Number of atheists & agnostics grows

[This_person]

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?

Well, I meant mother in a metaphoric sense, for certainly where it says she was mother of all living, she wasn't.

Or, maybe she was the source (from her rib) for the people of the land of Nod, thus making her the "mother" of all living peoples at the time.

Or, maybe it was a nice gesture on Adam's part, since there may not have been any other living people at the time he named her (this is pre-Cain, after all, when he names her), because he may have thought that she would be the mother of all living people.

Maybe souls are handed down from human to human, and she held all the souls in existence at the time, and each one of those souls is where we get ours from today - and those that have souls are the "living", and those that do not have souls (from the people of Nod) are those who choose not to be "born again", and are not God's chosen people - just products of the evolution of Nod-folk.

Maybe the detail of where Cain got a wife is an insignificant side story to the overall story of the Bible?

 

[This_person]

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

It's no less consistent than any other thought - actually more-so. Each case of incest subsequent to this that is described in the Bible is so described. Each case of a child being born subsequent to this is so described. Each case of a "wife" subsequent (and previous) to this is so described. At no other point are any of these things in question - thus the literary clue that it is not in question here, either.

 

[tommyjones]

It's no less consistent than any other thought - actually more-so. Each case of incest subsequent to this that is described in the Bible is so described. Each case of a child being born subsequent to this is so described. Each case of a "wife" subsequent (and previous) to this is so described. At no other point are any of these things in question - thus the literary clue that it is not in question here, either.

youre funny, stretching things in every direction to suit your position.

either things are spelled out clearly, or they aren't.

 

[This_person]

youre funny, stretching things in every direction to suit your position.

either things are spelled out clearly, or they aren't.

I've repeatedly said this isn't spelled out clearly - no doubt on that one. This is a huge gaping (unimportant) detail hole. Fully agree it's not spelled out clearly.

That's why I use the literary devices to figure it out - the context clues.

 

[tommyjones]

I've repeatedly said this isn't spelled out clearly - no doubt on that one. This is a huge gaping (unimportant) detail hole. Fully agree it's not spelled out clearly.

That's why I use the literary devices to figure it out - the context clues.

you mean like that part of the bible was talking about the creation of human kind and gives a lineage. It speaks to god only creating 2 people and eve being "mother" to all that follow?

yeah, thats the context

 

[This_person]

you mean like that part of the bible was talking about the creation of human kind and gives a lineage. It speaks to god only creating 2 people and eve being "mother" to all that follow?

yeah, thats the context

Sort of - the context of how the story was written - like:
Each case of incest subsequent to this that is described in the Bible is so described. Each case of a child being born subsequent to this is so described. Each case of a "wife" subsequent (and previous) to this is so described. At no other point are any of these things in question - thus the literary clue that it is not in question here, either.

 

[LateApex]

Well, I meant mother in a metaphoric sense, for certainly where it says she was mother of all living, she wasn't.

Or, maybe she was the source (from her rib) for the people of the land of Nod, thus making her the "mother" of all living peoples at the time.

Or, maybe it was a nice gesture on Adam's part, since there may not have been any other living people at the time he named her (this is pre-Cain, after all, when he names her), because he may have thought that she would be the mother of all living people.

Maybe souls are handed down from human to human, and she held all the souls in existence at the time, and each one of those souls is where we get ours from today - and those that have souls are the "living", and those that do not have souls (from the people of Nod) are those who choose not to be "born again", and are not God's chosen people - just products of the evolution of Nod-folk.

Maybe the detail of where Cain got a wife is an insignificant side story to the overall story of the Bible?

This is why religion should be taken with a grain of salt.

You can choose how to interpret things when it suits you.

Those in power have been doing that for centuries.

How can you control the masses? Use religion!

 

[Solja_Boy]

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?

According to the bible the earth was created in 7 days. Hasn't science proven that this is not true? How do you explain dinosaurs? Religion is just a way to explain what people don't understand. It changes over time. Back in roman days the sun, moon, exc used to be gods. Science has proven that they are planets and now they are no logger worshiped.

There are many different religions out there. Out of all the religions which one is rite? They can't all be, many of them contradict each other.

 

[This_person]

This is why religion should be taken with a grain of salt.

You can choose how to interpret things when it suits you.

Those in power have been doing that for centuries.

How can you control the masses? Use religion!

You're right - using common sense when following a story line to fill in the unimportant details is quite the interpretive process. That's certainly how I'm trying to control the masses!

 

[This_person]

According to the bible the earth was created in 7 days. Hasn't science proven that this is not true?

You've found proof (not conjecture and theory) of the earth's creation? The universe's creation? If you've done that, can you show me the published study, and that proof?

There are many different religions out there. Out of all the religions which one is rite? They can't all be, many of them contradict each other.

This is a matter of personal belief, much like choosing to put faith in science. When one of them actually has proof of something substantial, I'll probably reconsider my personal beliefs.

 

[2ndAmendment]

According to the bible the earth was created in 7 days. Hasn't science proven that this is not true? How do you explain dinosaurs? Religion is just a way to explain what people don't understand. It changes over time. Back in roman days the sun, moon, exc used to be gods. Science has proven that they are planets and now they are no logger worshiped.

There are many different religions out there. Out of all the religions which one is rite? They can't all be, many of them contradict each other.

No, the Bible does not say the earth was created in seven days. It says:

Genesis 1
The Creation
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

11Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

22God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

29Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1-3

1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.

2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

So God created the universe and all their host, all things in, on, or around them, in six days. That includes the dinosaurs.

I personally think the Bible is arranged so that you have to have the faith of a child to believe which is what is called for for salvation. Since God can do anything, He can create things with the appearance of age, or it could be that satan deceives human senses and "wisdom" to make things appear older to us that they really are.

Some believe it, some don't, but human footprints have been found in dinosaur footprints meaning that the human and dinosaur footprints were made at the same relative time.

Science keeps changing. The account of creation does not.

 

[Solja_Boy]

Some believe it, some don't, but human footprints have been found in dinosaur footprints meaning that the human and dinosaur footprints were made at the same relative time.

Science keeps changing. The account of creation does not.

Carbon dating does not support this. The oldest human skeletal remains do not date back as far as the skeletal remains of dinosaurs.

What about evolution. If Adam and eve where the first two people evolution could not be possible. There is a lot of scientific evidence that backs up the theory of evolution.

The bible was written by people who where far less knowledgeable than people today. Technology has given people a far better understanding of the universe than the people had in the time of Christ.

God created the universe and all their host, all things in, on, or around them, in six days. ]

We can see many millions of light years into the past through advanced radio telescopes. Through this processes scientists have seen how stars are created over a period of millions of years. The formation of distant stars predates the first evidence of life on earth.

Religion is constantly changing to explain what the current level of science has not been able to prove.

 

[toppick08]

Carbon dating does not support this. The oldest human skeletal remains do not date back as far as the skeletal remains of dinosaurs.

What about evolution. If Adam and eve where the first two people evolution could not be possible. The is a lot of scientific evidence that backs up the theory of evolution.

The bible was written by people who where far less knowledgeable than people today. Technology has given people a far better understanding of the universe than the people had in the time of Christ.



We can see many millions of light years into the past through advanced radio telescopes. Through this processes scientists have seen how stars are created over a period of millions of years. The formation of distant stars predates the first evidence of life on earth.

Religion is constantly changing to explain what the current level of science has not been able to prove.

You're still a monkey.

 

[This_person]

Carbon dating does not support this. The oldest human skeletal remains do not date back as far as the skeletal remains of dinosaurs.

What about evolution. If Adam and eve where the first two people evolution could not be possible. There is a lot of scientific evidence that backs up the theory of evolution.

As has been repeatedly shown, evolution and creation of life have nothing to do with one another. Please provide me with the scientific evidence that supports a common ancestor with humans and any other living thing (plant or animal) on earth.

What? You can't? Hmmmmmm..........

The bible was written by people who where far less knowledgeable than people today. Technology has given people a far better understanding of the universe than the people had in the time of Christ.

So, people were too stupid to know the earth was round (even though that's what the bible told them), the basic order in which things were formed (even though that's what the bible told them), etc? Interesting point of view. They couldn't talk on cell phones, so they must be wrong!!

We can see many millions of light years into the past through advanced radio telescopes. Through this processes scientists have seen how stars are created over a period of millions of years. The formation of distant stars predates the first evidence of life on earth.

And, this conflicts with the Bible how?

Religion is constantly changing to explain what the current level of science has not been able to prove.

Only to those who think that religion and science are incompatible (you know, close minded fools). Religion has stayed constant, science is catching up and helping explian what has been told to us over the millenium.

 

[This_person]

He then argued that Adam/Eve and Evolution can not occur concurrently

This was what I was responding to - why can't they each be true? That humans have changed/evolved over the years is pretty obvious. Thus, evolution (in my mind) for humans is pretty clearly true. That humans have evolved FROM some other species is yet to be shown with any clarity at all - purely fantastical hypothesis. But, saying that humans began life, and changed over the thousands of years? Seems very obvious to me.

We understand that you feel you yourself enlightened, but up until 400 AD (or so) it was generally believed that the Earth was flat.

Just as with other beliefs, Christianity also had followers that vocally argued that the Earth was flat.

Lactantius (converted Christian)
St John Chrysostom (i'm going to guess a Saint woud have the backing of the church)
St Athanasius (another Saint)
Bishop Severian (hmm I think a Bishop speaks for the church)

Right, a lot of people have been wrong on a lot of things. Science has certainly held fast to a lot of really dumb ideas until the fanatisism of some scientists was finally debunked conclusively. Blood sucking leech, anyone, for your fever?

My point was that science takes in its data as best it can, and interprets it as best it can. Religious people take in their data as best they can, and interpret it as best they can.

That some people are wrong doesn't make science wrong, or religion wrong. It makes the interpretation wrong. The global warming debate demonstrates this very strongly today - people with agendas interpret data one way, people with opposite agendas interpret data the opposite way, people with objectivity have to pick and understand what's right and what's wrong from both arguments, and make their best determination.

Edit: And, speaking for the church does NOT mean speaking for the religion.

 

[Solja_Boy]

What? You can't? Hmmmmmm..........So, people were too stupid to know the earth was round (even though that's what the bible told them), the basic order in which things were formed (even though that's what the bible told them), etc? Interesting point of view. They couldn't talk on cell phones, so they must be wrong!! And, this conflicts with the Bible how?Only to those who think that religion and science are incompatible (you know, close minded fools). Religion has stayed constant, science is catching up and helping explian what has been told to us over the millenium.

I never said people where stupid. I said less knowledgeable. There is a big difference between the two. As time passes people invent better tools. These tools can be used for anything from studying the past to helping with construction. As mans knowledge grows so does his understanding of the past and how things where created.

 

[This_person]

I never said people where stupid. I said less knowledgeable. There is a big difference between the two. As time passes people invent better tools. These tools can be used for anything from studying the past to helping with construction. As mans knowledge grows so does his understanding of the past and how things where created.

What knowledge do we have that contradicts what the Bible actually says?

Not what theories do we have that contradicts what some people claim the bible says, but what actual proven knowledge compared with actual words of the Bible?

 

[Solja_Boy]

What knowledge do we have that contradicts what the Bible actually says?

Not what theories do we have that contradicts what some people claim the bible says, but what actual proven knowledge compared with actual words of the Bible?

Genisis 1
The Creation

14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

According to the bible the heavens (space) was created on the first day. Then the stars were placed into the heavens an another day.

Science shows the formation of stars to take millions of years. Some of the stars in space predate evidence of life on earth.

 

[Solja_Boy]

What knowledge do we have that contradicts what the Bible actually says?

Not what theories do we have that contradicts what some people claim the bible says, but what actual proven knowledge compared with actual words of the Bible?

Proof goes both ways. People always want you to prove the bible wrong. How come these same people never try and prove the bible write.

For example what proof is there that the earth and all life was created in 6 days? Is there any evidence to suport this?

 

[This_person]

According to the bible the heavens (space) was created on the first day. Then the stars were placed into the heavens an another day.

Science shows the formation of stars to take millions of years. Some of the stars in space predate evidence of life on earth.

All of the stars predate life, per Genesis, lending credibility to science's conclusion.

So, let's go with what it says in context:

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So, let's go with this. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Don't see a time frame. Don't see a clock, don't see any time reference.


As a matter of fact, I don't see any reference to determine time other than the word "day". Hell, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day per this. So, what was a day? A God version of a day, or a human version of a day? Was a "day" the same length, or is the earth's rotation slowing down? And, why does it rotate - perhaps a day was a few billion years in terms of earth's rotation..... See how it doesn't pay to take a surface/literal translation? There's no conflict unless you seek conflict. There is a great deal of ability to reconcile what's written with what we suspect (from "evidence" obtained from other sources) to be true.

From nothing, there was something. No mention of all the other somethings, or time (really) for any of this. Is time really the point of the story? Or, maybe relative time (in other words, what happened in what order).

I see no conflict, because I'm not trying to nit-pick the insignificant details. This is a pretty "big picture" story, not a detail oriented one.