The genetics were pure back then so no danger with incest. And only later did the Lord give laws against incest.
Brief videos.
Debunking the big bang theory
- Thread starter Armour of God
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The genetics were pure back then so no danger with incest. And only later did the Lord give laws against incest.
Brief videos.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Adam lived 900+ years.
His three sons Identified by name, were Born after Adam was 800+ years old.
I think it is reasonable to believe Adam and Eve had dozens of male and female children before Cain, and the Children, siblings, cousins inter-mated, and continued having offsprings and establishing their own homesteads.
I believe it is impossible to present a broad guess, over individuals thoughts, beliefs for centuries, what they did or did not believe, as Fact.
Human biology…IS, siblings can mate, fathers and daughters can mate, mothers and sons can mate… and
Today, (relatively in the last few centuries…)family interbreeding, reveals susceptible complications for an offspring.
But that's pure speculation, no pun intended. The bible doesn't actually say that Adam & Eve had "pure" genetics. What does that even mean anyway? It seems to me like a way to try to preserve a literal interpretation of the text.
The problem with speculation, is that you can make the biblical stories fit whatever you want them to be, our whatever you need them to be. It's how you end up with people like Ken Ham. People that believe that the dinosaurs and humans coexisted with each other, and that large carnivores like T-Rex, were actually herbivores, among other things.
In any case, at some point we have to be able to say that we don't what we don't know. The bible doesn't explain these things. Why? Because the Greeks that wrote it had no concept of biology. Science didn't exist yet; they didn't know about the importance of genetic diversity. That's the simplest explanation.
This is just further evidence for why a literal interpretation of the text is irresponsible. Humans living in the past did not live longer lives, they lived much shorter lives.
Human beings today are living longer than at any time in our history because of things like modern medicine that make it possible.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Disagree…
Ancient history:
Methuselah: 969 years
Jared: 962 years
Noah: 950 years
Adam: 930 years
Seth: 912 years
Lamech: 777 years
Average Life expectancy drastically declined over the course of centuries…even as low as 25 years…
Average Life Expectancy Thereafter increased over centuries, decades, to 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s…globally.
Presently…Average Life expectancy, in the US is reaching 80’s.
Scripture appears to indicate the increase will top off at 120 years.
Glory to God,
Taken
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The answer is more complicated than yes or no.
First off I believe God created and guided everything.
And yes all life started with the creation of single cell amino acid stew whipped up by God.
I believe Adam and Eve were created but......
The fossil record has been accumulating by the thousands. And it strongly suggests that evolution happened.
Now do they know everything about it? NO. Like any science that deals with vast areas and long time periods it is an evolving science.
Intelligent design, God creation and evolution can be understood together. If we add up the time in the Old Testament it appears that Adam and Eve were evicted from Paradise around 4000 BC. At that time large civilizations were already existing as well as religions. What if Adam and Eve walked out into a world full of people that were part of the evolution line of humans. The old Sunday School question, who did Cain marry in the land of Nod. This maybe why they had to have clothes before they left Paradise, those outside were wearing clothes.
Adam and Eve were probably white skinned. The lineage from Adam and Eve.....Hebrew/Israelite/Jews are white skinned. The Middle Eastern lineage are darker skinned and those from Africa are even darker skinned. Jews lineage are from the Middle East but they are white skinned.
Figurines of the goddess and snake date back further than 14,000 years.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Agree.
Disagree.Express mention of Adam and Woman being booted out of the Garden.
Zero mention of Children.
Appears Adam and Woman's stay in the Garden was relatively Brief.
Highly doubt such modern claims.
Glory to God,
Taken
A couple of thoughts...
How so? Does it show the many transitions from one kind to another kind? Even Darwin admitted that the fossil record was incomplete and did not show all the intermediate forms necessary for gradual evolution.
We don't know how long Adam (and later Eve) was in the garden before he was evicted. It's also possible there are gaps in the biblical genealogy. I'd be willing to concede that humans are older than 6,000 years, possibly in the tens of thousands, but not the 300,000+ years according to mainstream science.
If evolution were true, everyone would not evolve the same exact way. We wouldn't all be anatomically alike or compatible. The fact that all humans can reproduce with one another, regardless of ethnicity, shows just how homogenous we are.
The most logical answer was he married his sister. Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain, Abel, and Seth (Gen 5:4). Given their long lifespans, it is conceivable Eve's childbearing years extended into the hundreds of years. She could have produced many children, and their children could have also produced many children, as they were also long-lived.
Incest is taboo today, in part because it increases the likelihood that harmful recessive genetic variants carried by both parents will be expressed in their offspring. But it's plausible that Adam and Eve had more pure genetics that were free from such mutations, as were their descendants for a time.
Radiocarbon dating is not always reliable, especially the older something is. It presumes that the rate of decay has always been the same, which we don't know is true. And there are things like volcanic eruptions that can skew the results. If you take a look at humanity, the bulk of our recorded history has been from the past two thousand years. There is some recorded history three to four thousand years ago. But once you go past 5,000 years, it gets pretty scarce. The point being is, humanity's historical footprint is not that old, suggesting we are relatively young.
How so? Does it show the many transitions from one kind to another kind? Even Darwin admitted that the fossil record was incomplete and did not show all the intermediate forms necessary for gradual evolution.
We don't know how long Adam (and later Eve) was in the garden before he was evicted. It's also possible there are gaps in the biblical genealogy. I'd be willing to concede that humans are older than 6,000 years, possibly in the tens of thousands, but not the 300,000+ years according to mainstream science.
If evolution were true, everyone would not evolve the same exact way. We wouldn't all be anatomically alike or compatible. The fact that all humans can reproduce with one another, regardless of ethnicity, shows just how homogenous we are.
The most logical answer was he married his sister. Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain, Abel, and Seth (Gen 5:4). Given their long lifespans, it is conceivable Eve's childbearing years extended into the hundreds of years. She could have produced many children, and their children could have also produced many children, as they were also long-lived.
Incest is taboo today, in part because it increases the likelihood that harmful recessive genetic variants carried by both parents will be expressed in their offspring. But it's plausible that Adam and Eve had more pure genetics that were free from such mutations, as were their descendants for a time.
Radiocarbon dating is not always reliable, especially the older something is. It presumes that the rate of decay has always been the same, which we don't know is true. And there are things like volcanic eruptions that can skew the results. If you take a look at humanity, the bulk of our recorded history has been from the past two thousand years. There is some recorded history three to four thousand years ago. But once you go past 5,000 years, it gets pretty scarce. The point being is, humanity's historical footprint is not that old, suggesting we are relatively young.
True. The fossil record doesn't show species coming from other species. But some people just believe what these scientists feed them without questioning their methods and motives. Then they try to harmonise it with scripture and come out with some weird theories
What is the evidence for that?
A cell has only ever been observed duplicating itself. So a lions skin cell can not create a pigs brain cell, it can only created another lions skin cell.
Even with modern cellular genetic engineering, they cannot make a cell create any other type of cell in a laboratory, only itself.
The problem is that you simply believe the mainstream secular theory, controlled by atheists eager to disprove God. You don't listen to debates or any opposing scientists that are not atheists when you really should be.
Listen to James Tour for example. His a renowned cellular biologists that disputes evolution. His issued challenges to any fellow cellular biologist to debate him, and they all refuse to because their afraid of the truth.
Here is a discussion with Tour, Meyer who is a biologist that has long disputed evolution and supports intelligent design, and Lennox who is a scientist famous for debating atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins
The fact that there is much debate about evolution among scientists tells you that's its not right. We don't see debates about well established sciences such as gravity or thermodynamics
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Darwin is old old news. Again it not a switch. Caveman boom Modern man. Individual mutations and combined breeding. Family photo album.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
We do not know how long Adam and Eve were in Paradise. Sam had just started a garden of carrot down the road.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
But if evolution was guided by God we would be. He could of made me better looking.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
This would fly about forty years ago.....dating is much more accurate now. Have you heard they are planning on going to the moon again.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
George brought a picture in last Friday. Just one cell named Julie in a mini skirt.
Why Scientists Think Life Came from One Cell
The scientific consensus is that all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor — the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) — which was a single-celled organism1. Universal genetic code
All known life uses DNA (or RNA in some viruses) with the same four nucleotide bases (A, G, C, T/U) and a nearly identical genetic code to translate DNA into proteins. Minor variations exist in some cases, but the core machinery is highly conserved
2. Shared biochemical pathways
Fundamental metabolic processes — such as glycolysis and the Krebs cycle — are found in nearly all organisms. These pathways are so essential for energy production and molecule synthesis that they likely originated very early in life’s history
3. Conserved cellular machinery
Ribosomes, the structures that make proteins, are structurally and functionally similar across bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. This suggests they were inherited from a common ancestor
4. Universal energy currency
ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the energy source for all cells, powering processes from muscle contraction to chemical synthesis
5. Common membrane structure
All cells are bounded by lipid bilayer membranes, which regulate what enters and leaves the cell. This structural similarity points to a shared origin
6. Fossil and geological evidence
The earliest definitive fossil evidence of life — stromatolites and microfossils — dates to about 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, consistent with the timeline for LUCA’s existence
What LUCA was like
LUCA was likely a small, simple prokaryotic cell, anaerobic (lacking oxygen), and capable of basic metabolism. It was not necessarily the very first cell, but the last common ancestor of all current life
Why this matters
The single-cell origin model explains the deep biological connections between all organisms. It also provides a framework for understanding how complexity arose — from one-celled LUCA to the vast diversity of life we see today through evolution
In short, we think life came from one cell because all life shares a set of fundamental, universal biological features that strongly suggest a single origin.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
LOL Little Christian hates science. They use to burn books and scientists. Not all scientists are atheists just don't believe the Bible story on creation is accurate. The Geo of the Bible is set in its time period. The world is not flat, it does not have corners, suns do not fall to earth, the earth is not on a foundation....etc.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
George brought a picture in last Friday. Just one cell named Julie in a mini skirt.
Why Scientists Think Life Came from One Cell
The scientific consensus is that all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor — the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) — which was a single-celled organismiere.org+1. This idea is supported by multiple lines of evidence from biology, chemistry, and genetics.
1. Universal genetic code
All known life uses DNA (or RNA in some viruses) with the same four nucleotide bases (A, G, C, T/U) and a nearly identical genetic code to translate DNA into proteins. Minor variations exist in some cases, but the core machinery is highly conserved
2. Shared biochemical pathways
Fundamental metabolic processes — such as glycolysis and the Krebs cycle — are found in nearly all organisms. These pathways are so essential for energy production and molecule synthesis that they likely originated very early in life’s history
3. Conserved cellular machinery
Ribosomes, the structures that make proteins, are structurally and functionally similar across bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. This suggests they were inherited from a common ancestor
4. Universal energy currency
ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the energy source for all cells, powering processes from muscle contraction to chemical synthesis
5. Common membrane structure
All cells are bounded by lipid bilayer membranes, which regulate what enters and leaves the cell. This structural similarity points to a shared origin
6. Fossil and geological evidence
The earliest definitive fossil evidence of life — stromatolites and microfossils — dates to about 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, consistent with the timeline for LUCA’s existenceWikipedia.
What LUCA was like
LUCA was likely a small, simple prokaryotic cell, anaerobic (lacking oxygen), and capable of basic metabolism. It was not necessarily the very first cell, but the last common ancestor of all current life
Why this matters
The single-cell origin model explains the deep biological connections between all organisms. It also provides a framework for understanding how complexity arose — from one-celled LUCA to the vast diversity of life we see today through evolutionwww.sciencenewstoday.org+1.
In short, we think life came from one cell because all life shares a set of fundamental, universal biological features that strongly suggest a single origin.
Everything in our bodies, including a single cell, are much too complex to have derived from one cell. Cells also need to be working together in extraordinary ways for functions to happen. Our bodies are a miraculous creation of God, as well as everything in our universe.
George brought a picture in last Friday. Just one cell named Julie in a mini skirt.
Why Scientists Think Life Came from One Cell
The scientific consensus is that all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor — the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) — which was a single-celled organism
1. Universal genetic code
All known life uses DNA (or RNA in some viruses) with the same four nucleotide bases (A, G, C, T/U) and a nearly identical genetic code to translate DNA into proteins. Minor variations exist in some cases, but the core machinery is highly conserved
2. Shared biochemical pathways
Fundamental metabolic processes — such as glycolysis and the Krebs cycle — are found in nearly all organisms. These pathways are so essential for energy production and molecule synthesis that they likely originated very early in life’s history
3. Conserved cellular machinery
Ribosomes, the structures that make proteins, are structurally and functionally similar across bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. This suggests they were inherited from a common ancestor
4. Universal energy currency
ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the energy source for all cells, powering processes from muscle contraction to chemical synthesis
5. Common membrane structure
All cells are bounded by lipid bilayer membranes, which regulate what enters and leaves the cell. This structural similarity points to a shared origin
6. Fossil and geological evidence
The earliest definitive fossil evidence of life — stromatolites and microfossils — dates to about 3.5–3.8 billion years ago, consistent with the timeline for LUCA’s existence
What LUCA was like
LUCA was likely a small, simple prokaryotic cell, anaerobic (lacking oxygen), and capable of basic metabolism. It was not necessarily the very first cell, but the last common ancestor of all current life
Why this matters
The single-cell origin model explains the deep biological connections between all organisms. It also provides a framework for understanding how complexity arose — from one-celled LUCA to the vast diversity of life we see today through evolution
In short, we think life came from one cell because all life shares a set of fundamental, universal biological features that strongly suggest a single origin.
There is a lot of suggestive language in there which shows its just based on speculation.
Off course cells have similarities, they're all cells after all so they're bound to share some features. To then jump to the conclusion that all life came from a single cell is a far stretch that's only based on assumption.
Fact is that no cell has been observed to create a different cell. This is despite the efforts of genetic engineering to do so for decades
Similar threads
