Check out some similar questions!

DrJ · Jun 20, 2006, 11:36 AM

Believing in Adam & Eve does not mean believing in incest. Just because Adam & Eve were the first to be created by God, doesn't mean they were the ONLY to be created by God.

Also, Adam & Eve does not disprove evolution and evolution does not disprove Adam & Eve.

Those are just general facts.

As for my personal beliefs, I believe in Adam & Eve. I don't know if they actually existed or if they were used to illustrate that which could not be easily explained. Either way, I still believe in them... I believe in what they are meant to convey. And yes, I believe that either way, they were the start of mankind.

Krs · Jun 20, 2006, 11:40 AM

Starman my typing error ooppss
I meant you DO know a lot... you are well educated in all of this..

But don't tell me what I chose to believe in is 100% wrong!
Religion is faith.
There are no facts, you believe there are facts because you want to believe.

NeedKarma · Jun 20, 2006, 11:47 AM

"KRS there is no point - the force is strong in this one."

Krs · Jun 20, 2006, 11:58 AM

31pumpkin I opened this thread for opinions like I gave mine and I didn't even know there was another thread for intellegance design vs evolution, and I earlier wrote that I made a typing error where I wrote that to starman. He does know a lot!
Im not challenging the bible, not at all, I'm catholic and have nothing at all against the bible. I own a bible and I do read it.

Point taken anyway - case closed.

DrJ · Jun 20, 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Krs

31pumpkin i opened this thread for opinions like i gave mine and i didnt even know there was another thread for intellegance design vs evolution, and i ealier wrote that i made a typing error where i wrote that to starman. he does know alot!
Im not challenging the bible, not at all, im catholic and have nothing at all against the bible. I own a bible and i do read it.

Point taken anyways - case closed.

I don't think 31pumpkin has posted in this thread (yet). :p

Krs · Jun 20, 2006, 12:55 PM

DrJizzle I know she didn't but she commented on a 1 of my posts earlier and I just wanted to have my say that's all :)

orange · Jun 20, 2006, 01:04 PM

I agree with most of you. Adam & Eve is a creation story IMO. Told so that the creation of the world would make sense to people in an ancient culture who had little science or technology. Creation stories exist in every culture.

31pumpkin · Jun 20, 2006, 01:28 PM

Krs - Sorry if I interrupted the flow of the thread at all. I meant there are many forums (true- not one I could find here) that debate Creation. You wouldn't believe (I could hardly) what one satanist said to me about the Bible! Gosh- are they just looking for attention.. or what?

Yes, I believe the story about Adam and Eve. Thank you Starman for clarifying the part in Genesis about the "incest". I never thought about it, I was looking for the actual count of women or sisters there. I saw ENOCH but I couldn't figure out where his wife came from. Like you said, mostly the men were mentioned. Anyway, people lived to be 1000 yrs. Old then too. And the commandments came later.

Yup. I believe it. And they've been blaming the woman ever since! :(

phillysteakandcheese · Jun 20, 2006, 01:40 PM

I think the Adam & Eve story is a metaphorical one illustrating how human civilization so easilly succumbs to temptation.

I somehow think it is connected to the flood (with Noah and the Ark) in explaining why the "cleansing" of the Earth was necessary.

TxGreaseMonkey · Jun 20, 2006, 02:10 PM

It's the same issue raised in the Scope's Trial, where the question was asked, "who did Lot marry?" It had to be one of his sisters, even though it is not explicitly stated in the Bible. This is because, as Starman correctly points out, the genealogy in the Bible is usually along the male line. Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters as well as sons--we just don't know their names. In the final analysis, we don't judge the Bible but it judges us.

orange · Jun 20, 2006, 02:16 PM

I once heard a theory (not sure from where) that the descendents of Cain are the African people. But if one believes in the flood, then that can't be true, because all of his descendents would have been wiped out in that case. Or am I missing something?

Starman · Jun 21, 2006, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Krs

starman my typing error ooppss
i meant you DO know alot... you are well educated in all of this..

But dont tell me what i chose to believe in is 100% wrong!
Religion is faith.
there are no facts, you believe there are facts coz u want to believe.

Everything you believe isn't 100% wrong. Sorry I gave you the impression that I was saying that. What I meant is that saying that a religious belief is 100% faith is 100% wrong because part of our religious belief is based on observable facts and logical reasoning. It isn't something totally lacking in evidence. Did you go to the links I provided. They explain what I mean much better. Also, please consider Thomas Aquinas's logical reasons on why the existence of God is inevitable and you will understand what I am trying to say .

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica q.3, art. 3
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be, since they are found to be generated and corrupted. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (4)

BTW
Thanks for the compliment.

NeedKarma · Jun 21, 2006, 09:25 AM

That Thomas Aquinas quote simply points back to the "who created god then?" question. Since that cannot be proven or explained then both sides are at standstill it would seem.

He seems to say in 50 words what one could say in 10, overly verbose for me.

Northwind_Dagas · Jun 21, 2006, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Starman

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica q.3, art. 3
....We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be, since they are found to be generated and corrupted. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd....

I can't even begin to understand this. As you understand it, can you clarify?

Starman · Jun 21, 2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Northwind_Dagas

I can't even begin to understand this. As you understand it, can you clarify?

If we remove all causes then, as Thomas said, there would never have arisen anything at all. Thomas Aquinas was pointing out that our experience teaches us that all things come into existence via another. For example, life comes from life, movement is caused by movement such as an object in motion or a chemical reaction which is itself involves motion.

There is always a previous mover a causer. Now, since all things are caused by another, then there had to be something which caused everything but which itself wasn't caused. That something, that prime mover who himself needs no other cause we call God.

In short, Thomas tells us that our logic of cause and effect should be applied only to the caused. But that by necessity, there has to be causer of all things, a necessary being, and a prime mover who himself I remains uncaused and unmoved by anything prior to it. Otherwise nothing would exist since infinite regression, or an infinite number of causers stretching back into infinity is impossible.

RickJ · Jun 21, 2006, 10:31 AM

If one believes in a Creator then he must admit that the Creator could have created any way He pleases.

... I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be without error, however this does not mean that every word should be taken as literal fact. Surely all would agree that the parables and "sayings" in Proverbs are not to be all taken literally.

... I am also convinced that much of Genesis may very well be stories that are meant to teach something rather than explain a historic fact.

... so as for Adam and Eve. I'm 50/50 on whether they were the first two humans on the planet.

DrJ · Jun 21, 2006, 11:42 AM

As for the "who created God" question, Life as we know it is a time line... linear. Without this linearness, causality would not exist either. Therefore, God, which transcends time and is eternal, is not bound by causality. God is and was and will always be... all at the same time. There was not before God because there is not "before" and "after" when in the realm in which God resides.

RickJ · Jun 21, 2006, 11:47 AM

Gosh, the responses to the original question are becoming few and far between :rolleyes:

DrJ · Jun 21, 2006, 12:26 PM

Oops.. ummm...

I do and...

I do!

:cool: :D

orange · Jun 21, 2006, 12:38 PM

speedball1 disagrees: The world wide flood has been disproved. While there was a flood in the area it was not worl wide.

Yup I know that, Tom. I don't believe in the world wide flood or in the descendents of Cain. But I've heard several people talk about both as being true, so I was kind of playing devil's advocate here, and hoping someone would answer / explain their beliefs.