The Evolution Conflict

[iBrian]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Mohsin - there was a danger of my causing offence, and I am glad to see you didn't take it so.

I think you really indicated the crux of the matter in a later post with the statement:

My question still remains that as the theory is contradicting religion, should it be accepted?

Certainly science is not about "Truth": simply probabilities and possibilities to be tested. Religious texts, on the other hand, often have far deeper levels to it than may always be immediately discernible. Ultimately, where science and religion are perceived to conflict, a person may accept whichever perception suits their worldview and life experience better.

As for these comments:

Ah Brian, the Arabia you speak of was before Islam. And it was more the Persians than the Arabs. Arabs were nomadic in nature, and the Persians built the great cities. Kind of like calling a Iranian or an Afghan an Arab...fighting words.

No offence intended. I was actually referencing about Islam, particularly under the Abbasid Caliphate. A principle difference is that Persians studied astrology, whereas the Abbasid Muslim scholars studied astronomy. The distinction is quite sublime.

Since this topic is all about beginnings, perhps it would be a good idea to research the beginnings of Darwin's theory, "The Voyage of the Beagle."
This treatise contains a concise and accurate description of the credentials of Darwin and his "colleagues", most of whom were not scientists at all!

I have read about half of a certain book I think is named "Voyage of the Beagle" and written by Charles Darwin himself. It's a rather long-in-the-tooth book and not written to support his theories - it's more of a general musing and collection of observations. I can't say I found it particularly interesting, either, excepting for a couple of observations of oceanic phenomena, which is why it was only half-read.

 

[Phi]

I have read about half of a certain book I think is named "Voyage of the Beagle" and written by Charles Darwin himself. It's a rather long-in-the-tooth book and not written to support his theories - it's more of a general musing and collection of observations. I can't say I found it particularly interesting, either, excepting for a couple of observations of oceanic phenomena, which is why it was only half-read.[/QUOTE]

Exactly so, and that is in itself telling... But the site I gave is rather interesting and does give a brief summary of facts regarding the history of the beginnings of the Theory of Evolution, and the credentials of the persons involved in its genesis. It's well worth a quick scanning to see what I mean. And may well enlighten some who did not know about it.

 

[Phi]

Brian, I should have said:
The treatise I refer to is on the page of the site itself, not in the book by Darwin.

 

[Phi]

I have read about half of a certain book I think is named "Voyage of the Beagle" and written by Charles Darwin himself. It's a rather long-in-the-tooth book and not written to support his theories - it's more of a general musing and collection of observations. I can't say I found it particularly interesting, either, excepting for a couple of observations of oceanic phenomena, which is why it was only half-read.

Exactly so, and that is in itself telling... But the site I gave is rather interesting and does give a brief summary of facts regarding the history of the beginnings of the Theory of Evolution, and the credentials of the persons involved in its genesis. It's well worth a quick scanning to see what I mean. And may well enlighten some who did not know about it.

 

[Phi]

Begging pardon....

Sorry for the duplicate post I did this by error as I learn to use the site. This one stayed on as if it had not been posted, so I thought I had forgotten to submit. Others have disappeared somehow... I will get the hang of this soon, though, I'm sure.

 

[Mohsin]

Imporant Viewpoints

I appreciate your efforts Brian. As an administrator you have done well to keep a good, friendly and thoughtful environment. I do not agree completely when you say that science is not about truth as many theories have been proved correct and others incorrect. For example, the Big Bang theory. With the advancement of time, this theory has been proved true while many other theories about the origin of the universe have been proved incorrect. The creation and origin of universe from a single point have also been proved by the Holy Quran and the Bible also testifies that the universe indeed had a creation. I may sound like a person who wants to keep science and religion together and that is exactly what I am trying to do. After I read articals about the scientific miracles of the Holy Quran and verifing them by myself, my view got stronger.

I saw a three part feature lenght documentry by PBS.org that showed the contrabutions of the Muslims in the field of science. The time in which they discovered and invented so many things was actually incradible. The darkages that were mentioned by the Europians were only for the Europians as the Muslims were very advanced in the field of science. These statements were carried out by the professors of the Harward university and I am not claiming them myself.


The purpose for me to start this thread was not only because I am against the Theory of Evolution and I have sufficient evidance to support my claim, biggest one being religion. I also wanted to know whether the Christions and even Jews for that matter hold their religious scriptures dearer or the theory of evolution which contradicts with it. To my astonishment, nobody defended the verses of the Holy Bible. No offence to anyone, but I am seriously disappointed. What if a person wants to be a Christian and you give him a copy of the Holy Bible, he will ask you about this contradiction when he will read that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man created by God and was sent to earth as a punishment for the mistake Adam and Eve(P.B.U.T) commited. What will you tell him? Will you say that the Bible is wrong? Will you say that God have made an error(God forbidding)? What impact will it have on the person?


Now, to keep the argument continued, I have a recorded interview of Richard Dawkins. By the advancement of science especially in the field of genetics and biology, natural selection as a mean for evolution became hard to defend. The complex sturcture of the DNA was not even imaginable under a simple microscope that was present in the time when Darwin proposed this theory. So the scientests resorted to a new concept called mutation. When Richard Dawkin was asked that if he could account for or present any positive affects of mutation, he was speechless. He could not say even a single word. This is because the radioactive rays damage the valuable data from the DNA and a creature becomes a freak of nature. A picture of cow was shown which had an extra leg(moreover like a lump of uncontrolable flesh) near its head.

Many people who support the thoery have been unable to explain the unusual nature, structure and capabilites of many living beings present in the nature. If the evolutionests claim chance for changes, what were the chances for the creation of an eye. Those who know the complex structure of the eye would also know that millions of reations take place from taking the image on the retina to the brain in which it appears invertly.This all happens in less then 20th of a second. It is obvious that an uncompleted eye would be useless. How can any supporter of the theory account for this? This is just one of the many answers which are left unanswered.

 

[Phi]

I appreciate your efforts Brian. As an administrator you have done well to keep a good, friendly and thoughtful environment. I do not agree completely when you say that science is not about truth as many theories have been proved correct and others incorrect. For example, the Big Bang theory. With the advancement of time, this theory has been proved true while many other theories about the origin of the universe have been proved incorrect. The creation and origin of universe from a single point have also been proved by the Holy Quran and the Bible also testifies that the universe indeed had a creation. I may sound like a person who wants to keep science and religion together and that is exactly what I am trying to do. After I read articals about the scientific miracles of the Holy Quran and verifing them by myself, my view got stronger.

I saw a three part feature lenght documentry by PBS.org that showed the contrabutions of the Muslims in the field of science. The time in which they discovered and invented so many things was actually incradible. The darkages that were mentioned by the Europians were only for the Europians as the Muslims were very advanced in the field of science. These statements were carried out by the professors of the Harward university and I am not claiming them myself.


The purpose for me to start this thread was not only because I am against the Theory of Evolution and I have sufficient evidance to support my claim, biggest one being religion. I also wanted to know whether the Christions and even Jews for that matter hold their religious scriptures dearer or the theory of evolution which contradicts with it. To my astonishment, nobody defended the verses of the Holy Bible. No offence to anyone, but I am seriously disappointed. What if a person wants to be a Christian and you give him a copy of the Holy Bible, he will ask you about this contradiction when he will read that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man created by God and was sent to earth as a punishment for the mistake Adam and Eve(P.B.U.T) commited. What will you tell him? Will you say that the Bible is wrong? Will you say that God have made an error(God forbidding)? What impact will it have on the person?


Now, to keep the argument continued, I have a recorded interview of Richard Dawkins. By the advancement of science especially in the field of genetics and biology, natural selection as a mean for evolution became hard to defend. The complex sturcture of the DNA was not even imaginable under a simple microscope that was present in the time when Darwin proposed this theory. So the scientests resorted to a new concept called mutation. When Richard Dawkin was asked that if he could account for or present any positive affects of mutation, he was speechless. He could not say even a single word. This is because the radioactive rays damage the valuable data from the DNA and a creature becomes a freak of nature. A picture of cow was shown which had an extra leg(moreover like a lump of uncontrolable flesh) near its head.

Many people who support the thoery have been unable to explain the unusual nature, structure and capabilites of many living beings present in the nature. If the evolutionests claim chance for changes, what were the chances for the creation of an eye. Those who know the complex structure of the eye would also know that millions of reations take place from taking the image on the retina to the brain in which it appears invertly.This all happens in less then 20th of a second. It is obvious that an uncompleted eye would be useless. How can any supporter of the theory account for this? This is just one of the many answers which are left unanswered.

Good post, IMHO, because you are beyond either/or thinking, and taking a more appropriate whole-brained approach to your thinking. I congratulate you! ( But who am I to judge when congrats are due anyway?)

My question is rather philosophical, and directed to those who believe in "Big Bang" with no G-d involved:
How can there be a "bang" with no ear to hear it?

 

[Mohsin]

I am qoting from a lecture of IRF

A verse of the Holy Qur'an from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ch. No. 21, Verse No. 30, which says. ‘Do not the unbelievers see the heavens and the earth were joined together, and We clove them asunder?’

This verse of the Holy Qur'an speaks about the Big Bang Theory, in a nutshell. Imagine, what we came to know today, the Holy Qur'an mentions 1400 years ago.

And the Qur'an also says in Surah Fussilat, Ch. No. 41, verse 11, that… ‘Moreover, in His design He comprehended the sky, and it had been smoke. And He said to it and the earth, come ye together willingly or unwillingly, and they said we come together in willing obedience’

The Arabic word used here is ‘Dukhan’, which means ‘Smoke’. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the, universe before it was formed, the celestial matter, it was in the state of ‘gas’, and the Arabic word ‘Dukhan’ which means Smoke, is more scientifically correct than mere ‘gas’. And according to Stephen Hawkins, who is a very famous scientist, he said - ‘the discovery of bridges of matter in the space, is the biggest discovery of this century which gives us indisputable evidence of the creation of the universe and the Big Bang Theory’​

The Quran thus verifies The Big Bang theory. I do not even care what a non believer of God states as it was the theory earlier that universe was from infinite time and will last till infinite time. It was mainly because the athiests were dening creation. You must keep in mind that a thing that begins must end. Both the Quran and Bible states about the end of the universe and the Judgement day!

 

[Phi]

I am qoting from a lecture of IRF

A verse of the Holy Qur'an from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ch. No. 21, Verse No. 30, which says. ‘Do not the unbelievers see the heavens and the earth were joined together, and We clove them asunder?’

This verse of the Holy Qur'an speaks about the Big Bang Theory, in a nutshell. Imagine, what we came to know today, the Holy Qur'an mentions 1400 years ago.

And the Qur'an also says in Surah Fussilat, Ch. No. 41, verse 11, that… ‘Moreover, in His design He comprehended the sky, and it had been smoke. And He said to it and the earth, come ye together willingly or unwillingly, and they said we come together in willing obedience’

The Arabic word used here is ‘Dukhan’, which means ‘Smoke’. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the, universe before it was formed, the celestial matter, it was in the state of ‘gas’, and the Arabic word ‘Dukhan’ which means Smoke, is more scientifically correct than mere ‘gas’. And according to Stephen Hawkins, who is a very famous scientist, he said - ‘the discovery of bridges of matter in the space, is the biggest discovery of this century which gives us indisputable evidence of the creation of the universe and the Big Bang Theory’​

The Quran thus verifies The Big Bang theory. I do not even care what a non believer of God states as it was the theory earlier that universe was from infinite time and will last till infinite time. It was mainly because the athiests were dening creation. You must keep in mind that a thing that begins must end. Both the Quran and Bible states about the end of the universe and the Judgement day!

I have read both books with great interest. While every thing that begins must end as you say,(like our bodies) also something that is eternal has neither ending nor beginning. this is said in both.
A scientist would put the words differently but the meaning similar, by saying that energy cannot be created nor destroyed (although it's form can change.)
So how, then, can one who believes in God, believe in an eternal life that has a beginning? (I do not mean any offense, believing as I do that the "energy form" that is our soul came from and returns to the Orignator of all things.)
Both books speak about an end of the world in graphic and dramatic terms.
But both also speak of eternity, and that the world will "be remade" to continue in another better form after "the end." So from this, I must conclude that the "world ending" that is spoken of is an "age ending" rather than a "place ending" per se.
Although according to the descriptions much damage and destruction to "place" would be done in the ending of the old and the coming of the new world.
I hope I have not offended in what I say, as I do not see great disagreement in our thinking on these particular things, and respect your right to your views, even where they may differ from mine.

 

[Shih Yo Chi]

Mohsin, I must admit that I'm having difficulty understanding your perception of creation, my fault, not yours. Could you help me out by explaining your position. I'm curious since you accept the big bang (which to me is on much shakier scientific ground that evolution is), do you accept the current scientific estimate for the time of the big bang? Isn't is something like 5 billion years ago? I'd really like to understand and appreciate your beliefs. Any other creationists, I'd like to hear from you as well. I'm thinking that my perception of what you belive is different than your beliefs.

Just an aside on the big bang. Doesn't the bulk of the scientific proof for the big bang lie in the "red shift" from light from distant galaxies? I've always felt that "rapid expansion is the only thing we know of that can do that" was a fairly weak hypothesis waiting to supplanted by some new discovery. Forgive me if I've grossly misstated this.

 

[iBrian]

I saw a three part feature lenght documentry by PBS.org that showed the contrabutions of the Muslims in the field of science. The time in which they discovered and invented so many things was actually incradible. The darkages that were mentioned by the Europians were only for the Europians as the Muslims were very advanced in the field of science. These statements were carried out by the professors of the Harward university and I am not claiming them myself.

I quite agree - it is a great shame that lessons on the history of science tend to visits the ancient Greek rationalists - and then jump to the Western minds of the Renaissance, completely missing out the very significant contribution by Islam inbetween. Whether we're talking about theoretical issues, such as algebra, or practical issues, such as the Arabic technique of grounding glass lenses for those first proper telescopes, the contribution by Islam was considerable.

The purpose for me to start this thread was not only because I am against the Theory of Evolution and I have sufficient evidance to support my claim, biggest one being religion.

What individual members may or may not believe here is no great concern - so long as everybody is civil then we're happy.

As for discussing criticisms of the Theory of Evolution itself - rather than referencing entire works elsewhere, you may find it makes for easier discussion if you could pull one point at a time from the sources referenced? Simply to help push the discussion more easily.

I also wanted to know whether the Christions and even Jews for that matter hold their religious scriptures dearer or the theory of evolution which contradicts with it. To my astonishment, nobody defended the verses of the Holy Bible. No offence to anyone, but I am seriously disappointed. What if a person wants to be a Christian and you give him a copy of the Holy Bible, he will ask you about this contradiction when he will read that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man created by God and was sent to earth as a punishment for the mistake Adam and Eve(P.B.U.T) commited. What will you tell him? Will you say that the Bible is wrong? Will you say that God have made an error(God forbidding)? What impact will it have on the person?

There are many interpretations of the Creation events in Genesis, certainly within Christianity itself. With the Bible not having been written in English, some Christians certainly take the view that there is ample room to read the account as allegory, rather than literal.

Now, to keep the argument continued, I have a recorded interview of Richard Dawkins.

Heh, some might say he has become to modern science what Jerry Falwell has become to Christianity.

Many people who support the thoery have been unable to explain the unusual nature, structure and capabilites of many living beings present in the nature.

There are certainly clear issues the theory has yet to be able to successfully address. These are not small issues either, but fundamental to the theory itself. However, IMO this is as much to do with our lack of understanding of genetics itself. Unfortunately, it has to be said, some of the strongest proponents of evolutionary theory are either completely blind to these issues, or else ridicule the field of socio-biology itself with trite and meaningless answers that do nothing but help caricature evolution itself as a concept.

 

[Vajradhara]

Mohsin, I must admit that I'm having difficulty understanding your perception of creation, my fault, not yours. Could you help me out by explaining your position. I'm curious since you accept the big bang (which to me is on much shakier scientific ground that evolution is), do you accept the current scientific estimate for the time of the big bang? Isn't is something like 5 billion years ago? I'd really like to understand and appreciate your beliefs. Any other creationists, I'd like to hear from you as well. I'm thinking that my perception of what you belive is different than your beliefs.

Just an aside on the big bang. Doesn't the bulk of the scientific proof for the big bang lie in the "red shift" from light from distant galaxies? I've always felt that "rapid expansion is the only thing we know of that can do that" was a fairly weak hypothesis waiting to supplanted by some new discovery. Forgive me if I've grossly misstated this.

Namaste Shih Yo Chi,

the last data that i had on this was something like 14.6 billion years ago.

personally, i think that the Rapid Inflationary Theory, the so called "Big Bang", isn't a very complete theory given the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics. i'm rather favorably disposed to Dr. Hawkings No Boundary Proposal coupled with the Anthropic principle. we still have to wait for all the data from COBE to be analyzed, with what we've seen so far, some of the predictions of the proposal have been verified.

 

[Phi]

Vajradhara: A quick aside:
I cannot resist, with my love of word play:
In the no boundary proposal, it seems natural to adopt the principle of p-brane democracy. All p-branes are created equal.
I completely agree, I simply spell it differently.

 

[Phi]

God, GUT, TOE & Godel

I makes me chuckle that after all the hoopla, a "Higher Consciousness" ordering the universe seems to be currently taking a front seat in quantum cosmology.
After all the argument against there being a God, after all those people chose to think of science as God, now the high honchos of science are saying, yes there must be God after all.
They cannot explain the orderliness of the universe with their mathmatics, you see.
I shouldn't concern myself overmuch with the current theories. Unless you find them fun to consider and/or are a physicist yourself. Some new information may come from them that will lead to other theories, which will lead to still others. Knowledge may be gained.
But in the end of it, rational thought (left-brain alone) can never reach an ultimate truth. Much less prove one, for provability is weaker than truth.
So, GUT and TOE will never be realized by rational thought and provable theory.
Reread Godel.

 

[Mohsin]

The Big Bang theory is the most acceptable thoery about the creation of the universe. There are enough scientific facts to prove this theory or the most of it, and the claims againt it are not very strong. Please reffer to the following link to know more about it. http://harunyahya.com/create02.php

I have observed that there is a line between science and religion among many people, especially with Christians(no offence). This may have been due to the fact that many scientest were rejected and some even killed by the Church and Christian missioneries(correct me if I am wrong). One must concider that Allah(the allmighty God) is the greatest Scientest of all.

Allah(the all mighty God) says in the Holy Quran,
________________

[2.164] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.​

________________

Thus Allah(the all mighty God) had made everything in a way that the people may learn from it and submit their will to Him.


As I said, and pointed out by several other people, 'as the development in science continues, so does the complexity and the need for a Creator increases'. I would like you to think about the complexity of the planet Earth. It is like a speck of dust when compared to the entire universe.

In a book 'THE CREATOR AND THE COSMOS', the auther Hugh Ross(PH.D.) wrote some statics about this planet.

1: Surface gravity;
If stronger: the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
If weaker: the planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.

2: Thickness of the crust;
If thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
If thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.

3: Rotation period;
If longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
If shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too high.

4: Ozone level in the Atmosphere;
If greater: surface temperature would be too low.
If less: surface temperatures would be too high; and there would be too much ultravoilet radiation at the surface.

5: Seismic Activity;
If greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
If less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoffs) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.​

I addition to this, the inclanation of the earth, the geograghy of the earth, the rotation period of the earth, the atmosphere(77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% carbondioxide) of the earth, it's mass, it's distance from the sun, these and more stats show that this planet has been espacially created with great concideration. Do not forget water which is a key element of life. A great miracle of water is that its density decreases below four degree centigrade and ice thus floats on water maintaining the marine life in the polar and cold regions of the earth. Does it not show that there is a Creator with infinite knowledge and wisdom who has made this planet sutible for life. This all could not have been created just by chance.


The Quran also tells us that Allah(the all mighty God) had created this planet suitable for us.
______________

'It is God Who made the earth a stable home for you and the sky a dome, and formed you, giving you the best of forms, and provided you with good and wholesome things. That is God, your Lord. Blessed be God, the Lord of all the worlds.' (Quran, 40:64)​

______________

There are certainly clear issues the theory has yet to be able to successfully address. These are not small issues either, but fundamental to the theory itself. However, IMO this is as much to do with our lack of understanding of genetics itself. Unfortunately, it has to be said, some of the strongest proponents of evolutionary theory are either completely blind to these issues, or else ridicule the field of socio-biology itself with trite and meaningless answers that do nothing but help caricature evolution itself as a concept.

Although my actual questions are still left unanswered, I believe that I have made the believers of the theory of evolution accept that the theory has got some flaws and cannot account for many issues. If any argument would have been made for it's support, I would have asked another question as I have a long list of them.

I have also observed that many people are being materialistic(I could not think of any other word) and have asked about the afterlife and the eternal life. Let me tell you that God has created everything and can destroy everything. One cannot imagine God's power and wisdom. No good argument about souls can be given as no good experiment on the soul can be made. If God has created us with such great care and wisdom, can He not creat us again.

The Holy Qur'an says in Surah Qiyamah, Ch. No. 75, Verse No. 3 and 4..
____________

'The unbelievers ask, that how will Allah (SWT) be able to reassemble our bones’. Allah says… ‘We can not only reassemble the bones, We can even reconstruct in perfect order the very finger tips’.​

____________
Here is another miracle of the Holy Quran. It is referring to the finger printing method, which was discovered by Sir Francis Gold in 1880, and he said that - ‘No two finger prints, of two individuals are equal even in a million people’.

 

[Kaldayen]

Hi again Mohsin,

With the amazing quantity of planets in the universe, dont you think it's just normal to have one (at least) that has all those 5 caracteristics? As for the atmosphere, many lifeforms don't need those proportions (just think of everything that lives in water). If our atmosphere had had more oxygen, humans could have evolved accordingly.

You say that all the fossil record that have been found are fake or are monkey skulls, etc... well, as a student in archaeology, you'll understand I have some trouble accepting your opinion. Everyday, we find more and more information in accord with the theory of evolution.

That said, accepting the theory of evolution doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in some kind of superior power or that we draw a line between the two. It doesn't even mean we don't believe in the Bible or the Quran. It just mean we interpret it differently than you do.

Although my actual questions are still left unanswered, I believe that I have made the believers of the theory of evolution accept that the theory has got some flaws and cannot account for many issues.

Every theory has flaws, that's why scientists can keep on studying That's also why we're debating of the flaws of evolutionism and those of creationism.

 

[Marsh]

Why is it always either-or with religion and science?

Here's a couple of interesting passages from Genesis chapter 4 (just after Cain killed Abel):

13-14: Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'

At the time the population of the earth consisted of: Adam, Eve, Cain. Who was going to find and kill Cain? Certainly not his own parents! But let's continue:

17: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

Now, the only woman on the face of the earth was Eve, but Cain took a wife. Where did this wife come from? This is a pretty big question to go unanswered, isn't it?

Can both be true? Can it be true that God created Adam as the first of a species called "man," and from Adam created a female counterpart named "woman," but at the same time there was already another species on the earth, similar to Adam and Eve in appearance, and compatible for reproduction (just like certain dogs and certain wolves can mate and have offspring)? After all, God created the "beasts of the earth" before he created mankind. Just a thought.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Marsh!

Here's a couple of interesting passages from Genesis chapter 4 (just after Cain killed Abel):

13-14: Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'

At the time the population of the earth consisted of: Adam, Eve, Cain. Who was going to find and kill Cain? Certainly not his own parents! But let's continue:

17: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

Now, the only woman on the face of the earth was Eve, but Cain took a wife. Where did this wife come from? This is a pretty big question to go unanswered, isn't it?

Can both be true? Can it be true that God created Adam as the first of a species called "man," and from Adam created a female counterpart named "woman," but at the same time there was already another species on the earth, similar to Adam and Eve in appearance, and compatible for reproduction (just like certain dogs and certain wolves can mate and have offspring)? After all, God created the "beasts of the earth" before he created mankind. Just a thought.

This is better understood when considers that there were two "Adams." The sixth day creation of "Adam" (man; male and female), and the eighth day creation of "ha-Adam", (the man Adam, with the article). "The man Adam" was he who was made for the garden, and the Bible is the story of the descendents of he and Eve. Cain has an interesting geneology, Adam is not his daddy. Cain married from among the daughters of the sixth day creation dwelling in the land of Nod, East of Eden.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Phi!

I makes me chuckle that after all the hoopla, a "Higher Consciousness" ordering the universe seems to be currently taking a front seat in quantum cosmology.
After all the argument against there being a God, after all those people chose to think of science as God, now the high honchos of science are saying, yes there must be God after all.
They cannot explain the orderliness of the universe with their mathmatics, you see.
I shouldn't concern myself overmuch with the current theories. Unless you find them fun to consider and/or are a physicist yourself. Some new information may come from them that will lead to other theories, which will lead to still others. Knowledge may be gained.
But in the end of it, rational thought (left-brain alone) can never reach an ultimate truth. Much less prove one, for provability is weaker than truth.
So, GUT and TOE will never be realized by rational thought and provable theory.
Reread Godel.

Overall I emphatically agree. Couple of questions tho', GUT?, and while I understand Godel to be a writer, which tome is it to which you refer?

 

[bruceg]

Kindest Regards, Phi!
Overall I emphatically agree. Couple of questions tho', GUT?, and while I understand Godel to be a writer, which tome is it to which you refer?

GUT - Grand Unified/Unification Theory, I would assume.
I also assume he's referring to Godel the mathematician, best known for proving that no system sufficiently complex to model the natural numbers can be both complete and correct.