adam and eve

[one_raven]

Let me start by saying that I am not, by any stretch, a Christian, nor do I believe the Adam and Eve story.

That said, I think that not only it is scientifically feesible to have started the human race with two people, but I think it is actually more likely that it DID happen that way in reality rather than seven distinct human being pairs evolving independently around the globe simultaneously to interbreed.

Your question:

Everyones midochondrial dna is supposed to orginate to 7 diffent orgins around the world. Unless there were 7 differnt adam and eves how is this possible.

Your answer:

Also what about genetic mutation.

Human beings evolved and were subject to genetic mutations (i.e. altered DNA). That would easily account for multiple MtDNA strains.
No one knows how much after the historical Adam and Eve that the seven different strains developed.
I'd be willing to be that there were a lot more than seven, but many bloodlines died off over the years.

If adam and eve had children then the entire human race would be dependant on their children having intercourse. Result Genetic mutation. Autism for example. I doubt a generation of autistic children could create great civilizations.

First of all, genetic mutations do not seem to be a direct effect of breeding. Rather, it is the "amplification" of bad genes that cause deformities and other such problems associated with inbreeding. No one knows how "clean" the DNA of the first man and woman were. If they had no defective genes that would cause disease/deformity, the two offspring wouldn't be likely to suffer from these ailments.

The reason that inbreeding isn't good is that it limits your bloodline's adaptability. If there was a single bloodline to start with, then there is no limiting.
Start out with a single MtDNA strain...
Breed, breed, breed...
Kids move away from home...
Many various factors cause mutations in your offspring and make them more adaptable to their respective environments...
Over many generations, seven distinct MtDNA "roots" evolve, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Also, who's to say that the first generations of man were NOT mentally retarded, deformed, diseased? In the first generations of man, how much analytical capacity and foresight was needed to survive? By most scientific accounts, expected lifespan was short and mankind was rife with disease. That certainly jives with genetic disorders.

If those first generations of man interbred, those that bred with others of "poor" genes would die off, and those that bred with others of "good" genes would prosper, eventually causing distinct strains of MtDNA.

This would have taken many many generations.

All in all, I think mankind starting off with two people and having a rocky beginning with an uncertain future, then breeding profusely (quantity over quality) to create MANY offspring over MANY generations is whole hell of a lot more likely than two humans evolving in seven (or more) different parts of the world simultaneously, THEN those fourteen's offspring travelling the world to meet eachother and interbreed (they would have to interbreed or we would have, in effect, the EXACT same scenario as a single Adam and Eve), then their children travelling to interbreed...

No matter how you look at it (unless thousands of people magically sprung-up at the same place and same time and inherently KNEW somehow not to breed with their family members), there was a great deal of inbreeding going on during the dawn of man. There HAD to be.

(edited to fix a typo)

 

[Medicine*Woman]

one_raven: No matter how you look at it (unless thousands of people magically sprung-up at the same place and same time and inherently KNEW somehow not to breed with their family members), there was a great deal of inbreeding going on during the dawn of man. There HAD to be.
*************
M*W: Yes, this is true. Just look at all the inbreeding occurred among the Egyptians. It was customary for them to keep the bloodlines inbred and to have as many wives and concubines as one could handle.

 

[one_raven]

Maybe all that inbreeding is why the cavemen were so dumb!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

one_raven: Maybe all that inbreeding is why the cavemen were so dumb!
*************
M*W: And you know what? Nothing has changed since caveman days.

 

[Lori_7]

Hiya Lori,

Could you please point out the passages in the Bible or whatever that says that someone other than Adam and Eve were the first human beings?

Many Thanks

Dave

Yea, it says in Genesis that their sons went to Nod to find wives. So who was in Nod and who were thier wives if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans? It also says that the earth was dark and without form, but it does not say that it did not exist...so the Bible does not date back to the formation of the earth. It also states that God instructed Adam and Eve to replenish the earth, not to populate it. The definition of replenish is to replace what has been used. Doesn't the Bible also say somewhere that Satan once ruled a kingdom here on earth before His fall? I could be wrong about that but it seems that I've heard that before. After all Dave, it's just common sense. Even if the Bible didn't say the things I've referenced above, it does not ever, anywhere say that Adam and Eve were the first created beings here on earth...people just assume it for some reason. And there is evidence...dated evidence here on earth that can only be explained by the existence of a human race prior to Adam and Eve. Why would we assume otherwise? Why would we assume that the flood was the first time that God almost wiped out the human race? Why would we assume that the Bible would date back to the beginning of mankind? It would be the smart thing to do not to assume anything wouldn't it? Point blank, the Bible never says that Adam and Eve were the first.

Love,

Lori

 

[surenderer]

matter probably always existed,some cosmologists suggest matter and anti matter coliding and creating our visible universe.

Again Im confused....how could matter always exist? Why do you see that as possible but not a Creator always existing?

whats beyond that,who knows?

You see Creationists theories are just that....theories

and who created that entity?

Well who created the matter you spoke of? how could it always exist? where did it come from?

science tells us that matter cannot be destroyed or created only changed so obviously the universe must have always existed in some form or shape.

So could Matter be the evolutionists version of a Creator?

 

[davewhite04]

Hello Lori,

Yea, it says in Genesis that their sons went to Nod to find wives.

No it doesn’t. This is what is says:

Genesis 4
16Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17And 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. 18To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech.

You have assumed that Cain met and married a stranger in the land of Nod, when the scripture only tells us that he went to the land of Nod and had sex with his wife and bore children, maybe he already had his wife before he went to the land of Nod, instead of going there alone. Calvin has completed a nice commentary regarding this area of scripture, if you’re interested it might be worth a look.

So who was in Nod and who were thier wives if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans?

As above.

It also says that the earth was dark and without form, but it does not say that it did not exist...

It does however say this, which you have seemingly forgotten about.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Then immediately afterwards sorted the creation out. There seems to be no room for billions of years to me, but you can believe in whatever makes sense to you.

so the Bible does not date back to the formation of the earth.

The Bible explains everything that happened in the beginning. The only thing that isn’t explained is when the creation of the angels took place.

It also states that God instructed Adam and Eve to replenish the earth, not to populate it.

When the KJV Bible was written the word “replenish” simply meant to “fill up” (between the 13th and 17th century). Now it has a slightly different meaning which seemingly has got people thinking that Lucifer had a kingdom or something on earth before man, it’s amazing what theories can come from people who did not know the context in which the word was used.

The definition of replenish is to replace what has been used. Doesn't the Bible also say somewhere that Satan once ruled a kingdom here on earth before His fall? I could be wrong about that but it seems that I've heard that before.

That is our current day meaning of the word. I know of nowhere in the Bible that teaches that Satan had a kingdom here on earth. This however sounds like a typical Satan lie as after all he wants to be recognised as God, so suggesting he had a kingdom is one step towards that I suppose.

After all Dave, it's just common sense.

Actually it’s not common sense, it requires study.

Even if the Bible didn't say the things I've referenced above, it does not ever, anywhere say that Adam and Eve were the first created beings here on earth...

Have you ever entertained the idea that the story of Adam and Eve is a detailed account of mans creation, in other words a continuation of Genesis 1:26? I mean if this is incorrect then it seems, according to the Bible, God at the beginning made two special people and let the others just get on with it.

people just assume it for some reason.

Because it makes sense to them, just like your theory makes sense to you.

And there is evidence...dated evidence here on earth that can only be explained by the existence of a human race prior to Adam and Eve.

Really, where is the evidence?

Why would we assume otherwise? Why would we assume that the flood was the first time that God almost wiped out the human race?

Because we use the Bible as our guide, or most Christians do. Why do you assume that God would explain how He created the heavens and the earth and then exclude any major event that He caused?

Why would we assume that the Bible would date back to the beginning of mankind?

Why would you assume otherwise?

It would be the smart thing to do not to assume anything wouldn't it? Point blank, the Bible never says that Adam and Eve were the first.

It seems clear to me that the Bible is explaining the history of the universe. Noah was a descendant of Adam and he and his wife and three sons with their wives were the sole survivors of a global flood, according to the Bible. So the people that are alive today are descendants of Noah, not some manlike creature that God made as an earth filler. Jesus referred to the flood, and creation, so who do you believe Lori? Do you think Jesus believed in the Old Testament (or the Jewish) equivalent then?

Dave

 

[davewhite04]

So could Matter be the evolutionists version of a Creator?

Hello Surenderer,

You have asked some good questions. It is worth considering that if matter has always existed i.e. the universe is eternal, then there would be no concept of time, the reubuttal will be that time is just a human idea.

But if the universe has always existed(which not many scientists believe, as far as I know) then how is it still here? I mean stars do blow up(supernova), this is an observable fact, but no stars are created. I did see an article in the New Scientist about a star that was apparently born, but it was a misleading article, the star just lit up and died again shortly afterwards.

The universe seems to be in decline, so this to me is an indication that there must have been a beginning.

Dave

 

[Red Devil]

TheHeretic, you shouldn't interpretent Bible stories literaly, they are writting symbolically. Today's language usage is only aimed at the empiric so people tend to not understand what the Bible's content is all about.

Since becoming a member of this esteemed site, I have noted that the bible has gone from being the "absolute truth" which must be bleieved under all circumstances, to a publication that should be read symbolically!!! I suppose the logical conclusion to draw is that we shall end up believing that it should be read backwards whilst in a vat of asses milk!

People were starting to learn to read, that would have been a problem eh?

 

[Silas]

Hello Surenderer,

You have asked some good questions. It is worth considering that if matter has always existed i.e. the universe is eternal, then there would be no concept of time, the reubuttal will be that time is just a human idea.

But if the universe has always existed(which not many scientists believe, as far as I know) then how is it still here? I mean stars do blow up(supernova), this is an observable fact, but no stars are created. I did see an article in the New Scientist about a star that was apparently born, but it was a misleading article, the star just lit up and died again shortly afterwards.

The universe seems to be in decline, so this to me is an indication that there must have been a beginning.

Dave

It would be astonishing indeed if we had happened to catch the true birth of a star in the few centuries since we realised that stars are not immortal nor infinitely extended to the past. The birth of a star is a very long and extended process, and is not as instantly obvious as a Supernova (none of which has occurred in our part of the Milky Way for precisely 400 years, though they have been seen in other galaxies). Nonetheless, the stars of the Pleiades are considered to be young compared to other stars in our near vicinity or our own Sun (of the order of a few tens of millions of years). Sirius also, if it had formed when the Sun formed, would have blown up by now, since it is so much larger (and uses up its fuel much faster, therefore - paradoxically if you consider it simply as a fuel supply).

No, Dave, the Universe is very far from declining - no matter what theory you subscribe to (of universal evolution), since it is still expanding it is very much still in its relatively early stages. Either the Universe will carry on expanding forever (moving slower and slower but never quite stopping) or it's massive enough to halt its own expansion and then fall back in on itself, to collapse in a Big Crunch. In either case, we are still after 15 billion years on a small fraction of the way through the expected lifetime of the Universe.

Nobody now seriously doubts that the Universe had a beginning. If it did not the echo of the Big Bang would not exist as a background radiation with an ambient temperature of 3 degrees absolute, as detected by Penzias and Wilson in 1965.

Matter and Energy are equivalent. Small amounts of matter can form out of energy, in fact they do so all the time, but most of the time that matter instantly becomes energy again (see my previous post).

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Lori_7: Yea, it says in Genesis that their sons went to Nod to find wives. So who was in Nod and who were thier wives if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans? It also says that the earth was dark and without form, but it does not say that it did not exist...so the Bible does not date back to the formation of the earth. It also states that God instructed Adam and Eve to replenish the earth, not to populate it. The definition of replenish is to replace what has been used. Doesn't the Bible also say somewhere that Satan once ruled a kingdom here on earth before His fall? I could be wrong about that but it seems that I've heard that before. After all Dave, it's just common sense. Even if the Bible didn't say the things I've referenced above, it does not ever, anywhere say that Adam and Eve were the first created beings here on earth...people just assume it for some reason. And there is evidence...dated evidence here on earth that can only be explained by the existence of a human race prior to Adam and Eve. Why would we assume otherwise? Why would we assume that the flood was the first time that God almost wiped out the human race? Why would we assume that the Bible would date back to the beginning of mankind? It would be the smart thing to do not to assume anything wouldn't it? Point blank, the Bible never says that Adam and Eve were the first.
*************
M*W: Some biblical researchers believe that A&E had daughters as well as sons, and it was their sisters whom Cain and Seth married.

Your idea of A&E not being the first humans is an interesting statement to contemplate. If the Big Bang occurred about 65 billion years ago (don't quote me on this figure), it is quite possible that there was an earlier race of being living here before A&E. I've read there was a reptilian race of humanoids that preceded homo sapiens. They were called something like homo reptilius and they were very intelligent beings -- more so than homo sapiens. I don't get into science fiction at all, but I do believe there was life on this Earth before homo sapiens, and it could have been destroyed -- or they all could have left. I don't really know, but it's an interesting thought. I believe the story of Noah's flood preceded the A&E story.

 

[Leo Volont]

do christians accually believe that the entire human race started with these two people?

No. It is clear enough in the Bible that the children of Adam and Eve had no recourse but to 'interact' with the 'natives', so to speak.

You need to understand that much of the Creation Stories are not included in the Bible but were part of an Oral Tradition. For instance, the Story of the Luciferian Rebellion, which everybody KNOWS, is not even a Story from the Bible, but everyone knows the details well enough. It was and still is an Oral Tradition.

But Oral Traditions are meant to be discussed as one gets older. You apparently still only have a child's notion of all these things. I will try to catch you up.

Adam and Eve were not Human. When they Sinned against God, then the Curse of God MADE them Human. Until they sinned against God, they were Spiritual Beings. They had been made in the Image of God. Yet you must agree that God is no Monkey... and neither were Adam and Eve at the time, though that is what their Sin would lead them to.

If all of Humanity had the Spark of Adam and Eve, it would be so much easier. But understanding that the Spiritual Element of Adam and Eve is mixed with the Animal Natures of those with whom Adam and Eve and their Children had to mix, it goes far to explain much of the Evil in the World.... or not so much the 'Evil' as the stupid animal indifference shown by many 'people' -- people who have the moral sensitivity of mere apes, or even just pigs.

No one reads Anne Catherine Emmerich, Catholicism's foremost Seer and Visionary. It is fascinating stuff, but people are too proud to be fascinated anymore. Anyway, she does a very good job of explaing Creation and then folding it into our History of Redemption. She explains that a moment before Adam Sinned, the Angel of the Lord snatched away from him the Spiritual Essence which would have been the Source of All Future Souls. Adam was Spiritually castrated.

But this Spiritual Essence was preserved and was passed down to Melchizzadek who passed it onto Abraham, and so on down through the Patriarchs, until Humanity would become worthy to again rise up to the Spirit.

But it was not happening. The People of the Patriarchs were as evil as ever and did not prove worthy of the Spiritual Essence they carried in the Arc of the Covenant. Finally, The Prophet Elijah, who was not even a Hebrew, intervened with a Program. He institutionalized a Brotherhood who would watch over the Lineage leading up to the Immaculate Conception -- guarding their Purity. It took 7 Generations of Sinless Behavior and then the Spiritual Essense was placed into Mary's Mother Anne and became Mary, who thereby became the Virtual Daughter of Adam before the Sin. Mary was like a Second Eve, only a Pure and Virtuous Eve, this time.

Now, isn't that a better Adam and Eve story then the silly notions you have been carrying around?

 

[Silas]

Your idea of A&E not being the first humans is an interesting statement to contemplate. If the Big Bang occurred about 65 billion years ago (don't quote me on this figure)

It's a little high. Big Bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago; creation of Solar System and Earth 4.55 billion years ago; Cambrian explosion of multicellular ossiferous life, 600 million years ago; breakup of the Continents 100 million years ago; extinction of the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago; earliest hominids, well, 2 million years ago? (Not sure of the latest thinking on that).

it is quite possible that there was an earlier race of being living here before A&E. I've read there was a reptilian race of humanoids that preceded homo sapiens. They were called something like homo reptilius and they were very intelligent beings -- more so than homo sapiens.

You're thinking of Harry Harrison's Eden series, West of Eden, Winter in Eden and Return to Eden. This postulates that the Createous Event never took place and that the Dinosaurs evolved a sapient species who are still around when mankind appears. They're very good books.

I don't get into science fiction at all, but I do believe there was life on this Earth before homo sapiens, and it could have been destroyed -- or they all could have left. I don't really know, but it's an interesting thought. I believe the story of Noah's flood preceded the A&E story.

You're being strangely imprecise in your writing, MW, which is unlike you. When you say "life" you of course mean "intelligent life" or "sapient life". Believe all you want, there is unfortunately not a single tiny scrap of evidence for pre-Human intelligence, and believe me we've looked. It's a great romantic idea, but disappointingly one lacking any proof.

 

[Red Devil]

No. It is clear enough in the Bible that the children of Adam and Eve had no recourse but to 'interact' with the 'natives', so to speak.

What "natives"? The cathloic religion mentions nothing about there being anything else - there was only Adam & Eve.

Adam and Eve were not Human.

Ah aliens. now I can equate to that.

people who have the moral sensitivity of mere apes, or even just pigs.

or non believers?

It is fascinating stuff, but people are too proud to be fascinated anymore.

or "educated".........

 

[SnakeLord]

Are you aware that there isn't any scientific evidence that "proves" we came from a rock?

And nor will there ever be. You don't honestly believe anyone thinks humans came from rocks, do you?

 

[davewhite04]

Hiya Silas,

The birth of a star is a very long and extended process

What do you base this on? It has never been observed.

No, Dave, the Universe is very far from declining - no matter what theory you subscribe to (of universal evolution), since it is still expanding it is very much still in its relatively early stages.

Ok. I mentioned it “seems” to be declining based on what we have observed so far. I mean we have seen stars blow up, but never born, to me this means that light (potential for life) is decreasing thus it seems like it is “burning out”. What is the evidence that suggests otherwise?

Nobody now seriously doubts that the Universe had a beginning.

I thought so, thanks for confirming this.

Matter and Energy are equivalent. Small amounts of matter can form out of energy, in fact they do so all the time, but most of the time that matter instantly becomes energy again (see my previous post).

So what do you conclude from this? By the way, you mentioned “most” of the time, where is the evidence that matter forms from energy and stays matter?

Thanks

Dave

 

[davewhite04]

Hello SnakeLord,

And nor will there ever be. You don't honestly believe anyone thinks humans came from rocks, do you?

I don't think anyone believes that the grand canyon can give birth to a human, if this is what you were implying, as I did put the word "ultimately" in my reply, which you conviently ignored.

Dave

 

[Silas]

Hiya Silas,

The birth of a star is a very long and extended process

What do you base this on? It has never been observed.

Not everything that science has determined to be the best available explanation for a phenomenon either has been or even needs to be directly observed. Nobody has ever directly observed an atom or an electron, but nobody doubts that they exist.

No, Dave, the Universe is very far from declining - no matter what theory you subscribe to (of universal evolution), since it is still expanding it is very much still in its relatively early stages.

Ok. I mentioned it “seems” to be declining based on what we have observed so far. I mean we have seen stars blow up, but never born, to me this means that light (potential for life) is decreasing thus it seems like it is “burning out”. What is the evidence that suggests otherwise?

But you clearly don't have very much scientific knowledge at all - since you were seemingly unaware of the supremacy of the Big Bang theory (which after all is so well known it's actually entered the language). And also, you seem to think that stars are made of light! So you don't appear to be qualified to make any kind of judgement on what is happening in the Universe, based on your rather simplistic notion that "we've seen stars blow up but we've never seen one being born".

When a supernova goes off it will shine as brightly as the entire galaxy that contains it. We can see it happen in distant galaxies - there are so many of these that it's not that uncommon. But we can't see very far within our own galaxy and none has occurred in our portion of the galaxy since 1604. (Amazingly the one before that was only 32 years previously, in 1572. But before that we have to go to Chinese astronomers who observed one in 1078, I think.) They are not common - but they are obvious when they happen. But only the real biggies can be seen - the vast majority of stars die lonely deaths. The theory of star birth predicts that stars are being born all the time, maybe at the rate of one or two a year, but in a galaxy of 100,000,000,000 existing stars it's pretty difficult to spot when it happens.

I don't actually know what your provenance is for saying that we've never seen a star being born. For all either of us know astronomers may have seen a number of different events for which the prevailing theory is that a star has been born. 25 years ago, in Extraterrestrial Civilizations, Isaac Asimov talked about compact opaque gas clouds called Bok globules - at the time, apparently, the theory was that these were proto-stars in the process of contracting before ignition. Whether this theory still holds water, I have no idea. But if it doesn't it'll be because astronomers determined that something about them did not fit the "living" (or Main Sequence) stars that we see.

Since writing the above, I did some googling and came up with substantial scientific research into star formation.
http://dsnra.jpl.nasa.gov/origins/nyt.html
http://dsnra.jpl.nasa.gov/origins/index.html
Of course, the scientists are working from the basis that stars are actually born all the time. The reason is that there would be something very strange and wrong with the laws of physics if they were not being born all the time! Hydrogen gas (and other elements, but they're more important in forming planets) permeates this Universe. Thanks to the force of gravity, if enough of it collects it will form a spherical cloud and will contract and contract, all the time increasing the temperature and pressure on the inside and increasing the surface gravity. At some point the temperature and pressure will be so great that fusion will initiate and begin the great outpouring of energy that characterises what we know as a star. The prevalence of hydrogen in the Universe (it's the simplest stable atom) and the ease with which it consequently enters fusion is a given (such that we've made bombs from it) - the force of gravity, and it's irreversible nature is a given - how on earth would stars not be born all the time?

Nobody now seriously doubts that the Universe had a beginning.

I thought so, thanks for confirming this.

Glad to be of service.

Matter and Energy are equivalent. Small amounts of matter can form out of energy, in fact they do so all the time, but most of the time that matter instantly becomes energy again (see my previous post).

So what do you conclude from this? By the way, you mentioned “most” of the time, where is the evidence that matter forms from energy and stays matter?

I don't really conclude anything, I was trying to give an idea of one possible theory for the creation of the Universe, based on the fact that sometimes Something can indeed come from Nothing. I wasn't stating dogmatically that "this is the way it is" I was simply trying to expand the horizons of thought.

As to your second question, well, I'm sure that some evidence from the CERN and other accelerators has already created matter from energy. What I was talking about was the Virtual Particles which come into being in pairs and then recombine almost immediately - but in the vicinity of a black hole, one of the pair might fall into the black hole (and never be seen again) and the other would carry on into the Universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is immutable - one day all the possible sources of energy will be drained and the Universe will flatten out to a uniform temperature, and will effectively die (unless there's enough gravitational energy to cause the Big Crunch), but the visible Universe would have very different properties if that was even remotely imminent. There is very clearly billions upon billions of years to go. Even our own Sun is not yet half way through its lifespan, and in 7 or 8 billion years it will also expand to a red giant and explode, throwing out all the elements that formed it and the rest of the solar system, to create new stars, new systems ... and maybe new people.

 

[Lori_7]

Dave and others,

First I should explain my perspective a bit. And that comes from knowing God and interacting with Him in my life and concerning all things that have become relevant to it. That is, we should not assume anything...about Him, about His plan or His will, and about the interpretation of His word. But in all things just to allow Him to show us what we need to be shown. I've learned this the hard way, in that every time I've ever tried to assume or estimate or deduct in regards to Him, I've ended up short changing Him and completely wrong. And it's because I'm only human, and He is not. As humans, we just can't hope to see all that He can see and consider. Now, that is not to say that He can not explain things to us, because He most certainly can. It is just to say that if He has not, then let us not assume things that we don't rightly know.

As far as evidence is concerned, Dave, I'm talking about a variety of scientific evidence that suggests a huge gap in the estimated age of mankind, the earth, and the universe according to organized religion vs the scientific community. And it is a wide variety of evidence, ranging from carbon dated fossils, to remnants of atlantis, to pyramid formations on mars. Also, there are only two choices regarding who Cain and Abel's wives were...they were either their sisters, or they were not their sisters. And from a scientific and biological standpoint, what we know about inbreeding, suggest that this would be a very poor way to begin the human race. Not to mention what God Himself has to say about inbreeding later on in this very Book.

Also, given the fact that God has no beginning and no end...is infinite in His existance, and given the fact that our spirits are eternal, it seems ludicrous to me to assume that this one Book encompasses that kind of time period in detail. Actually, it's extremely obvious that it does not go into much detail at all, in the beginning and the ending of the Book...the very beginning, in regards to what happened before adam and eve, and the very ending, in regards to what happens after armeggedon. But by contrast, it goes into depth of detail regarding everything in between. Which suggests the focus of the Book, and it's purpose.

And like I said, it does not say that Cain and Abel married their sisters, and it does not say that Adam and Eve were the first created beings, and it does not say that the earth had not been populated and then destroyed prior to Adam and Eve's creation. So let's not assume things that we don't know. Why would we? Why would you want to assume things? It doesn't make sense to. Why don't we just say, we don't know and leave it to God to show us the truth. I mean, there are some rational deductions that you can make regarding what you know about life and about science and even about God, but besides that, or even given that, I find that to remain humble in respect to your limited understanding and knowledge given your humanity is the best approach. And to understand that God tells us everything we need to know.

Love,

Lori

 

[davewhite04]

Hiya Silas,

Thanks for this useful reply.

Not everything that science has determined to be the best available explanation for a phenomenon either has been or even needs to be directly observed. Nobody has ever directly observed an atom or an electron, but nobody doubts that they exist.

I hear what you are saying, now don't think I'm being argumentative here, as it is not my intention, I just stated what is a fact. We know stars exist, we know they die/burnout we theorise that they are born, which could well be spot on, astrophysics is actually a pretty cool science and accurate. My brother has his masters degree in it, so he is more qualified to talk then me certainly.

But you clearly don't have very much scientific knowledge at all - since you were seemingly unaware of the supremacy of the Big Bang theory (which after all is so well known it's actually entered the language). And also, you seem to think that stars are made of light!

This was the only downside of your post, personal attacks based on I don't know what. I admit I'm not a qualified scientist, but I have a little knowledge that is all. I did not state that stars are made of light, I was trying to explain the need for a stars rays in simple terms. This is a religious forum after all and not science.

So you don't appear to be qualified to make any kind of judgement on what is happening in the Universe, based on your rather simplistic notion that "we've seen stars blow up but we've never seen one being born".

Simplistic but true.

When a supernova goes off it will shine as brightly as the entire galaxy that contains it. We can see it happen in distant galaxies - there are so many of these that it's not that uncommon. But we can't see very far within our own galaxy and none has occurred in our portion of the galaxy since 1604. (Amazingly the one before that was only 32 years previously, in 1572. But before that we have to go to Chinese astronomers who observed one in 1078, I think.) They are not common - but they are obvious when they happen. But only the real biggies can be seen - the vast majority of stars die lonely deaths.

Yes, thanks for the history.

The theory of star birth predicts that stars are being born all the time, maybe at the rate of one or two a year, but in a galaxy of 100,000,000,000 existing stars it's pretty difficult to spot when it happens.

The theory could be pretty much spot on.

I don't actually know what your provenance is for saying that we've never seen a star being born.

I was simply stating a fact that if anything would add more weight to the big bang theory. I mean if 10 stars die and 2 are born then how come we still have stars if the universe was eternal? Obviously you don't believe the universe is eternal so the point is mute.

Since writing the above, I did some googling and came up with substantial scientific research into star formation.
http://dsnra.jpl.nasa.gov/origins/nyt.html
http://dsnra.jpl.nasa.gov/origins/index.html
Of course, the scientists are working from the basis that stars are actually born all the time.

Thanks. Yes the scientists are working from that basis.

The reason is that there would be something very strange and wrong with the laws of physics if they were not being born all the time!

Now I'd have to run this by my brother I think. It's over my head.

Hydrogen gas (and other elements, but they're more important in forming planets) permeates this Universe. Thanks to the force of gravity, if enough of it collects it will form a spherical cloud and will contract and contract, all the time increasing the temperature and pressure on the inside and increasing the surface gravity. At some point the temperature and pressure will be so great that fusion will initiate and begin the great outpouring of energy that characterises what we know as a star. The prevalence of hydrogen in the Universe (it's the simplest stable atom) and the ease with which it consequently enters fusion is a given (such that we've made bombs from it) - the force of gravity, and it's irreversible nature is a given - how on earth would stars not be born all the time?

This all sounds good. Just out of curiosity(you don't have to answer) are you a qualified astrophysicist by any chance?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is immutable - one day all the possible sources of energy will be drained and the Universe will flatten out to a uniform temperature, and will effectively die (unless there's enough gravitational energy to cause the Big Crunch), but the visible Universe would have very different properties if that was even remotely imminent. There is very clearly billions upon billions of years to go. Even our own Sun is not yet half way through its lifespan, and in 7 or 8 billion years it will also expand to a red giant and explode, throwing out all the elements that formed it and the rest of the solar system, to create new stars, new systems ... and maybe new people.

So essentially the universe is in decline, I mean it's not getting any younger is it?

Dave