My two satangs: A person's faith is that which is his alone and nobody has cause to judge.

Unfortunately, too many people (in different religions) don't agree with you. They believe that you should also believe in their version of "the truth". In order to gain more supporters, they try and push their views on the public through various means.

I would be fine with it, if you wanted to believe in God, Buddha, Zues, Odin, Ra or any other supreme being. Just don't try and force me into accepting your beliefs. When people come to my door and tell me I'm going to burn in h3ll if I don't accept (and contribute to) their religion, I get irked.

That is one of the things I like about Buddhism (although I don't believe in it). If you choose to believe in Buddha, the monks and temples are there for you.

The monks make their daily rounds every morning. If you want to earn "merit", you can contibute to their bowl.

If you don't feel the need, there is no pressure on you (unlike many churches that try to shame you into contributing by holding the collection plate in front of you until you cough up).

My two satangs: A person's faith is that which is his alone and nobody has cause to judge.

Unfortunately, too many people (in different religions) don't agree with you. They believe that you should also believe in their version of "the truth". In order to gain more supporters, they try and push their views on the public through various means.

I would be fine with it, if you wanted to believe in God, Buddha, Zues, Odin, Ra or any other supreme being. Just don't try and force me into accepting your beliefs. When people come to my door and tell me I'm going to burn in h3ll if I don't accept (and contribute to) their religion, I get irked.

That is one of the things I like about Buddhism (although I don't believe in it). If you choose to believe in Buddha, the monks and temples are there for you.

The monks make their daily rounds every morning. If you want to earn "merit", you can contibute to their bowl.

If you don't feel the need, there is no pressure on you (unlike many churches that try to shame you into contributing by holding the collection plate in front of you until you cough up).

Hey, if your job was to save the world wouldn't you want to get paid, too?

Religion practices Darwinism - they're just trying to survive, too.

Religion practices Darwinism - they're just trying to survive, too.

Uh oh. I tried to argue that religion itself was "evolving" in another thread. We ended up in a long, dragged out discussion that lead no where (seems to happen a lot in these kinds of threads)

Can any of the 'Intelligent Design' people tell me how long man has walked this earth?

Which man? Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Neanderthalis?

I may have to re-think the evolution thing. Homo Neanderthals still stalks the streets of most countries.

Perhaps man doesn't evolve equally?

Which man? Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Neanderthalis?

wasn't there recently a movie about Homo erectus?

Which man? Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Neanderthalis?

Adam and Eve.

The single female that every person on the planet is related to, known as Mitochondrial Eve walked the earth approximately 150,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Eve

The single female that every person on the planet is related to, known as Mitochondrial Eve walked the earth approximately 150,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Eve

did she wear a fig leaf?

The single female that every person on the planet is related to, known as Mitochondrial Eve walked the earth approximately 150,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Eve

did she wear a fig leaf?

Good question.

We know that human body lice evolved from human head lice, and that human body lice can only exist if some kind of clothing is worn.

Human body lice evolved approximately 72,000 years ago.

From this, we can say that Mitochondrial Eve didn't wear any form of clothes (the slut!).

So, it's very possible that she could have worn a fig-leaf, though I doubt it.

Not because the fig-leaf wasn't present in Africa (it was), I just think that our sense of modesty evolved after the invention of clothes.

The single female that every person on the planet is related to, known as Mitochondrial Eve walked the earth approximately 150,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Eve

did she wear a fig leaf?

Good question.

We know that human body lice evolved from human head lice, and that human body lice can only exist if some kind of clothing is worn.

Human body lice evolved approximately 72,000 years ago.

From this, we can say that Mitochondrial Eve didn't wear any form of clothes (the slut!).

So, it's very possible that she could have worn a fig-leaf, though I doubt it.

Not because the fig-leaf wasn't present in Africa (it was), I just think that our sense of modesty evolved after the invention of clothes.

Now, what I want to know,is how long (according to the Bible) have modern man been here.

Was the world built in six days?

Which man? Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Neanderthalis?

wasn't there recently a movie about Homo erectus?

Brokeback Mountain.

Now, what I want to know,is how long (according to the Bible) have modern man been here.

Was the world built in six days?

Sorry, don't know what the bible says, but, have you ever seen the movie Inherit the Wind, with Spencer Tracy? It deals with the true life court-room drama of whether evolution should be taught in schools.

The upshot, was that God didn't create the sun on the first day, so, the first day could have been millions of years long.

Watch the movie, it's a classic!

According to the Torah, there were 6 days of creation plus 1 day of rest plus 5,765ish years since (from adding up the ages of all the 'begots' etc from Adam down to a known date like King David's death or Christ's and adding on what we 'know' from there).

However, Jewish phillosophers talk of two types of time, cosmic and earthly. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time (some use the fact that the sun etc. was only created on the fourth day as proof that time could not have been measured as we measure it nowadays), during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. Unfortuantly, this still leaves massive discrepancies as since day 6 (Adam) we still only get 6,000 years (just under) - so somethings either missing in the middle, or Adam was not the first man. Of course he could have been the first man suiable to carry God's words and then be credited as being the first 'real' man in biblical terms. That 'day of rest' maybe is also a cosmic day - in which case Adam was millions of years (billions) old when he died - possible given the story as death had not been invented yet.

According to the Torah, there were 6 days of creation plus 1 day of rest plus 5,765ish years since (from adding up the ages of all the 'begots' etc from Adam down to a known date like King David's death or Christ's and adding on what we 'know' from there).

However, Jewish phillosophers talk of two types of time, cosmic and earthly. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time (some use the fact that the sun etc. was only created on the fourth day as proof that time could not have been measured as we measure it nowadays), during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. Unfortuantly, this still leaves massive discrepancies as since day 6 (Adam) we still only get 6,000 years (just under) - so somethings either missing in the middle, or Adam was not the first man. Of course he could have been the first man suiable to carry God's words and then be credited as being the first 'real' man in biblical terms. That 'day of rest' maybe is also a cosmic day - in which case Adam was millions of years (billions) old when he died - possible given the story as death had not been invented yet.

Another good post wolf. It's true that if you add up all the 'begets' you get about 6,000 years. However, this period is counted from the time of the fall ie when death came about as a result of Adam's trangression. Genesis 2.17 ...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." The Hebrew makes it clearer, "you will become a dying creature". So death was 'invented', to use your word, when they fell. From that time the years started being counted, but we simply don't know how long before the earth was created.

According to the Torah, there were 6 days of creation plus 1 day of rest plus 5,765ish years since (from adding up the ages of all the 'begots' etc from Adam down to a known date like King David's death or Christ's and adding on what we 'know' from there).

However, Jewish phillosophers talk of two types of time, cosmic and earthly. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time (some use the fact that the sun etc. was only created on the fourth day as proof that time could not have been measured as we measure it nowadays), during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. Unfortuantly, this still leaves massive discrepancies as since day 6 (Adam) we still only get 6,000 years (just under) - so somethings either missing in the middle, or Adam was not the first man. Of course he could have been the first man suiable to carry God's words and then be credited as being the first 'real' man in biblical terms. That 'day of rest' maybe is also a cosmic day - in which case Adam was millions of years (billions) old when he died - possible given the story as death had not been invented yet.

Another good post wolf. It's true that if you add up all the 'begets' you get about 6,000 years. However, this period is counted from the time of the fall ie when death came about as a result of Adam's trangression. Genesis 2.17 ...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." The Hebrew makes it clearer, "you will become a dying creature". So death was 'invented', to use your word, when they fell. From that time the years started being counted, but we simply don't know how long before the earth was created.

So where does Mitochondrial Eve fit into this..or does she fit at all?

Many Christians do not believe in evolution.Infact over the last couple of days I have seen plenty of this talked about on "god" TV channels. A guy came on wth an orangutan, took the animals feet and said something like "look, how can we decend from these cretures when they have thumbs on their feet"

So where does Mitochondrial Eve fit into this..or does she fit at all?

Many Christians do not believe in evolution.Infact over the last couple of days I have seen plenty of this talked about on "god" TV channels. A guy came on wth an orangutan, took the animals feet and said something like "look, how can we decend from these cretures when they have thumbs on their feet"

Now this made me laugh, it has thumbs on it's feet!!! Hey, I actually this would have it's advantages...

ps Never heard of 'Mitochondrial Eve'. If I do, I'll post again

The single female that every person on the planet is related to, known as Mitochondrial Eve walked the earth approximately 150,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Eve

suegha, for you.

Thanks mate, I was just surfing for it. On first glance I can't see her having anything to do with the Eve of the Garden of Eden. But I'll have a bit more of a investigation and see what I can learn.

According to the Torah, there were 6 days of creation plus 1 day of rest plus 5,765ish years since (from adding up the ages of all the 'begots' etc from Adam down to a known date like King David's death or Christ's and adding on what we 'know' from there).

However, Jewish phillosophers talk of two types of time, cosmic and earthly. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time (some use the fact that the sun etc. was only created on the fourth day as proof that time could not have been measured as we measure it nowadays), during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. Unfortuantly, this still leaves massive discrepancies as since day 6 (Adam) we still only get 6,000 years (just under) - so somethings either missing in the middle, or Adam was not the first man. Of course he could have been the first man suiable to carry God's words and then be credited as being the first 'real' man in biblical terms. That 'day of rest' maybe is also a cosmic day - in which case Adam was millions of years (billions) old when he died - possible given the story as death had not been invented yet.

Another good post wolf. It's true that if you add up all the 'begets' you get about 6,000 years. However, this period is counted from the time of the fall ie when death came about as a result of Adam's trangression. Genesis 2.17 ...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." The Hebrew makes it clearer, "you will become a dying creature". So death was 'invented', to use your word, when they fell. From that time the years started being counted, but we simply don't know how long before the earth was created.

This is assuming that you believe in the Bible or Torah as truth. Both of which, in effect, were written by men for men, and are only the word of God if you believe they are.

According to the Torah, there were 6 days of creation plus 1 day of rest plus 5,765ish years since (from adding up the ages of all the 'begots' etc from Adam down to a known date like King David's death or Christ's and adding on what we 'know' from there).

However, Jewish phillosophers talk of two types of time, cosmic and earthly. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time (some use the fact that the sun etc. was only created on the fourth day as proof that time could not have been measured as we measure it nowadays), during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. Unfortuantly, this still leaves massive discrepancies as since day 6 (Adam) we still only get 6,000 years (just under) - so somethings either missing in the middle, or Adam was not the first man. Of course he could have been the first man suiable to carry God's words and then be credited as being the first 'real' man in biblical terms. That 'day of rest' maybe is also a cosmic day - in which case Adam was millions of years (billions) old when he died - possible given the story as death had not been invented yet.

Another good post wolf. It's true that if you add up all the 'begets' you get about 6,000 years. However, this period is counted from the time of the fall ie when death came about as a result of Adam's trangression. Genesis 2.17 ...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." The Hebrew makes it clearer, "you will become a dying creature". So death was 'invented', to use your word, when they fell. From that time the years started being counted, but we simply don't know how long before the earth was created.

This is assuming that you believe in the Bible or Torah as truth. Both of which, in effect, were written by men for men, and are only the word of God if you believe they are.

This is true, however, 2 Peter 1, verses 20 and 21 states "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

So yes, if you believe this, you take the bible to be the word of God. I accept that others may see it differently.

Thanks mate, I was just surfing for it. On first glance I can't see her having anything to do with the Eve of the Garden of Eden. But I'll have a bit more of a investigation and see what I can learn.

The first sensible thing you have said.

You're absolutely right, Mitochondrial Eve has absolutely nothing to do with Adam and Eve. Mitochondrial Eve is fact, Adam and Eve is fiction.

From the link posted above

Eve is believed to have lived in a population of humans about 150,000 years ago in Africa.

...Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation story, has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living female of her time — she was not (indeed, had she been, humanity would have probably become extinct)...Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal (female-lineage) ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans.

I don't really, therefore, see the connection with the biblical Eve.

I saw a documentary on Mitochondrial Eve on TV (the box, not the forum ).

One discussion was about the mass extinction events. About 150k years ago or so, an event happened that wiped out 98% of the worlds species. This supposedly happens quite often (in geological terms) and, especially in the past, species have struggled to survive. It is believed that the human population was devastated and reduced to something like 1,000,000 souls (don't ask me where that figure comes from, they never said). So we will probably have several points of common matrilineal ancestorage - compounded.

PS:

This is assuming that you believe in the Bible or Torah as truth. Both of which, in effect, were written by men for men, and are only the word of God if you believe they are.

I wasn't stating that I believed the Bible or Totah as truth, merely answering a question that someone asked - ie How old do creationalists believe the earth is.

PPS: There's a book called something like "The Guildford Triangle" (I know I've got the town wrong, but its something like that). Its a comedy book, but in it it postulates a theory that the universe was created 15 minutes ago with all history in place - get out of that one!

Thanks mate, I was just surfing for it. On first glance I can't see her having anything to do with the Eve of the Garden of Eden. But I'll have a bit more of a investigation and see what I can learn.

The first sensible thing you have said.

You're absolutely right, Mitochondrial Eve has absolutely nothing to do with Adam and Eve. Mitochondrial Eve is fact, Adam and Eve is fiction.

Like I said in another thread, we can believe what we want, and I thank God for that freedom. You say Mitochondrial Eve is fact, I say Adam and Eve are fact. Neither of us can 'prove' our statements. So we are now in fact discussing opinions, and that's fine. Neither can I state Mitochondrial Eve is fiction and neither can you say Adam and Eve are fiction, (even though you did say that) and that also is fine!

Also saying that it's the first sensible thing I've said is slightly patronising - but you are entitled to your opinion.

Which ever is the case, I highly doubt we (TV members) will be able to prove it on here.

We can go on endlessly searching google and other resources for tidbits that support our individual views, but we will (probably) never find the definitive proof we need, that will convince the "other side" that they are wrong, and we are right.

But it is a good distraction from "The Final Word" (which sounds suspiciously biblical, hmmmm, might have to investigate that)

Never in a milion years would I have imagined myself yearning for a political discussion. But . . . it's not to be. (Where the hel_l is Boonie and his dragoons when you need them????) So, since the alternative is either starting my own threads (which I've already done) or being faced with utter boredom then I'll force myself to jump into this one.

I certainly don't take the Bible literally and to those who do, well, bless you and have fun spending an eternity trying to achieve an impossible task. To me it's like trying to understand the origins of Hansel and Gretel in literal terms. On the other hand, I don't subscribe to evolutionary concepts as they are popularly understood, either. Needless to say I'm sitting on my own little fence.

One thing that has been evident to me long, long ago is that much of this world cannot be proven one way or another. Which means that the height of foolishness is to then engage in discussions with people who have already settled upon their convictions (which is why I particularly abhor politics). If ever there existed an immovable object it is the mind of someone who has conviction. The doors have long been shut and sealed while the windows provide only an extremely narrow view. For most people the only way out from this self-styled, self-imposed prison will be death.

In my opinion, the reason that much of this world cannot ever be proven is because it's source lays outside of this dimensional reality. Take a concept such as faith, for instance. You may believe in it's reality or not but I'll guarantee you there will never exist a scientific instrument which can measure it let alone detect it's substance. Physical apparatus can only be used on that which is physical. Which makes for huge limitations. Does love truly exist or is it another whimsical concoction of our imagination? And now that I mention imagination, what the heck is that???

Proof is an interesting concept. Many people are skeptical and so resist believing anything which can't be proven by science. Which then places them in an untenable position since they still need to conclude on a multitude of issues for which no prove exists. And while many things can never be proven in physical terms to thus satisfy the minds of others they can be proven to ones self. In which case save your breath and learn for yourself. No need to convince others of anything.

Here's another little theory which seems to be gaining quite a bit of popularity: The Universe As Idea Construction. If anyone cares to explore that concept the doors are there and they are open. Forgive me, but you'll have to find them for yourself since it's bad practice to give answers to questions which aren't asked. So I'll politely keep my mouth shut.

Anyway, I have little time for ranting and raving since I have just placed my soapbox up for sale on another thread. Very shortly (that is, if I find a buyer anytime soon) I will be limited to one-liners. I might stretch them into very long, one-sentence paragraphs once in awhile even though that may well be classed as poor writing style. But I'll do what I can if I can get away with it. I don't believe there are any forum rules regarding writing conventions (other than NOT USING CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE IT'S SO DAM_N ANNOYING FOR PEOPLE TO READ AND REMINDS ME OF SO MANY FRICKIN' LEGAL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE PURPOSELY WRITTEN IN CAPS TO DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM READING THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY).

Thanks mate, I was just surfing for it. On first glance I can't see her having anything to do with the Eve of the Garden of Eden. But I'll have a bit more of a investigation and see what I can learn.

The first sensible thing you have said.

You're absolutely right, Mitochondrial Eve has absolutely nothing to do with Adam and Eve. Mitochondrial Eve is fact, Adam and Eve is fiction.

Like I said in another thread, we can believe what we want, and I thank God for that freedom. You say Mitochondrial Eve is fact, I say Adam and Eve are fact. Neither of us can 'prove' our statements. So we are now in fact discussing opinions, and that's fine. Neither can I state Mitochondrial Eve is fiction and neither can you say Adam and Eve are fiction, (even though you did say that) and that also is fine!

Also saying that it's the first sensible thing I've said is slightly patronising - but you are entitled to your opinion.

What colour were Adam and Eve?

Do you believe in DNA,finger prints and modern methods of dating etc?

What colour were Adam and Eve?

Now you are going too far.

White, Adam and Eve were pure and white as a winter's snow, and Jesus was white too!

Satan was a big black snake.

Isn't that written in the Bible somewhere?

I don't care if Jesus or Adam and Eve were pearly white or black as the ace of spades or any other color, for that matter. Just don't start claiming that Santa Claus was black or I'll really get pissed off.