Evolution or 6 days

[Zacrifice]

I'm currently watching an Doco on evolution or god created man in 6 days.

Very interesting and my mind is asking questions that are kinda getting answerd some aren't but one question weighs heavly on my mind.

If there was One (1) man and One (1) Women who are called Adam and Eve and they had to populate the earth.

How did we become so.. Numerous? Was it incest?

Incest is a sin (http://www.bible.org/docs/splife/buntin/basic-12.htm) its not right, its against gods word.

SO how did we become

I don't want to hear anything other then an answer to this question. If you can not answer it fully then don't bother attempting. DO NOT try to change subjects or move me onto something else besides this question.

I do how ever encourage discussion but not flaming! bickering! or Hateful posts!

[sillyalien]

The answer is aliens, my friend.

[lookout]

Not sure, but I think the religious explanation is tied to the concept of Original Sin, at least for those who practice Christianity. Other religions undoubtedly have different views on the subject.

Also, incest is one of those terms that has changed meaning over the years. It wasn't uncommon not that long ago for Christian practicing cousins to marry without raising an eyebrow. Not only that, but history is filled with incestuous examples, making me believe the concept was not always so widely accepted as gospel.

All that said, I'm a Darwinist (and possible alien) myself.

[Still Shady]

Frankly sometimes I'm confused too... Science proved evolution but we haven't proved adam and eve yet or God...

Incest hmmm... I wouldn't want that.

[Joshua Clinard]

Excuse me, but science never has, and never will prove evolution, because it did not happen. It's impossible to prove something that never existed. There have been many theories, and many people think they have been proven, but many of these are hoaxes. I can think of one example. Several years ago, an archeoligist clamined to have found a skull that was in the evolution process between an ape and a man. It was later discovered that he had created a fake skull, and planted it somewhere. Why do people have to try to hoax people into believing that evolution exists? Because it doesn't. There is no proof, contrary to popular beleif.

To answer the question, Adam and Eve had three sons that are mentioned by name. Cain, Abel, and Seth. They also had many other sons and daughters. Their sons and daugters had to marry and produce offspring.

By the way, it's common knowledge, that Darwin was converted to Christianity, once he had fully studied Creation, and renounced his belief in evolution.

[sillyalien]

Originally posted by Joshua Clinard
Excuse me, but science never has, and never will prove evolution, because it did not happen.

Hmmm.... so I guess cows always looked the way they do now. Yeah, okay.


Without prejudice, I'll stick to my alien theory, thank ya muchly.

[gakenny]

This is an interesting topic to raise on these boards!

There are definitely two schools for this topic - those that believe in evolution and those that believe in creation.

I find it interesting that evolution is taught as fact in our schools when evidence proving it as such can be seen as inconclusive.

Others would say that the arguments against creation are the same. Which topic was removed from our schools?

I would like to see both subjects given the same emphasis allowing the individual to make their choice.

I believe that one day both schools will find the same truth.

[lookout]

Originally posted by Joshua Clinard
By the way, it's common knowledge, that Darwin was converted to Christianity, once he had fully studied Creation, and renounced his belief in evolution.

This is only believed by some, and may have well been a rumor spread by his many enemies.

See these links:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/darwin.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp

You know, people have been put to death in the past for saying such crazy things as the Earth is not the center of the universe, or that the world was round and not flat.

Anyway, whether true or not, what bearing does it really have on his theories? Evolutionary theory does NOT preclude the belief in a God in some form, nor does it require it. It is simply at odds with the Biblical explanation of how we all ended up here.

I saw what looked like a good article on the topic here, although I must admit I only scanned it. I wouldn't go as far to say that Evolution has been proven without doubt, but to me, it does seem the most likely scenario. Certainly there have been hoaxes like the Piltdown man, and the "missing link" has not been found. But neither really proves nor disproves evolution as a promising theory. The fossil record does certainly lend credence to Darwin's ideas however, unless you are of the group that believes these were all laid down by a God to test one's faith, as one of the characters in a Richard Heinlein book I just read does.

[JPC-Greg]

Originally posted by Joshua Clinard
Excuse me, but science never has, and never will prove evolution, because it did not happen. It's impossible to prove something that never existed.

The same can be said for "creation" .... you cant prove or disprove neither evolution or creation, or for that matter God. Your either going to go one way or the other based on what you want to beleive until we invent a time machine and prove everyeon wrong with the "alien" theory ; )

I would say there may be more and more mounting evidence to support evolution but without living for a million years yourself you have no real way to document it...until that is, we invented the camcorder. Now if things have "evolved" in the next hundred thousand years and provided we are here to document it all, then it would be a fact. Until that happens it will remain a theory.

[Joshua Clinard]

Interesting thoughts lookout. I think the schools have always tought evolution as fact. Actually, in recent years, there have been more and more proof that Creation is what actually happened. Most news sources have have archives on the subject, and most of the articles in thier archives have to do with sceintists finding more and more evidence that Creation exists. The reason that Schools still teach creation, is because the school system refuses to change. They are afraid to change textbooks when they find new evidence, because they have to admit they are wrong. For the school system to admit to teaching lies for the last 50 years would be almost impossible to believe.

[lookout]

No, I think schools are changing their curriculum all the time, but maybe not so much on this particular subject. In America, the concept of a separation of church and state plays no small role in mandating what may be taught in public schools. Creation Science does not play well with this, and it advances what many (even some who profess Christianity) would find a rather exclusionary viewpoint.

In my experience I have not seen evolution being taught as fact and not theory, but I can see that others who dispute it would want their views presented as well. That is at least an option in some private schools.

I suspect that this controversy is hotter in the more southerly portions of the U.S than elsewhere. Pocket groups probably exist all over though. I expect it reflects the growth of Christian fundamentalism in recent decades, although that may be an unjust thought on my part. No religious or regional slight intended there, just a general observation.

[Still Shady]

Originally posted by Joshua Clinard
Excuse me, but science never has, and never will prove evolution, because it did not happen. It's impossible to prove something that never existed.

OK... Here's a good sample of evolution, when you were just as SPERM+EGG to HUMAN within time of massive change can you disagree with that?

[lookout]

Here's a Biblical Genealogical Diagram that I found for your browsing pleasure. Note the key branch points at Adam, Noah and Abraham.

If you're into this sort of thing, Time magazine had a good article recently on Abraham, who Christians, Jews, and Muslims claim as a paternal ancestor. Enjoy!

[Zacrifice]

Originally posted by Joshua Clinard
To answer the question, Adam and Eve had three sons that are mentioned by name. Cain, Abel, and Seth. They also had many other sons and daughters. Their sons and daugters had to marry and produce offspring.

This is what gets me. You oviously don't get the implications of incest. Putting aside what is good and what is bad. Lets look at the facts here

Lets say we have adam and eve. Adam and Eve reproduce offspring, for all intensive purposes and for ease of explination lets say Eve gave Adam 4 sons and 4 daughters. Ever son takes a daughter and married had offspring. That offspring will be genetically deforms maybe not viewable deformation but deformation will have taken place. It HAS been proven, it HAS happend and occasionally it DOES happen. The only time a family can reproduce inside of the family is with second cousins then no deformation will take place.

And it wouldn't matter How many children Adam and Eve had incest would deform all children born (And you cant give me they where lucky. EVERY child born from incest is genetically deformed!)

Its a faital flaw. ALSO there is another one, when Jesus told Noa to build a boat and take two of each animal onboard with your family God than killed every man exept Noa and his family and boat which would mean that incest would once again take place for Noa and his family to repopulate the earth along with all the animals!

Joshua, I do thank you for your responce, and for everyone elses for that matter. But please don't discount a thoery simply because the bible says something else, and if you want to discount a thoery then do so with more then one point of evidence.

[lookout]

Zac, the Bible abounds in things that don't appear to hold much water scientifically. Not sure about the correctness of your example, but even if so, I suspect the usual arguments against it would employ some combination of Godly intervention, biblical interpretation, or blind faith.

What about all those people who are said to have lived for 100s of years? I've been told by one minister aquaintance that this was because of fewer diseases in ancient times. I think that unlikely, but they certainly believed it. Another claimed time was measured differently back then. That may hold some water. Think of the half a month "lost" when they switched between Gregorian to Julian calanders 500 or so years ago. Perhaps our interpretations of ancient writings leave something to be desired.