Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

[John Bauer]

In the thread "Genetics and Adam and Eve," DrNoGods claimed that the creation narrative in Genesis describes Adam and Eve as the first humans. He said that

• Adam and Eve have an "explicit role in the biblical creation myth as being the first humans."
• "Their explicit role as the first humans [is] described in Genesis."
• "According to the biblical creation myth there was (...) only two" people originally.
• "Genesis very clearly does describe Adam and Eve as the first humans that this God created."

I would appreciate DrNoGods substantiating this claim of his, for I don't agree that Genesis says this. I would like to see this explored further.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #108]

I understand your quasi-pantheistic belief that the universe created itself.

My point is that how the universe came into existence is an unsolved problem. The Big Bang is the leading hypothesis as far as I am aware, and it has some observational support as well as theoretical support. But it hasn't been proven as the 100%, no doubt about it, theory for how the universe came to be. A god explanation, on the other hand, is entirely without any observational support as no god has even been demonstrated to exist, so attributing anything to such a being has no basis in reality. It is a hypothesis with, so far, no experimental support.

What evidence do you have that creationist what to stop the pursuit of knowledge?

I don't think I ever said that or implied it. What creationists want to do is have us believe that the Earth is only about 6000 years old when we know for a fact that it is around 4.6 billion years old, and they want us to believe that an unidentified god being simply poofed everything into existence when there is zero evidence to support such a proposition. Made up stories, like the many creation myths that exist, are just that ... fiction.

What a person believes about origins does have a profound effect on how one views the beginning and end of life and who has the right to choose when life can live and when it can die.

What does any theory of origins (universe, or life) have to do with any of this? I don't see any connection at all between them. I personally am not very interested in how the universe came into existence, other than as a curiosity if science ever works it out conclusively. But it certainly has no impact on how I view people, life, etc., or causes me to think I have some right to change how society has formed its social rules and laws against murder, assault, etc. Social animals have moral obligations that are necessary for coexistence, independent of ideas on how the universe, or life, might have came to be.

You did not answer the main question. Why should we treat other men differently than we do animals? Why should be able to kill cows, pigs, and chickens for food? Why should we believe that all men are created equal? Why should we not believe that some men are less evolved than other men? According to evolution those that are smarter should be the ones that are more evolved. So why should they not treat other men who are not as smart as animals?

We live in a society where humans, in general, must follow certain rules of behavior in order to coexist peacefully without constant conflict. But there has been and probably always will be wars over land, resources and other things that cause humans to treat other humans worse than we treat most animals. But in general, basic social rules must be in place and honored for a society to prosper and be happy. We have domesticated many animals and plants and grow them for food. Food is necesssary to survive. Humans are at the top of the animal food chain, and this domination over other animals allows us to create food sources and manage them in order to survive. We do not include other humans in this category (as food) because society views that as morally wrong and rightfully so, obviously, and it does not require religion to accept this. Morality does not come from religion, it is innate in social animals.

Evolution does not say, and never has, that someone who is smarter is more highly evolved. Where on earth did you get that one from? There is a distribution of intelligence among humans, just as with all other animals, that has a Gaussian shape ("bell curve"). The majority of people are near the center of the distribution (IQs around 100), and as you go higher or lower from that point people get more intelligent for higher values and less intelligent for lower values, based on IQ (for whatever value that measure has). The distributions are symmetric, and at the extremes there are small numbers of really intelligent people at one end and really unintelligent people at the other end. But they are all just as highly evolved as any other human being because this has nothing to do with intelligence level, just like it has nothing to do with height. Taller peopler are not more highly evolved that shorter people (or vice versa). Human traits follow distributions, and just like other animals and plants they vary in their characteristics.

Thinking of origins is not a simple scientific study it is a belief system that determines how you treat others.

That has to come from looking at things through a religious lens. To me it is a science problem that is still open, and that is all it is. My behavior towards others has absolutely nothing to do with my views on how the universe, or life, came to be.

But why would scientists believe that overpopulation is a problem in the future? We are on the verge of settling other planets and moons.

What? Have you never looked at a population growth map? The exponential growth in human population is already causing resource problems, and this will only get worse (exponentially) as we go forward. As the population grows, the need to supply more food, electricity, fuels, potable water, etc., and manage ever larger quantities of waste and byproducts of our human activity, grow with it. This cannot simply continue forever, and we are many decades if not centuries away from being able to settle on either the moon or Mars, which are the only potential bodies in our solar system we have any chance of inhabiting eventually. The moon and Mars combined do not have the surface area of Earth, and the logistical issues relating to having enough water, oxygen, etc. on both of those locations are monumental. We may get a few test sites set up for a few humans to start the process of figuring out how to potentially survive on other celestial bodies, but the rate that population is growing on Earth is far faster than the time frames where it might be feasible to offload enough humans to make a difference onto other planets or moons. It is really shortsighted to believe that we can just continue to procreate, unchecked, indefinitely and not run into serious problems. But as I said, if we don't do something about it, mother nature will. And it won't be some god deciding it is time for another flood! If things get to the point that humans are fighting for basic resources here to survive, that will just create more instances of humans treating other humans like animals as you put it (ie. wars, genocides, etc.). It won't be pretty.

Anything that defies the laws of probability has to be called a miracle. This is why the multiverse theory states that there has to be an infinite number of universes each having a different quantum signature. Because an infinite number of chances can make anything possible.

You just went from defining a miracle to multiverses. No miracle has ever been demonstrated to have occurred, or the supernatural in general. If something defies the laws of probability (or the mathematics of probability), then it is most likely poorly described or poorly understood and does not actually defy probability. I'd posit that most people who think they were abducted by aliens were either drunk or high (or both), and most probably they were not abducted by aliens.

You could almost say it was a miracle that this cyanobacterium produced enough oxygen for the oxygenation event to happen.

Or, you could say it most likely happened as science understands it today without the need for any miracles. That doesn't defy probability.

Ancient man did understand the hydrologic cycle.

Not this again! We went thought this whole thing ad nauseum with some muslims and Quran passages here not long ago.

I do not see how any modern theory of origins is more rational than believing that a creator God made everything that we see. I see only one EarthScience guy when I look in the mirror. I am only talking to one DrNoGod's. Your belief that science will "eventually sort things out" is simply that a belief that you hold. So why is your creator some unseen random force of nature outside the universe more capable of creating a rational universe than my creator God?

Because your "creator God" is basically as you described ... "some unseen random force." Show that this being exists now or ever did exist and you might have an argument. But absent any evidence whatsoever that such a being exists, it is pointless to attribute anything to it ... especially things like creation of universes and life.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Replying to DrNoGods in post #111]

My point is that how the universe came into existence is an unsolved problem. The Big Bang is the leading hypothesis as far as I am aware, and it has some observational support as well as theoretical support. But it hasn't been proven as the 100%, no doubt about it, theory for how the universe came to be. A god explanation, on the other hand, is entirely without any observational support as no god has even been demonstrated to exist, so attributing anything to such a being has no basis in reality. It is a hypothesis with, so far, no experimental support.

You are missing the point totally. Even if there were a totally viable "Big Bang Theory" that would not the origin of the universe. It might help with your argument on the age of the universe sort of but it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Where did the universe get the energy for this big bang? Where did the space for the big bang come from? The big bang theory starts at the bang what was there before the bang? There had to be something before the bang to produce the bang.

This is why I call your belief a quasi-pantheistic belief system because you have to believe that the universe popped into existence from nothing. You have to believe in "Ex nihilo nihil fit." I just have a tough time believing that nothing created everything that is just not a rational position to have. It is much more rational to believe that an eternal God created everything.

I don't think I ever said that or implied it. What creationists want to do is have us believe that the Earth is only about 6000 years old when we know for a fact that it is around 4.6 billion years old, and they want us to believe that an unidentified god being simply poofed everything into existence when there is zero evidence to support such a proposition. Made up stories, like the many creation myths that exist, are just that ... fiction.

You believe that the universe popped into existence without a cause. At least creationists have a cause for the universe coming into existence.

We live in a society where humans, in general, must follow certain rules of behavior to coexist peacefully without constant conflict. But there has been and probably always will be wars over land, resources, and other things that cause humans to treat other humans worse than we treat most animals. But in general, basic social rules must be in place and honored for a society to prosper and be happy. We have domesticated many animals and plants and grow them for food. Food is necessary to survive. Humans are at the top of the animal food chain, and this domination over other animals allows us to create food sources and manage them in order to survive. We do not include other humans in this category (as food) because society views that as morally wrong and rightfully so, obviously, and it does not require religion to accept this. Morality does not come from religion, it is innate in social animals.

That does not seem to apply to the unborn. That does not seem to be the case in communist countries. If you are speaking of the U.S. and the law and order in the U.S. then you are speaking of a system based on Judeo-Christian principles. In fact, most of the west was based on Judeo-Christian values. Are freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness "innate to social animals." I believe the innate social construct in an animalistic social structure is more like a dictatorship than a society of freedom just like in communism. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted in the U.S. constitution were given because of the belief that all men were created by God with "certain inalienable rights." A society must believe that all men were created equal in order for there to be freedom in that society. Animals do not believe that all are created equal and the social structure is built on the belief that the stronger one is the more that they should have. The facts just do not support your presupposition that morality is innate to social animals.

Evolution does not say, and never has, that someone who is smarter is more highly evolved. Where on earth did you get that one from?

Animal morality that you say you believe.

There is a distribution of intelligence among humans, just as with all other animals, that has a Gaussian shape ("bell curve"). The majority of people are near the center of the distribution (IQs around 100), and as you go higher or lower from that point people get more intelligent for higher values and less intelligent for lower values, based on IQ (for whatever value that measure has). The distributions are symmetric, and at the extremes there are small numbers of really intelligent people at one end and really unintelligent people at the other end. But they are all just as highly evolved as any other human being because this has nothing to do with intelligence level, just like it has nothing to do with height. Taller peopler are not more highly evolved that shorter people (or vice versa). Human traits follow distributions, and just like other animals and plants they vary in their characteristics.

Ota Benga my not agree with you on that.

Ota Benga ( c. 1883 – March 20, 1916) was a Mbuti (Congo pygmy) man, known for being featured in an exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1904, and in a human zoo exhibit in 1906 at the Bronx Zoo.

and it seems Darwin and Haeckel would also disagree with you

Haeckel, of course, was hardly alone in calibrating human beings using an
intellectual and aesthetic scale. Darwin also aligned the human groups on a
developmental trajectory, from the “savage” races to the “civilized.” Darwin thought it
comported better with common usage to speak of one human species with many
varieties or races—but the distinction between species and race, he had long since
argued, was arbitrary.10 The significant differences among the human groups, however,
were clear. He believed, for instance, that the degenerate human variety inhabiting the
Emerald Isle certainly fell well below the mark set by the more civilized groups clustered
in England and Scotland.11 As a typical representative of his class and times, Darwin
also regarded women as intellectually inferior to men.12 Sexual selection, he
maintained, largely accounted for the superiority of the male mind, as well as for the
hierarchical distribution of traits throughout the human groups. The very structure of
evolutionary theory, as Darwin formulated it and Haeckel advanced it, virtually required
that animal species be regarded as sluggishly less developed or progressively more
developed and that the varieties within a species be arranged along a comparable
scale.13 There is, then, little question that both Haeckel and Darwin depicted the human
races as forming a hierarchy, with some varieties displaying more progressive traits
than others. But, of course, neither of these thinkers was original in this respect.
Prominent biologists, writing before the advent of Darwinism, proposed schemes of
racial classification that reflected prevailing conceptions, namely, assumptions that
affirmed the high status of Europeans in the world. http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles ... mitism.pdf

But why would scientists believe that overpopulation is a problem in the future? We are on the verge of settling other planets and moons.
What? Have you never looked at a population growth map? The exponential growth in human population is already causing resource problems, and this will only get worse (exponentially) as we go forward. As the population grows, the need to supply more food, electricity, fuels, potable water, etc., and manage ever larger quantities of waste and byproducts of our human activity, grow with it. This cannot simply continue forever, and we are many decades if not centuries away from being able to settle on either the moon or Mars, which are the only potential bodies in our solar system we have any chance of inhabiting eventually. The moon and Mars combined do not have the surface area of Earth, and the logistical issues relating to having enough water, oxygen, etc. on both of those locations are monumental. We may get a few test sites set up for a few humans to start the process of figuring out how to potentially survive on other celestial bodies, but the rate that population is growing on Earth is far faster than the time frames where it might be feasible to offload enough humans to make a difference onto other planets or moons. It is really shortsighted to believe that we can just continue to procreate, unchecked, indefinitely and not run into serious problems. But as I said, if we don't do something about it, mother nature will. And it won't be some god deciding it is time for another flood! If things get to the point that humans are fighting for basic resources here to survive, that will just create more instances of humans treating other humans like animals as you put it (ie. wars, genocides, etc.). It won't be pretty.

This belief you have comes from. (well mostly propaganda, but I will treat it as some sort of rational thought kind of) But this belief you have comes from your view of origins. And to what extent are you willing to go to change this horrible course that humanity is on!! Eugenics and mandatory sterilization? The killing of children like in China?

These fears come from the belief that no one is driving the bus that we are on. Christians have no such fear. Christians believe that children as a gift from God and they are.

Psalms 127:4-5 (NIV), “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with the opponents in court.”

You can have your belief in fear. I would much rather have hope than fear.

Anything that defies the laws of probability has to be called a miracle. This is why the multiverse theory states that there has to be an infinite number of universes each having a different quantum signature. Because an infinite number of chances can make anything possible.
You just went from defining a miracle to multiverses. No miracle has ever been demonstrated to have occurred, or the supernatural in general. If something defies the laws of probability (or the mathematics of probability), then it is most likely poorly described or poorly understood and does not actually defy probability. I'd posit that most people who think they were abducted by aliens were either drunk or high (or both), and most probably they were not abducted by aliens.

You are hiding behind the veil of reproducibility. Miracles by definition are one-time events and cannot be reproduced, like the origin of the universe. One can have a theory for the origin of the universe but it can never be confirmed because it was a one-time event. And your belief in "Ex nihilo nihil fit" is an irrational belief. So it either must be a miracle or it must be discarded as irrational.

You could almost say it was a miracle that this cyanobacterium produced enough oxygen for the oxygenation event to happen.
Or, you could say it most likely happened as science understands it today without the need for any miracles. That doesn't defy probability.

But again this is an irrational belief. To believe that the earth with a dimmer sun stayed at just the right temperature within 10 C for billions of years is irrational.

Ancient man did understand the hydrologic cycle.
Not this again! We went thought this whole thing ad nauseum with some muslims and Quran passages here not long ago.

I am not sure what you are speaking about but it does not matter.

Because your "creator God" is basically as you described ... "some unseen random force." Show that this existing now or ever did exist and you might have an argument. But absent any evidence whatsoever that such a being exists, it is pointless to attribute anything to it ... especially things like the creation of universes and life.

Origins are the ultimate proof. The origin of life is a miracle to modern man, the origin of the universe is a miracle to modern man. A person can believe in your pantheism that nature performed the miracles needed to defy the odds of probability both of which are irrational. Or one can believe that an eternal Creator God created every and is in control of everything.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #112]

Where did the universe get the energy for this big bang? Where did the space for the big bang come from? The big bang theory starts at the bang what was there before the bang? There had to be something before the bang to produce the bang.

I think you missed the point I was making. I'm not making any claims that the Big Bang is correct, or trying to support it. I'm not a physicist or an any way involved with trying to push the Big Bang. My comment was that it is a physics-based description that has some supporting evidence (observational and theoretical), and as far as I know it makes no claim as to how the initial singularity came into existence or that it explains the origin of "everything." It does not address how the initial singularity came to be, just like evolution does not address how life begain on this planet (only that it did by some means ... evolution does not care how that happened). The Big Bang is working backwards from observations that the universe is presently expanding, and going back in time this implies things were much closer together in the distant past. But there is a singularity at the start, inflation has not been proven to be a correct explanation, etc. So it is a hypothesis that is still being examined, but at least it has SOME support from observation and measurement. A god creation explanation has nothing, zip, nada as far as any observational or scientific support. It is pulled from thin air and offered up (in many different forms and gods depending on the religion) as an idea that if science cannot yet describe a detailed mechanistic explanation for origins, then the correct explanation must be the actions of a deity. That does not follow.

You believe that the universe popped into existence without a cause. At least creationists have a cause for the universe coming into existence.

I dont' have any "beliefs" on how the universe came into existence. I don't care and it is irrelevant to anything I do or think about. Maybe the physicsts of the world will figure it out one day, but I spend zero time thinking about it or caring about it. But if it comes up for discussion, I certainly would rather believe a physics explanation than some creation myth explanation, because the creation myths (all of them) have ZERO supporting evidence. Your "cause" for the universe coming into existence is a made up god being that has never been shown to exist.

The facts just do not support your presupposition that morality is innate to social animals.

You described your own "facts", then made an assumption based on these. I won't bother to try and unravel it. But if you can't see that sheep and cows and ants live by some cooperative social rules, as do humans, then I don't know what to tell you.

These fears come from the belief that no one is driving the bus that we are on.

We are driving the bus we are on. And we need to figure out how to stop adding so many people to it.

You can have your belief in fear. I would much rather have hope than fear.

More made up "facts" and inferences. I don't live in fear or "believe in fear" in the context you have created. Theories of origins have no impact on what I think or how I behave, and neither do bible verses.

Miracles by definition are one-time events and cannot be reproduced ...

How convenient!

But again this is an irrational belief. To believe that the earth with a dimmer sun stayed at just the right temperature within 10 C for billions of years is irrational.

The whole story you presented earlier about this requirement for a temperature range of 10C for billions of years is just another made-up "fact." Some creationist came up with this to try and make a case for whatever nonsense they were trying to support. I'd guess it is similar to Humphreys' magnetic field gibberish.

Or one can believe that an eternal Creator God created every and is in control of everything.

If only there were a shred of evidence for this ... but there isn't.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #113]

I think you missed the point I was making.

I was understanding the point you were trying to make. And I understand why your curiosity would stop at the Big Bang's theory singularity.

as far as I know, it makes no claim as to how the initial singularity came into existence or that it explains the origin of "everything." It does not address how the initial singularity came to be, just like evolution does not address how life began on this planet

The entire discussion of origins is explaining how the initial singularity came into existence and how life came into existence if that is what you believe. Close your eyes if you wish but the bottom line is there is no explanation outside of a Creator God. Period.

A god creation explanation has nothing, zip, nada as far as any observational or scientific support. It is pulled from thin air and offered up (in many different forms and gods depending on the religion) as an idea that if science cannot yet describe a detailed mechanistic explanation for origins, then the correct explanation must be the actions of a deity. That does not follow.

This is an incorrect statement. There are certain qualities something or someone must have in order to be eternal. Things like

Omnipotent infinite power
exist outside of our space and our time.
Omnipresent must be everywhere and at every point in time.

if the above or true then a being would naturally be omniscient all-knowing.

Whatever it is was that created this universe it had to be eternal.

I dont' have any "beliefs" on how the universe came into existence.

Your right you can't and still maintain some sort of rational view of your existence. Any view outside of a creator God leads to irrationality.

I don't care and it is irrelevant to anything I do or think about.

Then why do you discuss it so much on this site? Why would even be on this site if you do not think about it? Don't get me wrong I do enjoy our discussions. But your actions do not indicate what you are trying to express.

Your "cause" for the universe coming into existence is a made-up god being that has never been shown to exist.

Your belief does not change the FACT that a creator God is the only rational explanation there is for this universe.

You described your own "facts", then made an assumption based on these. I won't bother to try and unravel it. But if you can't see that sheep and cows and ants live by some cooperative social rules, as do humans, then I don't know what to tell you.

Do you really believe that only the strong and powerful should rule and dominate those that are not? That is the social structure of sheep, cows, and ants.

We are driving the bus we are on. And we need to figure out how to stop adding so many people to it.

Why do should we stop adding people to the bus? You believe people are the problem. I believe and the Bible teaches that people are who God uses as solutions. You have a fear of adding people to the bus thinking that will eventually reach compacity. I believe that at some point in the future if the Lord does not come back again. God will use men to make the bus larger.

One belief leads to a culture of death and the other leads to a culture of life. Which one you believe leads where depends on what you believe about origins.

More made-up "facts" and inferences. I don't live in fear or "believe in fear" in the context you have created. Theories of origins have no impact on what I think or how I behave, and neither do bible verses.

You just said that we need to stop adding people to the bus. You have a fear of overpopulation.

Miracles by definition are one-time events and cannot be reproduced ...
How convenient!

How else would you define them? They would not be "Miracles" if they happen all the time. If these events happen all of the time they would be laws of nature. By definition, if you believe that a singularity created this universe, that singularity would be a miracle. I do not think that anyone has observed a singularity creating a universe before.

But again this is an irrational belief. To believe that the earth with a dimmer sun stayed at just the right temperature within 10 C for billions of years is irrational.
The whole story you presented earlier about this requirement for a temperature range of 10C for billions of years is just another made-up "fact." Some creationist came up with this to try and make a case for whatever nonsense they were trying to support. I'd guess it is similar to Humphreys' magnetic field gibberish.

Look up the optimal temperature for cyanobacteria. It falls in 10 C range. It dies at 35 C and 16 C and it has it's the highest production between like 20 and 30 degrees C.

Or one can believe that an eternal Creator God created every and is in control of everything.
If only there were a shred of evidence for this ... but there isn't.

It is not about evidence. There have been many atheist scientists who have looked into the claims of the Bible and found ample evidence to believe what the Bible states as truth. Many of them work at creationist organizations.

All theories without a creator God leads to irrationality. But that does not stop men from BELIEVING that the universe somehow did the impossible.

[brunumb]

Close your eyes if you wish but the bottom line is there is no explanation outside of a Creator God. Period.

That surely must be an exemplar of the closed mind.

There are certain qualities something or someone must have in order to be eternal. Things like
Omnipotent infinite power
exist outside of our space and our time.
Omnipresent must be everywhere and at every point in time.

Do you have any way of demonstrating that this claim is true? It seems more likely that these qualities have been plucked out of the air to somehow coincide with the invented definition a creator being. How convenient.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #114]

... the bottom line is there is no explanation outside of a Creator God. Period.

The fatal weakness of that argument is that no such being has ever been shown to exist, but you ignore that fundamental fact and attribute fantastical things to this completely made up entity. Of course, humans have invented thousands of such beings over the millennia and you've evidently chosen just one of them, and presumably discard all the others.

There are certain qualities something or someone must have in order to be eternal. Things like

Omnipotent infinite power
exist outside of our space and our time.
Omnipresent must be everywhere and at every point in time.

if the above or true then a being would naturally be omniscient all-knowing.

Maybe, but this is all a tale of fiction so you can make up all kinds of things like this. But again, the fundamental problem you have is that gods, as far as we know now, are imaginary and don't actually exist.

Your right you can't and still maintain some sort of rational view of your existence. Any view outside of a creator God leads to irrationality.

"You're" (a pet peeve). But this isn't correct. One view outside of a creator God is that there is some natural, physical explanation that is consistent with physics, chemistry, etc. and we simply don't know what the mechanism is yet. This is not irrational ... it just rejects god explanations because they have no basis in reality. If anything, that explanation is irrational because no god beings have been shown to exist yet.

Then why do you discuss it so much on this site?

I only bring it up in response to your constant reversion to origins for nearly any discussion. I don't recall ever bringing up a discussion of origins that wasn't in response to some claim of yours that a god being is responsible for creating the universe, or life, or something related to an evolution discussion.

Do you really believe that only the strong and powerful should rule and dominate those that are not? That is the social structure of sheep, cows, and ants.

My point was that these animals, and many others, have a social structure and "rules" for behavior within it. If the rule is that the strongest walrus gets to mate with the harem and he has to physically beat up all challenging males to get that right, then that is a social structure that requires certain behavior to be followed by all members. If one male decided he would kill and eat newborns there would be trouble for that male within the group because it violates the "morals" they inherently know for whatever reason. Male lions will sometimes kill existing cubs if they take over a pride, but I'm not sure anyone knows why they do that.

Why do should we stop adding people to the bus?

Because only so many people can fit on it before it becomes overloaded and there are no more seats or standing room. The Earth does not have unlimited resources, and if the human population continues to grow exponentially, at some point there will simply be too many compared to available resources. It is very simple. We can continue to improve efficiencies in food production, etc. to try and keep up, but it is a race that will eventually run into trouble as we drain resources beyond a certain point. Some religious people, like the Duggars who have something like 20 kids (on purpose) argue that every child is a gift from god and that there is no limit to how many humans can inhabit Earth, which is utter nonsense. I suppose that if you think Jesus is coming back "soon" to take all the Christians to heaven then you might not care, but if that event continues to never happen as is most likely, then at some point there will simply be too many humans for the available resources and there will likely be massive wars as people fight to maintain their share. If enough people are killed in some event like that, then mother nature will indeed have at least delayed the inevitable.

You just said that we need to stop adding people to the bus. You have a fear of overpopulation.

It isn't a fear, it is a concern, because I will be dead well before there is a problem. But yes, I think overpopulation is a big problem that we need to address in the coming decades simply because of the limited resources available on this planet, and the considerable time before we can inhabit the moon or Mars if either is actually feasible for large numbers of people.

By definition, if you believe that a singularity created this universe, that singularity would be a miracle. I do not think that anyone has observed a singularity creating a universe before.

I don't believe a singularity created the universe, but the mathematics of the Big Bang have a problem in that a singularity exists at t=0. This is one reason people believe (as far as I've read ... I'm not in the theoretical physics business) that there are errors in the formalism. But in any case there is no need to invoke miracles, which in the biblical sense are just magic acts by a god. How many people did the biblical god supposedly raise from the dead? More than one, so if each of those events were a miracle then obviously all miracles are not one time events.

Many of them work at creationist organizations.

Of course they do! Where else could they practice creation "science"?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #115]

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:10 am
Close your eyes if you wish but the bottom line is there is no explanation outside of a Creator God. Period.
That surely must be an exemplar of the closed mind.

No, that would be an assessment of the current theories on origins.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 10:10 am
There are certain qualities something or someone must have in order to be eternal. Things like
Omnipotent infinite power
exist outside of our space and our time.
Omnipresent must be everywhere and at every point in time.
Do you have any way of demonstrating that this claim is true? It seems more likely that these qualities have been plucked out of the air to somehow coincide with the invented definition a creator being. How convenient.

I am not understanding why this is so difficult to comprehend.

Everything consumes energy to exist. So if something has existed forever, then it must be omnipotent. Energy neither increasing nor decreasing.

Time is a function of this universe. For something to create this universe then it must exist outside the time and space of this universe.

If something exists outside of space and time, then space and time do not bind something to a particular time or space.

These qualities are a natural consequence of something that is eternal that exists outside of space and time.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

... the bottom line is there is no explanation outside of a Creator God. Period.


The fatal weakness of that argument is that no such being has ever been shown to exist, but you ignore that fundamental fact and attribute fantastical things to this completely made up entity. Of course, humans have invented thousands of such beings over the millennia and you've evidently chosen just one of them, and presumably discard all the others.

Actually most religious people today believe in the Genesis account of creation. (Muslims believe Genesis is true.) And the other religions of the world believe like you believe that the universe was created in some sort of pantheistic way. So really this is an argument about only two possibilities. Either the universe was created by a Creator God or was it created in some sort of pantheistic way.

There are certain qualities something or someone must have in order to be eternal. Things like

Omnipotent infinite power
exist outside of our space and our time.
Omnipresent must be everywhere and at every point in time.

if the above or true then a being would naturally be omniscient all-knowing.
Maybe, but this is all a tale of fiction so you can make up all kinds of things like this. But again, the fundamental problem you have is that gods, as far as we know now, are imaginary and don't actually exist.

There is evidence, Jesus.

It is your pantheistic belief system that does not have any evidence or possible explanation of the creation of the universe.

Your right you can't and still maintain some sort of rational view of your existence. Any view outside of a creator God leads to irrationality.
"You're" (a pet peeve). But this isn't correct. One view outside of a creator God is that there is some natural, physical explanation that is consistent with physics, chemistry, etc. and we simply don't know what the mechanism is yet. This is not irrational ... it just rejects god explanations because they have no basis in reality. If anything, that explanation is irrational because no god beings have been shown to exist yet.

You are correct my was horrible grammar.

Again your belief does not equate to fact. Just because someone believes the moon is made of cheese does not mean that it is. And again the God of the Bible has been shown to exist in the God-man Jesus.

Then why do you discuss it so much on this site?
I only bring it up in response to your constant reversion to origins for nearly any discussion. I don't recall ever bringing up a discussion of origins that wasn't in response to some claim of yours that a god being is responsible for creating the universe, or life, or something related to an evolution discussion.

I did not bring up this discussion. The topic is all about origins. "Were Adam and Eve the first humans?" This would be a discussion on the origin of man.

Do you really believe that only the strong and powerful should rule and dominate those that are not? That is the social structure of sheep, cows, and ants.
My point was that these animals, and many others, have a social structure and "rules" for behavior within it. If the rule is that the strongest walrus gets to mate with the harem and he has to physically beat up all challenging males to get that right, then that is a social structure that requires certain behavior to be followed by all members. If one male decided he would kill and eat newborns there would be trouble for that male within the group because it violates the "morals" they inherently know for whatever reason. Male lions will sometimes kill existing cubs if they take over a pride, but I'm not sure anyone knows why they do that.

No, your point was where our morals come from. So if the animal social norm that the strong and powerful should rule and dominate then why should that not be man's view of morality? Why would a dominant person give up that kind of power and control?

Why do should we stop adding people to the bus?
Because only so many people can fit on it before it becomes overloaded and there are no more seats or standing room. The Earth does not have unlimited resources, and if the human population continues to grow exponentially, at some point there will simply be too many compared to available resources. It is very simple. We can continue to improve efficiencies in food production, etc. to try and keep up, but it is a race that will eventually run into trouble as we drain resources beyond a certain point.

That is a very pessimistic view of the future. But you have a good reason, I would not want to put my faith in man. Men left to themselves have a horrible track record. Just look at the political systems of the world, communism which is based on a system without God, and democracy which was born out of the reformation and was and still is dependent on God. The shift in America to the left is evidence of America's shift from being dependent on God to be dependent on man. You were current. When a man is left to himself without God he will move to an animalistic social structure.

No, the Earth does not have unlimited resources that is why God a world that can recycle the resources when they are used. He also gave man the creativity to increase the production of resources and to develop other resources. Take for example food. Plant growth will increase if more carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere and if the Earth warms then there will be more arable land. In fact, there is evidence in the rock layers that the CO2 levels were between 1000 to 2000 ppm. The earth is still closer to the death level of 150 ppm than to the optimal levels of 1000-2000 ppm. So if you want to help the starving people around the world go burn down a tank of hydrocarbons. Maybe the Lord is going to wait to come back and is increasing the CO2 levels to feed the 20 billion people what will be on this planet and probably by that time under the ocean.

Some religious people, like the Duggars who have something like 20 kids (on purpose) argue that every child is a gift from god and that there is no limit to how many humans can inhabit Earth, which is utter nonsense. I suppose that if you think Jesus is coming back "soon" to take all the Christians to heaven then you might not care, but if that event continues to never happen as is most likely, then at some point there will simply be too many humans for the available resources and there will likely be massive wars as people fight to maintain their share. If enough people are killed in some event like that, then mother nature will indeed have at least delayed the inevitable.

Well, that is a very dark view of the future. I believe I am catching a trend. So we need to become like China and kill the children of those that have too many. And again we come back to origins and the discussion of when life begins. Contraception pills do not stop life they kill life. The egg is fertilized and then the contraception pill keeps the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall.

I don't believe a singularity created the universe, but the mathematics of the Big Bang have a problem in that a singularity exists at t=0. This is one reason people believe (as far as I've read ... I'm not in the theoretical physics business) that there are errors in the formalism. But in any case there is no need to invoke miracles, which in the biblical sense are just magic acts by a god. How many people did the biblical god supposedly raise from the dead? More than one, so if each of those events were a miracle then obviously all miracles are not one time events.

They were one time events for that time and place. In fact, many were raised when Jesus died.

Matthew 27
51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people

One event because God made the choice to perform this miracle. Paul prayed for Eutychus and he came back to life. One event because God made the choice to raise Eutychus from the dead. These events are not caused by laws of nature but by the choice of a being to add energy into our space-time so as to work outside the laws of this universe. So each of these instances is a one-time event in the sense that God is choosing at that instant to work outside of the normal laws of nature.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #118]

And again the God of the Bible has been shown to exist in the God-man Jesus.

If this character did exist, there's no evidence that he was a "God-man" or in any way some sort of divine being. I would not doubt that some hippy type preacher calling himself Jesus might have been running around in the Middle East 2000 years ago claiming to be a prophet or a god, because that wasn't all that uncommon. But his description in one holy book does not make the claims true. Why don't Muslims or Jews consider Jesus any more than a "normal" prophet? This is a Christian specialty and not backed up outside of the Christian holy book.

No, your point was where our morals come from. So if the animal social norm that the strong and powerful should rule and dominate then why should that not be man's view of morality? Why would a dominant person give up that kind of power and control?

Our morals come from being social animals, and the need to have some sort of rules of behavior that allow us to survive and not kill ourselves off (although we may do that one day). There are plenty of countries in the world where the strongest or most organized do in fact dominate their populations and treat them horribly (North Korea comes to mind, and some Afican countries ran by strong-man dictators). This kind of behavior is not entirely the domain of other animals besides humans, and I'd argue that plenty of herd animal examples treat their fellow members better than Kim Jong Un does his population. And there are religious groups, or those who use religion as an excuse (eg. ISIS, the Taliban, etc.) who appear to have no morals when it comes to people who don't agree with them. Where does their lack of morals come from?

Maybe the Lord is going to wait to come back and is increasing the CO2 levels to feed the 20 billion people what will be on this planet and probably by that time under the ocean.

Well, someone who would cause a great flood to kill off the humans he'd made probably would have no problem increasing CO2 levels to the point of flooding all coastal cities due to the resulting sea level rise. Why not kill a few million more for fun? Are you predicting the return of Jesus to save all the Christians at the time the Earth's population reaches 20 billion? Fertility rates may fall to prevent that, or wars over resources, etc., but maybe its time for yet another prediction of the event to keep hopes up.

So we need to become like China and kill the children of those that have too many.

No, we just need to slow down the rate of population growth and recocgnize that at the rate we are going there will be resource limitations in the distant future if we do nothing.

[brunumb]

Everything consumes energy to exist. So if something has existed forever, then it must be omnipotent. Energy neither increasing nor decreasing.

If everything, then your God who has existed forever should have consumed all energy. So it's everything, except your God I suppose. Now you just have to demonstrate that this being is not an if. By the way, energy is not consumed. Food is consumed, energy is transformed.

Time is a function of this universe. For something to create this universe then it must exist outside the time and space of this universe.

You are assuming that this universe was created. You also talk about being outside of time and space as if this concept has meaning. If it does, please explain and tell us how the existence of this state was established.

If something exists outside of space and time, then space and time do not bind something to a particular time or space.

There's that if again. You have no case until you establish that existing outside of time and space is a meaningful concept and that something actually exists in that state.

These qualities are a natural consequence of something that is eternal that exists outside of space and time.

Saying so doesn't make it so. Try actually demonstrating that these qualities are a natural consequence of something that is eternal that exists outside of space and time. You have made no case at all.