By and large, it is useful to term as 'moral' that which significantly seems to be the opposite of that to which there is some inherent-panhuman aversion or panic or fear triggered. Eg i don't think many would find someone hitting another with a hammer out of the blue, to be moral. It isn't the action, but the context.
It might mostly be tied to not utterly conscious fear of what will follow against you if you act in such ways. Afterall, no one really wants to see 'forbidden' stuff, but to try to be murderous out of some will to not be denied anything is not exactly a state of mind which appears to be about freedom as much as about some sort of convoluted way of thinking leading to pain and instability.
It cannot reproduce sexually. It more than likely was not even produced sexually. As per the argument given by Lexicus, a group of cells can "detach" and do literal anything the information in them allows them to do. I am not saying that evolution does not occur or that mutations do not happen. I am saying it does not work the way you believe them to work. That is single cells mutate, into multi cells, and end up "creating" (for lack of a better word), all the information needed to re-produce a human. Mutation may produce new information. instead of a dog, it is now a tumor. The process lacked enough information to re-produce a total new dog. A tumor is hardly a representation of the next step in canine evolution. It would seem to be lacking a lot of information as it is still single cell. Ok, so I will say gain new information. From what we have observed, new information can happen, but it is usually a dead end, and not the beginning of something new. If it does last as long as your tumor example; it has remained in the same form, how long should we wait for it to even gain multicellular form? It has already had an outside influence from humans, and unless it can evolve artificially, not even that has affected it's evolutionary path, or so it seems.
Actually, humans are relatively genetically homogeneous compared to other species.
Yes. There is massive observational proof that humans evolved. Vestigial organs, our skeletal structure which is not designed for bipedalism, genetics, embryonic development, etc, etc...
This is a funny YEC trope that I've run into often. I suggest googling 'genetic mutation'.
Are you saying that the inconvenient way the current human condition is in, is proof that we evolved? God said that it would be harder to give birth. We are not the same as when we were created.
Planetary accretion is hardly the same thing as biological evolution, but ok.
It would seem that with outside manipulation, time is not relevant. It would also seem to me that adding information to DNA may take more than just time.
Some researchers believe a more accurate rendering of Gen 1:1 is "In the beginning of God's preparation of Heaven(s) and Earth", or, "In the beginning when God was preparing Heaven and Earth".
If we take Gen 1:1 as written we end up with a problem - God created the Heavens and Earth in Gen 1:1 but Heaven and Earth dont appear in the story until the 2nd and 3rd days. Did God create Heaven in Gen 1:1 and then again on the 2nd day? Did God create Earth in Gen 1:1 and then again on the 3rd day? And where in the story did God create the water? It appears before the 1st day and it covered the Earth.
The difference is God only prepared. With the reading that you propose, God only prepared and never created at all. That would lead to the conclusion that God came along billions of years after the "Big Bang", and just manipulated what was already there. The use of the word prepare may not even be relevant either. How do you know what time God stepped in and started manipulating? How is the word "beginning" even relevant? In Genesis 1:1 God created the universe. Nothing had any form, or energy, just matter. Then God prepared the matter to give the universe form, and it has been an ongoing process since the beginning. God rested on the 7th day, but that does not indicate that on the 8th day, God stopped doing anything.
It is not out of the question that for 24 hours humans had no clue what they were even about.
There is another point and the term "let it be" does not necessarily mean "create" That was part of the manipulation that was going on. There is no contradiction with God creating the universe in Genesis 1:1 and the manipulation of everything in the rest of the verses.
The last point is we are to believe that from a singularity all the elements in the universe formed from an explosion?
I realize that it is harder to believe a being greater than the universe, and then every one moves the goal post and asks, "Who or what created God?"
I will just stick to the text, and state that God created all the elements, and not in a singularity that would take billions of years to accrete into recognizable form. God created the universe by putting all the elements in a mature formation. He then energized and stretched out parts of the universe to immediately form galaxies and solar systems. Evidently there was a lot of hydrogen and oxygen which make up water in abundance around the earth, when God created the matter and positioned it throughout the universe. And it was at the beginning of the universe, the reason the phrase "in the beginning" was used.
You are mixing knowledge with relative morality. Knowing and experience evil is not a moral issue. Morality is how humans justify or modify evil experiences.
One can claim that God is moral or immoral, but that hardly changes what God is. It is a view of God through the lens of evil.
We could imagine a perfect world where killing another being was not wrong or evil. The only problem with the Garden, is the point they were immortal beings. There is the point though that perhaps an immortal could actually "kill" another immortal. Eternal life is eternal, but there was a chance that one could be turned back into the dust from whence they were formed. By what mechanism, we are not told. When God asked Cain where his brother was, God pointed out that Abel's blood was crying out from the ground. I am inclined to accept that Humans were spiritual beings that had physical bodies, but once the body was turned back into dust, they could no longer possess a human form. In the case of Adam and Eve, they lost their spiritual bodies and only had their human ones.
Where does God say that? The result of the disobedience was the knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge shared by God(s). Having acquired that knowledge Adam was expelled so that he'd remain mortal. Thats what God said, "behold, the man has become like us knowing good and evil. Let us block his path to the tree of life lest he partake and live forever."
The result of the eating happened before the sentence of judgment. They lost the likeness of God, ie died, and became mortal. The use of mortal and mortality actually means death. Even before they heard God's voice, they died as spiritual god like beings. That is how they realized they were naked. it was not a moral issue. Morals come out of experience and acts of evil. There had not been enough time to develop a moral relevance to being exposed. The act of death changed their physical aspect to a point they tried to make a covering by an artificial means because they lost what was hiding their nakedness. Knowing good and evil should not be synonymous with knowing right and wrong.
IMO, eating of either tree was only symbolic. The fruit of the tree had no metaphysical properties. It would be akin to eating the communion. It is only symbolic, and does not turn into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, giving a human some metaphysical benefit.
The fossil record shows several million years of human/hominid evolution from small-brained apelike bipedal critters leading to us. Is that proof we evolved from them? Its evidence... Good evidence.
It is evidence. I think that the key would be interpretation. It could be evidence that a lot of species became extinct. Were they jumps in evolution? Time seems to be the default answer to the unexplainable. It is ironic that time may be both a dimension and an excuse to believe something.
By and large, it is useful to term as 'moral' that which significantly seems to be the opposite of that to which there is some inherent-panhuman aversion or panic or fear triggered. Eg i don't think many would find someone hitting another with a hammer out of the blue, to be moral. It isn't the action, but the context.
It might mostly be tied to not utterly conscious fear of what will follow against you if you act in such ways. Afterall, no one really wants to see 'forbidden' stuff, but to try to be murderous out of some will to not be denied anything is not exactly a state of mind which appears to be about freedom as much as about some sort of convoluted way of thinking leading to pain and instability.
Is that not the nature of evil, even if it does not have any religious or spiritual connotation? Although at a subconscious level, it would seem to explain irrational behavior.
I asked you if I'd ever claimed these things - that my cats are evolving into a new species because they show signs of morals, or that humans evolved into a new species because they showed signs of morals.
I'll save you the trouble - I never made such claims, or said anything that any reasonable person could twist to mean such claims.
You need to remember that I require proof that miracles happened, and so far nobody in this conversation or any other similar conversation has ever provided proof.
The last point is we are to believe that from a singularity all the elements in the universe formed from an explosion?
Of course not. Hydrogen and helium, yes. I recently heard astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss mention lithium as having been created at that time as well, but I'd have to look that up to make sure I heard him correctly.
The rest of the elements were made when supergiant stars reached the end of their existence as stars and blew up as supernovae. We really are literally starstuff.
I realize that it is harder to believe a being greater than the universe, and then every one moves the goal post and asks, "Who or what created God?"
That's not moving the goal posts. That's just asking a logical question. You say God created the universe, so where did God come from? And saying he's always existed or is outside of space/time is just a cop-out. It's a weasel answer, because it doesn't really answer the question.
I will just stick to the text, and state that God created all the elements, and not in a singularity that would take billions of years to accrete into recognizable form. God created the universe by putting all the elements in a mature formation. He then energized and stretched out parts of the universe to immediately form galaxies and solar systems. Evidently there was a lot of hydrogen and oxygen which make up water in abundance around the earth, when God created the matter and positioned it throughout the universe. And it was at the beginning of the universe, the reason the phrase "in the beginning" was used.
You've never actually taken a basic chemistry course, have you? Nobody is claiming that all the elements were created in the Big Bang. There are 92 natural elements, and 90 of them did not exist until the first generation of supergiant stars blew up.
Is that not the nature of evil, even if it does not have any religious or spiritual connotation? Although at a subconscious level, it would seem to explain irrational behavior.
An issue is that 'morality' did not quite mean the same thing in pre-christian times, as it usually means now. In the classical era (at least in Greece) it was more about having a healthy and self-serving way of life, which was argued to include being reasonably caring of others. Yet it definitely was not about being some kind of super-pacifist. There is, of course, the famous view by Nietzsche on all this, with his terming of jewish-christian ethics as the 'ethics of the pariah', which may have a strong core of truth in it, given it doesn't seem very healthy to try to love others just cause they are others, nor to be falling back on some 'divine commandments' so as to perpetuate unresolved tendencies you may have.
Besides, it is a bit telling that in greek a somewhat synonymous term for 'ethical' is 'eugenes', which literally means 'of good genos/family'. It's not entirely synonymous, given it means 'polite' now, yet it does include an allusion to the 'a healthy mind in a healthy body' and so on.
Also should be noted that the term 'ethos' does not signify a particular stance, given it means an observed and stable 'way of acting'.
Cannibalism is a concept that was covered in my cultural anthropology courses. Both of us live in a modern, Western culture that considers cannibalism to be immoral. You think it's immoral, and I think it's immoral. However, I'm pointing out that "cannibalism is immoral" is not a universal concept. What is so hard to understand about that?
You should go back and re-read what I actually said, because I made no claims whatsoever of miracles.
I asked you if I'd ever claimed these things - that my cats are evolving into a new species because they show signs of morals, or that humans evolved into a new species because they showed signs of morals.
I'll save you the trouble - I never made such claims, or said anything that any reasonable person could twist to mean such claims.
You need to remember that I require proof that miracles happened, and so far nobody in this conversation or any other similar conversation has ever provided proof.
Of course not. Hydrogen and helium, yes. I recently heard astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss mention lithium as having been created at that time as well, but I'd have to look that up to make sure I heard him correctly.
The rest of the elements were made when supergiant stars reached the end of their existence as stars and blew up as supernovae. We really are literally starstuff.
So how can hydrogen and helium explode to form other elements, even if they had help from lithium? I have had basic chemistry. I think that I have forgotten a lot of stuff over the years. I think that the heavier elements can brake down into the lighter elements if the attraction of the gravitational forces change. I think that is caused by the change in loosing a negative and or positive particle of the atom. An explosion may do it, or as in a star it reaches critical mass and the result is an explosion. I am still missing the point where hydrogen, and helium, can reach a critical point and make elements that need a stronger force and more elaborate atoms to form. I realize that accretion and time are involved in the formula needed.
From what I am understanding, a singular explosion created one or more, (why not make it even more difficult?) huge dense gas areas that spanned or because there was more than one, they filled a huge portion of the universe. These then cooled and formed hot stars which then exploded. Perhaps I am copping out since that sounds unreasonable. And I am being unreasonable because I think that a being was just imaging that it happened. You have proof that it happened, you do not have to imagine it.
That's not moving the goal posts. That's just asking a logical question. You say God created the universe, so where did God come from? And saying he's always existed or is outside of space/time is just a cop-out. It's a weasel answer, because it doesn't really answer the question.
It is not a cop out to say that a being can think something into existence. Your being is an explosion. Is that not a cop-out, because your explosion is just as unknown as a being that has claimed that they "did it". Your reasoning is that nothing "did it". We have a little more knowledge about a something than you have about a nothing. Imagining nothing gets you nothing. Imaging something gets you something. Now you can say that we are just imagining that something. The point is that as a being we can imagine things. I think that is better proof than imagining nothing.
You've never actually taken a basic chemistry course, have you? Nobody is claiming that all the elements were created in the Big Bang. There are 92 natural elements, and 90 of them did not exist until the first generation of supergiant stars blew up.
Why would it be harder to give birth? Eve didn't have any children, she didn't know about the pain of child birth yet. But her "curse" was to suffer more pain than somebody else - her predecessors. Again, why? Because her predecessors were giving birth to babies with smaller heads and shoulders. Thats evolution and its in Genesis...
The difference is God only prepared. With the reading that you propose, God only prepared and never created at all. That would lead to the conclusion that God came along billions of years after the "Big Bang", and just manipulated what was already there.
Exactly... Thats why water and the "Earth" it covered preceded God in the story. How did God "create" the Earth? He revealed it from under the water. That is a manipulation of already existing material.
How do you know what time God stepped in and started manipulating?
Isn't matter form and energy? Gen 1:1 is not a separate act of creation, the verses that follow describe what happened and a dark, water covered world was already in existence prior to the "Light", Heaven and Earth.
There is no contradiction with God creating the universe in Genesis 1:1 and the manipulation of everything in the rest of the verses.
Heaven and Earth are not water, Heaven was placed amidst the water and the Earth was the dry land revealed when the water receded into Seas. You have God creating the heavens and earth before the Light of creation.
In the case of Adam and Eve, they lost their spiritual bodies and only had their human ones.
I think that the heavier elements can brake down into the lighter elements if the attraction of the gravitational forces change. I think that is caused by the change in loosing a negative and or positive particle of the atom. An explosion may do it, or as in a star it reaches critical mass and the result is an explosion. I am still missing the point where hydrogen, and helium, can reach a critical point and make elements that need a stronger force and more elaborate atoms to form. I realize that accretion and time are involved in the formula needed.
From what I am understanding, a singular explosion created one or more, (why not make it even more difficult?) huge dense gas areas that spanned or because there was more than one, they filled a huge portion of the universe. These then cooled and formed hot stars which then exploded. Perhaps I am copping out since that sounds unreasonable. And I am being unreasonable because I think that a being was just imaging that it happened. You have proof that it happened, you do not have to imagine it.
This would normally be a conversation for the Science forum, but whatever... (this is stuff I started learning when I was 12, btw)... When a star is a really super-massive one, it burns through its fuel faster than smaller, less massive stars do. This means that these really big stars have life cycles measured in millions, not billions, of years.
Stars are actually huge nuclear fusion reactors. They burn hydrogen, and then helium, and as time goes on, they convert helium to nitrogen, and on down the periodic table until they get to iron. That's as far as the star is able to go in its attempts to burn fuel to keep itself going and remain stable. At that point, there's nothing that can prevent the star from exploding as a supernova. When that happens, even more elements are created and scattered over a vast space, forming a nebula. In time, a new stellar nursery may come about, as matter comes together to form new stars and possibly planets. This isn't something we can witness in a single lifetime. But you can see supernova remnants yourself, when you look up at the night sky.
Here is a condensed diagram of the life cycle of stars, both like our Sun and the more massive ones that become supernovas, and a diagram of what goes on in a massive star that will become a supernova:
Why would it be harder to give birth? Eve didn't have any children, she didn't know about the pain of child birth yet. But her "curse" was to suffer more pain than somebody else - her predecessors. Again, why? Because her predecessors were giving birth to babies with smaller heads and shoulders. Thats evolution and its in Genesis...
The danger of childbirth is due mainly to us being bipeds, which happened a very long time ago (several million years ago). Anatomically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years or so. What was so special about Eve in 450,000 BCE?
Of course not. Hydrogen and helium, yes. I recently heard astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss mention lithium as having been created at that time as well, but I'd have to look that up to make sure I heard him correctly.
Correct- it also produced unstable isotope Beryllium 7 but this decayed relatively quickly into Lithium and Helium isotopes.
timtofly said:
Are you saying that the inconvenient way the current human condition is in, is proof that we evolved? God said that it would be harder to give birth. We are not the same as when we were created.
Partially, yes. Our skeletal structure not being designed for bipedalism is one good demonstration of human evolution. Us having a hard time giving birth, AFAIK, is not evidence of human evolution.
I notice you don't even address the other points I made. The genetic evidence is the strongest piece as it incontrovertibly proves common descent as well as enabling us to trace some of the threads of evolution.
Meanwhile genetic mutations are why evolution is not simply a process of copying what's already there. Reproduction is the process of copying what's already there, but evolution happens because there are occasional "errors" in the copying of what's already there.
Arakhor said:
The danger of childbirth is due mainly to us being bipeds,
Why would it be harder to give birth? Eve didn't have any children, she didn't know about the pain of child birth yet. But her "curse" was to suffer more pain than somebody else - her predecessors. Again, why? Because her predecessors were giving birth to babies with smaller heads and shoulders. Thats evolution and its in Genesis...
She was a clone from Adam. Adam had no offspring for obvious reasons.
You reject the point that Cain and Abel were also Sons of God. However, they communicated with God the same way Adam and Eve and all the 6th day beings did. They could not be Sons of God, if they were "born" after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit.
It never says that Spiritual beings had to have physical births. It is assumed that once they were no longer spiritual beings they could only have physical births. I would assume that a spiritual birth was not as painful as a physical one.
God cloned Eve from Adam. I doubt that it is out of the question to have out of body fertilization and there were no physical births at all. We can take sperm and eggs and place them in a third party without much difficulty today. It never said that Adam had to wait 16 years for Eve to mature. It does say that Eve was fully formed when Adam woke up.
When Cain was born, Eve claimed that God gave Cain to her. God took sperm from Adam, and an egg from Eve, and a few hours later presented Eve with a son. A few minutes later there was a twin? Abel. When Seth was born, it was said that Adam fathered Seth in his own (physical) likeness. Chapter 5 also states that God created all humankind both male and female. Adam is the name meaning all mankind, and they were all created at the same time, and both male and female, but Adam (and Eve) was the only one who carried on the physical form of future humans. Later it says that these "god" like beings did mate with the daughters of Adam's offspring, in a physical way, but it says the offspring were the legends of old, and not Sons of God. Being able to have offspring is an indication that biologically they were the same species. The difference is that Adam and his offspring no longer had the spiritual part of that likeness, but retained mortal physical bodies. It seems to be understood that Cain knew about the Sons of God, and feared they would kill him. He seemed to have no problem with them though, and had offspring with a female of the species.
Exactly... Thats why water and the "Earth" it covered preceded God in the story. How did God "create" the Earth? He revealed it from under the water. That is a manipulation of already existing material.
It does not say that it preceded God. That is your interpretation. It says that God created the universe and the earth was there without form, but surrounded by water. Water is a form, but not the only form. The term for vapor in Hebrew is not found in any of the Torah. But the Hebrew term later did refer to breath, fleeting, emptiness, nothingness. But having an abundance of liquid water does not make sense in a context before there was even motion or energy. The introduction of light had not occurred yet. The use of the term spirit though hovering over the face of the deep, ie water, would indicate the concept of air (gas), breath, vapor, and nothingness at the same time. There is an interesting fact. The name for Abel transliterated Hebel is the word that was later used for the concept of vapor. Abel's life was so short, that the name was associated with and became later on the term to mean vapor, fleeting, and nothingness. The use of the word in Genesis was a given name of a human. The word was not used as a concept until later.
It is possible in context to place what would become the earth as not even being in the solar system, because that came later. Here would be my hypothesis: The separation of waters was local, and after the "big bang" was not near a star or any heat source. Any heat would be internal combustion at the core. The liquid form of water and the creation of an atmosphere allowed life even though the earth was not near a solar system. That there were two light sources meant that it was in between two star systems, but closer to the current sun than the further one. Time would not be relative to any star until the point where the earth entered the solar system, and crashed into a planet at the time of the Flood. That collision broke up the separated waters, causing the Flood and the formation of the moon. Not forming in any star system, and the Sons of God having knowledge that they traveled through space and may even had contact with other spacefaring species, after the Flood tried to figure out how to regain that ability, but God would not let them. The only mention of other species in the universe is the fact that God banished Satan to this planet, and even put this being in charge. That is the only scenario that I can see "fitting" Genesis into the accounts about what happened by all other sources I have come across.
Spoiler:
If people try to claim that the earth could never be an actual space ship, they are probably even against the idea of space exploration. Adam and Eve were in the botanical wing, and seemed to have little clue as to what was going on around them. How was any knowledge about it passed down through their offspring? It was not until impact and insertion into the Solar system that God asked Noah to build an ark, that would allow for life to continue after the Flood. Later God "nudged" Abraham, and then wrestled with Jacob, and changed his name to Israel. It was not until Moses that God started working with a group of humans as a single unit.
Isn't matter form and energy? Gen 1:1 is not a separate act of creation, the verses that follow describe what happened and a dark, water covered world was already in existence prior to the "Light", Heaven and Earth.
All inert gases were created before light. That was the universe before the moment of the so called, "big bang". It was not a world, planet, star, or anything. It had no form. It was even said to be void.
Heaven and Earth are not water, Heaven was placed amidst the water and the Earth was the dry land revealed when the water receded into Seas. You have God creating the heavens and earth before the Light of creation.
I said God created the universe in inert gas form. Well at least I thought that was what every one viewed the big bang as. The "big bang" is not a creation event. It is part of the process of the "life" cycle of what makes up the universe.
The cosmic model is there was nothing, or a singularity from a collapsed universe, a "big bang", and then huge gas nebulae. I say God created the huge nebulae, and then the big bang. Then there was a period of darkness (cooling), and then accretion. The current process could still have inert gases, but the whole universe as inert, could have only happened "outside" of the current cycle, as we have not seen the universe change back to an inert point.
There was nothing in the Garden that would help, (it says the tree of life was there, but eating of it would not restore their spiritual part. I suppose you could claim it may have giving them longer life, but that is not a given.)
It was another dimension, and they could not even access it in physical form.
Their eyes were opened, and they realized they were no longer spiritual beings. They did not even know they were spiritual beings because they were not like God having that knowledge. Communicating with God was normal and they had never, not communicated with God. That seems to be the point of the story. God hid it from them, and the only way they would find out, was after eating of the Tree. They could keep up the status quo, or change the status quo with one act. Becoming like God was what happened, but God said they would die, which means they lost the image of God or their spiritual likeness/bodies. Now they had the knowledge just like God, but they lost their likeness of God, which they previously did not know about because they were not like God with that knowledge.
Genesis said that God made us in the image of God. Where does it say that there were extinct species before us? No one has ever explained what was happening or even how long Adam even lived in the Garden. Why does every one keep avoiding that part of the story? Every one rejects the point that Cain and Abel may have also lived there for hundreds or thousands of years. It is ok to think of long periods of time where they do not fit like the gap theory or that 24 hours is actually 1000 years. They talk about huge cycles of thousands of years. Yet they refuse to even mention that time was passing and that Cain and Abel were also in the Garden, because it literally does not claim that. So it would seem that if something does not fit a particular interpretation, we will literally claim that because the chapters appear in a certain order, that there is no possible way that they could overlap each other. Where in the world does Job even fit in? It would seem to me that it was before the Flood, but wait, how do we insert a whole book into another one? How do we insert one chapter into the middle of another one? We don't. We leave them separate and it would be understood that they overlap.
That's not what I said.
This would normally be a conversation for the Science forum, but whatever... (this is stuff I started learning when I was 12, btw)... When a star is a really super-massive one, it burns through its fuel faster than smaller, less massive stars do. This means that these really big stars have life cycles measured in millions, not billions, of years.
Stars are actually huge nuclear fusion reactors. They burn hydrogen, and then helium, and as time goes on, they convert helium to nitrogen, and on down the periodic table until they get to iron. That's as far as the star is able to go in its attempts to burn fuel to keep itself going and remain stable. At that point, there's nothing that can prevent the star from exploding as a supernova. When that happens, even more elements are created and scattered over a vast space, forming a nebula. In time, a new stellar nursery may come about, as matter comes together to form new stars and possibly planets. This isn't something we can witness in a single lifetime. But you can see supernova remnants yourself, when you look up at the night sky.
Here is a condensed diagram of the life cycle of stars, both like our Sun and the more massive ones that become supernovas, and a diagram of what goes on in a massive star that will become a supernova:
You accept that a single event caused the very first nebulae, or multiple nebulae, and that seems to be the current cosmic model.
The difference is; either it just happened, or an outside force caused it to happen.
If the universe is self sustaining it is easy to see that it has taken or even lasted for billions of years. Of course we have no clue how long it will last or even what happened at the beginning. All we have is the "time" in between. Is the point of being self-sustaining a definite fact?
Partially, yes. Our skeletal structure not being designed for bipedalism is one good demonstration of human evolution. Us having a hard time giving birth, AFAIK, is not evidence of human evolution.
I notice you don't even address the other points I made. The genetic evidence is the strongest piece as it incontrovertibly proves common descent as well as enabling us to trace some of the threads of evolution.
Meanwhile genetic mutations are why evolution is not simply a process of copying what's already there. Reproduction is the process of copying what's already there, but evolution happens because there are occasional "errors" in the copying of what's already there.
I've never heard this before, you got a link about it (not because I disbelieve you but I'd like to learn)?
Genetic evidence is also proof that we all can survive on the same planet.
I did mention your name, and from what has been observed mutations are "dead ends"
Is the claim because they have been found to exist, they have to have only one reason to exist, and that is to prove they were intermediate states? I am not denying that it is possible to structure a tree to show that there is a connection biologically between all that is found on this planet. There is a very huge diverse population on this planet, and they all have common and linked biological features. If they did not; would they even be able to exist? It is hard to get humans to accept there is another dimension to the human experience not even related to biology. Is your point that evolution is a fact because it happened, or because it could happen? I am in the same boat. There is evidence that God could have done it, but no proof. I am not even going to make the claim that God did it, because God could. That would seem foolish of me, if the only demand is proof. From what I have observed since childhood is that humans reject God, because they have an irrational reason to. Anything that can back that up is reinforcing evidence and proof that God does not exist.
I accept the point that evolution could have happened, but I am not going to use that as proof that God does not exist. I have very little information as to what actually happened. And saying that it could have happened is not enough proof to convince me that it did.
The danger of childbirth is due mainly to us being bipeds, which happened a very long time ago (several million years ago). Anatomically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years or so. What was so special about Eve in 450,000 BCE?
But a recent announcement in the journal Science of a 1.2 million-year-old Homo erectus pelvis uncovered by University of Indiana paleoanthropologist Sileshi Semaw in the Afar region of Ethiopia in 2001 suggests that painful labor is a relatively modern affliction.
The birth canal of that female Homo erectus is, in fact, 30 percent larger than that of the typical modern woman. As a result, Homo erectus birth might have been a relative walk in the park (or on the savanna) compared with today. Those ladies might have simply stopped, crouched down, and pushed. They might have screamed, but surely there was no need for Lamaze, or midwives, or Cesarean sections.
The big news, for anthropologists anyway, is that painful labor is much more recent than anyone assumed.
God cloned Eve from Adam. I doubt that it is out of the question to have out of body fertilization and there were no physical births at all. We can take sperm and eggs and place them in a third party without much difficulty today. It never said that Adam had to wait 16 years for Eve to mature. It does say that Eve was fully formed when Adam woke up.
I really don't know how to react when I see people insisting that of course ancient people had modern medical technology, utilized by supernatural beings or space aliens, and not a single shred of proof to back up such notions. I hope this nonsense isn't actually being taught in any schools anywhere.
When Cain was born, Eve claimed that God gave Cain to her. God took sperm from Adam, and an egg from Eve, and a few hours later presented Eve with a son.
Your source for this? Do any reputable (as in non-"Christian science" or myth-oriented) historical, anthropological, or medical journals confirm your ideas?
Even some modern people express becoming pregnant as "God gave me a baby." They don't literally mean that God artificially inseminated them and grew the baby in a lab somewhere and a few hours later they had a full-term baby. Please tell me you understand that this isn't how pregnancy works. Even modern "test tube babies" require a normal gestation period, and not in an artificial womb. That's still science fiction.
It is possible in context to place what would become the earth as not even being in the solar system, because that came later. Here would be my hypothesis: The separation of waters was local, and after the "big bang" was not near a star or any heat source. Any heat would be internal combustion at the core. The liquid form of water and the creation of an atmosphere allowed life even though the earth was not near a solar system. That there were two light sources meant that it was in between two star systems, but closer to the current sun than the further one. Time would not be relative to any star until the point where the earth entered the solar system, and crashed into a planet at the time of the Flood. That collision broke up the separated waters, causing the Flood and the formation of the moon. Not forming in any star system, and the Sons of God having knowledge that they traveled through space and may even had contact with other spacefaring species, after the Flood tried to figure out how to regain that ability, but God would not let them. The only mention of other species in the universe is the fact that God banished Satan to this planet, and even put this being in charge. That is the only scenario that I can see "fitting" Genesis into the accounts about what happened by all other sources I have come across.
Planets don't just form willy-nilly out in the middle of nowhere. They may be found outside solar systems if they were tossed out due to orbital issues, but that's not where they form (at least I'm not aware of any findings of such things). Just because Captain Kirk tended to run across rogue planets every third week or so, that doesn't mean that's how the real universe works.
There's no evidence for Noah's flood. There's no evidence that humans ever had space travel prior to the 20th century.
If people try to claim that the earth could never be an actual space ship, they are probably even against the idea of space exploration. Adam and Eve were in the botanical wing, and seemed to have little clue as to what was going on around them. How was any knowledge about it passed down through their offspring? It was not until impact and insertion into the Solar system that God asked Noah to build an ark, that would allow for life to continue after the Flood. Later God "nudged" Abraham, and then wrestled with Jacob, and changed his name to Israel. It was not until Moses that God started working with a group of humans as a single unit.
Oh, come now. Why put this gem in spoiler tags? Share with us your idea that that Earth was really a spaceship that dashed hither and yon through the universe.
And do tell why anyone who rejects this as sheer and utter nonsense that makes even less sense than the less-than-good '70s science fiction show this reminds me of (The Starlost) would be against the idea of space exploration (the producers of that show had very little understanding of science, either). I'm all for space exploration. However, I also know the difference between science fiction and fantasy and real science. Nothing in your post shows an understanding of real science.
It would seem to me that it was before there was even light or energy, and there was only inert gases.
All inert gases were created before light. That was the universe before the moment of the so called, "big bang". It was not a world, planet, star, or anything. It had no form. It was even said to be void.
I just got done explaining about hydrogen and helium, with a little lithium. The only one of those classified as an inert gas is helium. The rest of them didn't come along until after the first generation of supergiant stars blew up. Since stars emit light, your statements make no sense.
As for "void," of course the ancient people would think a volume of space where they couldn't see anything would be a void, because if they couldn't see it, it wasn't there. We know differently now. The universe is full of matter that's too small to see with the naked eye. That doesn't mean it's not there.
I said God created the universe in inert gas form. Well at least I thought that was what every one viewed the big bang as.
The fossil record makes it abundantly clear that there were many extinct species before humans came along. There are far more species of life that existed and is now extinct than there are species that currently exist.
No one has ever explained what was happening or even how long Adam even lived in the Garden. Why does every one keep avoiding that part of the story? Every one rejects the point that Cain and Abel may have also lived there for hundreds or thousands of years. It is ok to think of long periods of time where they do not fit like the gap theory or that 24 hours is actually 1000 years.
1. Adam is a myth. There's no evidence he ever existed. The Garden of Eden is a myth. There's no evidence that it ever existed.
2. That part of the story gets avoided because it's nonsense. How long a mythological man lived in a mythological location really doesn't matter unless you're arguing about the in-universe continuity of a story. I'd be okay with you doing this if you acknowledged this stuff as only being a story, but you keep insisting that it really happened, and therefore, in my view, it's not okay.*
*Obviously you are free to think this stuff, but as mentioned before, it doesn't belong in either science or history classes.
3. A day is the time it takes Earth (or any other planet) to rotate on its axis once. It's ridiculous to claim that Earth ever took 1000 years to rotate once.
...how do we insert a whole book into another one? How do we insert one chapter into the middle of another one? We don't. We leave them separate and it would be understood that they overlap.
Many fiction writers do this. It's why it's aggravating to write wiki entries for their series. These overlaps cause discontinuities and the readers are forced to discard one version over another to make the timeline of events make sense.
You accept that a single event caused the very first nebulae, or multiple nebulae, and that seems to be the current cosmic model.
The difference is; either it just happened, or an outside force caused it to happen.
It didn't "just" happen. The laws of physics and chemistry resulted in it happening. No "outside force" (aka your god) was required.
If the universe is self sustaining it is easy to see that it has taken or even lasted for billions of years. Of course we have no clue how long it will last or even what happened at the beginning. All we have is the "time" in between. Is the point of being self-sustaining a definite fact?
Yes, it's a fact that the universe recycles itself. Our solar system is made from much older stars that blew up many billions of years ago. When our own Sun's life cycle is up, it won't become a supernova (not massive enough), but it will blow off part of its outer shell. Prior to that, it will have expanded into its red giant phase, and that'll be the end of Mercury, Venus, and possibly Earth.
Maybe some day your atoms will be part of a new solar system, billions of years from now. Just think, your atoms could some day be part of a rock, or a cute little animal, or maybe a sentient being who ponders these same issues.
I accept the point that evolution could have happened, but I am not going to use that as proof that God does not exist. I have very little information as to what actually happened. And saying that it could have happened is not enough proof to convince me that it did.
And yet you keep making post after post after post that claims "it could have happened, so I'm convinced that it did." (ie. Noah's flood; you've been doing a considerable amount of pretzel twisting and goalpost moving to try to find "proof" that it happened)
She was a clone from Adam. Adam had no offspring for obvious reasons.
You reject the point that Cain and Abel were also Sons of God. However, they communicated with God the same way Adam and Eve and all the 6th day beings did. They could not be Sons of God, if they were "born" after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit.
Jesus was born long after Adam and Eve. And didn't he refer to others as sons (children) of God? Didn't he tell his disciples we're all sons of God. I'm doing this from memory so I may be wrong, but the term has a certain ambiguity to it.
Anyway, the text says Adam "knew" his wife and the result was Cain. He's Adam's son and it happened after expulsion from the Garden. The sexual/reproductive imagery ties the knowledge of good and evil to procreation - Adam and Eve may not have had the ability before the Serpent's intervention.
It never says that Spiritual beings had to have physical births. It is assumed that once they were no longer spiritual beings they could only have physical births. I would assume that a spiritual birth was not as painful as a physical one.
God cloned Eve from Adam. I doubt that it is out of the question to have out of body fertilization and there were no physical births at all. We can take sperm and eggs and place them in a third party without much difficulty today. It never said that Adam had to wait 16 years for Eve to mature. It does say that Eve was fully formed when Adam woke up.
Strangely enough Mesopotamian myth describes "birth goddesses" used in the process of our creation. Seven or fourteen I think...
When Cain was born, Eve claimed that God gave Cain to her. God took sperm from Adam, and an egg from Eve, and a few hours later presented Eve with a son. A few minutes later there was a twin? Abel. When Seth was born, it was said that Adam fathered Seth in his own (physical) likeness.
Good catch... I've wondered why the terminology changes. But didn't Sarah attribute her son to God as well because of a prior inability to have children? Maybe Adam and Eve were giving God credit for their new found ability to procreate. But why then refer to Seth as Adam's image, etc? I dont know.
Chapter 5 also states that God created all humankind both male and female. Adam is the name meaning all mankind, and they were all created at the same time, and both male and female
Later it says that these "god" like beings did mate with the daughters of Adam's offspring, in a physical way, but it says the offspring were the legends of old, and not Sons of God.
Genesis says the sons of God mated with the daughters of man producing the Nephilim. It wouldn't make sense if these sons of God were just men from the 6th day.
It seems to be understood that Cain knew about the Sons of God, and feared they would kill him. He seemed to have no problem with them though, and had offspring with a female of the species.
The chronology begins in Gen 1:2 - a dark, water covered world preceded God's arrival on the scene - his wind blew over the water and then there was light.
That is your interpretation. It says that God created the universe and the earth was there without form, but surrounded by water.
Covered by water, not surrounded. But Genesis doesn't mention the universe, just the lights in Earth's sky. The Earth was submerged, thats why it was without form - dry land isn't dry land if its under water.
It would seem to me that it was before there was even light or energy, and there was only inert gases.
All inert gases were created before light. That was the universe before the moment of the so called, "big bang". It was not a world, planet, star, or anything. It had no form. It was even said to be void.
Water isn't inert and if it covered what would later become dry land then a planet preceded God.
I said God created the universe in inert gas form. Well at least I thought that was what every one viewed the big bang as. The "big bang" is not a creation event. It is part of the process of the "life" cycle of what makes up the universe.
Thats possible, big bang - big crunch - big bang - big crunch and so on. But Genesis is concerned only with our neck of the woods. Heaven divided the waters and the waters below became our seas. Heaven is not the universe.
There was nothing in the Garden that would help, (it says the tree of life was there, but eating of it would not restore their spiritual part. I suppose you could claim it may have giving them longer life, but that is not a given.)
And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24After he drove the man out, he placed on the east sidee of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Becoming like God was what happened, but God said they would die, which means they lost the image of God or their spiritual likeness/bodies.
It means God lied and the serpent told the truth When God reported what happened he didn't mention anything about Adam and Eve dying (spiritually or physically) or sinning. He damn near quotes what the Serpent said would happen.
Genesis said that God made us in the image of God. Where does it say that there were extinct species before us?
That link isn't loading. I thought you supported Sitchen's claim that humans only became capable of creating offspring during the Genesis narrative, which would seem to indicate that Eve's predecessors were all sterile creations who had never experienced childbirth.
I really don't know how to react when I see people insisting that of course ancient people had modern medical technology, utilized by supernatural beings or space aliens, and not a single shred of proof to back up such notions. I hope this nonsense isn't actually being taught in any schools anywhere.
Your source for this? Do any reputable (as in non-"Christian science" or myth-oriented) historical, anthropological, or medical journals confirm your ideas?
Even some modern people express becoming pregnant as "God gave me a baby." They don't literally mean that God artificially inseminated them and grew the baby in a lab somewhere and a few hours later they had a full-term baby. Please tell me you understand that this isn't how pregnancy works. Even modern "test tube babies" require a normal gestation period, and not in an artificial womb. That's still science fiction.
WHAT???!
Planets don't just form willy-nilly out in the middle of nowhere. They may be found outside solar systems if they were tossed out due to orbital issues, but that's not where they form (at least I'm not aware of any findings of such things). Just because Captain Kirk tended to run across rogue planets every third week or so, that doesn't mean that's how the real universe works.
There's no evidence for Noah's flood. There's no evidence that humans ever had space travel prior to the 20th century.
Oh, come now. Why put this gem in spoiler tags? Share with us your idea that that Earth was really a spaceship that dashed hither and yon through the universe.
And do tell why anyone who rejects this as sheer and utter nonsense that makes even less sense than the less-than-good '70s science fiction show this reminds me of (The Starlost) would be against the idea of space exploration (the producers of that show had very little understanding of science, either). I'm all for space exploration. However, I also know the difference between science fiction and fantasy and real science. Nothing in your post shows an understanding of real science.
I just got done explaining about hydrogen and helium, with a little lithium. The only one of those classified as an inert gas is helium. The rest of them didn't come along until after the first generation of supergiant stars blew up. Since stars emit light, your statements make no sense.
As for "void," of course the ancient people would think a volume of space where they couldn't see anything would be a void, because if they couldn't see it, it wasn't there. We know differently now. The universe is full of matter that's too small to see with the naked eye. That doesn't mean it's not there.
The fossil record makes it abundantly clear that there were many extinct species before humans came along. There are far more species of life that existed and is now extinct than there are species that currently exist.
1. Adam is a myth. There's no evidence he ever existed. The Garden of Eden is a myth. There's no evidence that it ever existed.
2. That part of the story gets avoided because it's nonsense. How long a mythological man lived in a mythological location really doesn't matter unless you're arguing about the in-universe continuity of a story. I'd be okay with you doing this if you acknowledged this stuff as only being a story, but you keep insisting that it really happened, and therefore, in my view, it's not okay.*
*Obviously you are free to think this stuff, but as mentioned before, it doesn't belong in either science or history classes.
3. A day is the time it takes Earth (or any other planet) to rotate on its axis once. It's ridiculous to claim that Earth ever took 1000 years to rotate once.
Many fiction writers do this. It's why it's aggravating to write wiki entries for their series. These overlaps cause discontinuities and the readers are forced to discard one version over another to make the timeline of events make sense.
It didn't "just" happen. The laws of physics and chemistry resulted in it happening. No "outside force" (aka your god) was required.
Yes, it's a fact that the universe recycles itself. Our solar system is made from much older stars that blew up many billions of years ago. When our own Sun's life cycle is up, it won't become a supernova (not massive enough), but it will blow off part of its outer shell. Prior to that, it will have expanded into its red giant phase, and that'll be the end of Mercury, Venus, and possibly Earth.
Maybe some day your atoms will be part of a new solar system, billions of years from now. Just think, your atoms could some day be part of a rock, or a cute little animal, or maybe a sentient being who ponders these same issues.
And yet you keep making post after post after post that claims "it could have happened, so I'm convinced that it did." (ie. Noah's flood; you've been doing a considerable amount of pretzel twisting and goalpost moving to try to find "proof" that it happened)
I cannot control what thoughts pop into my mind. I just post them to see what others comment on them. Now that I have stated that, I suppose people will just stop replying.
I like the back and forth with Berzerker, because to me, he changes what the text says more than I have been accused of. You just write it all off as some fiction another human wrote, and that is fine by me. You can correct their fiction with your modern knowledge. I will try to keep pointing out my lack of understanding and post my thoughts. It would seem though that believing in anything is just a waste of time, and energy.
Jesus was born long after Adam and Eve. And didn't he refer to others as sons (children) of God? Didn't he tell his disciples we're all sons of God. I'm doing this from memory so I may be wrong, but the term has a certain ambiguity to it.
Anyway, the text says Adam "knew" his wife and the result was Cain. He's Adam's son and it happened after expulsion from the Garden. The sexual/reproductive imagery ties the knowledge of good and evil to procreation - Adam and Eve may not have had the ability before the Serpent's intervention.
Jesus was referred to as the only begotten Son of God. I think that has been a debate going on since the Flood. Existing on earth with a physical body that can reproduce is the only reproduction going on. The Sons of God in Heaven, or wherever God is, do not reproduce. Reproduction only happens in the physical sense. Jesus had no human sperm in his birth process. The only observed "jump" in human species and evolutionist deny that it happened, how ironic. I can understand why they deny it, if it is true, then perhaps their version of history is wrong? There is no DNA sample to prove one way or the other. I guess because there is no body, and no way to date the bones, it does not count.
Does that mean that the offspring of the Sons of God cannot happen or they are not Son's Of God? I don't think so. I think the offspring have a soul/eternal component, and before the Flood it would seem they could either put on this aspect like clothing, or even change it to represent a form that made them appear to be anything. Unless it was designed/programmed to have only one appearance. Satan was seen as a dragon/serpent with arms and legs. Some are said to just be a bright light that covered the body. Some seem to look like a combination of human/animal hybrids. The word Nephilim means giant. Some beings were said to be as large as an entire solar system. Some say that the height of the statutes found in Egypt and the middle east were the actual size of the physical form of the being that it represents. It could mean that the spiritual form could be actually seen, and the physical form may have been different???? In the study of angels, it is believed that the more pure (more like God) a being is, the larger they got. I am not sure if that is just a claim for authority, or an actual reality.
I would assume the physical act was not denied them. What happened after the act, is what we do not know. It is hard to reconcile and that may be why the whole story is not being accounted for. I keep hearing that the knowledge we have today could in no wise be present in the past. I thought that the pyramids in Egypt are proof that they had knowledge that we do not have today. We have evidence that knowledge changes, but how can that also prove we know that they did not know. All we know is that we do not know what they knew, and since they were humans, why could they not know more than us including what we know. We constrict our understanding to only what can be observed. How in the world is that going to give us knowledge on what cannot be observed, yet modern humans think they know everything about the past????
I would speculate that after a certain age, Cain and Able left the Garden, that is a human trait although some cultures keep the family grouped together for generations. If one were to keep Adam and Eve in the dark about Good and Evil, then allowing one's offspring to move away as a natural process would have kept them in the dark about what happened to cause Abel to be killed. Otherwise killing was not an evil even if it was witnessed. If God had to mark Cain then he had to look just like the rest of humans with whom he feared he would come in contact with. The rest of the 6th day people did not die or loose their status with God even after Adam ate. If Cain and Abel were just the same as the other 6th day people, they would have to have been born before Adam and Eve ate, not after. After, Cain would obviously look different and not need to be marked. Having a mark would seem irrelative either way if every one in the council already had knowledge of what Cain did.
Then we have the same rhetoric as God had with Adam and Eve, where it seems God was lacking in knowledge, because God asked Cain where his brother was. There was something about Adam, Eve, and Cain where they had the system in place to communicate in the council, but there was no connection. It states that God came to them in their physical location to communicate with them, and they were not part of the council. Even the Serpent had to come and talk with Eve on location. Was the Garden set up to keep them in an enclosed area to prevent them from interacting with others, and God only allowed contact with them on a limited basis?
If Adam and Eve was just an experiment, I suppose that not having offspring would be some form of control in the experiment. I don't see how that effects the ability to pro-create on the whole of humanity. Why tell Eve that having children would be difficult if she had no clue about childbirth at all? Would not God have to explain to them what having offspring was before explaining it would be difficult? It does not say, "ok, you can have offspring now, but it is going to be difficult." Then in the next chapter it was the easiest thing to do. We are not told when Cain and Abel were born, but Seth was born when Adam was 130. Seth was not born until after Abel died. Even if Cain and Abel were adults, Adam and Eve could have been at least 100 before they had Cain and Abel. At what age do you put Adam and Eve eating the fruit? If they were pre-puberty, then just claiming that being curious about sex would not make any sense attributing it to some kind of moral issue. They would not even be able to effect any result. On the other hand if Adam was 100 years old before he even "met" Eve, why would sex be an issue at all? If Eve wandered into the Garden at 100 years of age, maybe she already had been with other men at least once in the previous 80 years?
Strangely enough Mesopotamian myth describes "birth goddesses" used in the process of our creation. Seven or fourteen I think...
Good catch... I've wondered why the terminology changes. But didn't Sarah attribute her son to God as well because of a prior inability to have children? Maybe Adam and Eve were giving God credit for their new found ability to procreate. But why then refer to Seth as Adam's image, etc? I dont know.
Unless one thinks that humans can accomplish what God cannot, ie invitro, cloning, and even virgin birth; it would seem that anything is likely whether it is plausible or not.
Is not a jump in species literally a virgin birth? A new species is formed without the benefit of the current genome? The offspring has to be viable on it's own?
Genesis says the sons of God mated with the daughters of man producing the Nephilim. It wouldn't make sense if these sons of God were just men from the 6th day.
Cain didn't identify his potential assassins, just whomever might find him.
What mechanism would make Eve wander into a Garden?
The text does not say the Nephilim was the result of mating. That is a non-biblical legend to explain the Nephilim. The text acknowledges that there were some beings who were Giants. The NT mentions that one of the created beings was a dragon, who was a talking serpent, and the devil. The Bible mentions a lot of different types of beings that have been named part of the types of Angels.
If you compare Angels with all the other ancient myths, they all portray these beings as an access to the spiritual dimension. If the Sons of God were some "collective" because their spiritual side was in constant contact with God, and presumably each other instantaneous, I am sure that ancient humans would attempt to harness such a power. That is why the ancients had images of gods, like a totem, they were alleged to give access to the being the image represented. Some ancients thought that every single living thing, even plants had a component that communicated with God, like an angel (messenger). It was not that there were multiple Gods. The whole of nature had access to God, except humans. Humans lost that, and the Hebrews claim, it was when Adam ate the fruit.
Eastern religions still teach/believe that is the case. Western humanity via Greek thinkers turned to view only the physical universe, and accepted only that which can be observed. Religion is just an attempt to figure out the unknown spiritual component that human's allegedly once had.
The chronology begins in Gen 1:2 - a dark, water covered world preceded God's arrival on the scene - his wind blew over the water and then there was light.
Covered by water, not surrounded. But Genesis doesn't mention the universe, just the lights in Earth's sky. The Earth was submerged, thats why it was without form - dry land isn't dry land if its under water.
Water isn't inert and if it covered what would later become dry land then a planet preceded God.
Thats possible, big bang - big crunch - big bang - big crunch and so on. But Genesis is concerned only with our neck of the woods. Heaven divided the waters and the waters below became our seas. Heaven is not the universe.
The point is before light, water is not a liquid. How would one describe water as water, if there was no term that meant vapor? The term for Spirit does convey a gas state.
Obviously, I cannot describe a state of inert matter and gas very well. If water as a liquid can exist before energy and motion, then there would be no need for the term vapor.
I am not sure how you can say the earth was there even before God, and then later it was formed in the solar system itself. It would not seem to me that a body of water could be there and then later interact with the current solar system. Combining Sitchin's theory with the text would seem that God came along when Earth was a "spaceship" travelling between two solar systems, and it ended up as a planet in the current one.
It cannot both pre-exist the solar system, and form in that solar system. I am pointing out that flaw in Sitchin's explanation. If it was in existence before the formation of the solar system, then it had to come from outside that system, not as part of the formation of it. You keep saying the solar system cannot be created twice, and you even refuse that God created the universe. You seem to claim that God did not create anything. All God did was lie to humans, and watch things happen.
Some claim that Mars was the inhabitable planet, and earth was the invading species to the solar system. There is evidence that at the fringes of the gravitational attraction of the sun, there are planetary bodies seemingly surrounded by more liquid forms of gases in solid form, than the planets closer to the sun. I doubt the whole* of modern man will ever be convinced that the earth formed any where besides where it currently is. If the earth did not pre-exist the solar system, then it could have been an outer planet that somehow was brought into a closer orbit. It could not have both pre-existed the solar system, and formed at the same time as the solar system.
*
Spoiler:
On the topic of a collective species consciousness. It would seem plausible that if a physical body had this data gathering "spirit" connected to them, and this spirit was in constant communication with every other spirit of it's physical species that it could give some merit to a collective consciousness. That could be how thoughts "pop" into the head, but humans seem to be stuck in their habitual world and brush away any thoughts unless they re-enforce their conceived notion of reality. Not going to look up the link/s but there has been a scientific observable study on the phenomenon. Of course the study is not going to state how it works, but that it does. (There has to be a physical component that does it, ie a gland in the brain.) I think that was mentioned in the video that Leoreth posted.
I do not think that sin and rebellion is a moral issue, although with the advent of the Law, it became a moral issue. It would seem this sin/rebellion against God is what gives skepticism to an omniscient God. God cannot approach and seems to limit access to this "dark" area. I think that God limited knowledge by doing something in the Garden setting, and "blocking" the flow of information, but that seems different from the general thought of sin, unless like Pandora's box, the Garden was the control of this effect, and "opening" the Garden allowed the spread of this "sin" phenomenon. Humans seem to credit Lucifer with pointing out this phenomenon to God, but why would God even set up the Adam and Eve scenario? Were humans given the credit for proving that God can be eradicated?
And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24After he drove the man out, he placed on the east sidee of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
It means God lied and the serpent told the truth When God reported what happened he didn't mention anything about Adam and Eve dying (spiritually or physically) or sinning. He damn near quotes what the Serpent said would happen.
I am pretty sure that any one involved in writing the ancient text, brought about Judaism, and the followers of Jesus would claim that that passage cannot state that God lied. From the knowledge that Eve had, (it would seem that she was in the "dark" about a lot of things. She did not even seem to care or even know what dying meant) The way the account is written everything happened on the same day. From human's default stance that all things take millions of years, even in ancient times, this approach may seem to go too far in the conservative position. The point that something happened (death) was the fact that they lost their spiritual part and realized they were naked. The Death was that spiritual side (some say it was a bright light that surrounded the physical form)
Later when God was back in council. The council already knew the whole event. God was just stating the obvious about what happened, and Adam now had the knowledge of Good and Evil and that is the only aspect that made them "like" the council and God.
I read a book on Angelology to brush up on what humans have commented on Angels since ancient times. The book is not exhaustive and probably biased, but still points out a few points that everyone seems to agree on. Some think that the Sons of God and angels are the same and some think they are just similar. The basic concept of angels in modern terms would be they are data streams between the human body and God. Actually they are called messengers. With the advent of texting, it seems obvious that just like we can text information to each other almost instantaneous, that is what an angel does between the human body and God, and that started when the Sons of God were created on day 6. Adam and Eve were able to communicate with God, but they did not seem to know that they were actual Sons of God. It all seemed to be part of not knowing everything the rest of the Sons of God knew wrapped up in the knowledge of Good and Evil which eating of the Tree would change. Satan did not lie, but deceived. God did not lie. Unless you think that wrapping up Adam and Eve's knowledge into a forbidden fruit is telling a lie. If God said the same thing that the serpent said, and the serpent was not lying, how would that make God lie? The name of the tree was "knowing good and evil" Satan just said the name of the tree is the same as eating of the tree. God does not have sex, so having sex would not be like God. The only thing that would be like God, is the name of the tree itself, according to Satan. Dying is not being like God. God said they would die, but not which part would die. That was the mystery of the whole thing. Why would Satan say, "you won't die, you just won't be able to see me, or talk to me any more"; what would be the point? Satan knew that no one actually dies, they just loose their physical form eventually. If Satan could separate Adam from God, and that would be the part that dies, then Satan lied to Eve, because that did happen. There was already a simulated separation from the God experience that all other Sons of God had. So the point was not preventing Adam and Eve from communicating with God. The point was forcing God from being able to communicate with Adam and Eve. That was the death that God promised as punishment. As a whole, having this spiritual component before the Flood seemed to be a physical addition. After the Flood if Noah and family were not the only survivors, then the other humans remaining no longer had this physical aspect, because it is not in the history account. All we get is Gilgamesh who went on a trip and was claimed to have received such an honor. Whether or not it was the advent of Moses and the Law, the Hebrews did not mention this ability, and not even in the Creation Story. Judaism seemed to take an interest in it, because that was part of the Persian and Hindi religious beliefs. But the influence of Hellenism must have been stronger than the spiritualism of the East. If the pre-Egyptian Hebrews did not influence the Egyptians, and it seems that neither did the Egyptians influence the Hebrews, how can the Egyptians actually seem more into that aspect than even the later Persian and Eastern religions. On the other hand, if the claim is true that the Hebrews and Egyptians never even had contact, because there never was a Moses, then how did they have almost the same view on the Matter? I guess the Egyptians could have been further advanced than the rest before the Flood, and the effects after lasted a lot longer than any other nation group. Then that begs the question how (or even why) were the Hebrews able to retain a longer stream of written information and a system to retain concepts that all the other groups seem to have lost over the generations?
There are gaps in the story, and more than a few. Like it has been pointed out, there are so many gaps, that there is no congruity to the story, but we get what we get.
That link isn't loading. I thought you supported Sitchen's claim that humans only became capable of creating offspring during the Genesis narrative, which would seem to indicate that Eve's predecessors were all sterile creations who had never experienced childbirth.
Eve's predecessors were unaltered hominids... The first humans were hybrids birthed by goddesses and the ability to procreate was acquired later. Here we have in Genesis a story about Eve's increased pain in child birth, the result of larger brained babies dating back 100-200 kya. Thats more evidence the myth reflects a truth buried deep in the past.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Cannibalism is a concept that was covered in my cultural anthropology courses. Both of us live in a modern, Western culture that considers cannibalism to be immoral. You think it's immoral, and I think it's immoral. However, I'm pointing out that "cannibalism is immoral" is not a universal concept. What is so hard to understand about that?
so I may be wrong, but the term has a certain ambiguity to it. 
