[vwdieseljunkie]

I'm confused. What were the giants in the earth?

I could take this in depth, but it would be very distracting to this thread, and not beneficial to the topic. But in my understanding they were the "Nefilim" or by some translation "the giants that fell from the sky"

[vwdieseljunkie]

Also, New York originally asked where the daughters came from, since Adam and Eve had sons. Or at least that's what I understood. Is there still a daughter problem?

Well, apparently there is more than one "man" on the earth at this time according to the sumerians.

(not trying to railroad this thread, I hope it isn't viewed as such)

[Akoue]

Well, it's a question I have never posed or even put much thought into until this context came up, but have offered merely as an example of how the Bible speaks of an intermingling of what I am guessing to be 'divine' creatures (sons of god, specifically identified as NOT being 'man', or the created 'man') and the created 'man', and there being an offspring from this union. Would said offspring be man, or divine? Either way, doesn't this throw a monkey wrench in what 'man' was originally created to be?

If I'm understanding your idea--and I may not be, so please set me straigth if I go off the rails--your thought is not that Adam and Eve are descended from some earlier species, but that, after Adam and Eve, there was via an act of God some interbreeding between humans and Nephilim which altered human evolution. This is interesting in its own right, but it may be orthogonal to the main question, inasmuch, if I'm understanding correctly, you are allowing for evolution--you're just suggesting that evolution may have been a one-time event that came along after Adam and Eve.

Am I totally messing up your point?

[vwdieseljunkie]

If I'm understanding your idea--and I may not be, so please set me straigth if I go off the rails--your thought is not that Adam and Eve are descended from some earlier species, but that, after Adam and Eve, there was via an act of God some interbreeding between humans and Nephilim which altered human evolution. This is interesting in its own right, but it may be orthogonal to the main question, inasmuch, if I'm understanding correctly, you are allowing for evolution--you're just suggesting that evolution may have been a one-time event that came along after Adam and Eve.

Am I totally messing up your point?

First off let me apologize, as I am NOT very good at getting to the point and tend to be long winded.

But basically yes, for the purpose of this conversation, Adam and Eve are not decedended from anything, as they are created as per the biblical story by God.

Asking, where the daughter's of man come into play, all I can fall back on is Gen 6:1 "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them"

So I have to guess that daughters were born to Adam and Eve, since they had only sons at that point

[asking]

when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men

Here is one last thought.

I'm thinking a lot is riding on this one phrase, which may simply be a backhanded way of minimizing women's connection to God. Are women anywhere in the bible described as the daughters of God rather than the daughters of men? ARE there any daughters of God? (I searched an online Bible and didn't find any.) I'm thinking these sons of God are also sons of men, one and the same, but elevated for stylistic effect. Just a thought.

[arcura]

asking,
The bible does not say that Adam and Eve did not have any daughters or more children after.their two sons.
They could have had a dozen or more kids,

[Akoue]

First off let me apologize, as I am NOT very good at getting to the point and tend to be long winded.

Not at all. You don't have anything to apologize for.

I, however, do. I'm really beat and need to give your idea some thought. So it's to bed with me and I'll offer my two-cents (for what it's worth) tomorrow. So come back and talk with us, okay?

[vwdieseljunkie]

Here is one last thought.

I'm thinking a lot is riding on this one phrase, which may simply be a backhanded way of minimizing women's connection to God. Are women anywhere in the bible described as the daughters of God rather than the daughters of men? ARE there any daughters of God? (I searched an online Bible and didn't find any.) I'm thinking these sons of God are also sons of men, one and the same, but elevated for stylistic effect. Just a thought.

There did seem to be a specific division between the "sons of god" and the "daughters of man" in that there is no mention of the "sons of man" there.
Gen 6:1-8
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5 Then the LORD[b] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

[450donn]

Finally the last word on this subject
YouTube - Dogbert and the theory of evolution

[NeedKarma]

Finally the last word on this subject
YouTube - Dogbert and the theory of evolution

I agree, They should shut down medical research and increase prayer circles THEN some people will get healed!

[Tj3]

Yes, yes, that's fine. Now, can you name any scientists not affiliated with the Discovery Institute who take the view you describe?

Ps: For anyone out there who hasn't heard of the Discovery Institute: Academic scientists have obliterated the work it's produced and it is regarded as a complete joke. These aren't my circles: It's been well-publicized.

Yes, but why? Already you have rejected all scientists that you know of who disagree with you. Asking says all biologists agree, which appears to mean that he rejects biologists who disagree as scientists. This is sounding very much like a religion where those who dare to consider ideas contrary to what the unproven theory held by many are consider essentially heretics to the religion of evolution.

[Tj3]

Read mostly or read about. Too many to talk to them all.

I'm not aware of anyone with any real credentials besides Behe and Wells, and even Wells has said he got his PhD in genetics specifically so he could have the credentials to attack evolution. Too bad he didn't get a PhD in zoology or botany. Behe is kind of an embarrassment to his institution, but he's a credit to academic freedom!

So you do know of scientists who do not agree. Therefore we know that not all agree with your position. And though YOU may consider Behe to be a problem, he is well respected by others.

I find it a bit disconcerting for scientific freedom of thought when those who consider alternate views based upon the evidence are considered to be heretics to the doctrine of the religion of evolution.

So you are saying the trilobites sinned?

No, I said that nature was affected by man bringing sin into the world.

They lived long before any humans every lived on Earth, so I don't see how you can blame human sin for the demise of the trilobites, poor things.

This timeline is according to your opinion.

So, what about T. rex et al?

They are dinosaurs. So?

Viewed through time, it IS like that.

Where did you buy your time machine? If you don't have one, then what you are telling me is that despite the fact that the layers are not like that, you interprt them in a manner which fits your beliefs.

They do.

But you just admitted above that they don't all agree. So are you denying that biologists who disagree are actually biologists?

Why do you think that in ancient times there were only bacteria, and then later, there were eukaryotic cells (the ones with their genes in a nucleus), and later multicellular organisms? Why do you think these organisms appear in that order?

Circular reasoning. This is your interpretation. Then you make it a "fact" and demand that others explain events around an unproven timeline.

[Tj3]

Finally the last word on this subject
YouTube - Dogbert and the theory of evolution

I love it!

Often truth can be presented in a humorous manner.

[SShr23]

If Darwin considers himself an evolved monkey, then May be some monkeys were smart enough not to evolve into Darwin like thinkers.

[asking]

So you do know of scientists who do not agree.

I reject TWO people who could possibly be considered biologists. I know of no other creation "scientists" who actually have any training in biology. I am not going to acknowledge the opinions of scientists and engineers outside of biology proper (e.g. chemists are not biologists). If you want to put up some more people with credentials as biologists, I'll consider them. But I can't think of any off the top of my head. The point is that all biologists (except for Behe and Wells, if they can even be considered biologists) do not consider the theory of evolution in any way controversial. Two people out of tens or hundreds of thousands is basically fruitcake country. If there are one or two more out there somewhere, that doesn't alter my point.

And though YOU may consider Behe to be a problem, he is well respected by others.

Name one bona fide biologist in the National Academy of Sciences who respects Behe's arguments about evolution. (Saying nice things about him personally does not count.)

•Tj, You wrote that trilobites went extinct after Adam and Eve because they sinned.

... I said that nature was affected by man bringing sin into the world.

This timeline is according to your opinion.

And your timeline says what? When did the trilobites go extinct, or at least approximately how long after the fall? And when would that be, in round numbers, in years?

•You said that trilobites were not on the Ark because they were aquatic. So I asked if Tyrannasaurus rex were on the ark.

They are dinosaurs. So?

Ark? No ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.

[ordinaryguy]

Ark? no ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.

I admire both your tenacity and your forbearance.

"Perseverance furthers"--The I Ching

[Tj3]

Asking,

I still have seen nothing from you other than some vague comment to the extent that athere are ways in which it could happen, regarding the question that I asked you. If you wish to play twenty questions, surely you can provide an answer to this one:

-----------------------------
The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------

What does this fossil record tell us?

[Tj3]

I reject TWO people who could possibly be considered biologists. I know of no other creation "scientists" who actually have any training in biology. I am not going to acknowledge the opinions of scientists and engineers outside of biology proper (e.g. chemists are not biologists). If you want to put up some more people with credentials as biologists, I'll consider them. But I can't think of any off the top of my head. The point is that all biologists (except for Behe and Wells, if they can even be considered biologists) do not consider the theory of evolution in any way controversial. Two people out of tens or hundreds of thousands is basically fruitcake country. If there are one or two more out there somewhere, that doesn't alter my point.

Your cohort on here, Akoue tossed out an entire scientific institution without so much as a gander at the credentials. I find it interesting how this whole thread has changed ever since the so-called "proof" for macro-evolution was shown to be not what it was claimed to be. Instead of discussion the topic, it is now a witch-hunt - whoever does not agree with evolution suddenly is labelled as incompetent or a "fruitcake".

Kind of remainds me of what was done to Galileo and others. This is yet more evidence that evolution is a religion and those who do not hold to the line given by the "rpiests" of evolution are designated heretics.

Tj, You wrote that trilobites went extinct after Adam and Eve because they sinned.

Then we see the mis-representations like this, which I never said, but was entirely fabricated. If we cannot keep it honest, then why discuss? If you disagree and think that I did say it, bring forward the quote where I said, as you claim, that trilobytes went extinct because they sinned. Apologies will be accepted anytime.

Again, if you must fabricate stories to defend what you believe, then is it really worth believing?

And your timeline says what? When did the trilobites go extinct, or at least approximately how long after the fall? And when would that be, in round numbers, in years?

I have no way of telling exactly how many years, and why would that matter in any case? It does not in any way validated a transition from one species to another.

You said that trilobites were not on the Ark because they were aquatic. So I asked if Tyrannasaurus rex were on the ark.

Please, asking, please read more carefully. Once again you have mis-represented what I said. I made a general comment.

Ark? No ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.

All animals which were required to be on the ark to survive would had to have been on the ark.

But again, what does this have to do with your failed attempt to prove species transition?

[MaryJS]

Well...
I have been following your discussion lightly.

I would call myself Christian, because I believe in God, and I believe in the message of Christ.

However, I cannot see any reason, to make such a cruel comparison of the Bible against the Evolutionary theory. Even if I believe in a God, why must the Bible, that is written by humans (whose knowledge is ever expanding and exchangable) be an objective source of information? If God created the humans, he apparently created them in such a way, that they do not need the truth to be served in script (Old Testament, New Testament, Islam,etc), but instead more likely would create the human in such a way, that She can find the truth on her own...

... which leads to science. Science is a way, of trying to measure, understand the Universe with all its phenomenons in an objective way, in a way that is independent of religious or any ideological background. The Bible, and other religious books, are created to form a subjective mind path. There is no possibility at all, to compare a evolutionary theory to the Bible, since one science is the search of Truth, and the Bible is the claiming of Truth. Perhaps, are you right, that evolutionary theory is incomplete or wrong or just a theory, but it still has the aim of understanding things at a deeper and more concrete level than what faith can give. Simply, science and religion are two things that are not to be mixed, and the Intelligent Design-phenomenon, is the worst way of how to manipulate objective science into subjective religion.

At the same time... if I were God, would I really work so hard to create all species one by one, or would I simply just say "Dear Universe, evolve in structure and in life?" A good programmer, would see that the latter mechanism would save much time, compared to the former, so there is no way, in which evolutionary theory has to contradict the existence of a God.

[MaryJS]

Erratum:

Sorry, I of course meant Islam's Koran, when I counted written works.