If God doesn't exist...

[zaangalewa]

If Adam and Eve were the first humans who were Kain and Abel's wife?

The Bible does not say who Cain’s wife was. Many think that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc. Very likely that Adam and Eve had many other children and perhaps grandchildren of Adam and Eve were living at the time.

They met just simple other human beings (or pre-human beings). Eve is the mother of all human beings in a similiar way how Mary is the mother of god - who is the creator of all and everything. When Eve for example gave Adam the fruit of the tree of the cogntion of good and evil she did not know what god said to Adam before she existed. Only Adam knew. You can see in her the orginal innocence (the principle of love and life) and in Adam the original sin (the reason for the existance of death). Eve was by the way the most breath-taking beautiful woman ever existed.

 

[Hollie]

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

Flood Stories from Around the World

 

[Mudda]

I don't read long winded fartsmoke...

It doesn't matter because your mind is not going to ever be changed.

I just told you, if you can prove God, I'll change my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.

 

[Mudda]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

But I take my martini shaken, not stirred!

In other words, you have nothing. Got it.

 

[Mudda]

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

Again, what's your real proof for this: "The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking."?

 

[hobelim]

Dear hobelim Mudda and james bond
I'm sure you could call garbage science "fartsmoke"

What would you call a so called scientific paper that tries to prove that Noah lived for almost 1000 years yet disregards the fact that 950 divided by 12 just happens to equal the very reasonable age of 79.

Would you even bother to read any so called scientific paper that claims to prove the earth is only 6000 years old?

 

[hobelim]

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

 

[Hollie]

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

 

[hobelim]

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

 

[Hollie]

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

 

[hobelim]

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

 

[Hollie]

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear hobelim Mudda and james bond
I'm sure you could call garbage science "fartsmoke"

What would you call a so called scientific paper that tries to prove that Noah lived for almost 1000 years yet disregards the fact that 950 divided by 12 just happens to equal the very reasonable age of 79.

Would you even bother to read any so called scientific paper that claims to prove the earth is only 6000 years old?

Dear hobelim
1. for the 6000 year argument, most people I know can reconcile this with the interpretation
of 6 ages and not literal years, and that it refers to the Hebrew/Mosaic Lineage, which Adam represents.
This can be corrected under Christian rebuke.
If you are nontheist and don't commit to enforce scripture, then you
may not have the same success rate in reconciling fellow believers
on a common interpretation. But where 2-3 believers have committed
to reconcile by God's truth through Christ Jesus, this point can be resolved.

2. for the age of Noah, again that cannot be proven in this day and time.
Better to focus on spiritual healing that can "bring people back from the dead"
there are cases of enhanced healing that CAN be replicated for research studies
on correlation if causality cannot be proven (between forgiveness:healing : : unforgiveness:illness)

Again if people are approached by their peers seeking correction,
alignment and agreement in Christ, the result is different from
opponents presenting arguments for the purpose of derailing beliefs.

If we address each other in our respective contexts, we have a better
chance of effective communication and agreed understanding, including corrections in that spirit.

3. So I am not debating or denying the faults or wrongs with these arguments,
but am saying the best way to correct them is peer-to-peer review and rebuke to
establish common truth by shared faith, not coming at each other as adversaries.
Of course, the points will be denied and then you'll stay stuck! taking that approach!

 

[emilynghiem]

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Hi Hollie you remind me of scientists taking the global warming arguments, debunking each other,
and using that as justification for rejecting someone's entire political agenda as abusing science.

Can we get over it already?

Instead of debating back and forth about Global Warming, why not just focus on reducing pollution and toxic waste,
preserving ecosystems and restoring natural resources and wildlife? We don't need to agree on GW to do all that work that matters more.

Same with this Noah's ark/creation/evolution timeline.
I'd say more lives and health of people, planet and society would be saved
by studying Spiritual Healing and proving how that works universally so everyone can use it
and quit dying of diseases, crimes, abuse, and addictions that would be prevented or cured.

We don't need to agree on Adam and Eve, Noah, Floods or Talking Snakes
to do the medical research on spiritual healing to show positive results can be replicated,
and this same process works on atheists as theists, Christians and nonchristians,
because forgiveness/unforgiveness affects the mind/body and relations of people universally.

I am tempted to make a bet between American and Asian scientists and scholars
on which country will be the first to recognize spiritual healing through medical research
and establish it as public knowledge: America or China. Although China has a more abusive
record on suppressing religious freedom, the need for medical support for the massive
Chinese populations may necessitate research into spiritual healing for its cost effectiveness.

And while America boasts of having religious freedom and academic/intellectual freedom to
explore creative innovations, this crazed phase of rejecting anything traditionally religious or
conservative has shut down the freedom of information and thought to even CONSIDER
medical research on spiritual healing as many doctors and scientists have advocated for
after studying this through their own observations and realizing it can be done.

Maybe China can get over its politics before America can. I'd like to challenge both
nations and see who can be the first to prove this and maybe win a Nobel Prize
for bridging the gap between science and religion, once and for all, by proving
they are not in conflict but both can be used to represent universal stages of human experience and development.

 

[Mudda]

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Hi Hollie you remind me of scientists taking the global warming arguments, debunking each other,
and using that as justification for rejecting someone's entire political agenda as abusing science.

Can we get over it already?

Instead of debating back and forth about Global Warming, why not just focus on reducing pollution and toxic waste,
preserving ecosystems and restoring natural resources and wildlife? We don't need to agree on GW to do all that work that matters more.

Same with this Noah's ark/creation/evolution timeline.
I'd say more lives and health of people, planet and society would be saved
by studying Spiritual Healing and proving how that works universally so everyone can use it
and quit dying of diseases, crimes, abuse, and addictions that would be prevented or cured.

We don't need to agree on Adam and Eve, Noah, Floods or Talking Snakes
to do the medical research on spiritual healing to show positive results can be replicated,
and this same process works on atheists as theists, Christians and nonchristians,
because forgiveness/unforgiveness affects the mind/body and relations of people universally.

I am tempted to make a bet between American and Asian scientists and scholars
on which country will be the first to recognize spiritual healing through medical research
and establish it as public knowledge: America or China. Although China has a more abusive
record on suppressing religious freedom, the need for medical support for the massive
Chinese populations may necessitate research into spiritual healing for its cost effectiveness.

And while America boasts of having religious freedom and academic/intellectual freedom to
explore creative innovations, this crazed phase of rejecting anything traditionally religious or
conservative has shut down the freedom of information and thought to even CONSIDER
medical research on spiritual healing as many doctors and scientists have advocated for
after studying this through their own observations and realizing it can be done.

Maybe China can get over its politics before America can. I'd like to challenge both
nations and see who can be the first to prove this and maybe win a Nobel Prize
for bridging the gap between science and religion, once and for all, by proving
they are not in conflict but both can be used to represent universal stages of human experience and development.

I was cold so I posted more hot air

"Hi Hollie you remind me of scientists taking the global warming arguments, debunking each other,
and using that as justification for rejecting someone's entire political agenda as abusing science.

Can we get over it already?

Instead of debating back and forth about Global Warming, why not just focus on reducing pollution and toxic waste,
preserving ecosystems and restoring natural resources and wildlife? We don't need to agree on GW to do all that work that matters more.

Same with this Noah's ark/creation/evolution timeline.
I'd say more lives and health of people, planet and society would be saved
by studying Spiritual Healing and proving how that works universally so everyone can use it
and quit dying of diseases, crimes, abuse, and addictions that would be prevented or cured.

We don't need to agree on Adam and Eve, Noah, Floods or Talking Snakes
to do the medical research on spiritual healing to show positive results can be replicated,
and this same process works on atheists as theists, Christians and nonchristians,
because forgiveness/unforgiveness affects the mind/body and relations of people universally.

I am tempted to make a bet between American and Asian scientists and scholars
on which country will be the first to recognize spiritual healing through medical research
and establish it as public knowledge: America or China. Although China has a more abusive
record on suppressing religious freedom, the need for medical support for the massive
Chinese populations may necessitate research into spiritual healing for its cost effectiveness.

And while America boasts of having religious freedom and academic/intellectual freedom to
explore creative innovations, this crazed phase of rejecting anything traditionally religious or
conservative has shut down the freedom of information and thought to even CONSIDER
medical research on spiritual healing as many doctors and scientists have advocated for
after studying this through their own observations and realizing it can be done.

Maybe China can get over its politics before America can. I'd like to challenge both
nations and see who can be the first to prove this and maybe win a Nobel Prize
for bridging the gap between science and religion, once and for all, by proving
they are not in conflict but both can be used to represent universal stages of human experience and development."

 

[ChrisL]

There is a "gap" between science and religion because religion is just a bunch of fairy tales and stories, whereas science needs evidence of some kind to back up theories.

 

[james bond]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

If they made an error and marked time by the month with twelve months in a year then Noah lived to be about 79 years old and it took him ten years to build the ark and by that measure methuselah lived to be 81. Probably twice as old as the average life span back then. Must have seemed miraculous at the time but there was really nothing supernatural or extraordinary about it knowing what the average life span is now..

To insist that Noah actually lived to be 950 years old because "people lived longer back then" as a result of their diet or some other such malarkey really is just fartsmoke.

Nyet. We devolved.

 

[james bond]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

Dear james bond: If you and I put together scientific research and replicable studies on spiritual healing, for example, that bridged the gap between science and religion as not conflicting with each other, then this research would hold up to scientific review, REGARDLESS of naysayers like Mudda objecting the whole time.

In fact, we could make the Mudda 's and other naysayers of teh world
the CONTROL group and compare the success rate of people who WON'T forgive and work with opposing groups
to the success rate of people who DO choose to forgive and find ways to work together despite differences.

And show which group does better in terms of mental and physical health and recovery times.
And which group has more diverse partnerships in solving mutiple problems instead of delegating
undersolved conflcit to govt to decide (instead of the people involve in the suit actully work out those issues here).

Good work. Keep it up. I'll comment if there are differences.

 

[james bond]

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

Flood Stories from Around the World

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.

Flood Stories from Around the World

I'm not ignoring those flood "stories," but Noah's flood was a global flood. How do those other floods stack up? What were their origin, i.e. where did the water come from?

 

[james bond]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

But I take my martini shaken, not stirred!

In other words, you have nothing. Got it.

I boored talking with you. That's it my friend.