Cornelius

I hope not because that would make man genetically bisexual! (that is assuming you believe in the Bible). Correct. The Ark contained Noah's family of 8, and also dinosaurs as well. You know what that means, Noah's family members started the incest chain once again! But their genes were "good" and not damaged so there were no deformities. Imagine...having to reproduce with your own family...no choice with the fate of humanity in your hands..or is it in your pants? I kid of course.

Taken from the site: Arguments about conflict between the Bible and science are pointless. The Bible is not a science text; the scientific method was unknown in biblical times. Theology may use rigorous logic in a similar manner to science, but the subject matter, God, is not amenable to empirical testing. Science cannot give guidance on moral and spiritual questions, but the methods of science can be used to help determine the provenance and authenticity of the Bible. The purposes of religion and science are completely different. Science seeks to describe, explain, and predict. The Bible tries to tell the purpose of creation, and to point the way to morality, righteousness, and salvation. It should not be surprising that their methods are different and even incompatible. I'll read the rest of the site soon, seems interesting. Can you tell me which books you have read? More evidence only makes evolution more believable...not the absolute truth. I'll get back to you on this after I read the rest of the site you linked me too. Every thesis needs support. You have a thesis, but no support.

Ah I had a feeling you would ask that. Skeptics have used Cain’s wife time and again to try to discredit the book of Genesis as a true historical record. Sadly, most Christians have not been able to give an adequate answer to this question. As a result, the world thinks Christians cannot defend the authority of Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith. For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about Cain’s wife posed by the outspokenly anti-Christian ACLU 3 lawyer Clarence Darrow. Now time to answer your question. The first son/child of Adam and Eve was Cain. Cain's brothers, Abel and Seth, were part of the 1st generation of children ever born on the earth. Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve, "And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters." According to the old tradition, Adam eventually had 33 sons and 23 daughters. The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, they were commanded to ‘Be fruitful, and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28). If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra, Biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations. We are not told when Cain married, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history. Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human. A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve, all are of "one blood." The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other. Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages. These days, if you marry a relative there is a high chance of your offspring having deformities. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes because of the children of Adam and Eve that married each other, slowly ruining the human genes. However, Adam and Eve did not have genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect, no mistakes. But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things. Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (as you know it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring. By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20). Also, there were plenty of people on the Earth by now, and there was no reason for close relations to marry. Hope that answers your question. I know you're thinking this is BS, but this is the biblical answer, and it should at least be respected.

Can you give me an example of an inaccuracy you found in the bible that does not interfer with their limited knowledge of technology? The Bible is actually a spiritual book, I'm assuming you haven't read it? I'm not really understanding your post, you fail to show me evidence and it seems like you're being a little biased towards evolution. Please give me a fair trial, I don't care if you prove me wrong, as long a peaceful conclusion is met at the end based on facts and agreement of both sides. My pleasure. Here are some references from the Bible, most of which refer to dinosaurs. The word "Dinosaur" was not invented until 1841 so we won't find it in the Bible. "Dragons", "dragon" and "Behemoth" all refer to dinosaurs. From the descriptions found in Job, scientists have attempted to identify these animals. They believe "Behemoth" is a hippo and "Leviathan" is a crocodile. But these scientists limited their choices to non-extinct species and did not consider the possibility of dinosaurs because man and dinosaur never coexisted. Even in the Bible a footnote suggests these two animals were a hippo and a crocodile. But there are some reasons why this conclusion is false. "Behemoth" cannot be a Hippo because of Job 40:17 "His tails sways like a cedar". A hippo has a short tail like a pig. Behemoth, had a large tail shaped like a cedar tree (large and tapered). I believe a better choice is that Behemoth is a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur. It fits the description perfectly. "Leviathan" cannot be a crocodile but is probably a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur, or a Kronosaurus or a Liopleurodon. Here is what Job 41 says with my comments in brackets, [Verse 9] "Any hope of subduring him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering" (this was a large animal). [Verse 25] "When he rises up, the might are terrified; they retreat before his trashing" (crocodiles don't rise up, they are always on the ground). [Verse 26] "The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin" (crocodiles are quite easy to kill with a spear). [Verse 34] "He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud" (crocodiles can't look down on humans, this was a tall animal with a long neck) What is significant about this is that if "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are dinosaurs, then is it crystal clear that Job had either seen them personally, or there was a recent memory of them. This of course flies in the face of current evolutionary theory. However, there is an explanation to this. The Paluxy River in Texas is the home of Dinosaur National Park with hundreds of fossil dinosaur tracks. Right beside the dinosaur tracks are three sets of human fossil footprints and a large cat track. The most famous track is the Taylor Trail which consists of a series of 14 footprints in a left-right pattern. The stride and foot length is consistent throughout. The evidence is so convincing that several university students recently presented with all the data accepted that the human footprints were real, but doubted the dinosaur footprints were real. All the fossil footprints in the Park are genuine. No informed person would ever suggest that the human footprints were carved, as was irresponsibly rumored 50 years ago. It is clear that man and dinosaur lived together and co-existed at the same time. With this both science and the Bible agree. Science seems to be the only way to convince people. It would be better for me to say "God is real because..." rather than "Face the fact, God is real." Whether some passages in the Bible should be taken literally or not, that is the reader's final decision, but the false statements related to science are due to their lack of knowledge. They assumed the earth was not flat, and they assumed wrong. The "falling stars" would most likely be shooting stars. Actually it is possible. You're going to have to research the facts and possibilities about Noak's Ark on your own because there is just too much scientific proof backing it up. Iit would be pointless to post all the information here, considering I've probably reached the maximum character count. That's a pretty bold statement there, care to explain why you think so? According to your statement, Creation is logically possible. Actually if "one" part of the Bible is right, there is a high possibility that the rest of the Bible will follow this trend, so give it a chance. I really don't know what you're getting at here, but it seems to me we share one common interest despite our disagreements. Yes, hot pockets are good Actually whether Jesus was real or not plays a significant role in the validity of the Bible. I'm assuming you haven't read the Bible, making this kind of a statement..? What you talkin' bout Wilson? *In no way is my post and the arguments it contains meant to offend anyone. If it does, it is not intentional and for that I apologize. This is meant to be a healthy conversation and I am loving the feedback I'm getting, making this an awesome debate. A big "thank you" to anyone who has contributed

How would the first human survive if it was baby? According to Genesis, there seems to be no blood-relationship between Adam and Eve, only in that Eve was created by God from a rib that was taken from Adam. They are two completely different human beings. Genesis 2:22 "Then the Lord God made a woman form the rib he had taken out of the man (Adam), and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man'." If you trust Genesis, then you'll conclude that the first man was indeed an adult.

Whichever of the two happens, I'm glad I won't live to see or feel it.

aka the Alpha and the Omega, no beginning and no end. It can just be said that God is eternal. And that is another example of the clash between science and religion

You failed to read the rest of my post which went something like this: If Titor is the real deal, I doubt he would have even considered physically interacting with the mass media because it could alter the future and result in a failed mission. Also, critics of Titor are questioning why he would even post on internet forums because it would be an off course journey to his real destination, the IBM computer, basically too much of a risk.. The bold section explains why it is odd he even interacted with the media (physical or not), as it could have caused problems with his supposed "time travel." And my whole passage explains why I do not believe one word Titor said.

Mario

"Algebra the Easy Way" is a great book that explains Algebra through a story; it's suitable for children of all ages.

Read about this a while back, why did you have to refresh my memory

Something tells me you just finished watching iRobot.

Very good, I did a book report back in middle school about this little-known scientist.

Soy milk is tasty, however it will take a while for you to adjust to the taste. Really, it's whatever milk you prefer, both are good for your bones!

I'm sure you knew what I meant. If Titor is the real deal, I doubt he would have even considered physically interacting with the mass media because it could alter the future and result in a failed mission. Also, critics of Titor are questioning why he would even post on internet forums because it would be an off course journey to his real destination, the IBM computer, basically too much of a risk..

herme3, if you could find a link to the story about the Gettysburg incident, that would be wonderful. Hmm, this particular type of subject, one that is clearly unexplainable at this time reminds me of another problem. Have any of you heard of John Titor, the proposed time traveler? http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/ There was a lot of "internet commotion" when this first sprouted up.

Actually, I have sinned. I used http://www.dictionary.com because I was too lazy to open up my Oxford or Webster dictionary in my room. If I had only used my physical resources in the beginning...lol

Yeah I know I just put hypothesis after because it was one definition and not the main point of my post. Maybe the definitions I've grown up with have been inaccurate, resulting in my arguments that led nowhere. Seems, I may be wrong, although I'm utterly disappointed as I had the wrong set of definitions stored in my brain, which set me at a disadvantage from the start. Forgive me for the time-wasting "debate."

I agree, the delete feature would save moderators a lot of time...

I agree, I wouldn't use the Bible either for a research paper because nothing in the books can be proved. Yet, no one has been able to disprove any story in the Bible either. But by this logic, it would be considered an unreliable resource. Here's what I came up with when I looked up the words theory & hypothesis. theory: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

We usually use the term "evolution" to describe living matter, such as animals and plants. A rock is a non-living object, it does not evolve, it lasts. Rocks have no predators, therefore there is no need for it to constantly change its form in order to survive. Even though water in canyons slowly but surely carve away at the rock walls, this is seen as a natural process, one that shapes the geographical future of the earth. Is it necessary? No, it's not but we cannot stop it because it is a natural, unstoppable force. Similarly, natural selection is just that, natural, and seeing as it does no harm to any certain animal or plant population, it continues.

I made a mistake, I did not mean to include Noah's Ark in there because there has been no proof for it, amid many explorations. If you want "proof of God," look around you, He created it. If you cannot believe that, then go with evolution, as simple as that. Since science seems to be a reliable source, more people are drawn towards the logical evolutionary theories. --- Correction on my part: Although the literal term "dinosaurs" aren't used in the Bible, mainly because the word "dinosaur" was coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to the tanniyn, behemoth (aka brachiosaurus), and Leviathan (sea creature). Throughout the Bible there are many accounts on these dinosaurs. --- Some people believe that the Bible is not a scientifically accurate book, and that it is only a “spiritual book,” that forgot about dinosaurs or described them incorrectly. This is not the case. Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information. Keep this in mind.

I respect your experience in the field of Christianity, but I am fairly certain that God created Himself. Next time you meet with your fellowship, maybe you could bring this subject matter up to get an answer from a member of the group. The reason why this subject of God creating Himself is not popular, even among Christians, is because it is an unecessary fact when one becomes aquainted with the faith of Christianity. We already acknowledge God's power through his ability to basically create life and death. Also, this fact in itself is extremely hard to grasp in the case of logic. It is just too hard to imagine and should play no part in a Christian's faith in God because it should just be accepted as a truth.