adam and eve

Lori_7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amen to that Lori, I will not continue to explain the Adam and Eve theory as I don't believe it would be beneficial, it is a choice of belief.

Take care

Dave
 
Also Dave,

Cain went to Nod right after killing his bother. And it says that he was concerned about being killed, and so God put a mark on him so that no one who found him would kill him. Who would it have been that would have found him in his travels and killed him?

Just something to consider.

Love,

Lori
 
Lori_7 said:
Also Dave,

Cain went to Nod right after killing his bother. And it says that he was concerned about being killed, and so God put a mark on him so that no one who found him would kill him. Who would it have been that would have found him in his travels and killed him?
Click to expand...

Well according to my interpretation it could have been any of his brothers or sisters. here's the scripture that confirms that Adam & Eve continued to have kids after Cain and Abel(and Seth):

Genesis 5:4
4After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

An excellent website I use Lori is this it is a really cool site and answers many questions.

Dave

EDIT: I do not agree with everything that site promotes or says, like all sites I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Many do, and it makes sense in context. Your point about genetic mutation is taken. But christians also believe that it was the fall described in Genesis that originally caused the genetic mutation, amongst other things. When God saw creation and pronounced it 'very good' this did not include autism. So the problem of inbreeding would not have happened with the first humans, as the process of degeneration initiated by the fall would not have had time to run its full course.

I can't comment on your dna article as I haven't read it. Also, I am a linguist rather than a 'hard' scientist. I do like to spot arguments that are not logical.
 
davewhite04 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Given the tone of the rest of my post, I regret having written one part in a seemingly derogatory manner.

davewhite04 said:
Silas said:
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.
Click to expand...


So essentially the universe is in decline, I mean it's not getting any younger is it?
Click to expand...
Well.... in that sense the Universe has been in decline since one second after the Big Bang! You were claiming that with the Universe in decline there wasn't energy to create any more stars, and I was pointing out that not only is that not the case, but that new stars will be born from the debris of our Sun when it has lived out its life. And that the atoms that form your body and my body may, billions of years from now, form part of the body of some future alien.

I'm not a qualified astrophysicist, and I'd hate to think that it would take an astrophysicist to understand the basic facts that the bulk of star-stuff is hydrogen, that there's lots of hydrogen in space, that the Universal force of gravity will inevitably form conglomerations of hydrogen. I only need to stretch an elastic band or a piece of saran-wrap to understand instinctively how moving atoms around creates an increase in temperature, and given enough hydrogen the pressure and temperature at the centre of the conglomeration of hydrogen will suffice to start a nuclear reaction. The continual creation of new stars is inevitable, and I really don't think that is over your head, as you put it. The precise mathematical detail of the quantum physics describing exactly how two hydrogen nucleii fuse to form helium (and larger) atoms undoubtedly is over your head, as it is over my head, too.

davewhite04 said:
I mean if 10 stars die and 2 are born then how come we still have stars if the universe was eternal?
Click to expand...
Before the Big Bang theory, Fred Hoyle theorised that matter was being constantly created (one particle at a time), and that was sufficient to maintain the so-called "Steady State Universe". As I've said some form of matter creation is theorised anyway. There's certainly no reason to suspect (with the Universe in its current state) that the rate of star creation and destruction is that far out of balance in either direction.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it. We didn't "ultimately" come from rocks either.
 
davewhite04 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Check the trapezium section of the sky, its got loads of stars being born
 
People of the infinite universe, all of your possibilities are real and possible

Science and religion guides us away from our primal past
The next level is as enevitable as how us humans came from the womb to the outside world. Death is a birth. :)
 
Hiya Silas,

Given the tone of the rest of my post, I regret having written one part in a seemingly
derogatory manner.
Click to expand...

Hey, you sound like a good guy thanks for being civil.

Well.... in that sense the Universe has been in decline since one second after the Big Bang!
Click to expand...

That’s right! This is all that I was implying.

You were claiming that with the Universe in decline there wasn't energy to create any more stars
Click to expand...

Nope, I never proposed that, apologies if it sounded that way. I can see how you got this though I think, when I said “No stars are created” What I should have said was that no stars have been observed in birth, or something along those lines. Never mentioned the not enough energy part though.

and I was pointing out that not only is that not the case, but that new stars will be born from the debris of our Sun when it has lived out its life.
Click to expand...

This would be an amazing sight indeed.

and I'd hate to think that it would take an astrophysicist to understand the basic facts that the bulk of star-stuff is hydrogen, that there's lots of hydrogen in space,
Click to expand...

Yep, I know this.

The precise mathematical detail of the quantum physics describing exactly how two hydrogen nucleii fuse to form helium (and larger) atoms undoubtedly is over your head, as it is over my head, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is over my head, quantum physics is deep man.

Before the Big Bang theory, Fred Hoyle theorised that matter was being constantly created (one particle at a time), and that was sufficient to maintain the so-called "Steady State Universe". As I've said some form of matter creation is theorised anyway. There's certainly no reason to suspect (with the Universe in its current state) that the rate of star creation and destruction is that far out of balance in either direction.
Click to expand...

Ok, well I can only conclude on what has been observed. I’m not sure if some fancy calculation can conclude much in this area (as in whether or not an equal number of stars will die and be born), I think I’ll ask wor kid the next time I see him.

Thanks Silas

Dave
 
Hello Red Devil,

Red Devil said:
Check the trapezium section of the sky, its got loads of stars being born
Click to expand...

Well my current telescope (Nexstar 80GT) is just about powerful enough (with a decent barlow eyepiece) to reach that far, maybe I'll give it a go on a clear night. What do you reckon? In the meantime have you got a reliable link that has photos showing this?

Dave
 
Really, so how did life come about then?
Click to expand...

This seems sufficient, and to the point:

"In order to explain all life as we see it today, all we need is one single molecule capable of replication and mutation. Once we have that, Evolution will take over."

No, it has nothing to do with rocks.
 
Ok, to thoughs who actually believe in A&E, go back to your tv's and think as little as possable, and by all means dont question anything god will smite you. HaHa, I remember thou's days, superstring theory anyone? And dont tell me that a theory is just that, cause wow prove christ wasnt the anti christ, and I'll give you example after example that he was.
 
SnakeLord said:
This seems sufficient, and to the point:

"In order to explain all life as we see it today, all we need is one single molecule capable of replication and mutation. Once we have that, Evolution will take over."

No, it has nothing to do with rocks.
Click to expand...

Not really sufficient. Where did the molecule capable of replication and mutation come from?

Dave
 
SnakeLord said:
You can supply just about any answer you want to that.. god, the belly of a giant yellow hedgehog or atoms bonding. In either case it doesn't mean we came from rocks, (ultimately or otherwise).

Here's something worth reading: http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/abiogenesis.msnw
Click to expand...

Hello SnakeLord,

So basically you haven't concluded what we came from is what I'm hearing, and that is wise I think. Many people believe that we "ultimately" came from a rock.

It's easy to post a link to abiogenesis, but is abiogenesis actually a recognised scientic theory now? So you have put all your faith in an unproven theory, that's your choice.

Dave
 
So basically you haven't concluded what we came from is what I'm hearing, and that is wise I think.
Click to expand...

Well I wasn't there at the time. Neither were the bible writers for that matter. You say it's wise, but then haven't you already made a conclusion? Didn't god do it?

It's easy to post a link to abiogenesis, but is abiogenesis actually a recognised scientic theory now? So you have put all your faith in an unproven theory, that's your choice.
Click to expand...

Calm down. I didn't put faith in anything, I merely provided a link that I consider worth reading. If I had put all my 'faith' in that, I wouldn't have stated my first sentence.. would I?
 
SnakeLord said:
Well I wasn't there at the time. Neither were the bible writers for that matter. You say it's wise, but then haven't you already made a conclusion? Didn't god do it?
Click to expand...

The Adam and Eve story actually makes sense, not for everyone I know.


Calm down. I didn't put faith in anything, I merely provided a link that I consider worth reading. If I had put all my 'faith' in that, I wouldn't have stated my first sentence.. would I?
Click to expand...

I'm calm :) apologies for misinterpreting what you said.

Dave
 
Lori_7: "It does not state in the Bible that Adam and Eve were the first humans, or the first beings, whatever you may want to call them. Actually it says pretty clearly that they were not."

Battig1370: After Cain killed Abel, he went out of the garden and found a wife in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Also Adam and Eve had a third son call Seth who also found a wife and had sons and daughters.

At the time of Adam and Eve there were many other peoples in the world. Adam and Eve were the first in the garden of Eden, but the deceiver came and said to Eve, "You will not surely die: For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Peace be with you, Paul
 
The Adam and Eve story actually makes sense, not for everyone I know.
Click to expand...

Well, it certainly seems to contain some fundamental flaws, (such as how anyone not knowing god or evil can be expected to make a 'good' decision), but there is no position of which to claim this as the conclusion. Not only would the writer of this little story have been very far removed from that time, but it is most certainly based upon other creation stories, (namely the Enuma Elish - which having been written a good millennia and a half earlier, would be more accurate than the biblical version). We'd also have to take into account the vast array of other creation stories that many would say make sense.

Further to which, something making sense doesn't mean it's real. Huckleberry Finn makes sense, but it isn't a factual story. There's no justification to think that people back then were any less creative than people are now, or any less inclined to exaggerate - and making a conclusion on a very little detailed 3-4 page story is, as you might say, 'unwise'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top