Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

First Humans Adam And Eve?

Recommended Posts

I look forward to seeing what God is made of. <_<

Me too! :P

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, ALL life on earth is carbon-based. That is black letter science.

What if not all life is physical? Perhaps that's what Paul is getting at. But then, God the Father is physical, so.... <help>

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, ALL life on earth is carbon-based. That is black letter science.

All life on this earth that we have comprehended is carbon-based. Let's keep an open mind for new discoveries.

Share this post


Link to post

What if not all life is physical? Perhaps that's what Paul is getting at. But then, God the Father is physical, so.... <help>

HiJolly

So, is he suggesting that carbon dating is incorrect because these are fossilized remains of non-carbon-based, nonphysical beings?

:P<_<:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, ALL life on earth is carbon-based. That is black letter science.

I think you could make a good case that it is NOW, but was it always?

Who knows what Adam and Eve were like, before the fall.

... other than being more like God than we are now.

Maybe the introduction of carbon or a certain version of it is affiliated with our fallen nature.

Share this post


Link to post

I think you could make a good case that it is NOW, but was it always?

Who knows what Adam and Eve were like, before the fall.

... other than being more like God than we are now.

Maybe the introduction of carbon or a certain version of it is affiliated with our fallen nature.

Anything's possible, as long as it supports the literal approach, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post

So, is he suggesting that carbon dating is incorrect because these are fossilized remains of non-carbon-based, nonphysical beings?

:P<_<:unsure:

We don't know what we don't know, do we.

How can we even formulate all the questions?

Share this post


Link to post

Anything's possible, as long as it supports the literal approach, I guess.

Exactly my point, or one of my points, all along.

As long as all the possibilities line up with what actually happened, we're good.

... and God has told us a lot about what actually happened. :P

Share this post


Link to post

:P<_<:unsure:

You cannot be serious

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

When many people are drowning, the lifeguard has to use some kind of triage system to decide who to save. You are somebody who doesn't really want to be saved, in fact, you probably think you will prove a point by drowning yourself. So NO, I don't care to try and enlighten you. Read a book, or one of those links thesometimessaint posted for you.

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

How do you even know you know them all?

The remains that are carbon dated are from carbon-based life forms. We know this because they still contain carbon. Pretty simple, huh? Now if only you had simple answers for Sethbag's questions....

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly my point, or one of my points, all along.

As long as all the possibilities line up with what actually happened, we're good.

... and God has told us a lot about what actually happened. :P

So, there's no point in talking about this with you, as you will always default to the same position: God told you.

Share this post


Link to post

So, there's no point in talking about this with you, as you will always default to the same position: God told you.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

I will simply defer any opinions from other people to what God has told me, or will tell me, personally.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Uh--hello!

So how long ago did Adam live, or how old was he, in relation to his literal children?

... considering the fact that Adam was living in the garden before the fall.

I think some people assume he and his wife ate the fruit the same day they were created.

... and even if they did, how long was that day?

How long is a day in eternity?

Again, I say: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even our most conservative prophets agree that the earth was not created in six of our days. This thread is about Adam AFTER he left the garden. It wouldn't matter if Adam was in the garden for billions of our years before the fall. We are only discussing the time that has passed since Eve had her first child. Or are you suggesting that Adam and Eve had children who lived and died while they were in the garden? I have to say that your posts are incredibly exasperating. You keep hinting that you have some special knowledge that we silly science minded people don't. If you do, please share. If you don't, and you completely reject all science, then by all means, don't ever take any medication and never, ever expect the lightbulb to turn on when you flip the switch.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I say: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even our most conservative prophets agree that the earth was not created in six of our days. This thread is about Adam AFTER he left the garden. It wouldn't matter if Adam was in the garden for billions of our years before the fall. We are only discussing the time that has passed since Eve had her first child. Or are you suggesting that Adam and Eve had children who lived and died while they were in the garden? I have to say that your posts are incredibly exasperating. You keep hinting that you have some special knowledge that we silly science minded people don't. If you do, please share. If you don't, and you completely reject all science, then by all means, don't ever take any medication and never, ever expect the lightbulb to turn on when you flip the switch.

I really like your pragmatic and rational approach, KtG. I agree that the opposite approach can be frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I say: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even our most conservative prophets agree that the earth was not created in six of our days. This thread is about Adam AFTER he left the garden. It wouldn't matter if Adam was in the garden for billions of our years before the fall. We are only discussing the time that has passed since Eve had her first child.

I think it might help to consider things other than the time that passed between the first day for Adam (and Eve) and the first day when Eve had her first child.

I think it might help to consider the idea that the make-up of Adam's and Eve's bodies may have been different before the fall than they were after the fall

... and that the difference(s) in their bodies may affect the evidence we now interpret from carbon dating.

... and that the differences in their bodies may have transferred to the bodies of their children, causing their bodies to remain a little more "eternal" than the bodies of you and me

... and who knows what else we are not be thinking of now

...

Or are you suggesting that Adam and Eve had children who lived and died while they were in the garden?

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I, personally, believe Adam and Eve left the garden before Eve gave brith to any children.

I have to say that your posts are incredibly exasperating. You keep hinting that you have some special knowledge that we silly science minded people don't.

I'm simply trying to get you to either think about things you don't seem to have thought about yet and/or explain how you can believe what you believe in light of the revealed word of God... especially those things you believe which are in direct opposition to what God has told us about Adam and Eve being our actual, literal, parents.

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, I was waiting for you to say that. :P

Well, someone has to state the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I say: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even our most conservative prophets agree that the earth was not created in six of our days. This thread is about Adam AFTER he left the garden. It wouldn't matter if Adam was in the garden for billions of our years before the fall. We are only discussing the time that has passed since Eve had her first child. Or are you suggesting that Adam and Eve had children who lived and died while they were in the garden? I have to say that your posts are incredibly exasperating. You keep hinting that you have some special knowledge that we silly science minded people don't. If you do, please share. If you don't, and you completely reject all science, then by all means, don't ever take any medication and never, ever expect the lightbulb to turn on when you flip the switch.

would it matter if Adam and Eve had children first in the garden? I for one am not certain that Cain was the first born. Though I still cannot reconcile a time line.

I believe in the laws of science even the ones that contradict scripture. But I am not ready to say the scriptural history is wrong or what the latter day Prophets say that might also contradict current science. I do believe that there will be a time were we can see how both are right.

Share this post


Link to post

would it matter if Adam and Eve had children first in the garden? I for one am not certain that Cain was the first born. Though I still cannot reconcile a time line.

I believe in the laws of science even the ones that contradict scripture. But I am not ready to say the scriptural history is wrong or what the latter day Prophets say that might also contradict current science. I do believe that there will be a time were we can see how both are right.

For believers I think there are three choices when science appears to contradict scripture:

1. Our understanding of scripture is incorrect.

2. Our understanding of the scientific evidence is incorrect.

3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

I think most of us go with 1 or 3, whereas Paul seems to go with 2.

Share this post


Link to post

For believers I think there are three choices when science appears to contradict scripture:

1. Our understanding of scripture is incorrect.

2. Our understanding of the scientific evidence is incorrect.

3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

I think most of us go with 1 or 3, whereas Paul seems to go with 2.

Well put for a simple guy like me. I like #3

Share this post


Link to post

You keep hinting that you have some special knowledge that we silly science minded people don't. If you do, please share. If you don't, and you completely reject all science, then by all means, don't ever take any medication and never, ever expect the lightbulb to turn on when you flip the switch.

Such caricatures of people who point out and question the over-confidence of science are not helpful. If you really think people like Paul Ray "reject all science" and that that is their message then I'm not sure we're ever going to get anywhere.

There is a big difference between understanding with confidence lightbulbs and understanding with confidence things that happened lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of years ago. No?

Share this post


Link to post

Such caricatures of people who point out and question the over-confidence of science are not helpful. If you really think people like Paul Ray "reject all science" and that that is their message then I'm not sure we're ever going to get anywhere.

There is a big difference between understanding with confidence lightbulbs and understanding with confidence things that happened lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of years ago. No?

I guess I'm just not comfortable with the idea that science and scripture necessarily conflict, so one must choose scripture over science. That seems to me what Paul's approach is. Caricature or not, that's essentially what he's been saying. There's a distinct difference between healthy skepticism of science and outright rejection because science doesn't match one's preconceived notions.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a distinct difference between healthy skepticism of science and outright rejection because science doesn't match one's preconceived notions.

Is there "a distinct difference between healthy skepticism of [religion/spirituality] and outright rejection because [religion/spirituality] doesn't match one's preconceived notions"?

Does science include any "notions [read: assumptions]?" The party line is "Yes, of course, science is built on assumptions." Do scientists (of a certain breed) really understand the implications of that word - assumption?

Share this post


Link to post

All life on this earth that we have comprehended is carbon-based. Let's keep an open mind for new discoveries.

The mind is not closed. I was referring to life on this earth. There is always the possibly of other lifeforms that is not carbon based such as silicon-based.

I think you could make a good case that it is NOW, but was it always?

Who knows what Adam and Eve were like, before the fall.

... other than being more like God than we are now.

Maybe the introduction of carbon or a certain version of it is affiliated with our fallen nature.

They were carbon-based. They were made of the earth which is an organic compound.

Share this post


Link to post

Is there "a distinct difference between healthy skepticism of [religion/spirituality] and outright rejection because [religion/spirituality] doesn't match one's preconceived notions"?

Does science include any "notions [read: assumptions]?" The party line is "Yes, of course science is built on assumptions." Do scientists (of a certain breed) really understand the implications of that word - assumption?

I would imagine that some assumptions have been fairly consistently validated, whereas others haven't. I certainly don't reject religion or spirituality; after all, my preconceived notions involve my religious beliefs.

Science is a messy endeavor, but then so is religion.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay as I ponder how about this;

Around 6000 years ago about 4004 BC a lot of changes happened humans began to think outside the box and started writing and communicating etc IOW they became more intelligent than the previous hominids.... It was at this time that God said okay after brooding over the waters for a long time waiting for something to happen (it finally does) He takes Adam and Eve into the Garden kind of like a temple setting. and gives them more instruction knowledge etc this is all symbolically of course like when we represent them. He chose Adam and Eve and they then represent and became the first covenant humans therefore our first parents. Bare with me Its still a work in progress... This could fit with scripture and science. Or in a thousand years I might laugh and say to you remember when I thought that LOL...

Share this post


Link to post

Okay as I ponder how about this;

Around 6000 years ago about 4004 BC a lot of changes happened humans began to think outside the box and started writing and communicating etc IOW they became more intelligent than the previous hominids.... It was at this time that God said okay after brooding over the waters for a long time waiting for something to happen (it finally does) He takes Adam and Eve into the Garden kind of like a temple setting. and gives them more instruction knowledge etc this is all symbolically of course like when we represent them. He chose Adam and Eve and they then represent and became the first covenant humans therefore our first parents. Bare with me Its still a work in progress... This could fit with scripture and science. Or in a thousand years I might laugh and say to you remember when I thought that LOL...

I've heard just that theory espoused (well, in so many words). Doesn't work if you're a literalist, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...