The Creation Account, Another Look

[101G]

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Let's discuss these two verses for starters. let's zero in on verse 2.

#1. Earth was a water ????????? do we really say planet? my question is, was earth a planet, as we define a planet, or not in the beginning. for the scripture stated, "WITHOUT FORM". so do we really identify earth as a planet in this beginning stage of development?

my second question, "was the sun actually shining, or was it even form yet. scripture stated, it was dark, no sunlight?. I have hear some scientist say the sun was formed but not yet shining, others, the sun formed but it was a thick cloud around the earth where no sunlight could penetrate to the surface.

for a general discussion we will start right at the beginning, with EARTH. I would like to hear the scientific side as well if any religious point of view.

thanks for your responses in advance.

[Neatras]

"Reptile grew feather-like structures before dinosaurs"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dinosaurs/

This doesn't in any way refute that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It's not an exclusive feature of birds to have feathers; feathers are a natural evolutionary development following from scales (which birds have).

[Youtube][/Youtube]

[quote=""Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 10: Fakeopteryx" at 35:50"]
Reptile and bird scales, and feathers, develop from anatomical placodes: thickened structures in the skin which result from expression of the [Shh] and born morphogenetic protein 2, or bmph 2 genes, in different locations in the skin. The anatomical parts involved and the genes and proteins involved, in making scales and feathers, are the same. The difference between scales and feathers appears to arise from the variations in the timing and direction of the expression of these two genes that I mentioned. Now, primitive feathers were just filaments, lacking the various plumes, branches, and barbs of various types of later feathers. And these homo-filaments could've originated simply by a re-expression of shh and bmp2 after the formation of the placode.

So that, instead of growing out of a single fold, the "scale," for lack of a better word, grows out of an indented ring-shaped zone, and forms a hollow tubular structure. The further changes to the shape of the feather itself would've then required only small changes. Re-expression of those same genes, first in a vertical pattern, creating plumed feathers, and then later shifting to a horizontal pattern, creating branched feathers. And by the way, this is all newer than [Kent Hovind's] speech. [Therefore there was no way for him to know if feathers could or could not have evolved from scales, but claimed they couldn't have.]
[/quote]

The above outlines a very simple evolutionary pathway that leads to the development of feathers in scaled species. There is nothing preventing reptiles from developing this mutation, except for selection pressures. That birds obtained it is only notable because feathers are very useful in the development of flight, and therefore flight-based animals would benefit heavily from further variation of the "feather."

Moreover, that "feather" you talk about in your pop science news article is more like an elongated scale than a feather (as discussed in the scholarly article here).

so more finding and research is forth coming which I'll keep an eye on.

Okay, so you're willing to stay on this topic until it's resolved. Great, then I'll hold you to it.

but just to the FACT that "birds was here at the time and before dinosaurs tell you they didn't evolved from dinosaurs

I don't mind you calling it a fact when it hasn't been adequately demonstrated, because I'm enjoying posting scientific articles that tear apart the creationists' haphazardly made mess of an argument.

"Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs, Say Evolutionists"
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... utionists/

Ah, yes, AnswersinGenesis, a website that is so heavily biased that their Statement of Faith, found here states:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

This alone should, by virtue of existing, discount the entirety of AiG as a scholarly source, because they have exposed an ideological bias that prevents them from reporting any topic that is not favorable to the creationist position. In this way, they are duty-bound by their own religion to lie, cheat, and misrepresent actual science to further their agenda.

But I'll ignore that this time, because the article you posted fails on its own merits! Let's find out why:

The article they cite in the beginning Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs.
is one that discusses the development of bird-like lungs and how they differ from their ancient ancestors. I'll do you one better than a biased pseudo-science news organization with an agenda and point out a quote from the scientific article proper.

Our data indicate that the ear-liest avian forms (Archaeopteryx, confuciusorni-thine and some enantiornithine birds) may havehad pelvic volume simila r to ostriches; however, itseems unlikely that they were able to have ef�-ciently prevented abdominal air-sacs from para-doxical collapse due to their short postacetabularilia and ischia (Napl es et al., 2002) and vertical fe-mur. It was not until the appearance of Late Cre-taceous ornithurines (e.g., Ichthyornis) that thepostacetabular ilium expanded, the pubic rami lostmidline fusion and the specialized ventilatory fea-tures of the sternum and rib s �rst appeared (Na-ples et al., 2002; Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). Per-haps adaptations for long-distance flight (sternaladaptations for increased pectoral muscle mass,change in position of center of mass, adopt ion of afusiform body shape) facilitated development andsupport of abdominal air-sacs and a modern avianflow-through style lung (Ruben, 1991).

What does all this mean? It means that the ancestor to birds did not have a modern lung system. Nothing more, nothing less. Ruben's consideration that birds might have evolved from an entirely separate lineage than that of theropod dinosaurs unfortunately does not have enough evidence-based support behind it; it was stated as a hypothetical, not as a rigorous position that the scientific community could do anything with except dismiss in light of all the other evidence. It means that in the development for modern birds, an adaptation to alter their lung structure to facilitate flight-based locomotion took place, and this was after the theropod dinosaurs appeared in the fossil record.

While there is debate over the exact link between dinosaurs, archaeopteryx, and modern birds, as stated here, that in no way provides any evidence for the creation myth.

I'm concerned that you have such a fixation on finding any article, no matter how relevant or truthful of the material they represent, that it has facilitated a mischaracterization of the scientific method and the scientific community.

"The Myth of Bird Evolution"
https://harunyahya.com/en/Darwinism-Wat ... -evolution

The following article does not work as an argument because the difference in time-scale, location, and selective pressures means that there is no obligation for the 140 million year old specimen to exactly resemble the 150 million year old specimen. This is a weird situation in which I've even corrected another user on the definition of transitional forms here.

"Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?"
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3117

see, there are much debate among your own scientist. so i'll stick with the book of Genesis.

PS but thanks in your efforts in trying to rebuke what is said in Genesis.

Next time Adam and Eve having children in the Garden before they had Cain and Able outside the Garden. and prove it scientifically.

untill then....[/quote]

[Neatras]

"Reptile grew feather-like structures before dinosaurs"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dinosaurs/

This doesn't in any way refute that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It's not an exclusive feature of birds to have feathers; feathers are a natural evolutionary development following from scales (which birds have).

[Youtube][/Youtube]

[quote=""Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 10: Fakeopteryx" at 35:50"]
Reptile and bird scales, and feathers, develop from anatomical placodes: thickened structures in the skin which result from expression of the [Shh] and born morphogenetic protein 2, or bmph 2 genes, in different locations in the skin. The anatomical parts involved and the genes and proteins involved, in making scales and feathers, are the same. The difference between scales and feathers appears to arise from the variations in the timing and direction of the expression of these two genes that I mentioned. Now, primitive feathers were just filaments, lacking the various plumes, branches, and barbs of various types of later feathers. And these homo-filaments could've originated simply by a re-expression of shh and bmp2 after the formation of the placode.

So that, instead of growing out of a single fold, the "scale," for lack of a better word, grows out of an indented ring-shaped zone, and forms a hollow tubular structure. The further changes to the shape of the feather itself would've then required only small changes. Re-expression of those same genes, first in a vertical pattern, creating plumed feathers, and then later shifting to a horizontal pattern, creating branched feathers. And by the way, this is all newer than [Kent Hovind's] speech. [Therefore there was no way for him to know if feathers could or could not have evolved from scales, but claimed they couldn't have.]
[/quote]

The above outlines a very simple evolutionary pathway that leads to the development of feathers in scaled species. There is nothing preventing reptiles from developing this mutation, except for selection pressures. That birds obtained it is only notable because feathers are very useful in the development of flight, and therefore flight-based animals would benefit heavily from further variation of the "feather."

Moreover, that "feather" you talk about in your pop science news article is more like an elongated scale than a feather (as discussed in the scholarly article here).

so more finding and research is forth coming which I'll keep an eye on.

Okay, so you're willing to stay on this topic until it's resolved. Great, then I'll hold you to it.

but just to the FACT that "birds was here at the time and before dinosaurs tell you they didn't evolved from dinosaurs

I don't mind you calling it a fact when it hasn't been adequately demonstrated, because I'm enjoying posting scientific articles that tear apart the creationists' haphazardly made mess of an argument.

"Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs, Say Evolutionists"
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... utionists/

Ah, yes, AnswersinGenesis, a website that is so heavily biased that their Statement of Faith, found here states:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

This alone should, by virtue of existing, discount the entirety of AiG as a scholarly source, because they have exposed an ideological bias that prevents them from reporting any topic that is not favorable to the creationist position. In this way, they are duty-bound by their own religion to lie, cheat, and misrepresent actual science to further their agenda.

But I'll ignore that this time, because the article you posted fails on its own merits! Let's find out why:

The article they cite in the beginning Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs.
is one that discusses the development of bird-like lungs and how they differ from their ancient ancestors. I'll do you one better than a biased pseudo-science news organization with an agenda and point out a quote from the scientific article proper.

Our data indicate that the ear-liest avian forms (Archaeopteryx, confuciusorni-thine and some enantiornithine birds) may havehad pelvic volume simila r to ostriches; however, itseems unlikely that they were able to have ef�-ciently prevented abdominal air-sacs from para-doxical collapse due to their short postacetabularilia and ischia (Napl es et al., 2002) and vertical fe-mur. It was not until the appearance of Late Cre-taceous ornithurines (e.g., Ichthyornis) that thepostacetabular ilium expanded, the pubic rami lostmidline fusion and the specialized ventilatory fea-tures of the sternum and rib s �rst appeared (Na-ples et al., 2002; Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). Per-haps adaptations for long-distance flight (sternaladaptations for increased pectoral muscle mass,change in position of center of mass, adopt ion of afusiform body shape) facilitated development andsupport of abdominal air-sacs and a modern avianflow-through style lung (Ruben, 1991).

What does all this mean? It means that the ancestor to birds did not have a modern bird's lung system. Nothing more, nothing less. Ruben's consideration that birds might have evolved from an entirely separate lineage than that of theropod dinosaurs unfortunately does not have enough evidence-based support behind it; it was stated as a hypothetical, not as a rigorous position that the scientific community could do anything with except dismiss in light of all the other evidence. It means that in the development for modern birds, an adaptation to alter their lung structure to facilitate flight-based locomotion took place, and this was after the theropod dinosaurs appeared in the fossil record.

While there is debate over the exact link between dinosaurs, archaeopteryx, and modern birds, as stated here, that in no way provides any evidence for the creation myth.

I'm concerned that you have such a fixation on finding any article, no matter how relevant or truthful of the material they represent, that it has facilitated a mischaracterization of the scientific method and the scientific community.

"The Myth of Bird Evolution"
https://harunyahya.com/en/Darwinism-Wat ... -evolution

The following article does not work as an argument because the difference in time-scale, location, and selective pressures means that there is no obligation for the 140 million year old specimen to exactly resemble the 150 million year old specimen. This is a weird situation in which I've even corrected another user on the definition of transitional forms here.

"Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?"
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3117

Once again, a creationist-backed article that insists that all theropods must be extinct before a population of avians can be found in the fossil record. This is not what the theory of evolution predicts, and it never has been. Articles insisting otherwise are putting up a strawman. You've been had, 101G. (I mean "you've been had" in the sense that you've been duped by creationist sites that masquerade as scholarly sources.)

see, there are much debate among your own scientist. so i'll stick with the book of Genesis.

And yet the vast majority of scientists reject the biblical creation account. A whopping 97% accept evolution, according to Answers in Genesis, so you really can't claim there isn't a consensus among scientists when there clearly is. Note, I'm not quoting the article because of some hypocritical bias making me want to use any article that supports my case. I posted it specifically so I could demonstrate to you, using your own sources, that your claim there isn't a consensus is bunk. You can't insist otherwise. The article's tangent on how scientists are "ignorant" of creationist literature is laughable, their biblical quote about spiritual bias is arrogant, and their lack of methodology makes the site as much of a joke before as it is now. But you can't dispute the claim that 97% of scientists accept evolution, now.

PS but thanks in your efforts in trying to rebuke what is said in Genesis.

You're welcome! Picking apart each and every pop science article you bring up is a fun distraction from the throbbing pain in my leg, and it lets me reveal the vast difference between creationist methodology (quote mines and repackaging scientific claims to suit their agenda) and honest representation of the facts (considering context and utilizing critical thinking to glean more of a meaning from an article than "how does this support the Bible?").

Next time Adam and Eve having children in the Garden before they had Cain and Able outside the Garden. and prove it scientifically.

untill then....

Hold on chief, you said you'd happily look into this topic for a while, I'm holding you to it, we're gonna be talking about this topic for a nice, long time at this rate.

So open up that google machine and type in "evolution of birds debunked" (just kidding, that's not a thorough method of learning about the subject at all), because I'm having some real fun this time!

[benchwarmer]

First Greeting to all. and hoping all will have a blessed 4th of July.

Greetings to you and my southern neighbors about to celebrate July 4. Up here in Canada we already filled the night sky with pyrotechnics on July 1

Now to the business at hand. I have looked over the last few post, "nothing new", so we'll get to man in the creation account.

By "nothing new" do you mean you can't refute any of the counter points brought up? I'll take it that way until shown otherwise.

Keep in mind that when you don't provide any counter debate, anything else you say is essentially ignored. For example, after I read the above, I completely ignored anything that followed, so you basically wasted your time typing it if you were hoping to impart anything to me. I imagine your other debate partners here are feeling much the same.

I never seen anything you posted support your stance. all the articles you posted I have seen these already, so again, "NOTHING NEW". now what you posted before I have counted posted. but I'll add a few more.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have pointed to no articles. In fact, the only link I've given in this discussion is to scripture (ironic or what?).

You have remained completely silent when I showed your word substitutions rendered God with no knowledge or understanding before the creation story. You also remained silent when I pointed out the second contradiction you introduced by saying 'morning' means 'made visible' yet there is no way to see anything without electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light) which you claim was not really created until day four. You are shooting yourself in the foot left and right and failing to acknowledge these issues.

At this point, you are simply preaching and no longer debating as far as I can tell.

As to your links which have nothing to do with anything I've posted:

"Reptile grew feather-like structures before dinosaurs"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dinosaurs/
so more finding and research is forth coming which I'll keep an eye on.
but just to the FACT that "birds was here at the time and before dinosaurs tell you they didn't evolved from dinosaurs

I don't think it's news to anyone here that birds evolved from reptiles, just like dinosaurs did. I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

"Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs, Say Evolutionists"
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... utionists/

Egads, answersingenesis ? You realize they have a statement of faith that renders any articles on that site incapable of going against their religious agenda right? It doesn't matter what physical evidence (i.e. findings of science) are discovered, that site will never acknowledge anything that goes against their predetermined beliefs. i.e. their heads are buried in the sand and it doesn't matter what reality is.

The rest of your links are similar in nature. We'll become more interested when you post peer reviewed scientific research that backs up your claims.

[rikuoamero]

Just chiming in now to say that I'm glad at least two people on this site have adopted my stance regarding statements of faith. Today Neatras and benchwarmer...tomorrow the world! Bwhahahaha!

[Danmark]

nt.

By "nothing new" do you mean you can't refute any of the counter points brought up? I'll take it that way until shown otherwise.

Keep in mind that when you don't provide any counter debate, anything else you say is essentially ignored. For example, after I read the above, I completely ignored anything that followed, so you basically wasted your time typing it if you were hoping to impart anything to me. I imagine your other debate partners here are feeling much the same.[/quote]
I never seen anything you posted support your stance. all the articles you posted I have seen these already, so again, "NOTHING NEW". now what you posted before I have counted posted. but I'll add a few more.

"Reptile grew feather-like structures before dinosaurs"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dinosaurs/
so more finding and research is forth coming which I'll keep an eye on.
but just to the FACT that "birds was here at the time and before dinosaurs tell you they didn't evolved from dinosaurs

"Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs, Say Evolutionists"
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... utionists/


"The Myth of Bird Evolution"
https://harunyahya.com/en/Darwinism-Wat ... -evolution

"Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?"
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3117

see, there are much debate among your own scientist. so i'll stick with the book of Genesis.

PS but thanks in your efforts in trying to rebuke what is said in Genesis.

Next time Adam and Eve having children in the Garden before they had Cain and Able outside the Garden. and prove it scientifically.

untill then....[/quote]

[Danmark]

"Reptile grew feather-like structures before dinosaurs"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dinosaurs/
so more finding and research is forth coming which I'll keep an eye on.
but just to the FACT that "birds was here at the time and before dinosaurs tell you they didn't evolved from dinosaurs

"Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs, Say Evolutionists"
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... utionists/

What happens when you use unscientific sources like answersingenesis.org is that you publish things that simply are not true. The article in AIG misstates the Oregon State University research [9 years old] which concluded:

“This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.�

You also might actually read the articles you post, like this one from The New Scientist which says THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim:

FOSSIL feathers provided the definitive proof that birds descended from dinosaurs. There is one extinct beast that doesn’t fit the picture, though. It is called Longisquama insignis, and it lived 230 to 240 million years ago – just before the dinosaurs evolved, and 70 to 80 million years before the first fossils of feathered dinobirds. Why, then, did Longisquama sport what look suspiciously like feathers?
....
“The strange skin appendages of Longisquama are neither scales nor feathers,� says Michael Buchwitz of the Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Germany. “They are perhaps linked to the early evolution of dino and pterosaur fuzz, though.�
Buchwitz has reanalysed the original fossil and says that the base of the structures lies so close to the bones of the spine that they were probably anchored deep within the skin. They were definitely attached to the body.
He has also studied recently discovered isolated “feathers� from the same locality, which are better preserved. He says Longisquama‘s appendages neither branch like real feathers nor vary in structure along their length as feathers do.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dinosaurs/

[101G]

[Replying to post 120 by Neatras]

First Greeting in the Name of the Lord Jesus,

#1. you said, "Moreover, that "feather" you talk about in your pop science news article is more like an elongated scale than a feather as discussed in the scholarly article"

see, you are only in considerations to feathers, listen to the scriptures. Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good".

you only see "feather", which is good, but not all flying creatures have "feathers".

winged creatures in the bible, the wings was and was not a covering for the "WING" of each KIND. the Hebrew word for "winged" creatures is
H5775 עוֹף `owph (ofe) n-m.
a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collectively.
[from H5774]
KJV: bird, that flieth, flying, fowl.

see, the wings don't have to have feathers, but only wings.


#2. I don't think it's news to anyone here that birds evolved from reptiles, just like dinosaurs did. I'm not sure what point you think you are making".

WELL BREAKING NEWS. if birds was already flying when dinosaurs roamed the earth common sense will tell you they didn't evolved from dinosaurs. just put you common sense thinking cap on for a minute. if flying birds was here when the first dinosaurs, that means they did not evolved from dinosaurs, because "THEY WAS ALREADY HERE


#3. one said, "This doesn't in any way refute that birds evolved from dinosaurs".
I believe it do.

#4. one said, "The above outlines a very simple evolutionary pathway that leads to the development of feathers in scaled species. There is nothing preventing reptiles from developing this mutation, except for selection pressures. That birds obtained it is only notable because feathers are very useful in the development of flight, and therefore flight-based animals would benefit heavily from further variation of the "feather."

Well ask the BAT for example, he don't have feathers?.

see, all these arguments are fruitless, and baseless. as said, there is some research that is going on and I'll wait for it to be complete. and as always, science is always finding NEW DISCOVERIES all the time. so what the them today might not be tommorrow. so I'll say with what the bible say an not rely on science totally for and answers yet.

[101G]

Now to the Children of Adam and Eve in the Garden

One of the most important key section in the book of Genesis that have been hidden, or misunderstood for centuries is the fact that Adam and Eve had children in the garden before they had Cain and Abel outside of the garden. this is one of the most overlook pieces of information in the creation account. it is one of the most revealing mystery in the bible, and its right at the beginning of human history. we will look at this revealing factor of this hidden fact, and how it will impact the whole creation account itself.

#1. the first impact, if a pregnancy occurred in the Garden, then it nullify the account as a fairy tail.

#2. the second impact, if a pregnancy occurred in the Garden then it will resolve the other people Cain was afraid of according to Genesis 4:14 "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me".

#3. the Third impact, if a pregnancy occurred in the Garden then that would put to rest the false notion of any gap theory. (pre-adamic race)

#4. the fourth impact, if a pregnancy occurred in the Garden then that would remove any doubt where Cain got his wife.

and the #5 impact, if a pregnancy occurred in the Garden then that would eliminate the false story of Angels having sex with women in chapter 6 and being called sons of God.

this is mostly for my religious brother and sisters, but also for my scientific brothers and sisters too. for I will use a scientific law to prove my above statement as to Adam and Eve having children in the garden.

Step #1 the supporting Scriptures.

scripture A. Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".

The Hebrew word for sorrow is H6093 עִצָּבוֹן `itstsabown (its-tsaw-ɓone') n-m.
worrisomeness, i.e. labor or pain.
KJV: sorrow, toil.

and the Hebrew word for conception is, H2032 הֵרוֹן herown (hay-rone') n-m.
הֵרָיוֹן herayown (hay-raw-yone')
pregnancy.
[from H2029]
KJV: conception.

this is before God put them out of the Garden. this is the punishment for disobedience. side note: this just eliminated many false doctrine about the punishment about sin. but this is not the topic for that discussion.

God said, "Unto the woman, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. the key word here is "multiply".

Understand, one cannot multiply, or increase something if it hasn’t already happened. that's a scientific law. example, if I was sitting in a vehicle, a car for instance. I cannot increase, or multiply my speed in the car unless I'm already in motion. likewise, one cannot increase sorrow, (labor or pain), unless it has already happened. .... nor increase or multiply when a pregnancy occur. this was bored out in the the two twin boys that was born, Cain and Able see the increase in pregnancy, vs one at a time. these verse show us that the woman Eve already had conception, (pregnancy, with little on no labor or pain), and therefore children, form these conceptions. Note: the bible do not tells us how many, nor how long they was having children "IN THE GARDEN" before they was expelled. but judging form Genesis 4:14 it was more than just one... (smile). another note: this is why many bible students misrepresent the age of the EARTH because they base their dates on the fallen line history and not the timeline of before the fall. as said how long they was having children? no one knows but God. and two, by Adam being formed on day 3, who know how long man was on the planet, way long before any animals. now that a mouth full to handle there. now back to the subject at hand.

for it's a scientific law, one cannot increase or multiply their speed unless they are already in motion. so applying this scientific law here, Eve already had children. and that's "BEFORE" she was expelled from the Garden. so without a doubt children was here before Cain and Abel

step #2. supportive scripture, Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living�.

notice the language used here again. the personal name Eve itself lets us know that she had children in the garden. for the woman was given the personal name Eve for a reason. Names have meaning in the bible. Here, it means she “was� the "MOTHER" of all LIVING, (kjv). “was� is a past tense designation, meaning she “was� a mother already at the time she acquired the personal name. This is why she got the name in the first place to identify who she was, “the mother of all living�. that just told us something about all of her children that are to come ..... then in sin. all her children before she sinned “WAS� alive to God, Spiritually, in Relationship, and fellowship. now onward, (from the fall), all her children are cut off, not Spiritually, but in fellowship with God because of sin, meaning they are dead spiritually in fellowship speaking to God. other words a separation, This is the reason why we, all of Adam line after the Garden fall must be, have to be, got to be BORN again. the Lord Jesus explains this in John chapter 3 to a man named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

likewise, no one calls anyone mother, unless they have living, or had living children before, we're speaking biologically and not in title only. The name EVE by itself tells us that she HAD children already. on top of that she was the mother of ALL LIVING, (which eliminates any other race of people outside of her and Adam). why say all living? all living, be it Spiritually, or Naturally, all came from EVE. this is why Genesis chapter 6 is so important to understand. Spiritually alive people marrying Spiritually dead people. no different from today, Christian (with the Spirit) marrying none christians.

conclusion: the bible is a truthful book who words and finding can be backed up by scientific laws. which I didn't even get into with biology. but if science can be used to back up a bible principle, then the Creation Account of the bible must be look at with different eyes instead of a just a story or fairy tail. for scientific laws was used in my proving that Adam and Eve had Children in the Garden before having Cain outside the Garden.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 125 by 101G]

conclusion: the bible is a truthful book who words and finding can be backed up by scientific laws

This is your false conclusion, and the rambling in this latest post is nothing but more preaching and unsupported opinions, redefinitions that make no sense, etc. You are just talking to yourself at this point, but here is another numbered list to consider:

1) Adam and Eve never existed as real human beings. They are mythical characters so any children related to these figures would also be mythical. This negates essentially everything you stated in post 125.

2) Stating "one cannot multiply, or increase something, if it hasn't already happened" is not a scientific law. It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

3) Stating "one cannot increase or multiply their speed unless they are already in motion" is not a scientific law, nor is it true. An object at rest ("speed" = 0) can be put into motion with a force ("speed" > 0), thereby increasing the speed.

The rest of the rambling is mostly nonsensical, and in no way leads to a conclusion that the bible is a "truthful book", or that any of your other conclusions are valid. This isn't an audience of 3rd grade, uneducated kids, so you'll need to do a lot better than you have done so far to convince anyone that your points are worthy of debate or discussion. Can't you relate any of this to actual science ... and not the version you are simply making up as you go along?

[101G]

now I would like to ask my scientific community a question. if I would increase or multiply "pain", would not I first have to have "pain" in order to increase or multiply it? yes, or no.


see, I used a scientific law to describe a action in the bible creation account. here's my point, if it contain scientific laws then either science is a fairy tale or the words of God is true.