Adam and Eve

[rational experiences]

When a person dies, what happens to his body?

Decomposes first by methane gas conditions life blood oxygenated no longer red celled changes in bio cell.

What CH rose is CHrist theme. CH gases methane. Methane involves life death.

Then eventually bones are left like stone. Or a God body.

A very long time before bones become dust.

Radiation effect on human form destroyed to be considered like a God form or a spirit heavens gas. Which science did. Made unnatural comparisons.

 

[Valjean]

Yes...but that doesn't happen with the theory of evolution. (There ARE no tests...)

You mean: "I'm not aware of the tests."

 

[Altfish]

Surely God could have used evolution is lower forms of life, but Not in the case of Adam and Eve.
Notice: Adam was 'fashioned' (Not evolved) from the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7
To me that is the distinct moment, Not of transition, but of God forming life from existing Earth.
Man did Not come to life until his God 'breathed the breath of life' into life-less Adam.
We are the ' clay ', so to speak, and God is the ' Potter '.

Yes, but why involve an extra step? I just cut god out of any explanation.

btw When discussing issues with atheists, quoting Bible verses does not help your cause. Would you take more notice if I quoted Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens ? No, I didn't think so.

 

[Clara Tea]

I can not answer for the christans

The right question is worth more than the answer.

 

[Clara Tea]

bad arguments for creationism are an invitation for atheists to present themselves as educating the faith of the believer.

I also hear this argument in the churches. It's embarassing.

Someone must have created the evolutionist.

 

[Clara Tea]

Humans aren't made of dust.


Demonstrate that a god/creator exists outs
ide of your imagination.


If you're a Kansas fan you can sing Dust In The Wind. But it's not a valid argument that we are made of dust.

The next time you empty your vacuum cleaner out how many humans are you flushing down the toilet?

This is how Ghostbusters started.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The right question is worth more than the answer.

What is the right question?

 

[Starlight]

No, science proves it otherwise

I believe more in evolution than creationism but I believe God is the creator of the universe/universes regardless of whether evolution or creationism is true.

I believe most in theistic evolutionism. Theistic evolution - Wikipedia.

Theistic evolution is the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

And no you are wrong. It is called "evolution theory" because it is not 100% proven, and scientist can not be 100% sure it is correct. Science has made mistakes before, and then they had to change the facts of a theory they first thought was correct.

But yes you are right that evolution is most likely correct, but it can be wrong as well.

 

[Starlight]

bad arguments for creationism are an invitation for atheists to present themselves as educating the faith of the believer.

I also hear this argument in the churches. It's embarassing.

I believe more in evolution than creationism but I believe God is the creator of the universe/universes regardless of whether evolution or creationism is true.

I believe most in theistic evolutionism. Theistic evolution - Wikipedia.

Theistic evolution is the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

evolution is most likely correct, but it can be wrong as well.

 

[wellwisher]

Who are the Caucasians as you use use the term?


Yet fossils demonstrate that hominids predate homosapiens. You don;'t have to speculate, the science e has done the work. But why do you reject evolution?

The problem with fossils is out of all the billions or trillion of living creatures that have lived on earth, we have fossils for only a very tiny fraction. This undersized data set can be misleading, since it cannot represent all the lifeforms. For example, modern humans come in all sizes from petite; gymnastics, to very tall; basketball, to very large in frame and size; heavy weight power lifter. Say science a million years from now found a rare fossils from one tall human who lived a that time. They would be tempted to say that all human, at that time, were tall, since our one data point appears to indicate that.

Next, we find one very short human fossil that is carbon dated to be 10,000 years closer to the present. Science might be tempted to say evolution caused the tall humans to get smaller, when in reality they all existed side-by-side. Fossils are such a tiny percent of all variations of past life, conclusions can become biased, since they will need to be consistent the limited and arbitrary fossil data, relative to the original living data set. The bar keeps changing as new specimen appear.

In the larger sense of fossils defining evolution, consider this analogy. Say we make a design with popcorn, on the ground. It is similar to a mandala. This mural will represent all the life in a connected ecosystem. We come back many years later and most of the design is gone. Some popcorn was eaten by animals and insects, some was washed away by rain or pushed to one side by wind. Others were taken and dropped by birds and much also disappeared via rot. What is left over in terms of the original design is now randomized fossil data, of a once ordered design. The only conclusion science can draw with the fossil data that still remains; randomly positioned fossils, is that there was never any design. Fossils are helpful but also create a conceptual problem since they represent a subset of data that does not necessary has a clear cause and affect connection to the original main living data set.

The third problem is connected to DNA and evolution. It is currently assume that genetic change on the DNA is random and that this change is not directed. The problem with this is random changes on the DNA will lead to more problems than solutions. For example, many people are afraid of genetically modified food even though this is based on a directed change on the DNA. The fear is we do not know the secondary problems than can randomly appear from even this directed change. Any mechanism that adds new bases to genetics in a random way, is even less stable for the present and future. Many sicknesses are due to slight mutations on the DNA. I have yet to see medicine show how a genetic mutation in one of their patients makes them progressive and futuristic. Sickness is more common.

The random assumption appears to work with bacteria, where billions of units are produced in a short time, so if we lose 99%, it is not big deal. We can start from scratch. But random changes in DNA in multi cellar animals, with limited numbers that takes long periods of time to create, would lead to constant extinctions. Life on earth should have stopped with bacteria, if random was the path of the DNA. Directed change on the DNA is more consistent with healthy ecosystems that include larger lifeforms. This is not accepted by science, since science does not know how such a mechanism works. Random is useful when reason breaks down and you need to do something.

Some of this random bias in science has to do with the religion of atheism being anti-religion. Religion assumes an ordering principle for life and evolution called God. The mirror religion needs to do the opposite and assume random, which has conceptual problems.

 

[metis]

I believe God put a flawless book in place. I don't see any reason of why God would allow flaws in his book. I see the Bible as his book.

Evidence? A God able to create this nature... in all its vastness is also able to write a little book correctly, in my opinion.

EDITED to add last sentence

I tend to much more gravitate towards the science on such matters.

 

[Suave]

I can not say what others should believe But personally i do not believe in the Ape to human evolution

1. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, thereby having the endogenous retrovirus markings of a shared common ancestry. 2. (edited) *Similarities in* chromosome banding patterns and hybridization homologies between ape and human chromosomes suggest human chromosome number 2 (edited) *arose out of * the fusion of 2 ancestral ape chromosomes.

 

[Spirit of Light]

1. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, thereby having the endogenous retrovirus markings of a shared common ancestry. 2. Chromosome banding patterns and hybridization homologies between ape and human chromosomes suggest human chromosome number 2 is the fusion of 2 ancestral ape chromosomes.

Sorry, i honestly did not understand any of that

 

[Suave]

Sorry, i honestly did not understand any of that

My bad, my original post mistakenly had an incomplete sentence and vague verb usage. I have edited my post with the completed sentence and with a more precise and descriptive verb.

 

[Spirit of Light]

1. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, thereby having the endogenous retrovirus markings of a shared common ancestry. 2. (edited) *Similarities in* chromosome banding patterns and hybridization homologies between ape and human chromosomes suggest human chromosome number 2 (edited) *arose out of * the fusion of 2 ancestral ape chromosomes.

WUT Anyone have a manual that explain those words to a nob like me

 

[F1fan]

The problem with fossils is out of all the billions or trillion of living creatures that have lived on earth, we have fossils for only a very tiny fraction. This undersized data set can be misleading, since it cannot represent all the lifeforms. For example, modern humans come in all sizes from petite; gymnastics, to very tall; basketball, to very large in frame and size; heavy weight power lifter. Say science a million years from now found a rare fossils from one tall human who lived a that time. They would be tempted to say that all human, at that time, were tall, since our one data point appears to indicate that.

Next, we find one very short human fossil that is carbon dated to be 10,000 years closer to the present. Science might be tempted to say evolution caused the tall humans to get smaller, when in reality they all existed side-by-side. Fossils are such a tiny percent of all variations of past life, conclusions can become biased, since they will need to be consistent the limited and arbitrary fossil data, relative to the original living data set. The bar keeps changing as new specimen appear.

In the larger sense of fossils defining evolution, consider this analogy. Say we make a design with popcorn, on the ground. It is similar to a mandala. This mural will represent all the life in a connected ecosystem. We come back many years later and most of the design is gone. Some popcorn was eaten by animals and insects, some was washed away by rain or pushed to one side by wind. Others were taken and dropped by birds and much also disappeared via rot. What is left over in terms of the original design is now randomized fossil data, of a once ordered design. The only conclusion science can draw with the fossil data that still remains; randomly positioned fossils, is that there was never any design. Fossils are helpful but also create a conceptual problem since they represent a subset of data that does not necessary has a clear cause and affect connection to the original main living data set.

The third problem is connected to DNA and evolution. It is currently assume that genetic change on the DNA is random and that this change is not directed. The problem with this is random changes on the DNA will lead to more problems than solutions. For example, many people are afraid of genetically modified food even though this is based on a directed change on the DNA. The fear is we do not know the secondary problems than can randomly appear from even this directed change. Any mechanism that adds new bases to genetics in a random way, is even less stable for the present and future. Many sicknesses are due to slight mutations on the DNA. I have yet to see medicine show how a genetic mutation in one of their patients makes them progressive and futuristic. Sickness is more common.

The random assumption appears to work with bacteria, where billions of units are produced in a short time, so if we lose 99%, it is not big deal. We can start from scratch. But random changes in DNA in multi cellar animals, with limited numbers that takes long periods of time to create, would lead to constant extinctions. Life on earth should have stopped with bacteria, if random was the path of the DNA. Directed change on the DNA is more consistent with healthy ecosystems that include larger lifeforms. This is not accepted by science, since science does not know how such a mechanism works. Random is useful when reason breaks down and you need to do something.

Some of this random bias in science has to do with the religion of atheism being anti-religion. Religion assumes an ordering principle for life and evolution called God. The mirror religion needs to do the opposite and assume random, which has conceptual problems.

I asked who the Caucasians are. Do you have no answer to that?

Your argument against the fossil record has a lot of errors that go against our basic science. It appears you've read too many creationist sources that exist to disinform readers, I suggest you reject those sources and only refer to actual science.

Evolution is called a unifying theory in that the conclusions of all sciences support evolution. For example hominid fossils that are nor apelike are found in geologic strata that is older, while fossils that are more humanlike are found in newer strata. So we can put together a lineage of more primitive hominids in conjunction with older rock and sediment.

This also correlates to lineages of plants and other types of animals. The evolution of the horse has fossil examples that show the lineage of development over time. How hippos evolved from a lineage that includes whales is known. No doubt the fossil record we have in not complete. but the examples we do have are creating a picture that evolution is real and occurs as a process of nature.

 

[F1fan]

When a person dies, what happens to his body?

If a person dies in the wild the body is torn apart by predators, consumed by insects, and eventually broken down by bacteria. If a body in embalmed, well it's going to remain pretty intact from quite awhile. If you want a Viking funeral you can be burned until you're reduced to carbon.

Do you want more options, or are you doing to admit humans aren't made of dust?

 

[F1fan]

Yes...but that doesn't happen with the theory of evolution. (There ARE no tests...)

Actually evolution has been demonstrated in millions of tests over time. It's one of the most tested and confirmed of all theories.

 

[F1fan]

Someone must have created the evolutionist.

Their mamas and papas. And a good education system.

 

[Charles D McNerney]

All the Abrahamic religions have some teaching about Adam and Eve (as far as i know)

The question is, is Adam and Eve the true names of the very first human beings? or is that something that come later?

If they were the first humanoids on earth, do they not predate Homosapiens too?
Where they actually a different form of humans?

Joshua(the one they call Jesus) Joshua spoke all of these things to them in parables without a parable He did not teach the people.Matthew 13:34
Who was He? He was God incarnate,"Without a parable " God did Not teach. This is the reason you cannot make Genesis jive with world history. It's a parable for Lucifer's creation and placement on earth. So No they were not Homo Sapiens and no Adam and Eve were not their names. First there was Lucifer and then His female half was drawn from within Him. Then came Satan referred to later in the post flood lineages as Japheth the Elder.
The Catholic church made it their mission for over a thousand years to hide these things from you. Ordering the Gnostics murdered and their books burned. However they survived in an accidental grave along with the acolyte was that was carrying them to safety when the sandstorm hit burying him and the out of reach of the,"Crusaders" for more than a thousand years. If you would like to learn more about them and the Gnostic Gospels be sure to look for them as, the Unadulterated Gnostic Gospels as the,"Church" has modified versions out there that are more forgiving of their own teachings.
If you would like to track,"Adam and Eve" through history Lucifer was always a creator on Earth he created all of the greatest civilizations in the parable of Cane's exile the Lord said," I will put a mark on you " Lucifer had horns what the humans tried to emulate with horned helmets. He could also become a bull at will or assume a part human part bull appearance. As seen in ancient Sumer and Babylon. Also in Egyptian and Indian worship of bulls.
He went from Egypt to Phoanecia to Crete to Greece before he and YaH the Father were reconciled. You see this in Poseidonia in Italy where there is are Temples for Herra his female half and Poseidon Satan and the Tomb of the Diver the Anti Christ Lucifer's ,"Son in his own image." But Zeusifer has left the building!
Anyway his son and female half went to Rome where she manipulated him an Emporership and the began the Catholic church where everyone worships the mother and the son. Except it's Jesus the son of Zeus and the mother of the Anti Christ that they are praying to!
To see more of them in history she was always a rich beautiful woman who seemed to appear from a n outside source and manipulated him into a position of power and he was an angry homosexual Pyro Maniac! Good luck!