Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand how you arrive at your alternate interpretation. However, IMO, there's no room for "other people" during Adam and Eve, except their offspring. Eve was the mother of all. When Adam was naming all the animals, it was stated he could not find a mate, because there was none of his kind. This tells me there were no other human females present for Adam to choose as a mate and therefore Eve was created.
Whomever Cain took as his wife was related to him. Just because he moved to a land called Nod, does not mean anyone lived there before he arrived on the scene. Even if there were, they would still had to be relatives. The verse you state above does not say when the other sons and daughters were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born and they could have married and had children of their own. The way I read the verse, it is a summary of Adam's life - he lived 800 years after Seth was born (which happened when Adam was 130 for a total of 930) and had other sons and daughters (than the 3 previously named sons).
Hey Mams,
It is not scientifically possible for every animal in the world to: Not only migrate long distances to hook up with Noah, but there is no way that the insect kingdom would fit on a boat that size.
It is not scientifically possible for every animal in the world to: Not only migrate long distances to hook up with Noah, but there is no way that the insect kingdom would fit on a boat that size.
Why continue to believe old myths?
Well, in the beginning, my belief is the world was a supercontinent, so there weren't oceans to cross for the land animals to arrive at the ark. Plus, they had 120 years to arrive before the flood. And, as insects are not the types of animals Noah was instructed to bring aboard the ark (which were described as beasts/cattle and reptiles), we need not worry about that. However, even allowing for all insects to be aboard the ark, it still would not be a problem. I would suggest reading this article. I know you don't believe in Noah's ark, but this article does a great job of explaining how it was, in fact, possible for the ark to contain exactly what the bible says it did.
Well, in the beginning, my belief is the world was a supercontinent, so there weren't oceans to cross for the land animals to arrive at the ark. Plus, they had 120 years to arrive before the flood. And, as insects are not the types of animals Noah was instructed to bring aboard the ark (which were described as beasts/cattle and reptiles), we need not worry about that. However, even allowing for all insects to be aboard the ark, it still would not be a problem. I would suggest reading this article. I know you don't believe in Noah's ark, but this article does a great job of explaining how it was, in fact, possible for the ark to contain exactly what the bible says it did.
Well I read it. And thanks for the earnest explanation to my question. I will respect you, but I can't agree. The fossil records speak for themselves. And they are way older than 8000 years.
Well I read it. And thanks for the earnest explanation to my question. I will respect you, but I can't agree. The fossil records speak for themselves. And they are way older than 8000 years.
Peace,
Trebek
You're welcome for the explanation from my point of view. And thank you for taking the time to read the article. I respect your opinion regarding the supposed age of fossils and will likewise kindly disagree.
Well I read it. And thanks for the earnest explanation to my question. I will respect you, but I can't agree. The fossil records speak for themselves. And they are way older than 8000 years.
Peace,
Trebek
Exactly. Dinosaurs did not roam this planet during that time. They were long extinct.
Exactly. Dinosaurs did not roam this planet during that time. They were long extinct.
Apparently not. There are many good people here that do not see the Dinos as being millions of years old. Science isn't trusted around here. But it must have taken a bit of science to build a computer.
P.M. Me if you want a more logical place to discuss these forbidden things like Science.
Not to get too far off topic, I do trust science. Science has done fantastic things for mankind and myself. I've had laser cataract surgery on both of my eyes. I've had back surgery. I wear glasses. I use a computer and modem. I own a microwave oven and cell phone. My car is safer than cars from decades previously. I could go on and on.
However, from my worldview, there is a difference between empirical science and origins science. I don't trust origins science. Just wanted to clarify. If you want to see my opinion regarding origins science, read through the past threads Creation Museum, Creation/Evolution and America and evolution.
Both sciences use the same Scientific method, and scientific hypothesis have to be studied intensely, by many scientists, who don't know each other, before the hypothesis becomes a theory. After super intense scrutiny many many more scientists, most of them coming up with the same answer to the equation, after many publications, conferences, and years, does something become Scientific fact. This is why Science works.
The same atomic theories that figured out the structure of the Atom, were written 50 years before man could prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt by harnessing the atom. This same atomic research is behind carbon dating.
Simple observation should also tell you the earth is over 8000 years old. Look at the Grand Canyon?
Last edited by Trebek; 07-21-2007 at 09:04 PM..
Reason: punct
Both sciences use the same Scientific method, and scientific hypothesis have to be studied intensely, by many scientists, who don't know each other, before the hypothesis becomes a theory. After super intense scrutiny many many more scientists, most of them coming up with the same answer to the equation, after many publications, conferences, and years, does something become Scientific fact. This is why Science works.
The same atomic theories that figured out the structure of the Atom, were written 50 years before man could prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt by harnessing the atom. This same atomic research is behind carbon dating.
Simple observation should also tell you the earth is over 8000 years old. Look at the Grand Canyon?
IMO, they are not the same science. You look at the grand canyon and see millions of years of sediment build-up. I look at the grand canyon and see a canyon of multiple layers created by the effects of Noah's flood. I'm not going to go into it further here because it's unrelated to this topic. I'll just state there are soooo many assumptions made for all the dating methods that I don't find them reliable. Others do. That's their prerogative. Most of my views were on those other threads I mentioned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I trust in science
