First Humans Adam And Eve?

[Sethbag]

You're still being coy, Paul. You keep telling us how you know, but you won't tell us what you know. Let's hear it. Let's have some dates, some places, some methods, please. I'd particularly like to know how the Aborigines got to Australia, when they got there, and through which of Noah's sons or daughters they descend. You ought to know, because God's telling you stuff, and he was there, right?

I'd also like to know a bit more specifically about Adam and Eve. You keep challenging me to come up with an exact date for when Adam and Eve lived. Well hell, I don't know, but you should, because God's telling you, and he was actually there, right? So, can you ask God to be a little more specific? Would you please ask God what explains the apparent necessity for Adam and Eve to be a lot older than the ~6,000 years we are lead to by adding up the stated ages of Adam and his sons through the geneologies listed in the Old Testament?

Are you afraid of actually telling us anything interesting because once you do, you'll be making scientifically verifiable (or scientifically disprovable) statements and you don't wish your precious insider information from God to be challenged in this way? Or is it more a pearls/swine kind of thing?

[Paul Ray]

Paul Ray, I don't think you know enough yet of how science really works, and what it can do and what it cannot.

I do believe I understand the scientific method pretty well, but I don't know about what you are thinking.

How well do you think I know how science works, and what it can do and what it cannot?

As you learn of how dating of geologic, chemical and radioactive things are done, much becomes clear. It is not an assumption, but is truly reliable, verifiable information (for the most part).

I think it is clear that we don't know everything about how to know when things actually happened.

For instance, carbon dating involves dating carbon as if dating carbon will determine how old something is. I think carbon dating only dates the carbon in a thing, not necessarily when something was made with that carbon in it.

How would we know if that carbon wasn't older than some other carbon that was around at the very same time?

On the other hand, science does have its axiomatic principles, such as "There is never the last word, only the latest." Over the years, I have migrated from a Cleon Skousen creationist view, to a naturalistic evolutionary view. But since I am not only informed by science, but also my faith, I leave room for Gods involvement throughout. Just don't expect me to look to religion to explain how it was all done.

I don't. I think it would be nice if you accept what God says, though.

Religion, itself, should be directed by God, not just toward God.

The 'why' it was all done is quite enough for me. Reading Darwin's The Origin of the Species was an almost religious experience for me. What a great man.

At the same time, I know that I am a child of God, and am also a child of Adam. For me, all truth HAS to fit together, or it isn't truth. The more I learn of the earth, the more I find truth. It makes me adjust certain assumptions I once made. That's OK with me. It was hard, at first, I must say. Interestingly enough, its not hard at all for me to keep close to the church. I am grateful.

It sounds, to me, as if you are on the right path.

[Paul Ray]

You're still being coy, Paul. You keep telling us how you know, but you won't tell us what you know. Let's hear it. Let's have some dates, some places, some methods, please. I'd particularly like to know how the Aborigines got to Australia, when they got there, and through which of Noah's sons or daughters they descend. You ought to know, because God's telling you stuff, and he was there, right?

I'd also like to know a bit more specifically about Adam and Eve. You keep challenging me to come up with an exact date for when Adam and Eve lived. Well hell, I don't know, but you should, because God's telling you, and he was actually there, right? So, can you ask God to be a little more specific? Would you please ask God what explains the apparent necessity for Adam and Eve to be a lot older than the ~6,000 years we are lead to by adding up the stated ages of Adam and his sons through the geneologies listed in the Old Testament?

Are you afraid of actually telling us anything interesting because once you do, you'll be making scientifically verifiable (or scientifically disprovable) statements and you don't wish your precious insider information from God to be challenged in this way? Or is it more a pearls/swine kind of thing?

Okay, I'll stop being "coy", for a moment.

My goal is to direct myself and all other people toward God, not be their personal Mediator.

We already have Someone doing that job, and I think He is doing a GREAT job!

Why don't you just go to God and ask God to help you know what you do not know now?

...

Now, where were we?

"coy" mode: on

[Sethbag]

Ok, so you're not going to tell us anything interesting. How you know isn't particularly interesting to me, actually, because there have been zillions of people who claimed to have a direct line to God, and you don't stand out in any way at all as any different, or any more likely to actually be correct, than any of them.

Quite literally nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along.

[Paul Ray]

Ok, so you're not going to tell us anything interesting. How you know isn't particularly interesting to me, actually, because there have been zillions of people who claimed to have a direct line to God, and you don't stand out in any way at all as any different, or any more likely to actually be correct, than any of them.

Quite literally nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along.

Heh, exactly.

Why would what other people say interest you?

What would be so interesting about what other people say God says or doesn't say?

People do give conflicting testimonies, so why would you listen to what other people may tell you?

... but would it interest you if God spoke to you, personally?

... would you find anything interesting about that experience, if you knew it was God?

... why not try to experience that experience and reserve your final decisions until then?

[thesometimesaint]

Paul Ray:

Radioactive Carbon(Carbon 14) is a naturally occurring form of Carbon. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. Carbon is taken up by all living organisms. By measuring to amounts of C-14 and knowing the amount of Carbon we can calculate the age at which that organism died.

[Paul Ray]

Paul Ray:

Radioactive Carbon(Carbon 14) is a naturally occurring form of Carbon. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. Carbon is taken up by all living organisms. By measuring to amounts of C-14 and knowing the amount of Carbon we can calculate the age at which that organism died.

Prove any one of those statements and I will be satisfied.

How do you know C-14 is naturally occurring?

How do you know the half-life of C-14 is 5730 years?

How do you know carbon is taken up by all living organisms?

How do you know that by measuring amounts of C-14 and knowing the amount of Carbon we can calculate the age at which that organism died?

Sounds like a bunch of assumptions, to me.

[cjcampbell]

I think it is silly to argue that there are some humans that are not descended from a common ancestor of 60,000 years ago when National Geographic's Family of Man project has shown that in fact that is the case. The assertion that Australian Aborigines pre-date Adam is just that: an unproven assertion that falls flat on the basis of DNA evidence.

One might also argue that there are many kinds of descendants. Language, as we know it, did not exist more than 60,000 years ago. Where did the Aborigines learn the concept of language?

The Bible has all kinds of gaps in its genealogies and histories that could cover tens of thousands of years. You get these genealogies of how so-and-so was descended from so-and-so.

[The Dude]

How do you know carbon is taken up by all living organisms?

You cannot be serious.

[katherine the great]

Paul--I really think you need to go back to school.

I think it is silly to argue that there are some humans that are not descended from a common ancestor of 60,000 years ago when National Geographic's Family of Man project has shown that in fact that is the case.

Adam didn't live 60,000 years ago.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.radiocarbon.org/Info/

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/C...arbondating.htm

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele006.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-141.htm

http://www.c14dating.com/

[cjcampbell]

Paul--I really think you need to go back to school.

Adam didn't live 60,000 years ago.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

[buraianto]

For instance, carbon dating involves dating carbon as if dating carbon will determine how old something is. I think carbon dating only dates the carbon in a thing, not necessarily when something was made with that carbon in it.

How would we know if that carbon wasn't older than some other carbon that was around at the very same time?

I don't. I think it would be nice if you accept what God says, though.

I don't think you understand radio carbon dating. Radio carbon dating is not dating how old the carbon is.

In radio carbon dating one takes the ratio of C-14 atoms to C-12 atoms currently in a specimen and compares it to the ratio of the isotopes expected in the organism. At death the interchange of carbon atoms within the organism stops. The expected ratio of isotopes at death is based on the determined or expected ratio of carbon isotopes in the environment at the time. One then compares the current ratio of isotopes to the expected starting ratio, and can determine an age based on the known rate of decay of C-14 into N-14. The date is thus not the age of the carbon, but a calculation based on the different ratios of isotopes.

Thanks to ice core samples and tree rings the ratio in the environment is fairly well known for some time in the past, though it's not perfect. There have been instances where some organism remains were tested and it was later found that the carbon isotope ratio in their local environments (and thus their bodies) were not typical of the general world environment.

The ratios of isotopes of other elements are also used to do radiometric dating of things farther back in time than carbon, and where there is overlap between two methods they can calibrate against each other.

Edit: C-14 decays into N-14. Not C-12. Sorry.

[katherine the great]

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Well, Adam was a farmer.

[John Williams]

I don't think you understand radio carbon dating. Radio carbon dating is not dating how old the carbon is.

I respectfully submit that none of this matters to some people. If it squares with their interpretation of the scriptures, it's true; if not, it's assumptions and speculation.

[Ron Beron]

Prove any one of those statements and I will be satisfied.

How do you know C-14 is naturally occurring?

How do you know the half-life of C-14 is 5730 years?

How do you know carbon is taken up by all living organisms?

How do you know that by measuring amounts of C-14 and knowing the amount of Carbon we can calculate the age at which that organism died?

Sounds like a bunch of assumptions, to me.

Let me add to this Ray...How do we know for a fact that the sky is actually blue? Or the earth is actually round? Or the moon is made of cheese? Wow...I feel so much better now!

[John Williams]

Well, Adam was a farmer.

Adam was a prophet, first one that we know

In a place called Eden, he helped things to grow.

[YH8]

Your thought process excludes the possibility.

But, you and all the other Ministers of Scieigion - your thought processes do not exlcude any possibilities, right?

[John Williams]

But, you and all the other Ministers of Scieigion - your thought processes do not exlcude any possibilities, right?

Heh, I was waiting for you to say that.

[cjcampbell]

Well, Adam was a farmer.

Then perhaps Adam was the first man because he was the first to practice agriculture 11,000 years ago. That would also make him the first to use language.

His descendants would be those who use agriculture and language. I don't think he learned them from the Monolith.

[Ron Beron]

One might also argue that there are many kinds of descendants. Language, as we know it, did not exist more than 60,000 years ago. Where did the Aborigines learn the concept of language?

It is now believed that Homo Erectus which lived about 1.8 million years ago had a rudimentary language due to the formation of a language center in their skull, and the larynx which apparently was situated deep in the throat, giving them a wider vocal range than other primates.

[katherine the great]

Adam was a prophet, first one that we know

In a place called Eden, he helped things to grow.

...we are his descendants in the latter days!

[John Williams]

...we are his descendants in the latter days!

Well, that settles it. The Primary song book says we're literal descendants, so it must be so.

Now I'm going to go and read the news.

[Sethbag]

I think it is silly to argue that there are some humans that are not descended from a common ancestor of 60,000 years ago when National Geographic's Family of Man project has shown that in fact that is the case. The assertion that Australian Aborigines pre-date Adam is just that: an unproven assertion that falls flat on the basis of DNA evidence.

So do you think Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, and then Fell, and started having kids, 60,000 years ago? You're OK saying that the Bible might have holes big enough for, say, ~2,000 generations to have been skipped somehow?

Some interesting followup questions come to mind. Since Able tilled the earth, then you're saying that the domestication of plants, and the beginning of the agricultural revolution, ought to be pushed back to ~60,000 years ago? What do you think of the evidence that shows these things going back only 9,000 to 10,000 years ago? What do you make of the evidence from existing campsites and artifacts and whatnot indicating a strictly hunter/gatherer lifestyle for human beings who lived prior to this 9-10k years ago timeframe? So was Able the only farmer, and when Cain killed him, he set back humanity and farming a good 50,000 years?

Was the flood also a few tens of thousands of years ago? Can the Aborigines really have gotten to Australia over 40k years ago and that's still after the flood because the flood happened, say, 50,000 years ago? If so, I'm curious how you'd explain the snow fields in Greenland and Antarctica where ice core samples have been taken showing a succession of yearly snowfalls going back over 100,000 years with no indication of any intervening massive flood?

[Paul Ray]

You cannot be serious.

Actually, I am. Do you care enough to try to enlighten me now?

How do you know all living organisms are carbon based life forms?

How do you even know you know them all?