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.
1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.
Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.
I wasn't going to discuss creation science so much in this forum, but use facts, reasoning, and historical truths.
Since you brought up Age of the Earth (part of evolutionary thought) and your link, it is based on this --
Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson . The problem is radiometric dating is not accurate because of its assumptions. Unfortunately, creation science does not have a peer-reviewed method to date the age of the earth (only hypothesis). So, today I can only offer various arguments against radiometric dating.
Jonathon Woolf makes a good presentation of evolutionists’ arguments. He starts by saying that evolutionists haven’t done a very good job of explaining "how" radiometric dating works. See your link and my previous link. He continues with some definitions and explanations of terms and explains the differences between elements and isotopes (also called “nuclides”) of those elements.
The major question is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample? In some cases, we don’t know. Such cases are useless for radiometric dating. We
must know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically. Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that. Creation scientists content there are no cases where we can do it.
Woof states, "there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.
There are evolutionists (evos) who claim water on Earth is older than the Sun:
"H2D+ becomes enriched relative to
because the deuterated isotopologue is energetically favored at low temperatures. There is an energy barrier Δ
E1 to return to
, i.e.,
, where Δ
E1 ≈ 124 K, although the precise value depends on the nuclear spin of the reactants and products. The relatively modest value of Δ
E1 restricts deuterium enrichments in
to the coldest gas,
. Thus, deuterium-enriched water formation requires the right mix of environmental conditions: cold gas, gas-phase oxygen, and ionization."
In layman's terms, they are acknowledging that the number of protons, regardless of the number of neutrons, determines how atoms react chemically to form molecules -- but the number of neutrons does make a very tiny difference in the amount of heat liberated by the reaction. So, for very light elements at temperatures close to absolute zero, chemical processes do actually differentiate very slightly between isotopes because of the barely measurable difference in heat involved in the reaction.
Woolf also recognizes this fact, "Note: It’s true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can’t distinguish between different nuclides."
So, in general, it is the number of protons that determines how chemical bonds will be formed. The number of neutrons is irrelevant.
Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in molten rocks does not change immediately when the rock hardens. The age of the rock formation is supposedly determined by how much the ratio of isotopes changes AFTER the rock hardens (which presumes that enough time has elapsed for radioactive decay to change that ratio). Yet, we still do not know what the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.
Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using methods other than rubidium-strontium isochron dating. Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The non-isochron dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.
When faced with this obvious discrepancy, evos sometimes backpedal by saying that although the radiometric dates may not be perfectly accurate, even 40 million years is much older than 6,000 years, so the radiometric ages still prove the Earth is old. That reasoning fails because
the ages aren’t simply inaccurate—they are invalid. All of the ages were calculated using baseless assumptions about the initial concentrations of radioactive isotopes and erroneous speculation about how those concentrations changed over time. The calculated ages have nothing to do with how old the rocks are, and have everything to do with how much of each kind of isotope was in the rocks when they were formed.
Jonathon Woolf
An Essay on Radiometric Dating
