User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 12:21:48 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In other words, you are inferring it without observing it or testing it. Leaving out for just a moment the question of where all the species came from to start with, seeing species that share similar traits could be evidence of evolution...or could be evidence that there are a limited number of successful ways to survive, so successful species will tend to share some successful traits. These are not the same thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You don’t need a direct observation of speciation to find evidence of evolution. You’ll find it everywhere in the world of genetics. Leaving out for just a moment the question of where all the species came from to start with, seeing species that share similar traits could be evidence of evolution...or could be evidence that there are a limited number of successful ways to survive, so successful species will tend to share some successful traits. These are not the same thing. You’re right though, in that we have to use the evidence on hand to fill in the gaps. Throwing our hands up and saying “that’s just god’s design” doesn’t cut it for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 12:32:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But who begat the people from Nod if Adam and Eve were the first and only creation of God according to the bible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cain married a woman from the land of Nod and bore a son, Enoch. That woman was of no relation. There were clearly other proto-humans in the region, just none that met whatever standard led to the Fall story. Frankly, Bible stories make a whole lot more sense enlightened by science than placed in opposition to science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 1:55:37 AM EDT
[#3]
 How Zoology Disproves Noahs Flood |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 2:08:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point to the experiment that demonstrates one species evolving into another. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: No it's not This is the problem. You can run an experiment showing adaptation via natural selection. You cannot demonstrate experimentally a simpler species evolving into another, more complex one. No one lives long enough to do the experiment properly. Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 2:20:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you think you face a contradiction, examine your premises. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cain married a woman from the land of Nod and bore a son, Enoch. That woman was of no relation. There were clearly other proto-humans in the region, just none that met whatever standard led to the Fall story. Frankly, Bible stories make a whole lot more sense enlightened by science than placed in opposition to science. Question: "Who was Cain's wife? Was Cain's wife his sister?" Answer: The Bible does not specifically say who Cain’s wife was. The only possible answer is that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc. The Bible does not say how old Cain was when he killed Abel (Genesis 4:8). Since they were both farmers, they were likely both full-grown adults, possibly with families of their own. Adam and Eve surely had given birth to more children than just Cain and Abel at the time Abel was killed. They definitely had many more children later (Genesis 5:4). The fact that Cain was scared for his own life after he killed Abel (Genesis 4:14) indicates that there were likely many other children and perhaps even grandchildren of Adam and Eve already living at that time. Cain's wife (Genesis 4:17) was a daughter or granddaughter of Adam and Eve. The Wife If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to marry sisters or there wouldn’t have been any more generations! We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative. A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.” And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], 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 (Genesis 4:17). The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23). Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 3:58:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cain married a woman from the land of Nod and bore a son, Enoch. That woman was of no relation. There were clearly other proto-humans in the region, just none that met whatever standard led to the Fall story. Frankly, Bible stories make a whole lot more sense enlightened by science than placed in opposition to science. Question: "Who was Cain's wife? Was Cain's wife his sister?" Answer: The Bible does not specifically say who Cain’s wife was. The only possible answer is that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc. The Bible does not say how old Cain was when he killed Abel (Genesis 4:8). Since they were both farmers, they were likely both full-grown adults, possibly with families of their own. Adam and Eve surely had given birth to more children than just Cain and Abel at the time Abel was killed. They definitely had many more children later (Genesis 5:4). The fact that Cain was scared for his own life after he killed Abel (Genesis 4:14) indicates that there were likely many other children and perhaps even grandchildren of Adam and Eve already living at that time. Cain's wife (Genesis 4:17) was a daughter or granddaughter of Adam and Eve. The Wife If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to marry sisters or there wouldn’t have been any more generations! We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative. A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.” And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], 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 (Genesis 4:17). The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23). Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated. However, if “we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas” we are starting with an assumption based on theology, and a theology that is raletively novel, historically. It also requires a method of exegesis similarly rooted in a particular narrow theological tradition. If you accept that the Bible is simultaneously not a history book but also not a work of fiction, an amazing amount of valuable “capital T” Truth is in there for you to find. Alas, false dichotomies drive internet discussions like wind does sails. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 4:36:03 AM EDT
[#7]
I'm not going to read the entire thread, but human populations never dipped below 10,000. Humanity spawning from a breeding population of 2 individuals is fucking ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 4:40:17 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In other words, you are inferring it without observing it or testing it. Leaving out for just a moment the question of where all the species came from to start with, seeing species that share similar traits could be evidence of evolution...or could be evidence that there are a limited number of successful ways to survive, so successful species will tend to share some successful traits. These are not the same thing. I congratulate you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 4:55:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not going to read the entire thread, but human populations never dipped below 10,000. Humanity spawning from a breeding population of 2 individuals is fucking ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 5:03:55 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why does science say we all come from one mother? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to read the entire thread, but human populations never dipped below 10,000. Humanity spawning from a breeding population of 2 individuals is fucking ridiculous. Mitochondrial Eve bears a child with Y-chromosomal Adam, or a descendent. Her male children can father children with any number of other females, as can subsequent children. All that needs to happen to support the concept, is for the lineage of all of those NOT related to mitochondrial Eve to stop. It does not require that there ever be a breeding population of less than one thousand, or ten thousand, let alone two or three. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 5:29:33 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why does science say we all come from one mother? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to read the entire thread, but human populations never dipped below 10,000. Humanity spawning from a breeding population of 2 individuals is fucking ridiculous. That Mitochondrial Eve is the youngest common (female) ancestor of humanity doesn't mean she was the only living female at the time. It just means her lineage was the only one to descend in a direct female line. IOW your mother's mother's mother's...ect...mother was ME. Female to female. This does not mean ME is the source of the entire nuclear genome, cause ME's BFF Mia was a total slut who fucked Shaw and Dave, and had two sons, one of whose grandson eventually fucked ME's greatgranddaughter...ect, ect. So Mia might be one of your ancestors indirectly, but ME is everyone's matrilineal ancestor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 5:32:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Genesis 4:13-17 Why was Cain worried that someone would kill him if there weren't other people? Who lived in the land of Nod if there weren't other people? Where did Cain's wife come from if there weren't other people? The only explanation is that there were other people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 5:33:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may literally be the dumbest thing I have ever read. I congratulate you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: In other words, you are inferring it without observing it or testing it. Leaving out for just a moment the question of where all the species came from to start with, seeing species that share similar traits could be evidence of evolution...or could be evidence that there are a limited number of successful ways to survive, so successful species will tend to share some successful traits. These are not the same thing. I congratulate you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 5:48:42 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not going to read the entire thread, but human populations never dipped below 10,000. Humanity spawning from a breeding population of 2 individuals is fucking ridiculous. Think about bigfoot... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 7:00:11 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Book Of Jubilees (a non-canonical book) sheds additional light on this, starting in chapter 4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 7:30:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Notice Cain is not in Adams genealogy?
Also, adam and eve was not the first on earth if you read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 7:33:34 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Notice Cain is not in Adams genealogy? Also, adam and eve was not the first on earth if you read. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 2:32:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Natural selection would disprove this assumption. A weaker species is always superseded by a stronger one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Genetically, our species was significantly better back then. Since the fall, our genome has been corrupted by each succeeding generation. Not unlike making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. on a copy machine. It is hard to tell the difference between subsequent copies, but comparing the first and the last is night and day. Our species is not "evolving", it is "devolving". This explains the longer life spans back then, our general degradation (such as strength, eyesight, etc..), and how smaller populations could reproduce with genetically-close mates and not have a genetic disaster. Read "Genetic Entropy" if you want a more scientific explanation. Also natural selections influence is limited in our species due to laws enforcing social order. In the wild the fittest animal takes their mate at will and reproduces at every opportunity. In our world that’s how you end up in prison. We select out traits by putting acting examples in cages that the natural world promotes. Natural selection has much less affect on modern humans than the rest of the natural world. Edited to add philosophical questions: It is an assumption based on personal belief that we are not exempt as a species from natural selection. As a whole. Would we be more or less populated “successful” without man made law superseding natural law. If we could kill, rape, steal and fight without man-made consequence would we be stronger or weaker. If we are the only species on the planet able to make their own rules and reject natural law while flourishing, doesn’t that in itself support scripture? Haven’t we ruled over the planet as we please? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 2:49:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where can this de-evolution be seen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 3:20:15 PM EDT
[#20]
I would suggest that there is an very, very serious misunderstanding of Evolution by a number of posters here specifically WRT the concept of natural selection and fitness.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Our species is not "evolving", it is "devolving". This explains the longer life spans back then, our general degradation (such as strength, eyesight, etc..), and how smaller populations could reproduce with genetically-close mates and not have a genetic disaster. ... If you can appreciate why this means the claim "Our species is not "evolving", it is "devolving"." is teh stupid, then you're well above arfcom's population average. * If you want to be pedantic Cope’s law and Marsh’s law state that there is a general trend towards larger body size and encephalization (brain/body ratio), among other macro-evolutionary trends (e.g. cold-climate creatures tend towards larger bodies, speciation of a host generally leads to the speciation of its parasite, .ect.). These are trends, not progress. Evolution has no goal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 3:24:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Edited to add philosophical questions: It is an assumption based on personal belief that we are not exempt as a species from natural selection. As a whole. Would we be more or less populated “successful” without man made law superseding natural law. If we could kill, rape, steal and fight without man-made consequence would we be stronger or weaker. If we are the only species on the planet able to make their own rules and reject natural law while flourishing, doesn’t that in itself support scripture? Haven’t we ruled over the planet as we please? Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 3:33:30 PM EDT
[#22]
A GD creation thread
i am sure the GD true believers have allready told us the earth is 5000 years old and science is a test from god |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 3:54:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Josephus wrote in Antiquities of the Jews (c. AD 93) that Cain continued his wickedness in Nod: resorting to violence and robbery; establishing weights and measures; transforming human culture from innocence into craftiness and deceit; establishing property lines; and building a fortified city 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 3:55:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize humanity isn't the only animal to display social structure, right? Right? Eta.. humanity and animals both have social order. I don’t lump the two together necessarily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 4:00:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of it happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 4:02:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Prove it didn't . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 4:38:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, all that is in the bible. There was a heavy dew (Genesis 2:5-6). God simply did not water the earth with rain until the flood. Cain grew crops and yes, there was enough light for crop growth (obveously, since it says he grew them). I know some think this is all fairy tales. But if God says it happened, I believe it. If I'm wrong, we're both screwed and just croak. If you're wrong, you are screwed and I'm in Heaven. Water in the earth: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/huge-underground-reservoir-holds-three-times-much-water-earths-oceans/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 5:32:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Notice Cain is not in Adams genealogy? Also, adam and eve was not the first on earth if you read. Are you refering to humans or something else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 5:56:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it? Think about bigfoot... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not going to read the entire thread, but human populations never dipped below 10,000. Humanity spawning from a breeding population of 2 individuals is fucking ridiculous. Think about bigfoot... This trait is likely born of the same mutation that allows for his invisibility and powers of telepathy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 6:35:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Adam to Jesus is all that family tree is there for, it's to show his lineage.
Pull yourself out of the equation. We are related spiritually through Christ not necessarily by the gene pool. God took a rib from Adam, you still have all your ribs. Adam to Noah to Jesus it's to show his pure lineage. You mud pies probably were made later after the flood to not have cross breeding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 6:45:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.....and those people just magically appeared. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Well when God marked Cane he sent him to live in the land of Nod, and the mark was so the people there would know he was a murderer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 11:37:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Neanderthals were already here, aliens made adam and eve, rhen they intermingled, killed off, or out competed them? If adamn and eve was the first, then how could the land of nod had people and a woman for Cain? also one day in heaven is a 1000 years on earth. That is why no one has ever lived over 1000 years. because remember what God told Adam and even " In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Remember a 1 day to God is a 1000 years on earth. so, Adam did die and it was within that day of the Lord. the 1000 years is one day can be found here: 2 Peter 3:8–9 --- so the 7 day creation wasnt 7 earth days, but 7000 years...adam and even came after 4,000 years from when the first man and woman was created. Genesis 1:26 was the making of man....after god rested on the 7th day in Genesis 2:7 was when God man adam....all anyone has to do is read, understand and see man was made before the 7th day and after the 7th day Adam was made. you really have to go back to the Pentateuch to get the original language. Translations have twisted some words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2018 11:49:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cain married a woman from the land of Nod and bore a son, Enoch. That woman was of no relation. There were clearly other proto-humans in the region, just none that met whatever standard led to the Fall story. Frankly, Bible stories make a whole lot more sense enlightened by science than placed in opposition to science. Then again we don't really know how long everyone did live back then in our understanding of years. Adam and Eve didn't just have 4 kids and call it quits. Then there is the whole fallen angels angle. Add to this that Genesis is an abridged readers digest version of all the different books/scrolls that told the story of creation. It was probably assumed we'd have access to those other documents and it was the 1 version everyone could agree on during the canonization of the Bible as we know it today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 12:46:36 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no, if you read - Adam and eve was not the first humans on earth. They were the blood lines for Jesus to come. If adamn and eve was the first, then how could the land of nod had people and a woman for Cain? also one day in heaven is a 1000 years on earth. That is why no one has ever lived over 1000 years. because remember what God told Adam and even " In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Remember a 1 day to God is a 1000 years on earth. so, Adam did die and it was within that day of the Lord. the 1000 years is one day can be found here: 2 Peter 3:8–9 --- so the 7 day creation wasnt 7 earth days, but 7000 years...adam and even came after 4,000 years from when the first man and woman was created. Genesis 1:26 was the making of man....after god rested on the 7th day in Genesis 2:7 was when God man adam....all anyone has to do is read, understand and see man was made before the 7th day and after the 7th day Adam was made. you really have to go back to the Pentateuch to get the original language. Translations have twisted some words. What is being conveyed is god is timeless. The verse does not literally mean a day is 1000 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 12:48:34 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
....adam and even came after 4,000 years from when the first man and woman was created. Genesis 1:26 was the making of man....after god rested on the 7th day in Genesis 2:7 was when God man adam....all anyone has to do is read, understand and see man was made before the 7th day and after the 7th day Adam was made. you really have to go back to the Pentateuch to get the original language. Translations have twisted some words. 
That makes no sense. Gen3:20 says shes named eve because shes the mother of ALL the living. Gen2:19 says God formed all the animals and birds, etc.... and brought them to adam for him to name. That sounds a lot like a breakdown of day 6, not a second creation of more animals and another man. The people in nod were adam and eves kids, grandkids, great grandkids, etc.... It doesnt say that cain and abel were their first kids, but lets go ahead and assume that. The KJV gen4:3 says "And in process of time it came to pass..." and the NLT says "when they grew up....." So cain and abel were adult men. Who knows how old by then but adam and eve had BEEN having children. And their kids were having kids. Only a 100yrs of that activity would have a pretty sizable population to chose a mate. Could have been a FEW hundred years before he killed cain. TL:DR - adam and eve were the first humans. Cain found a wife in nod that was a distant relative (by then) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 1:24:52 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course. So what? Eta.. humanity and animals both have social order. I don’t lump the two together necessarily. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You realize humanity isn't the only animal to display social structure, right? Right? Eta.. humanity and animals both have social order. I don’t lump the two together necessarily. In the wild the fittest animal takes their mate at will and reproduces at every opportunity. Gorillas made their own rules and have social structure--behavioral consequences for nonconformity. Sociality...governing mating, conflict, cooperation .ect. There's an entire field of biology dedicated to studying the rules animals impose on themselves just WRT to mating. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 1:38:05 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what concept of "natural law" are you using? It's not that black and white. Gorillas made their own rules and have social structure--behavioral consequences for nonconformity. Sociality...including mating, conflict, cooperation .ect. There's an entire field of biology dedicated to studying the rules animals impose on themselves just WRT to mating. http://i.imgur.com/KEtJMpA.gif Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You realize humanity isn't the only animal to display social structure, right? Right? Eta.. humanity and animals both have social order. I don’t lump the two together necessarily. In the wild the fittest animal takes their mate at will and reproduces at every opportunity. Gorillas made their own rules and have social structure--behavioral consequences for nonconformity. Sociality...including mating, conflict, cooperation .ect. There's an entire field of biology dedicated to studying the rules animals impose on themselves just WRT to mating. http://i.imgur.com/KEtJMpA.gif |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 1:40:26 AM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 1:46:04 AM EDT
[#39]
If a chimp is too alpha his rivals will team up and kill him, and female chimps will mate with anyone anyway.
Female selectivity probably had a lot to do with the traits we have, I've heard the argument that that's why our cranial capacity increased so much. Animal behavior is complex and varied in nature, being the point. That's not to say there isn't an argument for eugenics, it's just not a palatable one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 1:57:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Female selectivity probably had a lot to do with the traits we have ... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 2:53:50 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are humanizing animals to attempt to make them simalar to us. For the gif you posted there are a thousand more that display basic instinct over compassion and and reason. Though you could post a thousand of humans doing the same. Elevate the bar. Show me an animal flying without wings, containing a forest fire, building a combustion engine or harnessing the suns energy and converting it to electricity. Any ape can use body language and communication to intimidate a younger, weaker member of its group. Get back to me when they invent the internet then argue about theology over it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You realize humanity isn't the only animal to display social structure, right? Right? Eta.. humanity and animals both have social order. I don’t lump the two together necessarily. In the wild the fittest animal takes their mate at will and reproduces at every opportunity. Gorillas made their own rules and have social structure--behavioral consequences for nonconformity. Sociality...including mating, conflict, cooperation .ect. There's an entire field of biology dedicated to studying the rules animals impose on themselves just WRT to mating. http://i.imgur.com/KEtJMpA.gif Did humanity start with the Al Gore and the internet? You are being absurd. Of course there is something about humans that makes them different from other apes, but being organized socially is not one of them. Nicodemus7 was espousing an absurd, reductionist, view of evolution which would require humanity to only “evolve” if the strongest males mated all the females they wanted. He further suggested that human civilization has prevented this “natural” process from happening. Except, get this... Human civilization is a RESULT of evolution. And the traits supporting this that have been selected in humanity or so complex and interwoven as to make reducing the concept to “biggest, strongest man takes most attractive woman as mate” so hilariously stupid as to deserve only laughter. But, this is becoming one of those threads. And they tend to, well, evolve in this direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 10:24:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show me humans doing that stuff for most of human history. Did humanity start with the Al Gore and the internet? You are being absurd. But, of course there is something about humans that makes them different fro other apes, but being organized socially is not one of them. Nicodemus7 was espousing an absurd, reductionist, view of evolution which would require humanity to only “evolve”if the strongest males mated all the females they wanted. He further suggest3d the human civilization has prevented this “natural” process from happening. Except, get this... Human Civilization is a RESULT of evolution. And the traits supporting this that have been selected in humanity or so complex and interwoven as to make reducign the concept to “biggest, strongest man takes most attractive woman as mate” so hilariously stupid as to deserve only laughter. But, this is becoming one of those threads, and they tend to, well, evolve in this direction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You realize humanity isn't the only animal to display social structure, right? Right? Eta.. humanity and animals both have social order. I don’t lump the two together necessarily. In the wild the fittest animal takes their mate at will and reproduces at every opportunity. Gorillas made their own rules and have social structure--behavioral consequences for nonconformity. Sociality...including mating, conflict, cooperation .ect. There's an entire field of biology dedicated to studying the rules animals impose on themselves just WRT to mating. http://i.imgur.com/KEtJMpA.gif Did humanity start with the Al Gore and the internet? You are being absurd. But, of course there is something about humans that makes them different fro other apes, but being organized socially is not one of them. Nicodemus7 was espousing an absurd, reductionist, view of evolution which would require humanity to only “evolve”if the strongest males mated all the females they wanted. He further suggest3d the human civilization has prevented this “natural” process from happening. Except, get this... Human Civilization is a RESULT of evolution. And the traits supporting this that have been selected in humanity or so complex and interwoven as to make reducign the concept to “biggest, strongest man takes most attractive woman as mate” so hilariously stupid as to deserve only laughter. But, this is becoming one of those threads, and they tend to, well, evolve in this direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 11:45:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you insist on taking the Bible as a literal history and science book, contradictions are everywhere. However, if “we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas” we are starting with an assumption based on theology, and a theology that is raletively novel, historically. It also requires a method of exegesis similarly rooted in a particular narrow theological tradition. If you accept that the Bible is simultaneously not a history book but also not a work of fiction, an amazing amount of valuable “capital T” Truth is in there for you to find. Alas, false dichotomies drive internet discussions like wind does sails. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cain married a woman from the land of Nod and bore a son, Enoch. That woman was of no relation. There were clearly other proto-humans in the region, just none that met whatever standard led to the Fall story. Frankly, Bible stories make a whole lot more sense enlightened by science than placed in opposition to science. Question: "Who was Cain's wife? Was Cain's wife his sister?" Answer: The Bible does not specifically say who Cain’s wife was. The only possible answer is that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc. The Bible does not say how old Cain was when he killed Abel (Genesis 4:8). Since they were both farmers, they were likely both full-grown adults, possibly with families of their own. Adam and Eve surely had given birth to more children than just Cain and Abel at the time Abel was killed. They definitely had many more children later (Genesis 5:4). The fact that Cain was scared for his own life after he killed Abel (Genesis 4:14) indicates that there were likely many other children and perhaps even grandchildren of Adam and Eve already living at that time. Cain's wife (Genesis 4:17) was a daughter or granddaughter of Adam and Eve. The Wife If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to marry sisters or there wouldn’t have been any more generations! We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative. A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.” And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], 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 (Genesis 4:17). The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23). Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated. However, if “we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas” we are starting with an assumption based on theology, and a theology that is raletively novel, historically. It also requires a method of exegesis similarly rooted in a particular narrow theological tradition. If you accept that the Bible is simultaneously not a history book but also not a work of fiction, an amazing amount of valuable “capital T” Truth is in there for you to find. Alas, false dichotomies drive internet discussions like wind does sails. "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: - creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience - the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story - Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark." - James Barr It was meant to be taken literally (except for obvious parables by Jesus, etc.). There's a blatant lineage tree written down from "first man". This may come as a big shock, but maybe people were gullible/dumb/made shit up back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 11:49:49 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no, if you read - Adam and eve was not the first humans on earth. They were the blood lines for Jesus to come. If adamn and eve was the first, then how could the land of nod had people and a woman for Cain? also one day in heaven is a 1000 years on earth. That is why no one has ever lived over 1000 years. because remember what God told Adam and even " In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Remember a 1 day to God is a 1000 years on earth. so, Adam did die and it was within that day of the Lord. the 1000 years is one day can be found here: 2 Peter 3:8–9 --- so the 7 day creation wasnt 7 earth days, but 7000 years...adam and even came after 4,000 years from when the first man and woman was created. Genesis 1:26 was the making of man....after god rested on the 7th day in Genesis 2:7 was when God man adam....all anyone has to do is read, understand and see man was made before the 7th day and after the 7th day Adam was made. you really have to go back to the Pentateuch to get the original language. Translations have twisted some words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So Neanderthals were already here, aliens made adam and eve, rhen they intermingled, killed off, or out competed them? If adamn and eve was the first, then how could the land of nod had people and a woman for Cain? also one day in heaven is a 1000 years on earth. That is why no one has ever lived over 1000 years. because remember what God told Adam and even " In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Remember a 1 day to God is a 1000 years on earth. so, Adam did die and it was within that day of the Lord. the 1000 years is one day can be found here: 2 Peter 3:8–9 --- so the 7 day creation wasnt 7 earth days, but 7000 years...adam and even came after 4,000 years from when the first man and woman was created. Genesis 1:26 was the making of man....after god rested on the 7th day in Genesis 2:7 was when God man adam....all anyone has to do is read, understand and see man was made before the 7th day and after the 7th day Adam was made. you really have to go back to the Pentateuch to get the original language. Translations have twisted some words. The fundamentalists are right in their interpretations (or at least more "right" than the people who want to apologize for religion and mesh it with Modernity) .............. it's just that ........ it's nonsense made up by people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2018 12:00:15 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are humanizing animals to attempt to make them simalar to us. For the gif you posted there are a thousand more that display basic instinct over compassion and and reason. Though you could post a thousand of humans doing the same. Elevate the bar. Show me an animal flying without wings, containing a forest fire, building a combustion engine or harnessing the suns energy and converting it to electricity. Any ape can use body language and communication to intimidate a younger, weaker member of its group. Get back to me when they invent the internet then argue about theology over it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You realize humanity isn't the only animal to display social structure, right? Right? Eta.. humanity and animals both have social order. I don’t lump the two together necessarily. In the wild the fittest animal takes their mate at will and reproduces at every opportunity. Gorillas made their own rules and have social structure--behavioral consequences for nonconformity. Sociality...including mating, conflict, cooperation .ect. There's an entire field of biology dedicated to studying the rules animals impose on themselves just WRT to mating. http://i.imgur.com/KEtJMpA.gif 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2018 12:21:26 AM EDT
[#46]
It’s pretty simple...god didn’t create humans. Humans created humans.
Old world ended...we sent people to earth from a distant galaxy to restart life. We will do it again. The proof is in the book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2018 12:30:04 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It’s pretty simple...god didn’t create humans. Humans created humans. Old world ended...we sent people to earth from a distant galaxy to restart life. We will do it again. The proof is in the book.  Attached File |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
