Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #101

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #99]
But the problem with your faith in science is that it has already failed to bring clarity to man's deepest questions of where he came from.
Why should science have any interest in this question other than as a potential way to explain it that does not require gods or miracles? It is a philosophical problem and not a science problem if cast as "man's deepest question of where he came from." I personally don't care in the slightest whether or not science answers the questions of how the universe came into being, or how life came to exist on this planet. They are interesting things to speculate about, or research if you are that sort of person and want answers rooted in science, but for me the answers to these questions are not "deep", and have no practical influence on anything in my life going forward. If humans go extinct before either of these questions are answered by science then who cares?
There is no absolute truth in your statement above. There is no appeal to rational thought in your statement above. Your statement above is nothing more than a subjective thought of yours. It is not based in fact.
I think you read way too much into my statement. All I said was that miracles are not needed to explain anything, or the default answer if science has yet to explain something. Miracles have never been demonstrated to be real, so appealing to a miracle explanation actually ticks all of the boxes in your quote above. There is no absolute truth to a miracle explanation, there is no appeal to rational thought as miracles have never been demonstrated to have happened, invoking a miracle explanation is certainly not objective, and since miracles have never been demonstrated to exist they are not based in fact.
But creationists believe in absolute truth and understand that there must be a rational explanation of what we see on the surface of the Earth.
No ... creationists believe in a purely made up (by men ignorant of science due to their time in history) story of a god simply poofing everything into existence from nothing. This is anything but a rational explanation of what we see on the surface of the Earth. Science, on the other hand, tries to find explanations that can be supported by evidence, logically make sense, are consistent with other known science, and stand up to scrutiny and the test of time. That is far more rational than belief that the Genesis creation myth is actually true.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #102

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #101]
Why should science have any interest in this question other than as a potential way to explain it that does not require gods or miracles? It is a philosophical problem and not a science problem if cast as "man's deepest question of where he came from." I personally don't care in the slightest whether or not science answers the questions of how the universe came into being, or how life came to exist on this planet. They are interesting things to speculate about, or research if you are that sort of person and want answers rooted in science, but for me the answers to these questions are not "deep", and have no practical influence on anything in my life going forward. If humans go extinct before either of these questions are answered by science then who cares?
Your comments on this issue are not indicative of the apathy that you say you have on this issue. Again you say that science does not have an answer for the issue of origins and yet you say that people can research this if they want answers rooted in science.

This does have a great practical influence on every human being. What a person believes about where they came from and their place in the universe affects the morality of life. Like when does life begin? When does life end? Does it end when the quality of life is poor? Does it end when a person is no longer a productive member of society?

If a person believes what we are nothing more than a smart ape, that luckily evolved in a universe that is not simply a Boltzmann brain or perhaps they believe that we are nothing more than random energy inside of a Boltzmann brain. Then human life has no better than any other animal on this planet. And death can be determined by those who control society. One only needs to look at the societies that Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and North Korea built as evidence of this fact.

You have spoken past occasions of a man being nothing more than a smart ape. So what gives the life of man value? If a man is not different than apes why should a man not be treated like the animal that he is? If men are overpopulating the earth as some say then why should men not be killed to make sure that our species do not go extinct?

What one believes about their place in the universe is how a man answers the questions above. So this is not some mere walk down some philosophical walkway. It has a real application to how men treat other men.


There is no absolute truth in your statement above. There is no appeal to rational thought in your statement above. Your statement above is nothing more than a subjective thought of yours. It is not based in fact.

I think you read way too much into my statement. All I said was that miracles are not needed to explain anything, or the default answer if science has yet to explain something. Miracles have never been demonstrated to be real, so appealing to a miracle explanation actually ticks all of the boxes in your quote above. There is no absolute truth to a miracle explanation, there is no appeal to rational thought as miracles have never been demonstrated to have happened, invoking a miracle explanation is certainly not objective, and since miracles have never been demonstrated to exist they are not based in fact.
Science states that there have to be miracles for life as we know it to come about. Take for example the constants of nature that have to be exactly as they are for life as we know it to exist. Why do they have these values? It is at this point people employ the anthropic principle. They are what they are because if they were not then we would not be here discussing this. They cannot admit that it is a miracle because then that would imply a miracle worker but there is also no explanation for it either. The same can be said of the origin of life from inanimate chemicals and there are others. We could get into the meteor impacts and Cambrian explosion all of which are unexplainable by science and therefore miracles. You may try to argue, that science has just not developed enough to solve these miracles, but that again would be your belief not based on any observation of science.


But creationists believe in absolute truth and understand that there must be a rational explanation of what we see on the surface of the Earth.

No ... creationists believe in a purely made up (by men ignorant of science due to their time in history) story of a god simply poofing everything into existence from nothing. This is anything but a rational explanation of what we see on the surface of the Earth. Science, on the other hand, tries to find explanations that can be supported by evidence, logically make sense, are consistent with other known science, and stand up to scrutiny and the test of time. That is far more rational than the belief that the Genesis creation myth is actually true.
You have already conceded above that science cannot explain the universe as we know it and that "do not care" about the origins issue. This is nothing more than a belief statement of yours based not on scientific observation but simply on some religious belief of yours that borders on pantheism.

Again
Your beginning premise that science will one day find the answer to the origin of the universe fly's in the face of our modern understanding of time, space, and energy.

A Biblical understanding does not violate any laws of nature that man has discovered. The laws of physics point to the FACT that there has to be something that has existed eternally and for anything to exist eternally then there have to be certain qualities that it must have. From these facts alone the qualities of a Biblical God can be deduced and they match perfectly with the God that is described in the Bible.
Again you are free to believe as you wish. But just because you believe something to be true does not make it true. Modern science has no answer to how the universe and life came into being with our current understanding of time, space, and energy. You can believe that there is something out there that defies our understanding of time, space, and energy. But what you believe any better than what I believe. Because what you believe makes you not accountable to the one who created everything? And that is always the bottom line in these discussions.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #103

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to brunumb in post #100]
Most physicists agree that time had a beginning, and that it is measured from, and indeed came into being with, The Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago. So, hhow that squares up with 'eternally' is not clear. In any case, whatever qualities one attributes to something that has existed eternally must be pure supposition at best. Care to elaborate on those qualities and explain how they must be possessed by something eternal?
Most physicists agree that there had to be something that spawned this universe. In other words, something had to exist before this universe to create this universe. And what created this universe had to be eternal. So for anything to be eternal, it has to have some basic characteristics.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #104

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:09 pm Again you are free to believe as you wish. But just because you believe something to be true does not make it true. Modern science has no answer to how the universe and life came into being with our current understanding of time, space, and energy.
That works both ways. When you invent a god that can do anything then all you are doing is inventing an answer to all questions. But, in reality, you have answered nothing.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #105

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:18 pm So for anything to be eternal, it has to have some basic characteristics.
What are those characteristics and how do you demonstrate that they are necessary, or even possible?
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 379 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #106

Post by Diagoras »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:18 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #100]]
Most physicists agree that there had to be something that spawned this universe. In other words, something had to exist before this universe to create this universe.
‘Spawned’ as a scientific term is more commonly used when describing reproductive methods (e.g. fish), but when we’re investigating potential causes for the observable universe, there are at least a couple of theories which can be empirically tested, given the advances in measurements for gravitational waves, for instance.

Here’s a fairly detailed yet accessible article that talks about ‘before the Big Bang’:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-2006-02/

It doesn’t address any point about Adam and Eve, of course, but then these threads rarely stay on topic anyway.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #107

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #102]
Your comments on this issue are not indicative of the apathy that you say you have on this issue. Again you say that science does not have an answer for the issue of origins and yet you say that people can research this if they want answers rooted in science.
I'm saying that science does not YET have full, accepted mechanistic explanations for the origins issues (universe, life), but there are legitimate hypotheses that are still being investigated (eg. the Big Bang). Your position is apparently that science should give up and we should accept some god being as a creator when no such being has ever been shown to exist. That explanation is certainly not more legitimate than the science hypotheses, and I would argue far less so simply due to the total lack of evidence for the existence of gods.
Like when does life begin? When does life end? Does it end when the quality of life is poor? Does it end when a person is no longer a productive member of society?
The questions of when life begins, and when it ends, for humans, are pretty simple to answer in a biological context, especially the ending part. Life ends for a human when it dies and the physical body can longer sustain brain activity. The beginning could be defined as when an egg is fertilized by a sperm and the process begins that builds a new human, although for some time after fertilization the growing bundle of cells is incapable of being aware of its existence. But I would still call that bundle of cells as the beginnings of a new human. Quality of life for an existing human is an entirely different question, and as evidenced by the number suicides each year there are a large number of people who conclude that their quality of life isn't worth continuing. But that has nothing to do with the biological question of when life begins and when it ends.
You have spoken past occasions of a man being nothing more than a smart ape. So what gives the life of man value? If a man is not different than apes why should a man not be treated like the animal that he is? If men are overpopulating the earth as some say then why should men not be killed to make sure that our species do not go extinct?
The fossil record and the genetics work of the last 4-5 decades shows us that man is indeed an evolved "smart ape" taxonomically. A highly advanced brain is our main evolutionary advantage as far as being "kings' of the animal kingdom, and no doubt our brains are significantly more capable than our nearest relatives. But this does not mean there is some special place for man in the grand scheme of things or that we are special in that regard. It just means we evolved a highly complex and capable brain, and that led to an intelligence level that far exceeds that of any other animal. This level of intelligence allows us to contemplate gods and afterlives, and think we are special creations because we are so intelligent compared to apes or other animals alive today. But it in no way means that those contemplations are correct just because we can think of them.

As for overpolulation, that is a serious issue that is causing our present resource problems. The Earth does not have infinite resources, and it cannot sustain an infinite population of humans. We have continuously improved our ability to grow more food in less acreage, engineer cows to produce more milk, etc. etc. But anthropogenic activity cannot ignore the need to control population at some point to avoid draining available resources. There won't be problems in my lifetime, but we have had exponential population growth for centuries now and at some point either us humans will have to get a handle on it, or mother nature will.
Science states that there have to be miracles for life as we know it to come about. Take for example the constants of nature that have to be exactly as they are for life as we know it to exist. Why do they have these values? It is at this point people employ the anthropic principle. They are what they are because if they were not then we would not be here discussing this.
First, science does not state that miracles of any kind have to exist or ever have existed. Miracles are not in the domain of science. As for the constants of nature, life evolved within the conditions that existed before it came to exist. Any life forms not compatible with the environmental conditions in which is exists could obviously not exist. Before the Earth's atmosphere was oxygenated a very different set of organisms existed that were largely killed off when the oxygenation events occurred. Life evolved within the environment that was conducive to it ... the environment was not "created" to accommodate specific life forms.
You have already conceded above that science cannot explain the universe as we know it and that "do not care" about the origins issue. This is nothing more than a belief statement of yours based not on scientific observation but simply on some religious belief of yours that borders on pantheism.
I have not concluded that science cannot explain the universe as we know it, I am simply saying that a potential scientific explanation makes a lot more sense than saying that we don't yet have perfect, complete explanations for every detail so we should throw our hands in the air and claim a god did it. That made sense 3000 years ago when science was in such a nascent state that it could not even explain rain. But it doesn't make sense now.
But what you believe any better than what I believe. Because what you believe makes you not accountable to the one who created everything? And that is always the bottom line in these discussions.
If you could demonstrate in at least some tiny, door-opening way that there exists some kind of "the one" who created everything, then some of your arguments would be worth debating. But without that our best bet is that science will eventually sort things out. It is the most rational option.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #108

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #107]
I'm saying that science does not YET have full, accepted mechanistic explanations for the origins issues (universe, life), but there are legitimate hypotheses that are still being investigated (eg. the Big Bang). Your position is apparently that science should give up and we should accept some god being as a creator when no such being has ever been shown to exist. That explanation is certainly not more legitimate than the scientific hypotheses, and I would argue far less so simply due to the total lack of evidence for the existence of gods.
Like when does life begin? When does life end? Does it end when the quality of life is poor? Does it end when a person is no longer a productive member of society?
Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make. I understand your quasi-pantheistic belief that the universe created itself. But what you are failing to acknowledge is that there has to be something eternal beyond this universe that gave rise to this universe. There are only three beliefs that men can hold.
1. The belief that the universe we live in is eternal and this has been thoroughly disproved.
2. The belief that there is an eternal universe that created this universe. (This belief has the consequences of there being an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of EarthScienceguy's and DrNoGod's. And in some of those universes you would be the creationist.) In this belief, everyone is a god. Spawning universes simply by making choices.
3. The belief that there is an eternal creator. (I think one EarthScienceGuy is enough)

What evidence do you have that creationist what to stop the pursuit of knowledge? Creationist developed most of modern science as we know it. Creationists have models that can make better predictions than secular models. If anything modern science is handicapped in their belief that the universe was not created.

The questions of when life begins, and when it ends, for humans, are pretty simple to answer in a biological context, especially the ending part. Life ends for a human when it dies and the physical body can longer sustain brain activity. The beginning could be defined as when an egg is fertilized by a sperm and the process begins that builds a new human, although for some time after fertilization the growing bundle of cells is incapable of being aware of its existence. But I would still call that bundle of cells as the beginnings of a new human. Quality of life for an existing human is an entirely different question, and as evidenced by the number suicides each year there are a large number of people who conclude that their quality of life isn't worth continuing. But that has nothing to do with the biological question of when life begins and when it ends.
But the question of when life begins has not been very straight forward in the public arena. There are states that wish to legalize abortion up the 9th month of pregnancy and even after the baby is born. Where does this belief come from? What makes people support ideas like this? Like this article ‘One Child Nation’: Inside China’s Horrifying Child-Killing Policy" https://www.thedailybeast.com/one-child ... ing-policy. This is China's solution to so called overpopulation.

I am not a proponent of physician-assisted suicide and it is not the point I am trying to make. I am speaking senicide. In American culture, it has names like euthanasia or hospice.

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. Hitler's Germany, USSR, China, and North Korea people had to agree with the leadership that there were those that were needed to die because of overpopulation because they were wanting to make some kind of master race or because they did not want their system burdened with elderly health issues.

Scientists can try to make life and death very sterile. But what a person believes about their origins has ramifications on how those in society treat one another.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #109

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]
The fossil record and the genetics work of the last 4-5 decades shows us that man is indeed an evolved "smart ape" taxonomically. A highly advanced brain is our main evolutionary advantage as far as being "kings' of the animal kingdom, and no doubt our brains are significantly more capable than our nearest relatives. But this does not mean there is some special place for man in the grand scheme of things or that we are special in that regard. It just means we evolved a highly complex and capable brain, and that led to an intelligence level that far exceeds that of any other animal. This level of intelligence allows us to contemplate gods and afterlives, and think we are special creations because we are so intelligent compared to apes or other animals alive today. But it in no way means that those contemplations are correct just because we can think of them.
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?

Men can hold to some beliefs that they have but those beliefs mold the thinking of those men. Thinking of origins is not a simple scientific study it is a belief system that determines how you treat others.
As for overpolulation, that is a serious issue that is causing our present resource problems. The Earth does not have infinite resources, and it cannot sustain an infinite population of humans. We have continuously improved our ability to grow more food in less acreage, engineer cows to produce more milk, etc. etc. But anthropogenic activity cannot ignore the need to control the population at some point to avoid draining available resources. There won't be problems in my lifetime, but we have had exponential population growth for centuries now and at some point either us humans will have to get a handle on it, or mother nature will.
I have never understood this argument, especially by those who call themselves scientists. As a Christian yes I believe that God is in control of the population on the Earth and yes this comes out of my belief that God created the universe and everything in it.

But why would scientists believe that overpopulation is a problem in the future? We are on the verge of settling other planets and moons. A scientist has to believe that once other planets are colonized the resources on that planet could be utilized for the betterment of humanity. How many great minds have we lost in this infanticide called abortion?
First, science does not state that miracles of any kind have to exist or ever have existed. Miracles are not in the domain of science. As for the constants of nature, life evolved within the conditions that existed before it came to exist. Any life forms not compatible with the environmental conditions in which is exists could obviously not exist. Before the Earth's atmosphere was oxygenated a very different set of organisms existed that were largely killed off when the oxygenation events occurred. Life evolved within the environment that was conducive to it ... the environment was not "created" to accommodate specific life forms.
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.

Cyanobacteria great example. Cyanobacteria use photosynthesis to change carbon dioxide to oxygen and it was this oxygen that the cyanobacteria generated that produced your great oxygenation event. Which people that believe that the earth is billions of years old believe this cyanobacterium evolved 3.7 billion years ago. When our Sun was 30% dimmer than it is today. So how did cyanobacteria produce all of this oxygen with 30% less sunlight than we have today? Why would they have evolved to use sunlight as their energy source and not geothermal? Have you ever tried growing a garden in the shade. Not very productive. Not only did these cyanobacteria survive in this low sunlight environment they flourished to a point that they produced millions of metric tons of oxygen with less sunlight than we have today. And that was not all the good fortune that this cyanobacterium was privy to. Luckily somehow the earth oceans stayed at the right temperature for this cyanobacteria to produce this great oxygenation event. The oceans stayed right between 20-30 degrees Celcius. Wow, what good fortune that is also!!!! You could almost say it was a miracle that this cyanobacterium produced enough oxygen for the oxygenation event to happen.

I have not concluded that science cannot explain the universe as we know it, I am simply saying that a potential scientific explanation makes a lot more sense than saying that we don't yet have perfect, complete explanations for every detail so we should throw our hands in the air and claim a god did it. That made sense 3000 years ago when science was in such a nascent state that it could not even explain rain. But it doesn't make sense now.

Ancient man did understand the hydrologic cycle.

The prophet Amos writing 2,800 years ago said,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The Lord is His name. (Amos 9:6 NASB)

The book of Job (circa 2000 BC) says,
For He draws up the drops of water,
They distill rain from the mist,
Which the clouds pour down,
They drip upon man abundantly. (Job 36:27-28 NASB)
He wraps up the waters in His clouds,
And the cloud does not burst under them. (Job 26:8 NASB)

Solomon (circa 950 BC) said,
All the rivers flow into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full.
To the place where the rivers flow,

Even the ancient Greeks had a basic understanding of the hydrologic cycle.

An explanation for other atmospheric phenomena was given more than two centuries earlier by Xenophanes of Colophon who

“says…the clouds are formed by the sun's vapor [i.e. vapor caused by the heat from the sun's rays] raising and lifting them to the surrounding air”
Diogenes Laertius (A1.24-5).

“...(says that) things in the heavens occur through the heat of the sun as the initial cause; for when the moisture is drawn up from the sea, the sweet portion, separating because of its fineness and turning into mists, combines into clouds, trickled down in drops of rain due to compression, and vaporizes the winds.”
Aëtius (A46)

“The sea is the source of water and of wind,
For without the great sea, there would be no wind
Nor streams of rivers, nor rainwater from on high
But the great sea is the begetter of clouds, winds, and rivers.”
Xenophanes B30

They made observations and they matched their theories to the observations that they made. Today's theories of origins go beyond any observation and defy all of the physical laws of nature.
If you could demonstrate in at least some tiny, door-opening way that there exists some kind of "the one" who created everything, then some of your arguments would be worth debating. But without that our best bet is that science will eventually sort things out. It is the most rational option.
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?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

Post #110

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Diagoras in post #106]
‘Spawned’ as a scientific term is more commonly used when describing reproductive methods (e.g. fish), but when we’re investigating potential causes for the observable universe, there are at least a couple of theories which can be empirically tested, given the advances in measurements for gravitational waves, for instance.

Here’s a fairly detailed yet accessible article that talks about ‘before the Big Bang’:
Spawned is the perfect term because the multiverse theory states that an infinite number of universes were formed from this mother of all universes.

Which theories are you speaking of?

There are only 3 possibles.

1. Our universe is eternal
2. Our universe was created by an eternal universe
3. Our universe was created by an eternal being

That's it those are the only possibilities. Pick one and defend it.

Post Reply