Number of atheists & agnostics grows

[tommyjones]

Not sure how that's a gotcha, but if it makes you feel better to think so......

Why can't we all be brothers and sisters just because more than two people were created? That's a theme, not a literal interpretation - I have no brother physically, so I know you're not my brother physically. Spiritually, though.....

it was a gotcha in the "now i understadn where you are coming from" sense.


you choose to make liberal assumptions not supported by scripture to enchance your position :gotcha:

 

[This_person]

it was a gotcha in the "now i understadn where you are coming from" sense.


you choose to make liberal assumptions not supported by scripture to enchance your position :gotcha:

I stated that up front! I said that there was a wife, and the Bible didn't explain (or need to) exactly where that wife came from, but that common sense would provide that answer - context clues and simple intelligence.

In other words, I don't have to know the lineage of your mother and father to know you were born of a mother and father. I don't have to know each and every creation to recognize that the person identified as "wife" was not "mother", since Eve was already identified.

 

[tommyjones]

YOUR CLAIM IS THAT GOD CREATED WIFES AND HUSBANDS FOR ADAM AND EVE'S CHILDREN.

I stated that up front! I said that there was a wife, and the Bible didn't explain (or need to) exactly where that wife came from, but that common sense would provide that answer - context clues and simple intelligence.

without adding your slant to the bible, it clearly states that all people came from adam and eve, the only two people god is credited for creating.

In other words, I don't have to know the lineage of your mother and father to know you were born of a mother and father. I don't have to know each and every creation to recognize that the person identified as "wife" was not "mother", since Eve was already identified.

well then it had to be a sister as EVERY PERSON CAME FROM ADAM AND EVE.
while that might seem oooogie to you,that alone doesn't discount what is written in the bible

 

[This_person]

YOUR CLAIM IS THAT GOD CREATED WIFES AND HUSBANDS FOR ADAM AND EVE'S CHILDREN.


without adding your slant to the bible, it clearly states that all people came from adam and eve, the only two people god is credited for creating.


well then it had to be a sister as EVERY PERSON CAME FROM ADAM AND EVE.
while that might seem oooogie to you,that alone doesn't discount what is written in the bible

I do not see it clearly stating that - please provide the verse. Adam and Eve had two boys, who went out and lived their lives, then, after Abel died and AFTER Cain had a wife, Adam and Eve had more kids. No kids between Abel's birth and Cain having a wife.

We're both reading into the story, because there is not enough detail to show either of us correct or incorrect. Other than the consistent identification and differentiation of wives, sisters, daughters, etc. When Lot was raped by his daughters, it was clearly described as being his daughters, not his "wives". Context clues.

 

[This_person]

I've noticed since I quoted Darwin and the textbook explaination, no one wants to talk about evolution or how I so do not understand it any more

 

[tommyjones]

I do not see it clearly stating that - please provide the verse. Adam and Eve had two boys, who went out and lived their lives, then, after Abel died and AFTER Cain had a wife, Adam and Eve had more kids. No kids between Abel's birth and Cain having a wife.

We're both reading into the story, because there is not enough detail to show either of us correct or incorrect. Other than the consistent identification and differentiation of wives, sisters, daughters, etc. When Lot was raped by his daughters, it was clearly described as being his daughters, not his "wives". Context clues.

what god is supposed to have created was described.

 

[This_person]

That is what is meant by square peg, round hole problem. If Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. Then there are only 3 options for the people of Lod

1. They were progeny of Adam & Eve. Which makes Cain's marriage sticky (the Bible does have a history of Incest so nothing new)
2. They were created by OT God after Adam & Eve, just weird that nothing was mentioned about the "other" civilization OT God devoted some time to.
3. Adam & Eve were the first of OT God's people. The people of Lod believed in a different entity

My presumption, and that's what it is, mine and a presumption, is #2. I base this on the shere volume of unneeded detail left out of the discussions in the Bible. I don't need to know, it's not important to the theme nor message of the story, so why spend time on telling it, too. Each and every animal isn't described. Perhaps each and every human wasn't, either. It's really not an important facet to the story, any more than which skins God made clothes out of for Adam and Eve. It just doesn't matter, really.

 

[wxtornado]

I've noticed since I quoted Darwin and the textbook explaination, no one wants to talk about evolution or how I so do not understand it any more

We can certainly talk about it if you wanna - I'm game.

 

[This_person]

what god is supposed to have created was described.

In general. He created this, that, the other thing.... Not each and every specific thing was described.

He created mankind. The first guy was Adam, the first woman Eve. Doesn't mention at what stage of life they were created, how their childhoods went (if they had them), what their phobias or hair color were..... details of little or no importance were left out.

Clearly, there was someone to be a wife. The most logical, literary-based explaination would be another creation because of how the rest of the story is written. From the point of view of the meaning to be gotten from the stories involved, the rest is unimportant.

Going in to more detail would be quite laborious. What year car and make car was Mayberry's Sherrif Taylor's squad car? What kind of gas mileage did it get? How did he make it to Raleigh and back - did he have to stop for gas? Which way did he take? It just doesn't matter to the story, y'know?

 

[This_person]

We can certainly talk about it if you wanna - I'm game.

Go for it. You tell me I don't understand and need to write a sternly worded letter to my school for teaching me that evolution implies a common ancestor of the horse, bat, whale, and me - and there it is in writing. Straight from the horse (pun intended )'s mouth!

 

[tommyjones]

I've noticed since I quoted Darwin and the textbook explaination, no one wants to talk about evolution or how I so do not understand it any more

that is the first, albeit not the only theory of evolution. To fully understadn Darwin's postition you need to understand the world at the time. Religious feedom wasn't what we have today, so there is the very real possibility that Darwin's theory was sculpted to not offend the kings religious beliefs. Just a guess.

However, to understand evoltution, you do not need to know where life came from. that is where you have a failure to understand scientific method.

there are numerous theories of life coming to earth that could explain more than one original speciecs started the whole ball of wax, or that live started and was then altered or added to by some thing.....


primoridal oooz- live starts in the green water as you describe, millions of years later (and into the first lifes evolution) another independant life emerges.

galagtic debris- life was transported to earth from somewhere far away, began to evolve, and then millions of years later it happens again, ETC....

 

[This_person]

that is the first, albeit not the only theory of evolution. To fully understadn Darwin's postition you need to understand the world at the time. Religious feedom wasn't what we have today, so there is the very real possibility that Darwin's theory was sculpted to not offend the kings religious beliefs. Just a guess.

He spoke a great deal about the Creator, and how what he was saying was denying the logic (comes back to that word a lot, doesn't it?) of individual creations of each creature since there are so many similarities (actually seems quite logical to me, but I've made stuff before). His point was that the similarities of a bat's wing, horse's leg, etc., etc., were due to all of these creatures having a common ancestor that devolved, er, evolved into many different distinct species, each using that common ancestor's traits and evolving into something appropriate for itself.

However, to understand evoltution, you do not need to know where life came from. that is where you have a failure to understand scientific method.

And, this is where I think you don't read what I write.

My question regarding evolution is, show me the common ancestor to the horse, the bat, the whale and the human (at least). If this is true, prove it. If not, it's not true, it's a theory. It MAY be true, but it's not "fact", it's theory.

My question regarding the origin of life is, show me. Show me the equation, the process that could take lifelessness and make life out of it.

How those two equate is that evolution, as you so aptly state, requires life to begin with. Since we can empiracally show (through millions of other planets without life) that the odds of a life-creating chemical event is so unlikely, so rare to occur ANYWHERE at ANY TIME, the odds against it happening twice on THE SAME planet are astronomically high enough to call it impossible. Thus, for the evolution to have occurred as described, there must have been one highly unlikely life creating event from which all of life today exists. Now, since only about 1% of all life that ever existed on this planet exists now, it should be pretty easy to show the commonality of it all, shouldn't it?

there are numerous theories of life coming to earth that could explain more than one original speciecs started the whole ball of wax, or that live started and was then altered or added to by some thing.....


primoridal oooz- live starts in the green water as you describe, millions of years later (and into the first lifes evolution) another independant life emerges.

galagtic debris- life was transported to earth from somewhere far away, began to evolve, and then millions of years later it happens again, ETC....

And, with millions of things hitting the earth all the time, and our ability to see and explain the happenings on an incredible number of planets and moons and planetoids, etc., wouldn't we have some inkling that we could demonstrate any of this?

 

[This_person]

Hmm seems Genesis 3:20 answers it :



I apologize i've been sayign Lod when its Nod

No where does it say that Cains wife is from Nod, all it says is that he went to the Land of Nod, east of Eden.

The Bible then spits out that he "Knew" his wife, without going into that his wife was a female from Adam & Eve line, she has to be since Eve is the Mother of all living, it follows she was also pretty close on the family tree.

So, Eve was Adam's mother, and the cattle's mother, and the corn's mother......?

This was Adam's thing, not God's thing. Adam named Eve Eve, not God.

If Adam and Eve had kids between Abel and when Cain already had a wife, it's certainly not described either. This lack of detail, while highly unimportant in the grand scheme of things, is where there can be differences of opinion on what actually happened. I'm just trying to use the best literary devices to come to the answer.

 

[tommyjones]

He spoke a great deal about the Creator, and how what he was saying was denying the logic (comes back to that word a lot, doesn't it?) of individual creations of each creature since there are so many similarities (actually seems quite logical to me, but I've made stuff before). His point was that the similarities of a bat's wing, horse's leg, etc., etc., were due to all of these creatures having a common ancestor that devolved, er, evolved into many different distinct species, each using that common ancestor's traits and evolving into something appropriate for itself.And, this is where I think you don't read what I write.

My question regarding evolution is, show me the common ancestor to the horse, the bat, the whale and the human (at least). If this is true, prove it. If not, it's not true, it's a theory. It MAY be true, but it's not "fact", it's theory.

My question regarding the origin of life is, show me. Show me the equation, the process that could take lifelessness and make life out of it.

How those two equate is that evolution, as you so aptly state, requires life to begin with. Since we can empiracally show (through millions of other planets without life) that the odds of a life-creating chemical event is so unlikely, so rare to occur ANYWHERE at ANY TIME, the odds against it happening twice on THE SAME planet are astronomically high enough to call it impossible. Thus, for the evolution to have occurred as described, there must have been one highly unlikely life creating event from which all of life today exists. Now, since only about 1% of all life that ever existed on this planet exists now, it should be pretty easy to show the commonality of it all, shouldn't it?And, with millions of things hitting the earth all the time, and our ability to see and explain the happenings on an incredible number of planets and moons and planetoids, etc., wouldn't we have some inkling that we could demonstrate any of this?

where do you get this stuff?

we KNOW that no human has been to another planet, and therefore we have NO idea if there is life on them or not. And thats just our solar system, not the millions of planets you claim to know about.

for all we know there is life on the moon of jupiter, or in some unnamed planted as yet to be discovered, we just dont know. to dismiss the possibility out of hand is the peak of arrogance.

 

[tommyjones]

So, Eve was Adam's mother, and the cattle's mother, and the corn's mother......?

This was Adam's thing, not God's thing. Adam named Eve Eve, not God.

If Adam and Eve had kids between Abel and when Cain already had a wife, it's certainly not described either. This lack of detail, while highly unimportant in the grand scheme of things, is where there can be differences of opinion on what actually happened. I'm just trying to use the best literary devices to come to the answer.

It was gods story though, right? he dictated it to those who wrote it, wouldn't he have made sure they got it right?

 

[This_person]

Well it was Adams job to name everything (remember ¿)

Its important as a display of yet another instance of Incest (or insect) that is excused in the Bible, while extolling the virtues of that incestuist (sp?) union.

I don't see incest. I see no verification of that. I don't think Eve is the mother of all living, I think Adam saw her that way. She was not there for the creation of stuff, and did not "mother" anything directly other than what's reported (meaning, she did not give birth to the cattle, the insects ((just for fun)), the watermelon vines, etc). She was the first female human, thus her status as "mother" of all who followed her. Makes zero sense to take Adam's name for her as a literal status for her.

I don't see any incest "exused", or whose virtue is "extolled" in the Bible. There are other instances that demonstrate actual incestuous actions (funny they described those, but not this one, eh?), but I've never seen those described as virtuous actions in any way!

 

[This_person]

where do you get this stuff?

we KNOW that no human has been to another planet, and therefore we have NO idea if there is life on them or not. And thats just our solar system, not the millions of planets you claim to know about.

for all we know there is life on the moon of jupiter, or in some unnamed planted as yet to be discovered, we just dont know. to dismiss the possibility out of hand is the peak of arrogance.

I didn't say it's definatly not there, I said we have no evidence of it (empiracal data, not hard data). We get evidence of other planets though bombardament of our own with asteroids and meteorites, and have seen much of what's in our solor system through Voyager and the like. Now, we may have deposited life on Mars, but we've seen nothing to indicate it has ever been there before.

Where do I get it? I generalilze and extrapolate wildly, the way so many do about religion.

 

[This_person]

It was gods story though, right? he dictated it to those who wrote it, wouldn't he have made sure they got it right?

Kind of like this!


Who said they got it wrong? Perhaps your (or perhaps my) interpretation is wrong. Either way, much like evolution to religion, I don't see the point of arguing the detail of the story.

 

[tommyjones]

She was the first female human, thus her status as "mother" of all who followed her. Makes zero sense to take Adam's name for her as a literal status for her.

even your own procimation that she was not the mother of all people indicates that she was the first human woman and the "mother" of all who follow her.
considering you put so much emphasis on the wording of cains taking a wife, dont you think the same should be done for this?

If god wanted us to think she was not mother of all subsequent people why would he have She IS in the book?

 

[tommyjones]

Kind of like this!


Who said they got it wrong? Perhaps your (or perhaps my) interpretation is wrong. Either way, much like evolution to religion, I don't see the point of arguing the detail of the story.

only because it is becoming increasingly clear that your POV is not consistent with what is written.