Adam and Eve's many children?

Some are cute, some are horrid:

Some of you think demons can infect the mind, yet there is no proof that demons exist or what a demon actually is. If they don't exist, then what are they really besides myth? Think of all the mythology surrounding religion and yet people believe it as if it actually happened. Take for example, the "fact" that Jesus walked up to a lame man and poked out his eyes and made him blind. What a crock huh? I don't think anyone in a robe and slippers could have been that cruel.

www.landoverbaptist.org...
www.landoverbaptist.org...
www.landoverbaptist.org...
...
www.landoverbaptist.org...

Zip

Anyone who does not believe in Adam and Eve does not know the facts. Even if there was no Adam and Eve personally, there would have to be 2 human beings at one time to continue the race. I mean, the Adam and Eve story is better than believing we came from apes, which came from something else, which came from something else, etc... until you get to the first cell, then, it comes from nothing. Nothing! I'f you don't believe in a higher power, you believe everything comes from nothing! I guess an ice cream sundae will just come up from nothing into my hand.


I personaly believe that dinosaurs were with humans. The earth is either 6000 to 10000 years old, or 6 billion years old. Humans are either 6000 years old or 250 million years old. I think that dinosaurs went on the ark with Noah, but died out eventually from Human hunting. The reason Noah went into the ark was because of the Nephimlim. They are demons that married the daughters of men and had children with them. This is so the messiah, Jesus Christ could not come. The genetic bloodline would be altered. So, God created the flood to save the human bloodline. Noah was the only one to have a pure genetic bloodline capable of bringing the Messiah. After the flood, human age dropped because of insest between humans to keep the spieces going.

I believe that Aliens and UFOs now are demons hiding as "aliens."

Originally posted by 5aret
Anyone who does not believe in Adam and Eve does not know the facts. Even if there was no Adam and Eve personally, there would have to be 2 human beings at one time to continue the race. I mean, the Adam and Eve story is better than believing we came from apes, which came from something else, which came from something else, etc... until you get to the first cell, then, it comes from nothing. Nothing! I'f you don't believe in a higher power, you believe everything comes from nothing! I guess an ice cream sundae will just come up from nothing into my hand.

I personaly believe that dinosaurs were with humans. The earth is either 6000 to 10000 years old, or 6 billion years old. Humans are either 6000 years old or 250 million years old. I think that dinosaurs went on the ark with Noah, but died out eventually from Human hunting. The reason Noah went into the ark was because of the Nephimlim. They are demons that married the daughters of men and had children with them. This is so the messiah, Jesus Christ could not come. The genetic bloodline would be altered. So, God created the flood to save the human bloodline. Noah was the only one to have a pure genetic bloodline capable of bringing the Messiah. After the flood, human age dropped because of insest between humans to keep the spieces going.

I believe that Aliens and UFOs now are demons hiding as "aliens."

it is not fact that the human race or any species ever started from just two of their kind. that may be the most absurd thing ever said along the lines of evolution or the adam and eve fairytale. and we didn't come from nothing, everything did not come from nothing. the theory of the big bang and evolution is that life started with 'something' that was always there. so no if you go far enough back we didn't start from nothing. you have abosolutly no logical explanation for anything that you said. you believe the earth and universe is a mere 6000 to 10,000 years old, based on no evidence or facts whatsoever. humans as we know today did not live in coexistance with dinoaurs, and we did not hunt them in to extinction. if you're going to have some wacky ideas atleast try to back them up with some sort of factual evidence or logical thinking.

the human average age of death did not drop, because we never lived to 900 years old. if you say its because of incest then noah could not have lived until 900 years old, as he supposedly came from just two humans. the human body how ever much you fix it, change it, work it, heal it, will only ever last for a short amount of time. everything has a certain lifespan and it doesn't change because of incest, otherwise we'd see in the animal kingdom, animals living shorter lives and having a lower average age of death because animals mate with their brothers, sisters etc, yet we don't see a demise in their average age of death.

Originally posted by 5aret
Anyone who does not believe in Adam and Eve does not know the facts. Even if there was no Adam and Eve personally, there would have to be 2 human beings at one time to continue the race.

You are contradicting yourself in these two sentences. "Anyone who does not believe in Adam and Eve does not know the facts" immediately followed with "Even if there was no Adam and Eve..."

While your take on reproduction is admirable, there is no reason to think that two people started it all. This type of thinking only comes into play when assumptions are made that humans are not products of evolution.

Put simply, an evolutionary history of gametes comprises the splitting of cells, independent development of these cells, and then the interaction of the cells to produce a new cell with shared characteristics of the two parents. This type of cellular interaction is the basis for male and female sexes.

Originally posted by 5aret
I mean, the Adam and Eve story is better than believing we came from apes, until you get to the first cell, then, it comes from nothing. Nothing! I'f you don't believe in a higher power, you believe everything comes from nothing!

No one has ever claimed that humans came from apes. The claim is that we both came from a common ancestor. The first cell did not come from nothing, it came from pre-existing ingredients. Those ingredients came from a singularity preceeding the Big Bang.

You say, "science says everything came from nothing," but religion says the same thing. You contend that God has "always been." Well, that's fascinating, science currently says the same thing about the singularity, but we're open to adjustments on that, and constantly learning more.

Originally posted by 5aret
I guess an ice cream sundae will just come up from nothing into my hand.

Yes, maybe you can speak one into existence!

Originally posted by 5aret
I personaly believe that dinosaurs were with humans. The earth is either 6000 to 10000 years old, or 6 billion years old. Humans are either 6000 years old or 250 million years old. I think that dinosaurs went on the ark with Noah, but died out eventually from Human hunting. The reason Noah went into the ark was because of the Nephimlim. They are demons that married the daughters of men and had children with them. This is so the messiah, Jesus Christ could not come. The genetic bloodline would be altered. So, God created the flood to save the human bloodline. Noah was the only one to have a pure genetic bloodline capable of bringing the Messiah. After the flood, human age dropped because of insest between humans to keep the spieces going.

I believe that Aliens and UFOs now are demons hiding as "aliens."

I really have no comment on this portion of the post.

Zip

The dinosaurs were never on Earth at the same time as man. There's this thing called the fossil record where things change over time, that or it just happens that one thing looks a bit like another thing that came a few million years before it. And the Earth cannot be 6000 years old nor the universe. Right we've worked out how far stars are away by their dimness and it takes millions of years for some of their light to reach us so the uiverse can be 6000 years old.

There are several theories about Adam and Eve.

Adam do not forget was already mature as a being and did not have to learn the language or grow from baby to man. So God can created an already timelapse state of the universe including the distance of light reaching our earth, he painted the whole picture, you have to be super natural in the fist place to make a universe in the fist place.

Another thing about the gene pool was the fact mans sin was not great upon the earth so it did not have its mutations as such as we do.
Their children would have been of different races like the children of Noah that formed various races too. Its just that it has become watered down now that we can not produce different races anymore. We have slight differences like eye and hair colour amoungst our selves. I believe like the animals in the Ark did not have the species we have today but one of its kind so a wolf type dog for example would have had enough genetic information to start the different species we have today. The combinations of differences multiplied. The more currupt sin become the worse the stability of the the earth and the universe.

Another thoery is that Cain was the son of the devil and that there are two races of man but which is hard to tell today. Some human races mixed with angles like in GENESIS 6. This is partly the conspiracy of the serpent race of the 13 bloodlines of the illuminati. I do not believe the Cain story.
But its possible like in the days of Noah the end of the would will be as mentioned in the new testiment that maybe angels and man will mix once again. We have the technology and people like the raliens and illegal genitic testing will somehow produce a hybrid race of angels and men.

genesis was never meant to be taken literally, especially in the 21st century. It's a myth, the same as noah's ark is. They're nothing but stories of the human imagination in a time where the was almost no science. It wasn't until the end of the 18th century when people started to realise that the world and universe was older than the bible's 6000 to 10,000 year old earth. It was during the 15th century when we realised the world was not flat and sailors would not fall off the edge of the earth. Up until 1859 there was no other explanation for us being here apart from the reason put forth in genesis.

many religions have come and gone, people dont still believe in the greek gods or egyptian gods...they've died out. christianity only came about 1600 years ago, when there was no science. no we have science and other logical explanations there is no need to create anymore religions. you don't see any jesus type characters walking around, and people making books about them anymore. evolution used to be a natural process, as did natural selection. we became so civilised that we took it upon ourselves to domesticate many animals, hence play god. we created new species, there were never so many species of dog before we domesticated them and started to breed them. the reason why some of us are lactose intolerant is because cows were only domesticated a short time ago, some however have become lactose tolerant through evolution. need any evidence of evolution??...its right there.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
genesis was never meant to be taken literally, especially in the 21st century. It's a myth, the same as noah's ark is. They're nothing but stories of the human imagination in a time where the was almost no science.

I have to agree. The idea of Noah's Ark is just another version of Adam and Eve. One breeding pair of each type of animal. That's just not enough to account for the huge number of different species over a relatively short time span. There may have been an ark, but I doubt it held enough animals to really be feasible.

Coming back to the Adam and Eve subject, I read a post (sorry for no quote) where the point was brought up that incest was commonplace and acceptable before God layed down the law. This is often used to help explain the A&E theory. But let's take a look at that. If you believe that that's how God chose to populate the earth, then your saying that God bends the rules. If it wasn't okay to have sex with your children after the world was populated, why was it okay before? Did it have to be that way to work? Did God change his mind? Did He bend his own rules to "get things done"? Sounds more "corporate America" than Holy Father to me. If it was wrong after, it was wrong before. The morality of the situation doesn't change from point a to point b. It's a story folks, made up by people who had no concept of the scientific world. Those who cling to the bible like it's dictation straight from Gods mouth are just fooling themselves. The bible has been rewritten so many times that there's no telling what the first copy read like. God doesn't want you to bindly follow the teachings of a single book (even if it is a great book). You should think for yourself as well.

[edit on 6/30/2005 by yadboy]

So you are saying only one human just spawned another human? You asy that I need to back up my evidence, even though you have no evidence to support your theory that animals spawned themselves. You can be a stubborn atheist, you can say I have no proof, whatever. If you stopped for 2 seconds and actually thought about what I have said, you would get it. You know, it takes the same amount of faith, if not more, to believe that there was a big bang or any other scientific theory. The big bang is an excuse to say that everything did not come from nothing. I did not say I believed that the earth is 6000 years old. Im not going to be talking about "evidence" or "proof." because I'd be as bad as you are, saying "you have no proof" even though you don't have any more than I do.

There is evidence for the young earth theory though. Go to this page:

Answers in Genesis

Here is some evidence:

"Galaxies wind themselves up too fast



The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.2

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.3

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]"

No evidence huh?

5aret

``

the religions insist the Bible (word of G-d) is true & factual
the scientific mind counters the Bible is myths & stories

at some points these two viewpoints intersect;

from wikipedia

"Although she was named after the Biblical Eve,
Mitrochrondral Eve was not the sole sole human female of her day.
As many as 20,000 individuals of Eve's species may have lived at the same
time as she...."

"Y-Chromosomal Adam appears to have lived only half as long ago as Eve"

~~ maybe here is where the Biblical 'myth' blends with, corresponds to,
the Scientific 'evidence'??

-> 1st the Biblical+Mitrochrondal EVE, the genesis of a pre-flood population explosion
(some~ 250000 YA or ~6000 ya )

+ 2nd, the Adamic-Noahic, Y-Chromosomal Man, i.e. the Ark survivors of Flood, some ages/eons/generations later- - - - (~12k BCE? or ~3500BCE)
could make the Biblical Parables and the Scientific Evidences blend well,
if you can take that leap of faith/judgement.

~~~
in contrast: www.creationists.org...

My theory is that adam and eve were actually 2 different tribes of prophets in the beginning of time. As otherwise i cant explain it when looking at the genepool. I think those 2 tribes mixed after the end of the great squeeze 80000 bc. Thus creating modern man as we know it.

lets say that adam and eve had childen and then they had chidren and so on and so forth, and parents and childern and parents and grandchildren had children ..... it would come to 1.2 x 10 to the 1800 power... however that is if they never died and had children every year.... but if they lived fifity years each and had just two childern in six thousand years then there would be only be two people today on earth... adam and eve have two childern who have two and so on..... the only way that enough people could have furthered the population without incest would be evolution from a species that was already populos..... neanderthals.... hence the common ancestory, thats my take

The book of Genesis itself contradicts the notion that Adam and Eve started it all. Consider the case of Cain.

He killed his brother at the time when we are told of only four humans in existence. As punishment, God banishes him to a place called Nod, east of Eden, and Cain fears that everyone that finds him will kill him.

Who would have been these 'everyone', how did they get to Eden, and how could they know what Cain had done back in his old neighbourhood?

Cain then met and married a woman which we presume was after his banishment. She would have come about how? Since Cain and Abel were the first two males made, and if we are to believe the Adam and Eve story, we have to believe they also had daughters during the same period they had the two brothers, and at least one of those daughters left home and found her way to Nod. Not likely.

Originally posted by 5aret
So you are saying only one human just spawned another human?

Hahahaha, no. I didn't say that at all. Please re-read what I said. When hominids became hominids, there were more than just 1 or 2 of them. I thought this was obvious.

The Bible, however, (well, Gen2, but not Gen1 - Gen1 says something completely different) does say that a human just spawned another one (Adam's rib). I find that to be as ridiculous as you do.

You asy that I need to back up my evidence, even though you have no evidence to support your theory that animals spawned themselves.

I don't, and I wouldn't because I never claimed that one human divided into 2.

You can be a stubborn atheist, you can say I have no proof, whatever. If you stopped for 2 seconds and actually thought about what I have said, you would get it.

Trust me, I "get" what you're saying, I just disagree with it.

You know, it takes the same amount of faith, if not more, to believe that there was a big bang or any other scientific theory.

No, it doesn't, in my opinion, and I am open to competing theories, but I'm not open to the idea that an entity "spoke" the universe into existence.

The big bang is an excuse to say that everything did not come from nothing. I did not say I believed that the earth is 6000 years old. Im not going to be talking about "evidence" or "proof." because I'd be as bad as you are, saying "you have no proof" even though you don't have any more than I do.

There is plenty of evidence to back up scientific claims and scientific theories about the history of life.

There is evidence for the young earth theory though. Go to this page:
...
No evidence huh?

5aret

No. That's not evidence. Those are arguments. Each argument you posted has a scientific rebuttal at this site. I'll comment more about it later, but I've gotta go for now.

Zip

[edit on 6/30/2005 by Zipdot]

On comets:

In his debate with Dr. Hilpman, Dr. Hovind stated that comets lasted 10,000-15,000 years before being blown apart by the solar wind! Really! Any high school kid with a keen interest in astronomy will tell you that it is the heat of the sun which is a comet's undoing. Each time a comet, which is akin to a dirty snowball, passes near the sun it loses tons of material to vaporization. Thus, the number of orbits such a comet can make before being reduced to a swarm of gravel is limited. The solar wind along with the heat and light of the inner solar system are responsible for a comet's magnificent tail. Thus, comets brighten up as they near the sun, their tails pointing away from the sun. A few comets occasionally crash into one of the planets, especially Jupiter, or into the sun itself. Others are thrown out of the solar system forever.

In passing, let me point out that the projected life span of one short-period comet, that of Halley's comet, is 40,000 years (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.339). Thus, we can forget about Dr. Hovind's 10,000-year figure! A comet's actual life span depends on its size.

Short-period comets can be used to support a young solar system, hence a young earth, only if they have no reasonable source of replenishment. By definition, they orbit the sun at least once every 200 years. Since they lose material each time they pass near the sun, they soon burn out and must constantly be replaced over billions of years. To destroy the creationist argument, we need only throw reasonable doubt on their claim that short-period comets are not replaced. If that point is in doubt, then the whole argument crumbles away.

Creationism's main argument seems to be that we don't have close-up photos of the Oort Cloud and, therefore, cannot be 100% certain that it really exists! Sorry fellas, but if you want to use this comet argument it is up to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Oort Cloud and other sources don't exist! (The Oort Cloud, named after Jan Hendrik Oort, is a calculated accumulation of comets and cometary material occupying the fringes of the solar system at a distance of roughly 50,000 to 100,000 AU. One AU is the average distance of the earth from the sun, i.e., 93 million miles. Various computer studies of cometary orbital data in conjunction with other evidence strongly supports the existence of the Oort Cloud.)

On spirals:

Spiral arms are density waves, which, like sound in air, travel through the galaxy's disk, causing a piling-up of stars and gas at the crests of the waves. In some galaxies, the central bulge reflects the wave, giving rise to a giant standing spiral wave with a uniform rotation rate and a lifetime of about one or two billion years.

The causes of the density waves are still not known, but there are many possibilities. Tidal effects from a neighboring galaxy probably cause some of them.

The spiral pattern is energetically favorable. Spiral configurations develop spontaneously in computer simulations based on gravitational dynamics (Carlberg et al. 1999).

www.sciam.com...

So, as you can see, your quotes are argumentative, and not evidencial. So are mine, except they're based on what we observe of reality, rather than wild conjecture or ignorance of reality.

Zip

Originally posted by shaunybaby
basically sisters would have sex with their brothers and vice versa, maybe adam even fathered some of his daughters children...thats the only way the could reproduce. i dont think i need to even get in to the complications of genetic diseases passed on because of the incest. but hey, this is the logically explanation of how we began in christian terms.

Many skeptics have claimed that, for Cain to find a wife, there must have been other ‘races’ of people on the Earth who were not descendants of Adam and Eve.

To many people, this question is a stumbling block to accepting the creation account in Genesis and its record of only one man and woman at the beginning of history—a record on which many Old and New Testament doctrines depend.

Defenders of the gospel must be able to show that all human beings are descendants of one man and one woman (Adam and Eve)—as only those people who are descendants of Adam and Eve can be saved. Thus, believers need to be able to account for Cain’s wife and show clearly that she was a descendant of Adam and Eve. (The relevant Bible passage is Genesis 4:1–5:5.)

Finish reading at this site


www.answersingenesis.org...

Originally posted by firestarter666
lets say that adam and eve had childen and then they had chidren and so on and so forth, and parents and childern and parents and grandchildren had children but if they lived fifity years each earth... adam and eve have two childern who have two and so on.....

We are told how long Adam lived but not Eve. Adam lived to be 930.

Abraham lived to be 175, Sarah his wife lived to be 127, that's 73% of the length of Abraham's life. If Eve lived to be 73% of Adam's life, that would be 679.

Genesis 5:4 and the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were 800 years: and he begat sons and daughters;

Adam and Eve had more than 2 children. Take LONG life spans and add to that the fact that some people took more than one wife(which they weren't supposed to do, but still did) and add to that twins and triplets, then mutiply this over the time period before the flood and there would be alot of people.

Go to www.ldolphin.org... for more info.

Ok here is my theory!

1. The Adam and Eve story was just a classic stroy about 2 species starting it all. This is impossible as other have pointed out eg incest etc etc etc etc

2. Noah's Ark is another classic story but this time with animals etc etc etc

God created apes and then they evolved into men, this is obvious we share 98.99 percent of our DNA with the chimpanzee.
God is real since there has to be something at the start of it all but then again where did God come from? How was he created? Who was before that? Oh # I'm freaking myself out here!!!!1

[starts panicking on the floor and goes into convulsions]

Originally posted by Uk_United
God created apes and then they evolved into men, this is obvious we share 98.99 percent of our DNA with the chimpanzee.

With regard to your post, I have little to comment on, but I did want to add this -

DNA studies show that humans and chimpanzees have more in common with each other than either humans and apes or apes and chimpanzees.

It should also be noted that the ancestor of humans is thought to be the same ancestor of African apes. It is also worthy of note that African apes are considered hominoids.

Zip

[edit on 7/1/2005 by Zipdot]

OK, My point of view.

Who's to say that Adam and Eve werent actually humanoid, but rather single celled organisms that met and combined and thus created evoloution?

God(and i personally dont believe or disbelieve in Him) could quite easily have created the earth, then populated it with single celled creations with the abilities to combine and evolve.

Seems a lot more likely and can almost fit into the "Adam and Eve" story. It also would get rid of the "genetic mutations" problem and "incest"

Well thats my bacon roll and a packet of crisps worth.