In the Beginning...

[El_Machinae]

I really like the energy paragraph. How solid is that, factually? Can I reasonably store that as a factoid for some future date?

 

[Lorizael]

It's right with some subtleties and caveats. Technically the orbital energy is the total energy of the system (sun+planet), which means you're occasionally forced to make assumptions such as: gravity is the only relevant force (pretty good assumption), the Sun isn't moving in any significant way, the mass of the planet is inconsequential, etc.

As far as the difference in energy between orbits, as I said, that's the minimum energy you need to apply. To actually effect a change in orbit, you need to carry out a specific orbital maneuver (such as a Hohmann transfer orbit). Whatever orbital maneuver you use will require at least as much energy as the cited difference, and has to be done in multiple stages.

Finally, blowing up a planet by imparting more energy than its gravitational binding energy assumes that gravity is the only force holding a planet together. This is demonstrably false, because rocks. But on a global scale, gravity is by far the dominant force. We know this because the Earth is in hydrostatic equilibrium, which basically means it acts like a fluid rather than a solid. That's why the Earth bulges around the equator and it's also why the Earth is nearly perfectly flat when you consider the height of mountains (5-10 km) versus the radius of the Earth (6300 km).

 

[timtofly]

Do we know how much motion the sun had then, and now? How much would be significant?

 

[Lexicus]

Do we know how much motion the sun had then, and now? How much would be significant?

The Sun's motion relative to the planets is negligible, which isn't surprising since the Sun comprises 98% of the solar system's mass.

Technically speaking the bodies in the solar system (including the Sun) all orbit the solar system's barycenter which is sometimes inside the Sun, sometimes not:

There is no reason to suppose this has changed much over the life of the solar system.

 

[Lorizael]

I'll add that the Sun orbits the solar system's barycenter very slowly. Jupiter, making up most of the remaining 2% of the solar system's mass and also being far from the Sun, has the largest influence on where the barycenter is. So you can kind of pretend that the Sun and Jupiter are doing a little two-body dance. And in that case, they have to complete their orbits in the same amount of time. That is, a Sun "year" relative to the Sun-Jupiter barycenter is just as long as a Jupiter year (12 years), but it's going a much shorter distance during that year (because it's so close to the barycenter), which means it's moving slowly.

As you see from that diagram, the motion of the barycenter means the Sun isn't really making a simple orbit about anything, but the above argument is still valid for understanding that it moves slowly.

 

[Berzerker]

It's not my side of the debate in the slightest, as I don't know nearly enough about astronomy to argue the point to which you are seemingly welded. Do feel free to tell me which of my beliefs you think I hold and which are unquestioned, as I'm sure that will be profitable.

You think Sitchin's theory the Earth formed at the asteroid belt is nonsense

Arakhor isn't taking a side. As he quite clearly stated.

My side in this debate is that Sitchen's ideas are literally incredible.

Your side agrees, thats why its your side...

 

[Berzerker]

I am not sure that you can have it both ways. Either God introduced sin to a perfect world through Adam, or aliens were involved in the evolutionary process.

Creation was 'good', sin was only introduced because Adam obtained the ability to (understand) sin. Which is interesting, his disobedience wasn't a sin because he lacked the ability or knowledge but once he acquired that ability he felt ashamed or embarrassed. I see in the story an echo of our ancient past, the 1st man goes from innocent, unashamed, and ignorant of morality to become "us"...born sinners.

God did not place Adam in the garden to work. The Garden was a naturally growing place, and God even gave Adam animals to name and fill the garden with more options than work.

The Garden was planted and Adam's job was to work - to keep and cultivate it. Its no coincidence the Mesopotamian myth says the first peoples were created to labor for the gods.

Some would call them descendants of Adam, but only because of the change after loosing a perfect godlike position, not because they were animals who learned how to become human. The knowledge gained was good and evil, and the consequences of disobeying God.

"the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden"

Animals dont know good and evil, acquiring that knowledge is a step towards being god-like. But notice God's reason for expelling Adam and Eve? It wasn't sin or disobedience, it was to prevent living forever. What would have happened if Adam ate from the tree of life first and then the tree of knowledge?

The Mesopotamian and other Eastern myths had humans created eons after the beginning. The first six days were just that, Days. It was not thousands of years of dark, and then thousands of years of daytime. It was a night and day cycle.

How was there night and day without any lights in the sky? The days are the monotheist's attempt to disguise the primordial gods of old who played a specific role in creation, Marduk/God passes by 5 gods to battle Tiamat (the 6th god) and her remains (Earth) are pushed inward replacing Mars as the 7th planet - 6 days of creation and a 7th to praise Marduk's accomplishments.

I don't think that Genesis 10:25 just referred to the national divide, but there was a land divide that caused the people groups to be separated from each other. If people came back from the sea, they may have tried to get back to their original place, but it may have taken them some time to get back.

Pelug may have lived in the time of the Tower to Heaven, it was then that the people of the city were divided.

God put all humans all over the continent. The narrative about Adam was the same time, and his was the only detail we have. Other than later when Cain left (the Garden) he went to an already established place.

According to Genesis people had an original homeland westward of the Garden, it was from there the Adam was taken to the Garden. And when he was expelled the entrance facing East was guarded. Upon expulsion Cain is conceived and dwells in the land of Nod east of the Garden. By that time other people had already migrated away from our ancestral homeland. Thats why Cain has a wife and why he's so worried about being killed to avenge Abel.

I would tend to think that entropy started when Adam was not allowed to enter the Garden. There was no need to eat of either tree. The need to eat from the tree of life, was only after Adam took of the forbidden tree. Adam could have or could not have eaten of the tree of life, before that event, as there was only one tree that he could not eat from. There was no rule stating that he had to eat of the tree of life. It was just there to eat from.

Its possible Adam and Eve were partaking of the tree of life and with continued access denied their mortality would no longer be delayed, but the text doesn't mention it and God's fear was now that they had the knowledge adding eternal life would make them even more god-like.

How did the Enuma Elish know that there were other gods before the ones that created ape-men?

They were given an account of creation by people (gods) who knew

The Bible says nothing of a modified Adam. It does say that Adam was cloned, but that is not being modified.

The tree of knowledge modified the Adam. Who do we credit with that modification? God provided the tree (but banned its use) and the Serpent talked the earthlings into partaking.

I think that it got jumbled and it was Mummu from the myths who was the acting Chief. God confided in this being several times, and later he was called Satan. The myths state that the earth, a dragon like being killed God and this being, and created her own gods. Later it was Marduk/Nimrod who was the first Great leader and maybe even Gilgamesh, who reasoned with the sun god Shamash, and gained godlike status. It was this human who got credit for moving the earth to a different orbit, and caused the birth of the moon. But as you pointed out, that was in the Enuma Elish, which came much later. Because it says that the moon god (Sin) gave birth to Shamash. When Gilgemesh/Nimrod/Marduk went on his travels, it was an earlier myth.

The Enuma Elish describes events before Heaven and Earth, of the "Olden Gods" only Marduk (or fill in the blank) gets notoriety. Utu/Shamash is associated with the Sun but he is not among the olden gods, Abzu is the Sun. The same is true for the other "gods" of the Mesopotamians, Inanna/Ishtar is Venus but she's not mentioned in the creation epic either, etc... These later gods are flesh and blood like us, we were made in their image.

Where does it say that Eve had pain, even though allegedly she was supposed to? If God says that she would have pain and then no one ever mentioned it, why talk about it to begin with?

God said the pain of childbirth would be multiplied... Compared to whom? The creature used by God to make the Sumerian Adam and Eve? If Eve never gave birth was she about to encounter the pain suffered by other 6th day women? Or was she to suffer even more than them?

Why is it necessary to be human to know right from wrong?

While I presume many critters have codes of conduct, morality is an idea we associate with being human.

Why would God fear that humans would live forever? God seemed to always be pointing out how humans were wicked, and it was Adam who brought that knowledge into the world.

Acquiring the knowledge of good and evil didn't create evil anymore than it created good. God's fear was what we'd do with these gifts, see the Tower of Babel.

It does not seem that eating of the tree of life would hinder God's ability to wipe out humans and change their life span.

I wouldn't think so, yet God did not want us humans acquiring too many "god-like" attributes

That is not a given, as the different accounts overlap, and are not consecutive chronologically.

Cain's conception followed the expulsion from the Garden, that much is given

Nope, Apsu was primordial even before Tiamat. Nope, Sin/Suen/ is the moon god, and father of Uti/Nanni/Shamash the sun god. Kingu was the "unskilled Laborer" Who when Marduk killed him mixed his blood with the earth from whence he came and made ape-men. Sounds racist to me. This is then confused to mean that "Adam" was an ape-man, who evolved into humans? I don't think so, but modern evolutionary thinking may agree with the notion.

Read the 1st tablet of the Enuma Elish, Kingu was Tiamat's spouse and appointed leader of her forces arrayed against Marduk.

 

[timtofly]

The account in Genesis points out the creation of many gods who were known as humans in God's image. The Mesopotamian creation accounts like the Enuma Elisha associate them with planetary objects. Absu or God who you are claiming to come along after Tiamat, along with Mumma were the only primordial entities. There was no sun, because the earth/Tiamat already existed prior to God/Absu/Mumma further out than the other planets. The void of space where there was water. It cannot be the asteroid belt, because that was formed in the process of the earth entering the solar system. The second incident was nabiru/murduk who you are now claiming to be more human was another planetary body that stopped earth's decent into the sun, and giving birth to the moon. The last event causing the Flood.

However the gods were not planets, but actual pre-flood humans who were tied to the planets, because allegedly they could transverse between them.

That is if Tiamat/earth came from the void of space and became fixed in the solar system as space was expanding, and the solar system was just forming. We get night and day, not from light and darkness, but because the earth takes 24 hours to complete one turn on it's axis. Sleep cycles my be related to gravitational forces as much as light and dark cycles.

The sun and moon being after thoughts, because gods/humans would not be able to exist on the sun, and the moon was the result of the last major planetary incident, during the lifetime of the gods/humans. The birth of agriculture and a link to the stars was in Turkey even before the Flood and the rise of the Mesopotamians.

If you view the garden, as gods experimenting with genetics, I am not sure why you would bring God back into the narrative? I understand that is your tie to the Bible, but why change what the Bible says to fit the other creation accounts? It seems to me the Hebrews were told an entirely different story. There are extra biblical books about Enoch and Adam, that also state things differently. One point that Eve was not even Adams first mate. The reason being that she was ejected, or not even allowed and that is why Adam was single in the Garden. Perhaps God thought that by cloning Adam, he would be able to resist the tree better, or even have no need to eat of it. Whatever actually happened, it was not the genetics of eating that changed Adam, but it was God that genetically changed Adam. That is why he needed to eat of the tree of life. It would seem to me that the trees were beside each other, as a choice, but not a necessity. Eating of the tree of life, before would not have changed anything. Humans may gain a lot of unessasarry fat from eating, but food never genetically changes a human, and more than likely even if it had a weird name, still would not.

 

[Berzerker]

Arakhor isn't taking a side. As he quite clearly stated. And you're not 'watching to see' anything: the only dogma here seems to be 'Berzerker can't acknowledge an argument - or lack thereof'. It seems to be a dogma you stick by relentlessly:

No, your need is to endlessly reiterate your 'belief' without acknowledging anything anyone is pointing out to you. (See quote right above.)

That's OK then, because Earth and the water did not form together, and did not form at the asteroid belt (which wouldn't be there at that point). The only evidence we have here is your complete lack of understanding of basic astronomy. To wit:

Yes, I'm sure that's very relevant. Just not to astronomy.

I don't feel the need to explain basic geology to you, no.

Actually, it does: not an asteroid belt.

Humbug. Repeated humbug, but still very much humbug. Check right above.

So where did the Earth and its water form?

By you? Yes.

Here's what you said:

Jupiter isn't really that big: beyond Jupiter are the gas giants.

So you're accusing me of making that up too?

The 'basis' of my sarcasm would be clear to anyone reading this thread but you.

The basis for your sarcasm was Sitchin's prediction of a 200-300kya date for our appearance. The evidence supports him...

For the entire asteroid belt to be a debris trail we would need a giant collision, resulting in debris in the outer limits of the solar system.

And a bunch of loose material for the gas giants to sweep up

 

[Agent327]

You think Sitchin's theory the Earth formed at the asteroid belt is nonsense

Your side agrees, thats why its your side...

No. Someoe's ideas being 'completely incredible' means they are speaking nonsense. Now you are completely free to believe nonsense, but don't talk about 'your side', 'my side'.

I am getting the distinct impression you haven't quite followed any of Lorizael's to the point explanations. Otherwise you wouldn't be still be harping on about 'where the Earth formed' and 'where the water was'.

We know these things. You just don't accept them.

As for Jupiter and the gas giants: Jupiter is smaller than the gas giants beyond. So, Jupiter isn't that big. The gas giants are. From which you infer that 'I said that Jupiter isn't a gas giant'. Which I didn't - and which completely is not the point.

 

[Arakhor]

If an astronomy student tells me that the idea is impossible and backs it up with information, then I am more inclined to believe him than someone who keeps banging on about the Earth and its water. You may recall my asking earlier how this would prove anything in your story even if we freely granted that the Earth formed in the asteroid belt.

Then we have the assorted nonsense such as ant-people (for no apparent reason), half-million year-old starbases around Earth in a literal ancient astronaut story and this bizarre idea that these astronauts somehow created the human race but prevented them from breeding for some unspecified time. But please, carry on with the "Earth and its water" question as if that is the major stumbling block to believing all of that.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Berzerker, continuing to jump up and down on this same nonsense where you have no real scientific evidence to back it up is the kind of thing I've come to expect from someone else I've been conversing with on YT. Except that her notion is that just because a creationist got something published in a magazine that Carl Sagan edited over 20 years ago (before he died), that makes the creationist's nonsense true.

"BUT SITCHIN SAID SO!!!" is no more valid than "BUT CARL SAGAN USED TO EDIT THIS MAGAZINE!!!" as "evidence."

Carl Sagan is dead. And Sitchin is clearly out to lunch. All you're offering is a mashup of myth, Velikovsky, von Daniken, and some really weird what-if ideas and trying to make us believe that there's some reality going on there.

 

[onejayhawk]

No. Someoe's ideas being 'completely incredible' means they are speaking nonsense. Now you are completely free to believe nonsense, but don't talk about 'your side', 'my side'.

I am getting the distinct impression you haven't quite followed any of Lorizael's to the point explanations. Otherwise you wouldn't be still be harping on about 'where the Earth formed' and 'where the water was'.

We know these things. You just don't accept them.

As for Jupiter and the gas giants: Jupiter is smaller than the gas giants beyond. So, Jupiter isn't that big. The gas giants are. From which you infer that 'I said that Jupiter isn't a gas giant'. Which I didn't - and which completely is not the point.

Don't be too harsh. You know that there were no scholars to invent writing, which is much more implausible.

J

 

[Berzerker]

It would be fairly surprising if water had not been one of the constituents of the planetary nebula from which the Earth formed.

What you are missing is that "formed in the presence of water" does not mean "formed submerged in liquid water."

There is also no evidence whatever that our water "formed" in the asteroid belt.

Researchers are trying to import our water, they dont think it formed here... They think it formed further away. Other researchers think the Earth formed in the presence of water, that we had it all along from even before the lunar cataclysm.

So just how large did the Earth have to get before liquid water could form on the surface? Where is the rock that didn't form in water?

No. Someoe's ideas being 'completely incredible' means they are speaking nonsense. Now you are completely free to believe nonsense, but don't talk about 'your side', 'my side'.

He thinks Sitchin's theory Earth formed at the asteroid belt is wrong, he took a side but I cant acknowledge that reality?

I am getting the distinct impression you haven't quite followed any of Lorizael's to the point explanations. Otherwise you wouldn't be still be harping on about 'where the Earth formed' and 'where the water was'.

He didn't explain why our water formed elsewhere, that was one of the points he ignored.

We know these things. You just don't accept them.

I question them...and we dont know these things. There's yer dogma.

As for Jupiter and the gas giants: Jupiter is smaller than the gas giants beyond. So, Jupiter isn't that big. The gas giants are. From which you infer that 'I said that Jupiter isn't a gas giant'. Which I didn't - and which completely is not the point.

This is what you said:

Jupiter isn't really that big: beyond Jupiter are the gas giants.

I didn't have to infer anything

If an astronomy student tells me that the idea is impossible and backs it up with information, then I am more inclined to believe him than someone who keeps banging on about the Earth and its water. You may recall my asking earlier how this would prove anything in your story even if we freely granted that the Earth formed in the asteroid belt.

If the Earth formed in the presence of water, and the Earth's water formed at the asteroid belt, then that is evidence the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. As our water appears older and older there is less or no time for Jupiter to form, grow enormous, and migrate into and out of the asteroid belt to deliver our water. And thats twice Jupiter supposedly migrated into and out of the asteroid belt, it is alleged to have caused the late heavy bombardment too.

and this bizarre idea that these astronauts somehow created the human race but prevented them from breeding for some unspecified time.

I dont know they were prevented, the 6th day people were told to be fruitful. But the Adam in the Garden was expelled upon receiving the ability to procreate, so apparently God didn't want a bunch of people trampling his Garden.

Berzerker, continuing to jump up and down on this same nonsense where you have no real scientific evidence to back it up is the kind of thing I've come to expect from someone else I've been conversing with on YT. Except that her notion is that just because a creationist got something published in a magazine that Carl Sagan edited over 20 years ago (before he died), that makes the creationist's nonsense true.

"BUT SITCHIN SAID SO!!!" is no more valid than "BUT CARL SAGAN USED TO EDIT THIS MAGAZINE!!!" as "evidence."

Carl Sagan is dead. And Sitchin is clearly out to lunch. All you're offering is a mashup of myth, Velikovsky, von Daniken, and some really weird what-if ideas and trying to make us believe that there's some reality going on there.

Lotsa words and nothing to say

 

[Arakhor]

If the Earth formed in the presence of water, and the Earth's water formed at the asteroid belt, then that is evidence the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. As our water appears older and older there is less or no time for Jupiter to form, grow enormous, and migrate into and out of the asteroid belt to deliver our water. And thats twice Jupiter supposedly migrated into and out of the asteroid belt, it is alleged to have caused the late heavy bombardment too.

Once again, even if any of that is true, how does that help your case at all? How does that explain half-million year-old star-bases, ant-people and so on?

I dont know they were prevented, the 6th day people were told to be fruitful. But the Adam in the Garden was expelled upon receiving the ability to procreate, so apparently God didn't want a bunch of people trampling his Garden.

God commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful in Genesis 1:28, but they don't 'know each other' until Genesis 4:1, after being expelled from Eden for the crime of eating from the Tree of Knowledge (and definitely not because they could now procreate).

 

[Berzerker]

No, that's not how orbital mechanics works. A single impact cannot put the Earth into a new circular orbit. If the Earth were struck and slowed down, it would fall toward the Sun. As it fell, it would accelerate. By the time it reached the location of its new orbit, it would be going too fast to orbit at that distance, causing it to swing back out again to the asteroid belt. Then it would stay in an elliptical orbit between the asteroid belt and 1 AU unless something changed.

The only way to bring the Earth from the asteroid belt to here is to slow it down so that it falls toward the Sun and then slow it down again once it reaches 1 AU so that it's going the right speed for its new orbit. That new speed is faster than its old speed at the asteroid belt, because the closer a planet is to the Sun, the faster it has to go to stay in orbit without falling in. Again, it is physically impossible for a single impact to achieve this unless some other force exists to slow the Earth down at its new orbit (another impact, friction, ****ing magnets).

Thanks for the information, I hope you hang around a bit The theory involves multiple impacts, the "winds" of Marduk damaged Tiamat and eventually Marduk himself struck her and then one of his winds sent/took/bore her "skull" away to a new place. I believe researchers think its possible the Earth was struck by several large objects during the late heavy bombardment.

Second problem: energy. As I mentioned earlier, orbits have an associated energy. So to move from an orbit at the asteroid belt to 1 AU, you have to impart, at a minimum, energy equal to the difference between those two orbits. From, say, Vesta to Earth, that difference is ~1.5x10^33 joules. This is a problem because the gravitational binding energy of the Earth is ~2.5x10^32 joules. That is, if you hit Earth hard enough to move it to a lower orbit, you're also delivering 6 times as much energy as is required to annihilate the planet.

That would be okay if collisions between planets were perfectly elastic billiard ball events, because then no energy would be lost to pulverization during the collision. But as we know from our crater-filled solar system, collisions in space are not even a little bit elastic. So if a collision between some planet big and fast enough to push the Earth to 1 AU were even a smidgen inelastic, the Earth would be blown to smithereens (not resurfaced or broken, but atomized Death Star-style).

Are your numbers based on Earth's current size? The proto-Earth was larger and it suffered multiple smaller impacts rather than one large collision.

I am not interested in answering your other points because the above two arguments render your hypothesis physically unworkable.

Thats too bad, I was hoping you'd explain how Jupiter formed and grew so large before a planet could form at the snow line - that doesn't sound logical. And if the Earth formed in the presence of water and researchers believe Earth's water formed at the asteroid belt, how did the Earth form here? That doesn't make sense either.

According to the theory Pluto was a satellite of Saturn and ejected by Marduk's arrival in the solar system. Are there any mathematical relationships between the two? For example, Saturn's rings appear to align with Pluto's ~perihelion. And Pluto's aphel/per becomes ~2:1 if we subtract Saturn's distance to the sun from Pluto's.

Why dont the planets orbit the sun's equator? We're over 7 degrees... Is it possible something has dragged them off the original nebular plane?

 

[Berzerker]

Once again, even if any of that is true, how does that help your case at all? How does that explain half-million year-old star-bases, ant-people and so on?

Why would the Mesopotamian version of creation explain the Hopi ant people?

The Earth formed in the presence of water
The water formed at the asteroid belt
The Earth didn't form here, it formed at the asteroid belt too

God commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful in Genesis 1:28, but they don't 'know each other' until Genesis 4:1, after being expelled from Eden for the crime of eating from the Tree of Knowledge (and definitely not because they could now procreate).

Eve wasn't created in Gen 1:28, she appears in the story after God took the earthling/man to the Garden to work. The tree is linked to procreation, the covering up of the genitalia and the shame of being naked combined with Adam and Eve's conception of Cain upon expulsion all point to an acquired ability to procreate.

 

[Agent327]

The Earth formed in the presence of water
The water formed at the asteroid belt
The Earth didn't form here, it formed at the asteroid belt too

No, we already know none of this is true. (Oh, and water doesn't 'form' at the asteroid belt. It's either there or it isn't.) That's not a dogma - it's called scientific fact.

Eve wasn't created in Gen 1:28, she appears in the story after God took the earthling/man to the Garden to work.

There is no mention of God taking "the earthling/man to the Garden to work". Instead there is mention of creating a companion to man 'to assist him'. In fact, work is only mentioned in connection with man's expulsion from the garden. So that's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

The tree is linked to procreation, the covering up of the genitalia and the shame of being naked combined with Adam and Eve's conception of Cain upon expulsion all point to an acquired ability to procreate.

Not at all. The tree is the tree of knowledge. It says so quite explicitly in Genesis. (How that translates to 'being ashamed of being naked in the presence of your Creator' is beyond logic. But then, we're discussing the Bible here. Logic is not a priority to its authors.) Procreation isn't mentioned in any of these chapters - that's because it plays no role in this part of Genesis.

He thinks Sitchin's theory Earth formed at the asteroid belt is wrong, he took a side but I cant acknowledge that reality?

The reality - which you're not acknowledging - is that pointing out that what you think is 'Sitchin's theory' is scientifically nonsense, is not 'taking a side'. It's called pointing out a fact. Only someone like Mr Trump would call that 'taking a side'. - because it shows Mr Trump being wrong. Because Mr Trump can't acknowledge being wrong about something.

To wit:

I question them...and we dont know these things. There's yer dogma.

Pointing out what is science and what is not is dogma? This is getting quite delusional. You don't have a side; what you do have is something called 'not accepting science'- or logic. Since you're not even remotely qualified to 'question science', that leaves delusion as an explanation. You can't question science with millennia old myths or half-baked 'theories'. That simply doesn't qualify. In order to 'question science' you need actual science. Sorry.

According to Genesis people had an original homeland westward of the Garden, it was from there the Adam was taken to the Garden. And when he was expelled the entrance facing East was guarded. Upon expulsion Cain is conceived and dwells in the land of Nod east of the Garden. By that time other people had already migrated away from our ancestral homeland. Thats why Cain has a wife and why he's so worried about being killed to avenge Abel.

So, 'people' (Adam and Eve) had an original homeland 'westward of the Garden' - even though they were created in the Garden.

Cain is conceived 'upon expulsion' (from the Garden), but by that time 'other people had already migrated away from our ancestral homeland'. I'm not quite sure what people that would be, seeing as there were only Adam, Eve and Cain around (which is three people in all).

Which leads us to the following conclusion:

Lotsa words and nothing to say

That would indeed sum up your 'position' clear as day. Sadly, it doesn't reflect well on your ability to comprehend and digest other peoples' words. Which goes a long way to explain why you keep repeating the same nonsense pretending nobody told you it is, indeed, utter and complete nonsense. It seems that, besides not grasping logic, you have a fundamental disability to process other peoples' words. Including Mr Sitchin's.

You have a very limited understanding of both science and the Bible. I suggest you do some serious reading up on both before further commenting. On the second we have an excellent Ask A Theologian thread to assist. The first takes a bit more work, I'm afraid.

 

[timtofly]

God commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful in Genesis 1:28, but they don't 'know each other' until Genesis 4:1, after being expelled from Eden for the crime of eating from the Tree of Knowledge (and definitely not because they could now procreate).

Actually, the Bible does not say that they had Cain and Abel, after being expelled, because Biblical criticism has determined that the chapters are of different sources, thus not one chronological account. If Eve's child bearing suffering was increased, then she would of had to have given birth for it to increase. Even though the ground knew it was wrong for Cain to kill his brother, it seemed that Cain was surprised that God thought it was wrong. Besides after God kicked them all out of the Garden they no longer heard from God. Cain complained to God, when God kicked him out for killing his brother. There was a separation from God after sin was introduced to a human. Either Cain was kicked out first, Or Cain and Abel were still in the Garden when Adam and Eve left, and Abel was killed, and Cain was the last human to leave the Garden. It would not make sense if after leaving, Adam and Eve had to give up their children, who were sent back into the Garden. Well in the twisted world of ape-men and slave labor I suppose it would make sense.

Eve wasn't created in Gen 1:28, she appears in the story after God took the earthling/man to the Garden to work. The tree is linked to procreation, the covering up of the genitalia and the shame of being naked combined with Adam and Eve's conception of Cain upon expulsion all point to an acquired ability to procreate.

It was never mentioned that sex was wrong. What was mentioned was they were ashamed of their nakedness. When God presented Eve to Adam, he called her his wife. From the account it was an act of marriage. Now it is sin, if a married couple have offspring? I am pretty sure that if a lot of people went around naked, it would not insinuate, nor produce sexual desire.

It would probably get old and disgusting after a while.

Not being able to procreate would seem to be the biggest contradiction mentioned yet in Genesis. Neither eating from a tree, nor knowing wrong from right, has never had anything to do with procreation, nor even the ability to procreate. At the least innocence was lost, but even losing one's virginity is hardly the same thing as sin. Being a virgin just means that one has not had sex, not that they can or cannot have sex.

It is ok to procreate as long as you are not in prison or a slave? That would also contradict the Mesopotamian myths where the very purpose for humans was for perpetual slave labor. Why create reproductive biological beings, and not robots? Second generation labor is taboo, and the slaves had to come from an assembly line? Seeing as how all humans were placed on earth along with the plant life and animal life. All humans would be intended to care for the animals and plant life, and all lived in gardens along with animals. all would have to pro-create, or live forever, and even then, you can always send your children to start out in a new place, and still live forever. Agriculture being the top economy and all animals were tame and domesticated. If it was a perfect world there would be no need for wars, and strife. The other humans seemed to be aware of what was right and wrong. Perhaps Adam and Eve were innocent in that area. It just does not fit, though, that God left the future of humanity in the hands of children, who were placed into slave labor, but it was left in the hands of a Human and his wife, who had everything perfect and practically handed to them. As for Cain, he was still in the Garden and talking to God just like Adam did, until he killed Abel and had to leave.

@ Agent327

For someone who thinks it is wrong to take the Bible literally, why limit your arguments to what is literally written? You leave no room for argument or discussion. It is called an exchange of ideas and communication. It seems to be the critics who are turning a discussion into an argument, and then forcing people to declare "sides". Then attacking them for bringing points to their discussion as "hiding behind a side". Who is trying to trump who?

 

[Arakhor]

Why would the Mesopotamian version of creation explain the Hopi ant people?

The Earth formed in the presence of water
The water formed at the asteroid belt
The Earth didn't form here, it formed at the asteroid belt too

So, in other words, it proves nothing and this has all been a pointless waste of time?

Eve wasn't created in Gen 1:28, she appears in the story after God took the earthling/man to the Garden to work. The tree is linked to procreation, the covering up of the genitalia and the shame of being naked combined with Adam and Eve's conception of Cain upon expulsion all point to an acquired ability to procreate.

Men and women are both created in God's image in 1:28 and commanded to be fruitful, but by 2:5 there are no people to till the land for some reason, leading to Adam and Eve being created in 2:7 and 2:22. Where did the first lot of people go?

Also, it is clearly stated that eating from the Tree allows man to live forever, so speculating that it's "actually" a coded reference to procreation is again without evidence.

Actually, the Bible does not say that they had Cain and Abel, after being expelled, because Biblical criticism has determined that the chapters are of different sources, thus not one chronological account. If Eve's child bearing suffering was increased, then she would of had to have given birth for it to increase.

I agree that that isn't illogical, but innocence is traditionally associated with virginity, so on a stylistic note it would make more sense for Adam and Eve to have children after the Fall.