SCT-ROYAL-L Archives

Archiver > SCT-ROYAL > 2001-02 > 0983303631


From: AmyAnn <>
Subject: Re: Adam & Eve
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:53:51 -0500
References: <jUsT.aNoTheR.mEsSaGe.iD.98323796917848@webmail.webserver1010.com>
In-Reply-To: <000501c0a080$b2d2ee80$a2404a0c@i8x7c6>


I really can resist a response to this "topic". The statement below does
leave one concerned for our educational system and the very future of the
world.

>"If you really *must* know why evolution is a fact and not a theory,
>e-mail me."

I don't even know of too many scientist (even evolutionary, atheists and I
have had discussions with a few) who would adhere to that statement and it
does bring into question the research capabilities of the author of such
statement, be it science or genealogy. Evolution is theory and a
constantly changing theory at that - even to those who adhere to it. The
DNA research to one "mother of all living" is science (and the conclusions
of said research is interesting), the above statement is nonsense (and non
science as well).

While I have no problem with the Biblical genealogies, who claims to be
descended from Jesus Christ? I don't think you will find that from any who
believe the Bible - and if you don't believe the Bible, then why would you
be concerned with Jesus Christ... And who ever is trying to link that to
the Holy Grail search, needs to go back and correct some of their research
habits as well as the ill educated "evolution is fact" concept. (And this
is a fascinating topic to those who research the history of
Scotland.) These types of "researchers" have no place in genealogy
research - their research methods are flawed to the point of making their
research irrelevant.

Now about genealogy and this topic. Adam and Eve's descendents are
somewhat laid out for us in the Biblical text. No one can disprove that
the account is accurate, as accurate as any other historical document which
documents a family in such a manner. This does leave major gaps in
genealogy of the human family and was not intended to help our genealogy
research to prove descent from Eve (or Noah's wife for that fact).

I am afraid that many of the "Royal" genealogies may indeed attempt to
trace their ancestry back to Biblical times. In the case of many it would
be "fill ins" of the post Christian era - before that they wouldn't have
cared in the slightest as most were pagans (so much would have be made up
to fit their new found religion).

I guess this makes some feel important, however genealogies were not kept
which can be cited to document this sort of thing. Besides it would seem
to me irrelevant since all men would be from the same descent and therefore
the "importance" of such information again becomes irrelevant in any scheme
of things. If the Biblical account is accurate, then all men share the
same genetic pool (guess what - science shows the same conclusion).

I do agree with the one who said that they didn't care is one believed they
descend from primates or the primordial slime. I too do not care, if one
chooses to believe such, that is their business and their problem. As it
has been presented here (in true attack fashion), we can know that logic,
nor science, nor religion will make one who believes such to change their
belief. They will have to see the problem in their thinking and look for
another solution since their solution doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

However there is much out there which brings genealogy research to the
point of myth and legend - and this is a valid topic for a list such as
this one, or so I would think. I am afraid that the LDS church is at the
root of some of the problem with their reasons for their research and the
fact that they have accepted much with is speculation and they publish it
as "fact" - sort of like saying "evolution is fact" - just bad
research! Though we all own them a debt of gratitude for the information
they have collected and have made available to all.

Isn't there some line which you can research without attempting to "prove"
Adam and Eve for your pedigree charts? Good grief even if you add a royal
line it make a pedigree much to long to bother printing. I do hope we all
can agree that we do this as a hobby and because we enjoy it. Not because
of a "need" to prove who we are - this will not tell you who you are. When
you take any of these lines back often you will run into the - "descended
from gods" which show up in may lines, including Ireland, Norway, Egypt
etc. This is myth. Though even myths such as these may have a base in a
human of the name, which time turned into a god.

Face it much of what we call genealogy is in fact speculation on our
part. As far as I am aware there has been no genetic testing to prove any
of these lines and that indeed is the only documentation which would be
beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example the question I ask about Cecile
Dunbar... I received cited "documentation" backing two opposed views on the
subject. Can we prove who was the wife or parent of an individual that far
back? Of course not. What we do is take historical record, trying to cite
records which are as contemporary to the people themselves as possible and
we accept what those records as fairly close to fact. (The same as we
would accept what the Bible has to say as fact, if we just view it as a
historical document - setting aside religious views.) We have no other way
of knowing. There is only so far which we can go back and have valid
records and generally this falls short of the Biblical era or if they date
back that far, few connect from contemporary records - revisionist history
need not apply for consideration to a serious researcher.


AmyAnn




This thread: