in the operation of life and the universe. He is the coherent providence in all the forces and laws of nature. The laws of nature are nothing but the outworking of the divine being. Just as we are in the divine image, so also the universe. It is impossible for an artist to create something that doesn’t come from within him; it is impossible for God to create anything that is not a reflection of his being, and so the whole universe, though it is not God, emanates with his nature.

> Does his guidance sometimes change to where if we were to measure it we could see that the laws of physics changed slightly at one point because of some event that occurred (like the sun standing still)?

It must sometimes change. Jesus walked on water and healed the blind.

The sun standing still reference is one of omens, not a miracle.

>> How do you know it's not a 0% chance?
> Because we are here. If it was a 0.0% chance we wouldn't be here.

That's only the case if you deny God, which I assume you do.

But the argument of "because we are here" is not a sound one. You claim that none of these coincidence require explanation: after all, this is the way things are, and science will eventually figure them out (a god-of-the-gaps argument). That's true, but how is it relevant? If we're playing poker and every time I deal I get 4 aces, you get suspicious. But I tell you that my getting these cards every time I deal is no less probable than any other time anyone deals, including myself. I'll guarantee you won't buy that argument, but that's the argument you are making for naturalism. "The odds are close to zero, but that means it's possible!"

Here's a quote from Alvin Plantinga that I think is a good one: "Naturalists don't ordinarily explain just why they think science guarantees or supports naturalism; they merely announce it. They don’t claim that God has been dethroned by quantum mechanics or general relativity or the periodic table of elements, but by Darwin. This is the result of confused logic. It is a confusion between guided and unguided evolution, between sober science and philosophical or theological add-on. But the scientific theory of evolution just as such is entirely compatible with the thought that God has guided and orchestrated the course of evolution, planned and directed it, in such a way as to achieve the ends he intends. Perhaps he causes the right mutations to arise at the right time; perhaps he preserves certain populations from extinction; perhaps he is active in many other ways (such as on the quantum level). On the one hand, therefore, we have the scientific theory, and on the other, there is the claim that the course of evolution is not directed or guided or orchestrated by anyone; it displays no teleology; it is blind and unforeseen; it has no aim or goal in its mind's eye.

"This claim, despite its strident proclamation, is no part of the scientific theory as such; it is instead a metaphysical or theological add-on. On the one hand there is scientific theory; on the other, the metaphysical add-on, according to which the process is unguided. The first part is current science, and deserves the respect properly accorded a pillar of science; but the first is entirely compatible with theism. The second supports naturalism, all right, but is not part of science, and does not deserve the respect properly accorded science. And confusing the scientific theory with the result of annexing that add-on to it, confusing evolution as such with unguided evolution, deserve not respect, but disdain.

"Science fits much better with theism than with naturalism. On balance, theism is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism, a much better home for it. Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called 'the scientific worldview.' "

>> What I've said repeatedly is that it's as if the system was gamed all along to engender and support life.

> but that means nothing. The seeming means nothing.

Not true. Science is all about perceiving patterns and regularity, and when the pattern reveals that the advantageous alleles have more transitional power than the deleterious ones, and that progressive life is more aggressive than reductive life forces, we have to explore why that is. So "the seeming" matters. And if we are true scientists, we have to allow everything to be on the table, not to exclude certain hypotheses or conclusions a priori.

> Where is the math that shows the probability that we were designed and that life is here because of purpose rather than not?

I've written to you about the mathematical probabilities of abiogenesis. In addition, there are three relevant probabilities.

1. The dozens of cosmological constants point to an intelligence behind them. Given theism, such fine-tuning is not at all improbable; given atheism or naturalism, it is. Therefore theism has more probability than atheism.

2. Baye's theorem allows us a mechanism to compare the probability of theism against naturalism as the more likely explanation of the fine-tuning characteristics of the universe. The theorem suggests that with respect to the evidence of fine-tuning, theism is to be preferred to naturalism.

3. If fine-tuning is more to be expected given theism than given atheism, then the existence of fine-tuning confirms theism over atheism.

> Wondering the odds does not give an explanation of anything.

I used "wonder" in a literary sense. Let me try it this way, then: The FACT is that science cannot give a sufficient explanation, whereas theism can.

> It would be lucky if I picked one of the other balls too.

The point of the analogy is that the black ball is the necessary piece to move forward, such as in abiogenesis. It seems you are being deliberately obfuscating.

> but chemistry/laws of physics causes them to line up

You'll need to prove that this is what happened the first time to result in abiogenesis.

>> In all cases it's more logical to reason that an effect came from a first cause outside of nature

> says who?

Logic and reasoning.

> Who says that consciousness can only have arisen from something outside of nature?

Scientists are unable to tell us how consciousness arose. We have to follow logic and evidence, not obfuscating arguments for the sake of argument.

> my response was that we should keep testing, you are saying you already have the answer so that they should stop, right?

That's not what I'm saying. You can read that I clearly said, "I agree on more testing." Science is good, questioning is good, learning is good, and testing is good.

> It wins if you are content with our current state of knowledge. But I'm not; I'd rather not pretend to have all the answers and that the buck stops at "no need to do any further research because the Christian God, Yahweh, is the answer, and if that is true then no need to be a skeptic of anything in the Bible".

Of course I'm not content with our current state of knowledge. I've made that clear. Let's keep doing all the research we can. But at the same time, we're always drawing the best conclusions from the information we have. That's what I'm doing.

The problem is that you have eliminated an important possibility a priori, which is nothing short of bias. It's like thinking with blinders on.

> No, what I'm saying is that God was always involved. It wasn't heading in one direction and He changed it. He guided the process from the Bang, and is still involved.

So he's guiding the laws of physics consistently? Does his guidance sometimes change to where if we were to measure it we could see that the laws of physics changed slightly at one point because of some event that occurred (like the sun standing still)? If he guides all the laws of physics this means that he guides every single human interaction and guided the holocaust.

> How do you know it's not a 0% chance?

Because we are here. If it was a 0.0% chance we wouldn't be here.

> What I said was the odds were so minuscule that it can be considered to be impossible, which is true.

No, that is not true. Minuscule odds means greater than 0. The odds you are referring to are used by creationists constantly and it is always greater than 0. Impossible means 0, not greater than.

> What I've said repeatedly is that it's as if the system was gamed all along to engender and support life.

but that means nothing. The seeming means nothing.

> But the evidence points in His direction if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion. We are dealing in probabilities, not certainties. We are reasoning abductively.

Where is the math that shows the probability that we were designed and that life is here because of purpose rather than not?

> We do have to wonder because science has an insufficient explanation. It's still on the list of "things science can't adequately explain."

Wondering the odds does not give an explanation of anything. Knowing the odds does not give an answer; what are the odds of a universe in which Yahweh is the creator?

> It matters because it points to the probability of an intelligent source.

you've only given the probability of this specific type of universe coming into being. If the chance is 1^trilionth degree, that doesn't mean if it were any other type of universe THEN it would prove there isn't a God.

> Wow, lucky, but you got it. Then I tossed it back in and said, "Do it again." The universe has done this a million times over to arrive at where we are, and yet you seem to think this could easily be expected.

It would be lucky if I picked one of the other balls too. The chances of me picking any of the other balls would be just as lucky. A better scenario would be if each ball was a different color, because all of the other scenarios are not all exactly the same; each ball is separate. That isn't luck, that just is.

> If 20 amino acids have to line up in the right order to create a protein, then probability matters.

but chemistry/laws of physics causes them to line up; they don't randomly line up in order.

> In all cases it's more logical to reason that an effect came from a first cause outside of nature

says who? Who says that consciousness can only have arisen from something outside of nature? Does this mean that scientist should STOP trying to find out what gives rise to consciousness, because the answer is supernatural?

> but YHWH is clearly the more reasonable conclusion over naturalism.

my response was that we should keep testing, you are saying you already have the answer so that they should stop, right?

> No I'm not. Don't try to blow off what I'm saying by making deprecatory assumptions. That's a straw man fallacy

that's interesting considered that's what you just did in your response by not quoting what I wrote and asked right before that which led to that statement. You didn't address the preceding paragraph which would have made that statement make more sense and not a strawman. You blew off what I wrote.

> Which is what I'm saying. Science has an insufficient explanation, whereas theism has sufficient. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism wins the hand.

It wins if you are content with our current state of knowledge. But I'm not; I'd rather not pretend to have all the answers and that the buck stops at "no need to do any further research because the Christian God, Yahweh, is the answer, and if that is true then no need to be a skeptic of anything in the Bible".

> The way you phrase it, it seems that you think that god was a passive observer like a scientist and that the evolution of humans was just an accident? Did god not actively create humans by using evolution?

God was not a passive observer, nor was the evolution of humans an accident. God had a purpose and a plan, and He navigated evolution through the intended course: a wonderful universe, life on Earth, and humanity.

> If god used evolution to create humans, did he not decide what the features/characteristics of humanity would be before he created humans?

Yes

> How is god observing and god deciding any different?

God made cause-and-effect part of the way science and the universe would work. Therefore, for cause-end-effect to be meaningful, He has to let many things take their course. If He continually or regularly interferes with the cause-and-effect sequence, then knowledge becomes mostly meaningless and science is impossible. So there is a vast difference between God observing and God deciding. Suppose I were guiding a ball down a hill. I only need to nudge it on occasion to correct its course to where I intend it to go. It does many things just because of gravity, friction, and even the obstacles it hits, and that's generally fine with me. But on occasion I need to touch it left or right, speed it up or slow it down to reach its intended end.

> hen god's dividing line between humans and animals is completely arbitrary.

Why is it arbitrary? It's possible God knew exactly what He was looking for and knew exactly when He saw it. By contrast, our taxonomic categories, though quite useful, can be occasionally too nebulous and squirrelly to do what we need them to do. Sometimes we arbitrarily categorize a specie in one list rather than in another on the weight of preponderant characteristics, and that's OK. Similarly, it's difficult to for our scientists to draw a line when the changes are so subtle and over such a long period of time. As I mentioned, it's somewhat similar to "It's like asking who was the first individual to speak modern English. There is no line of demarcation; instead, it's a gradient."

> Do you believe that ... god used evolution to give us our general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits i.e. he gave us our human nature

Yes

> Do you believe that this nature is such that it is impossible for us to avoid sinning?

Yes.

> that we deserve to be punished for sin?

Yes, because even though it is impossible for us to avoid sinning, it is also part of the system that there is a solution and a cure for sin. The best way for me to say it is this: We deserve to be punished for sin, but we will only actually be punished for sin if we willfully refuse to take advantage of the cure to be freed from it.

In reality, sin was inevitable for us, but we will only be punished because of our own rebellion in refusing the way of escape. So we are culpable.

Let's make a very real analogy. Millions of people around the world are contracting the Corona virus, through no decision or action of their own. Do they deserve to die? No. But let's say we understand that social contact is how it spreads. If someone ignores the call to isolate themselves, now they DO have something to do with getting it and spreading it. And let's go further: suppose a cure drug (like chloroquine) becomes available and people refuse to take it. Now this is a different situation. Yeah, maybe you didn't deserve to GET it, but yes, you didn't avail yourself of the cure, so you're on your own, y'know?

That's the situation with God. We're not divine, so sin was in the cards. But a cure was offered from the very beginning. If you don't avail yourself of the cure, don't blame God, and you deserve the effects of your own decisions.

> Not necessarily deciding, but observing, just as any scientists would. It's a pretty tricky matter to be able to claim, "Now this one is human, whereas the previous one wasn't."

The way you phrase it, it seems that you think that god was a passive observer like a scientist and that the evolution of humans was just an accident? Did god not actively create humans by using evolution?

> Scientists have made those demarkations (hence the moniker homo sapiens), but they are fine lines of gradation rather than distinct categories.

If god used evolution to create humans, did he not decide what the features/characteristics of humanity would be before he created humans? How is god observing and god deciding any different?

My point is that if god created us using evolution, then god's dividing line between humans and animals is completely arbitrary. This is because there were creatures in the distant past that looked and behaved like humans, some of which god considered 'animal' and others which god considered human. These humans and 'animals' were the same species so they interbred with one-another. Do you agree with me up to this point?

Also do you believe that:

1. god used evolution to give us our general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits i.e. he gave us our human nature
2. this nature is such that it is impossible for us to avoid sinning?
3. that we deserve to be punished for sin?

> Suppose there is a mother named Alice

Yes, Alice is partially at fault, but the analogy is misguided and inadequate because God didn't introduce A&E to Satan. God didn't bring the serpent into their orbit. God was not complicit in the event, as Alice was.

> It's more like he put the glass on the highest shelf and told them it was dangerous to climb the shelves, it would only be to their harm if they broke the glass, and they'd be better to leave it alone, but they climbed anyway. Remember, the serpent didn't break the glass, the people did.

I thought humanity was the glass in your analogy. It was perfect but could be broken by an exogenous force. You said we were “vulnerable”, which means “susceptible to attack or harm.” I figured you were implying there was some external evil force, like Satan or something.

> So if you bought a new set of china and your teenager dropped a whole stack and broke them, you would blame the manufacturer and demand a refund? Remind me not to let you into my store—you'll blame me for breakage that's your fault!

That’s not equivalent to what I said. A better analogy:

Suppose there is a mother named Alice who starts dating a guy named Bob, who she knows has gotten into trouble for selling drugs to teenagers and is a guy who is constantly trying to lead others astray. She tells her kids to never accept drugs from anyone, but she also introduces Bob to them and the kids take drugs from Bob and become addicted. Does Alice have any responsibility for introducing her children to a drug dealer or is it all the kids’ fault?