Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : What race were Adam and Eve?

What race were Adam and Eve?

And how did the other races come about if not evolution?

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Neanderthal

Chinese-Indonesian, Scandinavian, German, Dutch, French, English-Irish, Amish
5'2"-5'4"
Blog

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?



The were definitely mixed-race, but most likely able to produce more distinct offspring. Some believe Abel (the good guy) was white and Cain (the bad guy) was black. Their brother Seth could have been Asian for all we know. Actually, some scholars believe Eden was in Asia, somewhere near the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

If you don't follow the alternative media you are uninformed.
If you follow the mainstream media you are misinformed.





[center] [hr] [poll closed multiple] [s][/s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u][/u]  

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

I have often wondered about Abel, Cain, and Seth….
Did they have a sister??? If not, did they procreate with Mom???
Perhaps the critters of Eden???

Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night!

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Unfortunately, the Bible often omits the girls in genealogies. Noah did have daughters. (Gen 5:4) Some believe the resulting incest was sinful and others do not. I do not, because of the command "Be fruitful and multiply."(Gen 1:28) The physical infirmities that come from interbreeding just didn't exist in those early generations.

[center] [hr] [poll closed multiple] [s][/s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u][/u]  

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Cain had sex with his mother since there was no other woman to give birth. I read the bible a few years ago and never read so much ridiculous nonsense in my life.

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Cain had sex with his mother since there was no other woman to give birth. I read the bible a few years ago and never read so much ridiculous nonsense in my life.
But I'd be willing to bet that you read it under the misimpression that Genesis was a single, unified narrative, instead of two different narratives imperfectly joined with bridging material. If you re-read Genesis 4 more carefully, you'll notice that in that skein of the narrative, Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel are not the only people on earth. Cain fears being killed by other people (v.14); upon any who slay him, vengeance is to be taken sevenfold (v.15). It is worth noting that one can only be killed once, not seven times; the vengeance is intended to be taken against the killer's relatives, of whom there seem to be an abundance - so much so that Cain took a wife in the land of Nod from among those people.

If you're interested, there's a lot more there than you would suspect from a superficial reading of an English version. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai comes highly recommended. You should check it out.
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Myths-Book-Genesis/dp/185754661X

I cannot guarantee that it will make biblical narratives any less "ridiculous nonsense" in your eyes, but I can assure you, it won't be quite the same nonsense you thought it was.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Do you truly believe this? Why would you be able to birth any race back then, but now it depends on the race of the parents? Wouldn't we all be a mix race now if what you said were true?

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Wouldn't we all be a mix race now if what you said were true?

Sure! If you believe that.
Just think! If it all started between two characters named Adam and Eve, we are all related!
White Supremacists! Take That!

Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night!

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

The theory is that Adam and Eve had all three major races in their genes, but the sex cells were distinct. That would make every third child of theirs of a pure race and the rest a mix of two races. Grandchildren might have traces of all three.

¿We're discussing race and Christina isn't here? ¡Amazing!

[center] [hr] [poll closed multiple] [s][/s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u][/u]  

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

No, but some of it may have been invented by preachers I've listened to over the years. The three major race theory is fairly widely believed by creationists, however.

[center] [hr] [poll closed multiple] [s][/s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u][/u]  

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Ok, so what about Neanderthals and other primitive man findings?

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

… what about Neanderthals …
I haven't looked into those other hominids. Maybe I should now that Biden's Neanderthals seem destined to replace Hillary's deplorables.

[center] [hr] [poll closed multiple] [s][/s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u][/u]  

🗿👻 ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

retarded faggot says what?

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve are made up characters in a work of fiction. You can imagine them any race you want.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Kinda like Santa?

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Yes, except the story of the Garden of Eden has some interesting symbolism lacking in the Santa story!

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Asian.

I'm going.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve are members of genus homo fictus.

They are literary characters.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

And you're being too literal.

Sure, us enlightened ones don't believe in a literal Adam & Eve. But scientists do now speak of a "mitochondrial eve".

I prefer to pose this question on a grander scale. Imagine the first being which was born as genetically Homo sapiens. What "race" was it? We can attempt to answer that.

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

And you're being too literal.
Not at all. That they were literary characters is the correct, most accurate answer, regardless of whether one thinks the account is metaphorical or not.
Sure, us enlightened ones don't believe in a literal Adam & Eve. But scientists do now speak of a "mitochondrial eve".
Yes. But most people who cite their references to 'Mitochondrial Eve' don't understand what's really meant by the expression.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/no-mitochondrial-eve-not-first-female-species-180959593/

The same goes for 'Y-Chromosomal Adam.'
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

I prefer to pose this question on a grander scale. Imagine the first being which was born as genetically Homo sapiens. What "race" was it? We can attempt to answer that.
Neither 'Mitohondrial Eve' nor 'Y-Chromosomal Adam' have anything to do with the answer to that question. And there would never have been a moment when a single individual was suddenly born exhibiting all the characteristics we associate with homo sapiens. The changes would have been imperceptibly slow, across hundreds of thousands of generations, spanning geologic time.

The myth that many try to stretch to fit the scientific phenomena is ill-suited to meaningfully describe the reality. As metaphors go, it's a very poor one.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

It's still a metaphorical term invented by scientists. And they drew upon Christian mythology.

My point is that rather than to discuss the religious concept of Adam and Eve, it might be interesting to consider the racial characteristics of the first humans. The OP is asking as a layman.

It seems metaphorical Adam & Eve were akin to the San or Bushmen of southern Africa:
The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth, according to the biggest and most detailed analysis of African DNA. The San, also known as bushmen, are directly descended from the original population of early human ancestors who gave rise to all other groups of Africans and, eventually, to the people who left the continent to populate other parts of the world.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-s-most-ancient-race-traced-dna-study-1677113.html


Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

It's still a metaphorical term invented by scientists. And they drew upon Christian mythology.
You make it sound as if you think that the fact that they alluded to it somehow validates the myth.
The OP is asking as a layman.
You know him pretty well, huh?

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

I know him well enough to know he's not a fucking paleoanthropologist!!!

Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Human.

How do different dog breeds come about? It sure as shit ain't evolution.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Good point. A chihuahua and a Great Dane do not look like the same species.

Hi, I'm Candace, the Second Cumming

Acts 8:27 behold, a eunuch of great authority, Candace

https://jewsforjesus.org/

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

But selective breeding is evolution.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

You would call a chihuahua evolution? No. Evolution involves a genetic mutation that either adds new material to a genome or new a beneficial trait. These new breeds dont have any new traits nor is the genome any larger. So, no. Not evolution.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Evolution is change in gene frequencies in a population. It doesn't need to happen through mutation. Mutation just happens to be the only way to introduce novel traits and people mistake that for the entirety of evolution.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Again. No change in genetic complexity. No Evolution.

Your argument sounds more like crap I've heard from the KKK. That somehow genetic diversity among individuals of the SAME SPECIES somehow equals evolution. It was crap coming from them, it is crap coming from you. Be it a black man & a white man or a great dane & a chihuahua it is not evolution.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

How do different dog breeds come about? It sure as shit ain't evolution.
Of course it is. It's 'evolution by artificial selection.'

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

No. Even among asexual lifeforms which reproduce in minutes, thousands of generations a day, evolution has never been documented. On the occasions where mutations DO occur There has never been an increase in the complexity of the genetic material. Such mutations have always amounted to a decrease in complexity. Rather than proving evolution they instead proved that some organisms can de-evolve.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

You're shifting the subject, and even on the tangent you're taking, you're making false, unsupported assertions.
https://www.thoughtco.com/asexual-vs-sexual-reproduction-1224594

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

From the article YOU cited:
relatively quick evolution can be seen with drug resistance in bacteria.
The author of this article does not understand what evolution means any better than you do. All the resistant bacteria strains known were the results of mutations that resulted in a DECREASE in genetic complexity. THAT IS DE-EVOLUTION YOU FOOL!

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

The author of this article does not understand what evolution means any better than you do.
Sorry, but the evangelical fundamentalist anti-science QAnoner who is adamantly against the idea of evolution does not get to tell others they don't understand it.
THAT IS DE-EVOLUTION YOU FOOL!
There's no such thing as 'de-evolution.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

"But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell" (Matthew 5:22c).

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

At first I though you were replying to me but then I say this
anti-science QAnoner
terms which don't apply to me so now I am not sure who the fuck you are talking to. Are you schizophrenic?

Dollo's law of irreversibility, first stated in 1893
Nearly 60 years before we even understood that DNA was a double helix? That is the basis of your stance? Lol.



Matthew 5:22 yes there is a risk but then I've also been know to play with live rattle snakes.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

terms which don't apply to me so now I am not sure who the fuck you are talking to
Well, you openly deny evolution, and you're a Trump supporter who thinks the election was stolen, so the terms are perfectly apropos. And you lie continuously, so there's also that.
Nearly 60 years before we even understood that DNA was a double helix? That is the basis of your stance? Lol.
Yeah, you didn't even make it past the table of contents on that Wiki article to even find out what any of that was about. Just more science for you to dismiss, because you're anti-science.
Matthew 5:22 yes there is a risk but then I've also been know to play with live rattle snakes.
"Jesus replied, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’ ”
(Matthew 4:7).

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

who thinks the election was stolen

Wrong, you fucking lying stupid retard. Not only have I back the efficacy of the election I have castigated posters like MMC2 who DO think it was stolen.

because you're anti-science.
You don't get to dictate what people are or are not. I believe in God. I believe in science. I believe that everything God does has a scientific explanation.

You don't believe the verses you quote and the words of a proven liar like you do not concern me.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

☑️ ¿What race were Adam and Eve?

Not only have I back the efficacy of the election I have castigated posters like MMC2 who DO think it was stolen.
¿Why do you suppose the MSM and Dems aren't systematically trying to prove the integrity of the election? Meanwhile, half the country and many of us on this board believe the theft was massive and coördinated. It's a breeding ground for eventual civil war, which I believe will eventually be triggered by an attempt at gun confiscation. ¡If you can believe it, my son is more gung-ho conservative than I am and can't get his hands on enough guns!

[center] [hr] [poll closed multiple] [s][/s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u][/u]  

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Wrong, you fucking lying stupid retard. Not only have I back the efficacy of the election I have castigated posters like MMC2 who DO think it was stolen.
No. You're a known Trump supporter, and advocate of violence. QAnon.
Re: Trump supporters_____________________________________
by Soul_Venom » 5 months ago(November 04, 2020 04:17 PM) Flag ▼
Member since December 12, 2019

Dont be fucking retarded. We are not like democrats who lose their shit and tantrum like small children.

We have dignity. And ammo. We will dig in and wait.
_____________________________________________________________
I came. I saw. I blew your lungs out past your backbone. Thanks for the target practice.
https://filmboards.com/board/t/Trump-supporters-3323951/
You don't get to dictate what people are or are not.
I call it like I see it, and you do not get to dictate whether or not I can do that. As for what you are, you yourself have announced that plainly enough.
I believe in science.
If you did, you would accept evolution. But you don't.
You don't believe the verses you quote and the words of a proven liar like you do not concern me.
It has nothing to do with me - it's that you cannot be arsed to follow the words of your own supposed beliefs.

And if not even you will do it, of what value is your testimony?

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

I did support Trump but never once denied that Biden was fairly elected.

I like violence for violence sake alone. It's not political.

qAnon is completely separate.

You are anti-science because you don't accept that God created the universe.

Knowing the path and walking it are two different things. The Word of God is true. Doesn't mean I always follow it. I'm human, kiss my ass. Just like when I read the speed limit signs that say 65 as I blow past them doing 80.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

I did support Trump but never once denied that Biden was fairly elected.
That was the position you were taking in that December 2020 post.
I like violence for violence sake alone. It's not political.
Another lie. You're advocating arming against Democrats. It is political.
You are anti-science because you don't accept that God created the universe.
The proposition that 'God created the universe' is not scientific.

Have you had your Covid-19 vaccination?

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

You are a fucking moron. The position I took in that post was concerning how the vast majority would react to the election i.e. not rioting and losing their shit. It had NOTHING to do with disputing who won. Retard.

I advocate arming for a number of reasons numb nuts.

The proposition that 'God created the universe' is perfectly scientific.

yep

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

But here, you want science? I'll give you science.

Jerry R. Bergman
Biology

Dr. Bergman is instructor of science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a B.S. in psychology from Wayne State University, an M.S. in psychology from Wayne State University, a Ph.D. in evaluation and research from Wayne State University, an M.A. in sociology from Bowling Green State University, and a second Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University. At Northwest State College Dr. Bergman has served as chairman of the academic affairs committee and as faculty advisor for degree programs. He has been a consultant for more than 20 science text books.

Almost every person at one time or another asks the question, "Where did life come from?" Bound up with the answer is the additional question, "What is the purpose of life on earth?" Essentially two viewpoints exist on this question: (1) the atheist position, which concludes that life came about through change, time, and a large number of fortuitous events; and (2) the creationist position, which teaches that every living organism type was created by a creator which most people call God. Christianity has, since its inception, taught that life was created by God for a specific purpose. "You (God) created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created" (Rev. 4: 11). Likewise, Judaism and Islam have historically taught this creation doctrine (see Gen. 1: 1– 8).

Evolutionary naturalism, often called atheism, teaches that life began by the random collision of enough atoms to form complex molecules that produced accurate copies of themselves. These hypothetical molecules eventually evolved into cells and, in billions of years, evolved into all life extant today. The key to this molecule-to-human evolution was mutations (genetic copy errors) and natural selection (the selection of favorable mutations that alter the animal or plant so that they are more apt to survive).

The Requirements for Life The thesis of this chapter is that the origin of life could not have occurred by a gradual process but must have been instantaneous. The reason this must be true is simple. Every machine must have a certain minimum number of parts for it to function, and if one part below this minimum is removed, the machine will cease to function. The example Behe uses is a common spring mousetrap which requires ten parts to function. The trap will no longer function if just one part is removed. No one has been able to show this concept to be erroneous — only that under certain conditions a certain machine can operate with one fewer part.

Many of these "one fewer part" examples, though, are misleading. Ruse (1993, p. 28) notes that a mousetrap can be fastened to the floor, thereby eliminating the base, he claims. In fact, it only uses a different base (the floor); a base is still necessary. Further, the mousetrap parts are useless without the intelligence to assemble them into a functioning unit. A trap is also useless without the bait, the knowledge and ability necessary to use the trap, and the existence of a mouse with enough intelligence to seek the bait but lacking in the experience and intelligence to avoid the trap. A simple mousetrap system is much more complex than it first appears.

The irreducible complexity argument can be extended to the creation process which produced life. The concept argues that both an organism and its parts, including organs, organelles, cells, or even its protein, cannot function below a certain minimum number of parts. In biological organisms the smallest unit of life is the cell, and the number of parts it contains at the subatomic level is usually much larger than a trillion. As Hickman notes: Cells are the fabric of life. Even the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of all living matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells. In a human an estimated 60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells (Hickman, 1997, p. 43).

Even most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the functions necessary for life. E. coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs, which code for 4,288 genes, each one of which produces an enormously complex protein machine. The simplest species of bacteria, Chlamydia and Rickettsia, are the smallest living things known. Only a few hundred atoms across, they are smaller than the largest virus and have about half as much DNA as do other species of bacteria. Although they are about as small as it is possible to be and still be living, these two forms of life still require millions of atomic parts (Trefil, 1992, p. 28). Many of the smaller bacteria, such as Mycoplasma genitalium, which has 452 genes, are parasites and can only live with the help of more complex organisms. For this reason, when researching the minimum requirements for life, the example of E. coli is more realistic.

If the simplest form of life requires millions of parts at the atomic level, higher life forms require trillions. All of the many macromolecules necessary for life are constructed of atoms, which are composed of even smaller parts. That life requires a certain minimum number of parts is well documented, and the only debate is how many millions of functionally integrated parts are necessary — not the fact that a minimum number must exist for life to live. All viruses are below the complexity level needed for life, and for this reason they must live as parasites that require complex cells in order to reproduce. Trefil noted that the question of where the viruses come from is an "enduring mystery" in evolution. They consist primarily of only a DNA molecule and a protein coat and … don't reproduce in the normal way, [therefore] it's hard to see how they could have gotten started. One theory: they are parasites who, over a long period of time, have lost the ability to reproduce independently. … Viruses are among the smallest of "living" things. A typical virus, like the one that causes ordinary influenza, may be no more than a thousand atoms across. This is in comparison with cells which may be hundreds or even thousands of times that size. Its small size is one reason that it is so easy for a virus to spread from one host to another — it's hard to filter out anything that small (Trefil, 1992, p. 9).

Oversimplified, life depends on a complex arrangement of three classes of molecules: DNA, which stores the cell's master plans; RNA, which transports a copy of the needed information contained in the DNA to the protein assembly station; and proteins, which make up everything from the ribosomes to the enzymes. Further, chaperons and many other assembly tools are needed to ensure that the protein is properly assembled. All of these parts are necessary and must exist as a properly assembled and integrated unit. DNA is useless without both RNA and proteins, although some types of bacteria can combine the functions of the basic required parts. The problem for evolution caused by the enormous complexity required for life is quite well recognized, and none of the proposals to overcome it are even remotely satisfactory (Spetner, 1997).

These proposals include the theory of panspermia advanced by Nobel Laureate Francis Crick. Panspermia is the hypothesis that the earth was seeded by life from other planets (Crick, 1981). This solution, though, only moves the problem elsewhere. Naturalism must account for both the parts necessary for life and their proper assembly. For life to persist, living creatures must have a means of taking in and biochemically processing food. Life also requires oxygen, which must be distributed to all tissues, or for single-celled life, oxygen must effectively and safely be moved around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed, without damaging the cell. Without complex mechanisms to achieve these tasks, life cannot exist. The parts could not evolve separately and could not even exist independently for very long, because they would break down in the environment without protection (Overman, 1997).

Even if they existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate very quickly from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens. For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce life. No compelling evidence has ever been presented to disprove this conclusion, and much evidence exists for the instantaneous creation requirement, such as the discovery that most nucleotides degrade rather fast at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on the early earth (Irion, 1998).

The problem is that the half-lives of many of the basic building blocks of life "are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds. … Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (< 100 years) … a high temperature origin of life … cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine" (Levy and Miller, 1998, p. 7,933). This finding is a major setback for abiogenesis, because high temperature (80 °– 100 ° C) origin of life is the only feasible model left (Levy and Miller, 1998).

Creationists have only begun to exploit this huge stumbling block to Darwinism. The simplest eukaryote life form is yeast. Most eukaryotes are much more complex than yeast, and a fertilized egg, called a zygote, is the minimum complexity possible for all multi-cell life forms. Further, the development of an organism from a zygote does not provide evidence of evolution, because a zygote cannot exist as an independent unit, but is dependent on a complex designed support system, such as a womb or an egg. A complex life system designed to produce the gametes first exists, and the zygote is only part of a series of stages designed to allow it to fulfill its potential. An organ or an organism cannot function, nor will it be selected, until it is minimally functional. At this level it must be both enormously complex and dependent on many other parts of the system (Behe, 1996).

A gamete contains all the information needed to develop into a complete organism. When the organism is first developing, all its cells are totipotent, meaning that each cell can develop into any one of the over 200 cell types needed for an adult human to live, including epithelial, muscle, blood and other cell types. Evolutionists once argued that all life could develop from some hypothetical first cell, because even today all new life develops from a single cell, but we now realize that a cell can develop into a complex organism only because all of the parts and instructions are in the original cell produced from conception. The human mother passes not only 23 chromosomes but also an entire cell to her offspring, which includes all the organelles needed for life. A cell can come only from a functioning cell and cannot be built up piecemeal, because all the major organelles must have been created and assembled instantaneously for the cell to exist (Overman, 1997).

Cells require all their millions of necessary parts to remain alive, just as a mammal must have lung, liver, heart, and other organs to live. All of the millions of cell parts are required to carry out the complex biochemical business necessary for life. This business requires manufacturing and processing of proteins, and storing of genetic information to be passed on to the next generation. Trefil called the evolution of prokaryotes (cells without organelles) into eukaryotes (cells with organelles and other structures lacking in prokaryotes) an "enduring mystery of evolution" because of the lack of evidence of the evolution of organelles, and the total lack of plausible links between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are striking, to say the least. But if the latter evolved from the former, why are there no intermediate stages between the two? Why, for example, are there no cells with loose DNA and organelles? If the evolutionary line really went from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and we have many living samples of each, why did none of the intermediate stages survive? (Trefil, 1992, p. 104).

This view is also reflected in the observation that the universe appears to be designed specifically to contain human life, and functions as a unit to allow and support life (Overman, 1997). Creation of Humans The problems of an instantaneous creation are best illustrated by the first man, Adam. If created as a mature adult, Adam would appear to be about, say, 30 years of age when he was only one day old. If Adam were examined medically, much scientific evidence in support of a 30-year age estimate would be found. Most medical tests completed on such a man would conclude he was and would have to be treated medically as if he, in fact, were at the prime of his life, even though only a day old. This does not imply that God is deceptive, but only that to exist as a living organism, the human body had to be created fully formed. If his blood was not already circulating when Adam was created, the few minutes that it would take to prime the system and for blood to circulate to the brain could cause major cell death or damage. All of Adam's organs, including his heart, lungs, kidneys, and brain, must have been functioning simultaneously as a unit the second he was created. In other words, God created Adam as a mature man.

Although the physician who completed a physical on Adam a day after he was created would have had to conclude from development measures, such as bone-to-cartilage ratios, that Adam was 30 years old, some evidence for youth might have been found — in a one-day-old Adam, we might not have found certain effects of aging, such as brain cell changes, which exist in the average 30 year old today. This, though, might have been because he was perfect, but this does not rule out the fact that some evidence, such as tissue culture examination of his cells, might have existed to prove he was in fact one week old. Likewise, because the universe is enormously interrelated, the Creator could not have created the earth alone, but must have created the entire heavens and earth as a functioning unit. And as God likewise created the universe for a reason (such as a support system for the earth), and must have created Adam with blood moving in his veins, it is likewise a logical inference that the stars were created moving in their orbits and with their light in transit.

Although this belief may not currently be provable, it may nonetheless be the most reasonable of the few possibilities that now exist. This view is more viable than it may first appear. Nobel Laureate George Wald even stated that he believed that the universe was designed for life. In a recent interview he stated that he has concluded that the evidence is clearly obvious, because the elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen "have unique properties that fit the job and are not shared by any element in the periodic system" (interview in Levy, 1998, p. 12).

Creating the universe in parts would not be unlike creating a liver and waiting a few days before creating a brain, then several more weeks before creating a femur bone — until the body was eventually complete. No other method appears to exist to produce life other than creating instantaneously a fully functioning complete organism. This does not preclude that changes may have occurred since that time, only that a certain level of complexity must have existed for both an organism and a universe to exist. Genetic drift, mutations, and the shuffling of the gene pool can bring about only minor changes in life, changes creationists label variations within the genesis kinds. Some creationists believe that these changes have historically been relatively significant, such as a pair of cat-kind animals producing by genetic recombination all cats existing today, including lions, tigers, and cheetahs.

Anatomical comparisons support this and relatively minute differences exist, for example, between tigers and lions, at least compared with other animal kinds. Also hybrids of animals (such as tigons and ligers) have been produced to show the closeness of many animals. The comparing of the creation of a human body with the creation of the universe has been supported by recent findings. Research has revealed that the universe is extraordinarily organized: our earth is organized into a solar system, which is part of a highly organized group of stars called a galaxy, that is part of a highly organized family of galaxies called clusters which, in turn, are organized into an enormous group of clusters called superclusters. Life and Information One of the most compelling evidences in support of the instantaneous creation world view is the daily observation that information does not come about by chance and, if left to itself, disorder usually soon results.

Archeologists are normally easily able to discern if an object found in their field research digs was produced by humans or by natural events such as wind or rain. The criteria they use to do this is the degree of information the object contains (Yockey, 1992). Complexity and information are compelling evidence that some outside intelligent agency (which in the case of an archeologist's findings was another human) has applied design skills and intelligence to the natural world, adding a higher level of information and order on top of that which naturally exists in the non-living world such as rocks. Both plant and animal kingdoms manifest enormous complexity and information in their genetic codes, but this order and information pre-exists in the animal or plant and was inherited and passed on through reproduction. Except for the living world and the "world" made by humans, the natural world operates according to pre-existing physical laws and previous events.

The living world, which scientists are only now beginning to understand, represents a level of design complexity based on information existing in the genetic code which is not found anywhere in the non-living world except that created by humans. Hence the rationale for the belief that the living world could not come from the non-living world. As Nobel laureate research molecular biologist Komfield stated in a now-famous interview that occurred over 36 years ago: While laboring among the intricacies and definitely minute particles in a laboratory, I frequently have been overwhelmed by a sense of the infinite wisdom of God … one is rather amazed that a mechanism of such intricacy could ever function properly at all … the simplest man-made mechanism requires a planner and a maker; how a mechanism ten times more involved and intricate can be conceived as self-constructed and self-developed is completely beyond me (Komfield, 1962, p. 16).

In other words, the enormous amount of genetic information that is translated into the complexity that is evident everywhere in the living world is far beyond that found in both the non-living and human-manufactured world. Products produced by the non-living world (such as smooth stones polished by moving water) could never produce either plant or animal life because all life is based on information, and the parts produced by that information must be assembled according to a designed plan in an environment such as a certain ecosystem that supports life. Mathematical Proof for the Designer Requirement That a complex structure such as a living organism could be formed by chance without intelligent input has never been demonstrated in the lab or anywhere else. Given enough time, the naturalistic world view reasons, anything is at least possible. The problem with this view is that the degree of information and complexity required for living organisms to be able to "live" is such that, aside from deliberate intelligent design, from what we know now, no matter what the conditions, time alone will not allow for the naturalistic construction of life.

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated that even if evolutionary history on earth repeated itself a million times, he doubts whether anything like Homo sapiens would ever develop again (Gould, 1989; also see Kayzer, 1997, p. 86). Many researchers have concluded that the probability of life arising by chance is so remote that we have to label it an impossibility. For example, Hoyle (1983) notes that the probability of drawing either ten white or ten black balls out of a large box full of balls that contains equal numbers of black and white balls is five times out of one million! If we increase the number to 100 and draw sets of 100 balls, the probability of drawing 100 black or 100 white balls in succession is now so low as to be for all practical purposes impossible. To illustrate this concept as applied in biology, an ordered structure of just 206 parts will be examined.

This is not a large number — the adult human skeleton, for example, contains on the average 206 separate bones, all assembled together in a perfectly integrated functioning whole. And all body systems — even our cells' organelles — are far more complex than this. To determine the possible number of different ways 206 parts could be connected, consider a system of one part which can be lined up in only one way (1 x 1); or a system of two parts in two ways (1 x 2) or 1, 2 and 2, 1; a system of three parts, which can be aligned in six ways (1 x 2 x 3), or 1, 2, 3; 2, 3, 1; 2, 1, 3; 1, 3, 2; 3, 1, 2; 3, 2, 1; one of four parts in 24 ways (1 x 2 x 3 x 4), and so on. Thus, a system of 206 parts could be aligned in 1 x 2 x 3 … 206 different ways, equal to 1 x 2 x 3 … x 206. This number is called "206 factorial" and is written "206!". The value 206! is an enormously large number, approximately 10388 , which is a "1" followed by 388 zeros, or: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 Achievement of only the correct general position required (ignoring for now where the bones came from, their upside-down or right-side-up placement, their alignment, the origin of the tendons, ligaments, and other supporting structures) for all 206 parts will occur only once out of 10388 random assortments.

This means one chance out of 10388 exists of the correct order being selected on the first trial, and each and every other trial afterward, given all the bones as they presently exist in our body. If one new trial could be completed each second for every single second available in all of the estimated evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most conservative estimate gives us 1018 seconds; the chances that the correct general position will be obtained by random is less than once in 10 billion years. This will produce a probability of only one out of 10( 388– 18) or one in 10370 .

If each part is only the size of an electron, one of the smallest known particles in the universe, and the entire known universe were solidly packed with sets of bones, this area conservatively estimated at 100 billion cubic light years could contain only about 10130 sets of 206 parts each. What is the possibility that just one of these 10130 sets, each arranging their members by chance, will achieve the correct alignment just once in ten billion years? Suppose also that we invent a machine capable of making not one trial per second, but a billion-billion different trials each second on every single one of the 10130 sets. The maximum number of possible trials that anyone could possibly conceive being made with this type of situation would permit a total of 10166 trials (10130 x 1018 x 1018 ). Even given these odds, the chance that one of these 10166 trials would produce the correct result is only one out of 10388 , or only one in 10222 trials for all sets. Further, all the parts must both first exist and be instantaneously assembled properly in order for the organism to function. For all practical purposes, a zero possibility exists that the correct general position of only 206 parts could be obtained simultaneously by chance — and the average human has about 75 trillion cells!

The human cerebral cortex alone contains over 10 billion cells, all arranged in the proper order, and each of these cells is itself infinitely complex from a human standpoint. Each of the cells in the human body consists of multi-thousands of basic parts such as organelles and multi-millions of complex proteins and other parts, all of which must be assembled both correctly and instantaneously as a unit in order to function. This required balance and assembly must be maintained even during cell division. This illustration indicates that the argument commonly used by evolutionists — "given enough time, anything is possible" — is wanting. Evolutionary naturalism claims that the bone system happened as a result of time, luck, and "natural" forces, the last element actually holding the status of a god. Time, the chief escape that naturalism must rely on to support its theory, is thus a false god.

Complex ordered structures of any kind (of which billions must exist in the body for it to work) cannot happen except by design and intelligence, and they must have occurred simultaneously for the unit to function. Scientists recognize this problem, and this is why Stephen Jay Gould concluded that humans are a glorious evolutionary accident which required 60 trillion contingent events (Gould, 1989, see also Kayzer, 1997, p. 92). Of course, the naturalistic evolution assumption does not propose that the parts of life resulted from an assembly of bones, but instead proposes that an extended series of step-wise coincidences gave rise to life and the world as we know it. In other words, the first coincidence led to a second coincidence, which led to a third coincidence, which eventually led to coincidence "i," which eventually led up to the present situation, "N." Evolutionists have not even been able to posit a mechanistic "first" coincidence, only the assumption that each step must have had a survival advantage and only by this means could evolution from simple to complex have occurred.

Each coincidence "i" is assumed to be dependent upon prior steps and to have an associated dependent probability "Pi." The resultant probability estimate for the occurrence of evolutionary naturalism is calculated as the product series, given the following: N = the number of step-wise coincidences in the evolutionary process i = the index for each coincidence: i = 1,2,3 … Pi = the evaluated dependent probability for the i'th coincidence PE = the product probability that everything evolved by naturalism. Innumerable steps are postulated to exist in the evolutionary sequence, therefore N is very large (i.e., N…). All values of Pi are less than or equal to one, with most of them much smaller than 1. The greater the proposed leap in step i, the smaller the associated probability Pi 1, and a property of product series where N is very large and most terms are significantly less than one quickly converges very close to zero.

The conclusion of this calculation is that the probability of naturalistic evolution is essentially zero. Sir Fred Hoyle (1982) calculated "the chance of a random shuffling of amino acids producing a workable set of enzymes" to be less than 1040,000 , and the famous unrealistically optimistic Green Band equation gives the chance of finding life on another planet in the order of only one in 1030 . These probabilities argue that the chance distribution of molecules could never lead to the conditions favorable for the spontaneous development of life. The reasoning that leads us to this conclusion is that living molecules contain a large number of elements which must be instantly assembled in a certain order for life. The probability of the required order in a single basic protein molecule arising purely from chance is estimated at 1043 (Overman, 1997).

Since thousands of complex protein molecules are required to build a simple cell, probability moves chance arrangements of these molecules outside the realm of possibility. The smallest proteins have an atomic mass of 100,000 or more atomic mass units (AMU), which is equal to 100,000 hydrogen atoms (Branden and Tooze, 1991). And this calculation evaluates only the necessary order of parts, not a functional arrangement, i.e., one that works. Even if the gears of a clock are arranged in the correct order, the clock will not function properly until the gears are properly meshed, spaced, adjusted, the tolerances are correct, and the system is properly secured.

A problem with understanding the concept "life" is that although we now have identified many of the chemicals which are necessary, researchers do not yet know all of the factors necessary for life "to live." Further, even assembling the proper chemicals together does not produce life. The proper arrangement of amino acids to form protein molecules is only one small requirement for life. Most animals are constructed of millions of cells, and the cell itself is far more complicated than the most complex machine ever manufactured by humans. The famous illustration "the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop" argues that information and complex systems cannot come about by chance, but can only be the product of an intelligent designer. Books likewise do not come about by chance, but are the product of both reasoning and intelligence (although some books may cause us to wonder about the author, but this is another problem!).

Even Darwin admitted in his writings that it was extremely difficult, or impossible, to conceive that this immense and wonderful universe, including humans with our capacity of looking far backward and far into the future, was the result of blind chance. Life from Non-Life? An important part of the question, "Where did life come from?" is the issue of spontaneous generation, the concept that life could produce itself if the proper circumstances existed (Lewis, 1997). This idea is no longer accepted as possible by secular scientists — except only for the beginning of life, when some believe the first living organism somehow spontaneously generated itself once or, at most, a few times, and every living thing thereafter evolved from this "first" life. This principle of science that life only comes from life is called the "law of biogenesis."

The term is from the Greek words bios (meaning life) and genesis (meaning birth, source or creation), and means that living organisms are produced only by other living organisms. Biologists know only that all life derives from preceding life, and that the parent organism's offspring are always of the same kind. The idea that life can come from non-life is called abiogenesis, which is assumed by evolutionists to have occurred only once or a few times at most in earth history. This conclusion is not a result of evidence, but is obtained because the current dominant world view in Western science, naturalism (atheism), requires a chance spontaneous origin of life. The naturalistic view requires a set of unknown conditions to have existed in the distant past that operated to produce the first "living" thing. These unknown forces do not operate today to produce flies from decaying meat or bees from dead carcasses, as once believed.

Scientists have demonstrated that the belief that "life" could come from "non-life," even if millions of years were available, is untenable (Overman, 1997). Darwinism demands a non-theistic explanation and therefore is forced to put much displaced faith in an unprovable "one-time" event that they reason must have occurred because life is here. Hoyle, in a review of the literature, concluded: There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the earth. Indeed, Francis Crick, who shared a Nobel prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA, is one biophysicist who finds this theory unconvincing. So why do biologists indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in order to deny what is so patently obvious, that the 200,000 amino acid chains, and hence life, did not appear by chance?

The answer lies in a theory developed over a century ago, which sought to explain the development of life as an inevitable product of the purely local natural processes. Its author, Charles Darwin, hesitated to challenge the church's doctrine on the creation, and publicly at least did not trace the implications of his ideas back to their bearing on the origin of life. However, he privately suggested that life itself may have been produced in "some warm little pond," and to this day his followers have sought to explain the origin of terrestrial life in terms of a process of chemical evolution from the primordial soup. But, as we have seen, this [theory] simply does not fit the facts (Hoyle, 1983, p. 23). This conclusion is not unique to Hoyle but common to thinkers not blinded by dogmatic naturalism.

Einstein argued that the "scientist's religious feelings take the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (Einstein, 1949, p. 29; emphasis mine). Scientists once argued that life was relatively simple, could spontaneously generate, and regularly did so. They now realize the human cell is the most complex machine known in the universe, far more complex than the most expensive computer. This realization has forced many persons to conclude life could not have evolved, but must have been created instantaneously as a fully functioning unit. All of the extant evidence reveals that there is nothing living on earth, either animal or plant, that did not receive its life from previous life, its sexual or asexual parent.

Since the law of biogenesis states that life proceeds only from pre-existing life, various forms of pre-existing life must have been parents of all living organisms. And since life cannot create itself, the source of life must be God: "O Lord. … For with you is the fountain of life" (Ps. 36: 6– 9). In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries

Credits
(Jastrow, 1978, p. 116). Author's note: I wish to thank Steven Dapra for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Readings Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics20 (1982): p. 4– 5. Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. New York: Free Press, 1991. Branden, Carl and John Tooze. Introduction to Protein Structure. New York: Garland, 1991. Crick, Francis. Life Itself. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Einstein, Albert. The World As I See It. New York: Philosophical Library, 1949. Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Vol. 3. New York: McGraw Hill, 1971. Gould, Stephen Jay. Wonderful Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton, 1989. Hickman, Cleveland, Larry Roberts, and Allan Larson. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Dubuque, IA.: Wm. C. Brown, 1997. Hoyle, Fred. The Intelligent Universe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983. Irion, Robert. "Ocean Scientists Find Life, Warmth in the Seas." Science279 (1998): p. 1302– 1303. Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W.W. Norton Company, 1978. Kayzer, W. "A Glorious Accident," Understanding Our Place in the Cosmic Puzzle. New York: W.W. Freeman and Co., 1997. Knight, Jonathan. "Cold Start; Was Life Kick-Started in Frozen Seas Rather Than Boiling Vents?" New Scientist2142 (July 11, 1998): p. 10. Komfield, E.C. "The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe." Look( Jan. 16, 1962). Levy, David. "Four Simple Facts Behind the Miracle of Life." Parade Magazine( June 12, 1998): p 12. Levy, Matthew and Stanley Miller. "The Stability of the RNA Bases: Implications for the Origin of Life." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA95 (1998): p. 7933– 8. Lewis, Ricki. "Primordial Soup Researchers Gather at the Watering Hole." Science227 (1997): p. 1034– 5. Overman, Dean. A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Pub., 1997. Ruse, Michael. "Answering the Creationists," Free Inquiry18( 2) (1998): p. 28– 32. Spetner, Lee. Not by Chance! Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press, 1997. Trefil, James. 1001 Things Everyone Should Know about Science. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Yockey, Hubert. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

I believe you meant 10388, not 10388 which could be understood as 10^388. No, I didn't read your entire post. It's beyond the attention span of most film|boarders, myself included. Here's how you do superscript:

[sup]388[/sup]

[center] [hr] [poll closed multiple] [s][/s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u][/u] &nbsp;

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

But here, you want science? I'll give you science.

Jerry R. Bergman
Biology
Yeah, that's not science.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

So the ABSOLUTE best you can do is link to a site that attacks ONE of the MANY schools he has a degree from?
B.S. Major Areas of Study in Education, Psychology, Biology, Wayne State University, Detroit.
M.Ed. Psychology and Counseling, Wayne State University, Detroit.
Ph.D. Evaluation and Research with Minor in Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit.
M.A. Social Psychology, Bowling Green State University.
M.S.B.S. Biomedical Science, Medical College of Ohio.
Masters of Public Health, Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Bowling Green State University, University of Toledo).[5]
PhD. Human Biology, Columbia Pacific University[6][7]
What about the other notable alumni? Are you asserting that their expertise is worthless as well?
Barbara De Angelis: relationship consultant, lecturer and author, TV personality, relationship and personal growth adviser[29]
Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs), Native American educator and author [30][31]
Hans Baumann, inventor and engineer[32]
Chellis Glendinning, ecopsychologist, author, activist [33]
John Gray, author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus[34]
Anodea Judith, therapist, author of Wheels of Life[35]
Bernard Meltzer, talk radio host [36]
Elizabeth Ngugi, professor of community health at the University of Nairobi and HIV/AIDS expert.[37]
Regardless of how the school ended it apparently started well. Distance learning and education authority John Bear gave "high marks" to the school in his 1982 Bears' Guide to Non-Traditional College Degrees, 8th edition.

Your failed character assassination doesn't manage to discredit any of the mans work. You failed to address a single point the man made and just because you claim it isn't science doesn't make it so. You are going to have to prove that what he said in the article was false. You are going to have to use science to prove your point. Ad hominem attacks won't cut it.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

It's not character assassination, it's an accurate assessment of what the man does.

Since he doesn't use science to prove his points, then I don't have to use it in order to disregard him.

It's a bit like the old myth that one could hold off the attack of a would-be vampire by scattering small seeds or grains of salt across the threshold of the door; the vampire would stop to count these, and the task would take until daybreak, when he would be forced to desist. This defense is predicated on the idea that the vampire was compelled to count them, but ineffective if it wasn't true.

I don't have to stop to engage your creationist copy pasta.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

Re: What race were Adam and Eve?

Since he doesn't use science to prove his points

I say you are just talking out your ass again, Just like when you were attempting to tell lies about me and what I believe in.

Pick one of his points. Just one. Lets pit his scientific knowledge against your own. You picked this fight after all. It's a little late to run now.

Providing nuke style solutions to hand grenade size problems since 1999.
Top