Adam and Eve

[Thing]

Not quite right. You are very likely to experience back problems if you regularly put more than 740 lbs of force on your L5/S1 vertebral disk. Doesn’t matter how that happens, from over exertion at work, or from carrying around extra poundage.

BTW, the “keep your back straight, lift with legs” advice is very likely to increase the compression force on the disk, if the load is too big to fit comfortably between your legs when you lift. The trick is to keep the load as close to your back as possible, to reduce the amount of force.

The reason it’s a problem is that the vertebrate spine evolved to be mostly horizontal, a framework for quadrupeds. But even a blown disk would be no great problem, if it wasn’t for the fact that the spinal nerve roots were in a position where a prolapsed disk is almost certain to press on a nerve root, causing pain, weakness and disability.

Assuming humans evolved/were created to carry around plasma screen TVs.

 

[Thing]

And round and round in a circle we go. Where is your evidence for your assertion of perfection. We know that humans are imperfectly ‘designed’ and you say that Adam and Eve were both perfect and human. You provide no evidence for your, on the face of it absurd, assertion. Science does not work on assertions, it works on evidence. I have provided evidence while you have provided nothing but asseertions.

31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

In a scientific argument if you have no evidence you lose.

Who said it was a scientific argument, must you limit the field for a reason?

Both (mildly) deleterious and beneficial mutations will accumulate over time. You need to provide evidence to support your assertion that deleterious mutations have accumulated faster than beneficial mutations. Natural selection increases the presence of beneficial mutations while decreasing the frequency of deleterious mutations. What evidence do you have of any mechanism that works to drive things in the opposite direction?

“Both (mildly) deleterious and beneficial mutations will accumulate over time.”
The argument is that the quantity of non-beneficial mutations out-number the quantity of beneficial mutations. Unless you accept the almost miraculous scenario of almost every, or every, mutation being beneficial.
Otherwise, the quantity of non-beneficial mutations to DNA must accumulate progressively over time. Tis logic.

I have evidence of human DNA - none of which is “perfect”. If Adam and Eve were human then all the available evidence indicates that their DNA was also imperfect. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

You must obtain Adams DNA and also examine life in the Garden of Eden, then compare your findings with humans after the Fall of Adam.

The morality is still relative then, relative to the subject. Incest between siblings with perfect DNA is not immoral while incest between siblings with imperfect DNA is moral. Hence the moral law on incest is a relative not an absolute moral law.

rossum

No, the morality is constant. The subject changes.
There is always morality. But there is not always the subject.

 

[rossum]

31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

I see no “perfect” here, all I see is “very good”. Something may be very good but not perfect. Scoring 99% in a test is very good, but not perfect. You still have no evidence for your claim of perfection.

Who said it was a scientific argument, must you limit the field for a reason?

We are talking about DNA and the construction of vertebrate eyes. I do not see either of those as theological arguments. Discussing theology might be interesting, but given that I am Buddhist we might find it difficult to agree on anything but the basics of morality.

Otherwise, the quantity of non-beneficial mutations to DNA must accumulate progressively over time. Tis logic.

Unfortunately not. Natural selection increases the quantity of beneficial mutations while reducing the quantity of deleterious mutations over time. It is the differential amplification of mutatons which gives natural selection its power.

You must obtain Adams DNA and also examine life in the Garden of Eden, then compare your findings with humans after the Fall of Adam.

You are proposing that Adam’s DNA was somehow special so the burden of proof is on you. I am proposing that Adam’s DNA was ordinary human DNA with the kinds of faults and imperfections we notice in current human DNA. You need to show evidence that Adam was special rather than ordinary.

rossum

 

[Thing]

You are proposing that Adam’s DNA was somehow special so the burden of proof is on you. I am proposing that Adam’s DNA was ordinary human DNA with the kinds of faults and imperfections we notice in current human DNA. You need to show evidence that Adam was special rather than ordinary.

rossum

Alas, then, it seems we must part ways. If you want to talk about Adam and Eve themselves, the knowledge of whom comes to us through revelation, we can hardly do so and avoid mentioning Catholic theology. The original state of those first people was not ordinary in any way that we would recognise, according to Catholic theology. We may have better luck agreeing on the coefficient of drag for flying pigs.

 

[buffalo]

Why do you not marry your sister? (apart from the :bigyikes: factor), or your brother if you are a woman.
The only real reason I can think of is genetics, you know your offspring would be in immediate danger.
With Adam and Eve they were obviously created perfect in every way, by a perfect God, right down to their DNA. There were no diseases or genetic faults which could be passed from the original parents, and their children would be as perfect as they for many generations. Siblings could marry and have offspring without fear of genetic defects or problems?

The Book of Jubilees states that Cain’s wife was Avan, his sister.

 

[rwoehmke]

When you get right down to it the teaching of the Church on the creation of humans is pretty sketchy. The existence of a first pair, the teaching on an original sin and its being our inheritance, that God did indeed create ex nihilo. Most everything else being chattered about here is pure supposition including the notion that man had to have sprung up on different continents as there were no boats. There was some DNA evidence reported a few years back that today’s human race did indeed evolve from a single female many many years ago.

In the last ten or twenty years there was a book by Diamond(I think.) called Guns, Germs, and Steel. He put together a pretty good story on the spread of humanity from an original site in Africa/Middle East.

In many respects opinions on most of this stuff are right out of Alice’s Restaurant; you all can have it any way you want cause no human being really knows.

 

[tobinatorstark]

this question must be a faq, but since i really wish to know it i want to ask anyways. and ill try to stop bothering you guys too.

Adam and eve were the first humans to be put on earth. Fact.
but what i dont understand is this. in the bible it says they had children too. Adam and Eve had two children in fact. so with that being said how did everyone else come about? Did Adams son have to have sex with Eve in order to populate the earth like wise did Adam have to have sex with her daughter?

i guess what im getting at here is i dont know enough about adam and eve. could you explain this to me.

Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, that is a fact. Ignore what evolutionists say, they are wrong. The Bible is God’s word and there is no way around it. Everything that the church teaches us has some biblical source to it. It could have been that way to populate the earth, we don’t know. If we make to heaven God will reveal much to us.