Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Abu Hesham

Did Adam And Eve Populate The Entire Planet?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So I just want to hear some theories on how the people spread all around the world. How did primitive people reach Australia and other large islands? Did all humans on earth really come from only 2 people? Or was Adam and Eve just the first 2 people who were followed by more in order to populate the world?

Another question, approximately how old is the human race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have always wondered the same thing. My older bro's theory is that the children of adam committed incest and repopulated the earth. My maternal grandad, whose a knowledgeable person said that Allah s.w.t sent down some women and they repopulated with prophet adam a.s 's children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam alejkum,

My theory is as follows. As we know that jinns were created before mankind then the children of Adam & Eve could of possibly reproduced with jinns? You hear stories and stuff about humans marrying/married jinns or whatnot so you never know. Also you could say back then you may of been able to come across jinns much more frequently than you do in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have always wondered the same thing. My older bro's theory is that the children of adam committed incest and repopulated the earth. My maternal grandad, whose a knowledgeable person said that Allah s.w.t sent down some women and they repopulated with prophet adam a.s 's children

This is also like what I think because i feel its logical. Although, Adam (a.s.) was the first human being and Prophet, I also believe that other peoples were placed on earth. I feel its only logical because how else would people get on the islands of the world. We had secluded islands in the pacific that were completely detached from the rest of the world up until WW2. When the American Military was waging war with Japan, the US came across an island that was populated with simple people. These people believed that the Americans along with their planes, tanks, and huge ships were some sort of 'gods' because they gave them food. To me, the fact that there were primitive people in the pacific with no contact to the rest of the world up until the 20th century is proof that Allah must have placed people on these islands. Another reason is they had no advanced see bearing ships that could take them to these islands or they would have been able to contact the rst of the world or even seen japanese/american navies sailing about the pacific. I cant accept that Adams children practiced incest because i do not believe they would have survived for more than 3 generations. but Allahu alim.

Salam alejkum,

My theory is as follows. As we know that jinns were created before mankind then the children of Adam & Eve could of possibly reproduced with jinns? You hear stories and stuff about humans marrying/married jinns or whatnot so you never know. Also you could say back then you may of been able to come across jinns much more frequently than you do in this day and age.

Wa alaykum asalaam

I thought that when people mated with jinn the offspring were bad? Im not sure though this is just what i thought.

Edited by PracticesSunniLovesShia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

Before 'Adam (as) there was 12 000 other 'Adams. In other words, humane-like creatures also created from adhim, i.e. from the surface of the earth. Accordingly, throughout the world, God, created different species whom each and everyone served their purpose. We, the Children of 'Adam, are the last inheritors on this earth, and our mission has not reached its end.

'Adams children conceived children not through one another but through the previous 'Adams. Indeed God has already written in His book the prohibition of incest before the time of Creation and it would not ever be permitted. Indeed! God is Powerful, Wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Some scholars believe that the children of Prophet Adam (as) did marry each other. They say that Allah (ÓÈÍÇäå æ ÊÚÇáì) had not yet forbidden such an act. Here is Allamah Tabatabai's full view. (He also gives his explanation for people being spread out onto different continents)

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

Before 'Adam (as) there was 12 000 other 'Adams. In other words, humane-like creatures also created from adhim, i.e. from the surface of the earth. Accordingly, throughout the world, God, created different species whom each and everyone served their purpose. We, the Children of 'Adam, are the last inheritors on this earth, and our mission has not reached its end.

'Adams children conceived children not through one another but through the previous 'Adams. Indeed God has already written in His book the prohibition of incest before the time of Creation and it would not ever be permitted. Indeed! God is Powerful, Wise.

Is it possible you can provide a citation of information for this? I would like to read more for myself if you have a source, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Some scholars believe that the children of Prophet Adam (as) did marry each other. They say that Allah (ÓÈÍÇäå æ ÊÚÇáì) had not yet forbidden such an act. Here is Allamah Tabatabai's full view. (He also gives his explanation for people being spread out onto different continents)

(wasalam)

That actually makes sense because until Muhammad it was okay to drink wine and stuff because God did not prohibit it until people started misusing it. It makes sense because back then people didnt even have common sense, i mean only a few thousand years ago did the mekkans stop burring their women alive, so we as a human race have changed alot. Our innovation and technological advances means that our mind has grown vast. People used to eat each other....i believe even if incest created the world it wouldnt matter now because it is HARAAM. If Allah sent other men after adam and eve as well, its fine. It doesnt change our objective now, enjoin good forbid evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Genesis 4:15-17 there were humans in the world besides Adam, Eve and Cain. The Bible does not say where they came from. Adam and Eve are mythological persons, something many christians including me believe. Genesis also tell us that" Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil". Today we know that man was a hunter for many generations before becoming farmer, so should Adam and his family have existed, they were not alone on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Some scholars believe that the children of Prophet Adam (as) did marry each other. They say that Allah (ÓÈÍÇäå æ ÊÚÇáì) had not yet forbidden such an act. Here is Allamah Tabatabai's full view. (He also gives his explanation for people being spread out onto different continents)

(wasalam)

It doesent matter if it was haram or halal. The human race would have died out due to the physical problems caused by incest. My theory is that Adam and Eve were the first humans with proper intellect on earth and that there already were other people on earth however they had lesser intellect. I am referring to evolution as in maybe the children of adam mated with these other people(just out of monkey form humans) in order to create/continue the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesent matter if it was haram or halal. The human race would have died out due to the physical problems caused by incest. My theory is that Adam and Eve were the first humans with proper intellect on earth and that there already were other people on earth however they had lesser intellect. I am referring to evolution as in maybe the children of adam mated with these other people(just out of monkey form humans) in order to create/continue the human race.

I tend to agree, but I'm not sure if the difference was intelect, or just a common, (Gentile) bloodline. I believe the story of Adam and Eve to be true, and they were a special creation by God, but according to the Bible, not the first humans around, just the first to be recorded.

 

*edit* where's my spell checker?

Edited by Son of Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesent matter if it was haram or halal. The human race would have died out due to the physical problems caused by incest. My theory is that Adam and Eve were the first humans with proper intellect on earth and that there already were other people on earth however they had lesser intellect. I am referring to evolution as in maybe the children of adam mated with these other people(just out of monkey form humans) in order to create/continue the human race.

This would mean that the native americans, that inhabited their continent more that 12.000 years

ago, belong to an intellectually inferior race. Did they not develop an advanced culture, independently from the cultures on the Euro-Asian continent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just want to hear some theories on how the people spread all around the world.

 

Hello Abu Hesham,

 

The following answers are just my opinion.

 

How did primitive people reach Australia and other large islands?

 

 

It's possible that the land massed together at first and eventually separated and spread out by earthquakes and fierce storms.

 

 

Did all humans on earth really come from only 2 people? Or was Adam and Eve just the first 2 people who were followed by more in order to populate the world?

 

 

I do think Adam and Eve's children intermarried. Marrying sisters/brothers was not considered bad until God commanded the children of Israel not to do it. For example, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. (I boldened some.)

 

 

 And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of G-d is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

  And moreover she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife.

- Genesis 20:11-12

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis20.html

 

By the time God commanded the children of Israel not to marry members of their family, there were many people in the world:

 

The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living."

- Leviticus 18:1-18 (NIV)

 

Even today, many peoples marry their cousins, though that's not really a healthy thing to do for their offspring's genes.

 

 

Another question, approximately how old is the human race?

 

 

I am thinking around 6-7 thousand years old, but I don't know for sure. Of course, I understand that evolutionists and Atheists think I'm stupid for thinking that human life began around 6-7 thousand years ago, but that doesn't bother me anymore. :)

 

What's important to me is my Creator's opinion of me.

 

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am thinking around 6-7 thousand years old, but I don't know for sure. Of course, I understand that evolutionists and Atheists think I'm stupid for thinking that human life began around 6-7 thousand years ago, but that doesn't bother me anymore.  :)

 

 

That's because evolutionists and athiests are too busy believing the earth is billions of years old. They can't see humans starting from two people when there were so many monkeys around. The whole evolution thing is rather problematic though. If everything evolved from something that is now extinct, why are there so many monkeys? They have proven the carbon dating system to be totally inaccurate, and have admitted many times it's only been a guess. One dinosaur was tested and it seems the legs were some 40 million years older than the rest of it.

 

At the rate of which people are able to reproduce, (6-7 thousand years = 6 billion people), and before Adam there wouldn't have been any rules on populating within any moral standards, there would have been a kizbillion people before the flood. Funny we can find dinosaur bones, but the earth should have been covered in people bones. 

 

It also seems than none of the oil deposits in the world are more than a few thousand years old...nothing in the millions.

 

There are also reasons to believe there were more people on the earth besides Adam and Eve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just want to hear some theories on how the people spread all around the world. How did primitive people reach Australia and other large islands? Did all humans on earth really come from only 2 people? Or was Adam and Eve just the first 2 people who were followed by more in order to populate the world?

Another question, approximately how old is the human race?

 

More than a theory, it is known that humanity dates back at least a couple hundred thousand years ago. Some areas may have been accessible when sea levels were lower or when ice bridges may have been present depending on the time of migration.

 

All humans on earth did not come from just two people.  No commonly existing living beings have existed on earth as just 2 individuals.  Our bodies are designed in a way in which we thrive in communities and go extinct when our population is severely cut back.  The genes of our ancestors are still within us, and could not logically originate from two beings.

Ill add that the age of humanity is known because fossils of people are just beneath our feet in a plethora of rock layers that have formed in different times in earth history and in different environments and locations.

 

When sea level rises and drops, these changes are recorded in soil and rocks, water effects how sediments are deposited, as do glaciers when they advance and recede.

 

Events throughout history are recorded very clearly in the earth and biologically, our bodies also have clear stories etched within our genes and physical traits.

The whole evolution thing is rather problematic though. If everything evolved from something that is now extinct, why are there so many monkeys? They have proven the carbon dating system to be totally inaccurate, and have admitted many times it's only been a guess. One dinosaur was tested and it seems the legs were some 40 million years older than the rest of it.

 

 Funny we can find dinosaur bones, but the earth should have been covered in people bones. 

 

It also seems than none of the oil deposits in the world are more than a few thousand years old...nothing in the millions.

 

 

There are monkeys because humans didnt evolve from monkeys, rather both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.  Asking why there are monkeys in the world is like asking why you have cousins.  Its because you didnt "evolve" from your cousin, you and your cousin both "evolved" from a more distant ancestor (youre both within the lineage of your grandparent)..

 

then you follow up commenting on carbon dating being proven innacurate and making some statement about a T rex, but carbon dating isnt even used to date anything related to any dinosaur.

 

These words indicate that you are not educated with this material (that or youre just joking trying to sound like someone who doesnt).

 

In reality, there are many forms of radiometric dating that are correlated and cross checked against eachother along with relative dating methods.  For people who are actually aware of what this means, it is unreasonable to call any of this "innacurate". 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234996509-the-age-of-the-earth/

 

Heres a topic i made some time ago for anyone interested in material related to the age of the earth ^^.

 

The comment on oil fields is untrue, if anyone thinks it is true and would like to defend this idea, post research.

 

Also, I am a geologist by research and profession. If anyone is sincerely interested in this material and isnt simply going to "troll" me, feel free to PM me or post sincere questions.  I cant be bothered debating people who arent educated with the material, but i can teach sincere people.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Europeans Descended From Just Three Ancestors

 

It was all over the news. Funny how it takes science and the doubtful always a good while longer to reach the same conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Darths post,

 

Ill just point out that even if a portion (part of a whole) of one race (one race of many human races) of mankind may have three male ancestors, this doesnt mean there were also just 3 women.  It doesnt mean that these 3 men came from 1 man before them, it doesnt mean the numerous women they likely had children with originated from one woman etc. And even still, it doesnt mean that these 3 men didnt come from 5 men or 10 men or 30 men before them.

 

The research indicates genetic relatedness (common ancestry and evolution), but it is not identifying any original 2 individual ancestors.

 

Humanity itself, has genes originating from organisms far older than any human that has even existed. In that history, countless ancestors have played a role, more than anyone could even begin attempting to count or get guess a number for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because evolutionists and athiests are too busy believing the earth is billions of years old. They can't see humans starting from two people when there were so many monkeys around. The whole evolution thing is rather problematic though. If everything evolved from something that is now extinct, why are there so many monkeys? They have proven the carbon dating system to be totally inaccurate, and have admitted many times it's only been a guess. One dinosaur was tested and it seems the legs were some 40 million years older than the rest of it.

At the rate of which people are able to reproduce, (6-7 thousand years = 6 billion people), and before Adam there wouldn't have been any rules on populating within any moral standards, there would have been a kizbillion people before the flood. Funny we can find dinosaur bones, but the earth should have been covered in people bones.

It also seems than none of the oil deposits in the world are more than a few thousand years old...nothing in the millions.

There are also reasons to believe there were more people on the earth besides Adam and Eve.

The energy of Oil comes from the Sun. Have you not read about plants and photosynthesis? Imagine if all energy in worlds oil deposits were recieved from the Sun in only 6.000 years. You need to do some studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my theory, and I have nothing but my logic to back it. 

 

Adam wasn't the first "human", but he was the first BELIEVING human. The first human to believe in a God, in the hereafter, in muhammed etc. The first to attain a purpose. 

But again, it's what I came to think after much dwelling over a line I read in the quran

 

  (bismillah) 

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."

 

Quran 2:30 

 

 

If there weren't any humans before adam  (pbuh) , why would the angels ask such a question? How would they know the future of his children? Only God possess knowledge of the before and after., right? 

I assume, once Adam showed he acknowledged Islam by learning the names (which I assumed were the prophet/ahl-ulbayt's names?  (as) I really don't know) , the angles turned and apologised. 

 

(bismillah) 

 

And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful." (31)

They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise." (32) 

He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed." (33) 

Quran 2:31-33 

 

But again, I only assumed all of this. I tried connecting the dots, but I'm no 3alim neither did I consult one with this. What I think is not necessarily the truth.  i did try to look for answers online but most just gave me ridiculously illogical/irrational answers. Or the cliche was "there were thousands upon thousands of adams.". I'm never too sure what this is supposed to mean. So there were thousands of adams who ate from the tree? How about their children and their story? Were there thousands and thousands of cains and abels? It just didn't make sense. Why would God make it so confusing... > I thought what was meant by thousands of adams in the hadith, is that we're not the only species undergoing a "test" and that there are many more like us. 

 

So anyway, I stuck to what I thought was right. I love God far too much to seed doubt in my heart again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of Adam and Eve is a myth. You can either deny science or take these Quranic stories as parables.

 

I've been looking at your comment for 5 minutes now. Could you elaborate? I'm very confused. 

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You don't need to form parables to explain religion. So I really don't understand how or why you've made that point...  :donno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that you cannot take the story of Adam and Eve literally and still believe in evolution and human genetics because they are incompatible. The only thing that remains is to treat these stories as parables. Most Christians and Jews have already moved on from literal interpretations of the Bible, but most Muslims are still behind which is impeding their progress.

Edited by Sea Ocean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than a theory, it is known that humanity dates back at least a couple hundred thousand years ago. Some areas may have been accessible when sea levels were lower or when ice bridges may have been present depending on the time of migration.

 

All humans on earth did not come from just two people.  No commonly existing living beings have existed on earth as just 2 individuals.  Our bodies are designed in a way in which we thrive in communities and go extinct when our population is severely cut back.  The genes of our ancestors are still within us, and could not logically originate from two beings.

Ill add that the age of humanity is known because fossils of people are just beneath our feet in a plethora of rock layers that have formed in different times in earth history and in different environments and locations.

 

When sea level rises and drops, these changes are recorded in soil and rocks, water effects how sediments are deposited, as do glaciers when they advance and recede.

 

Events throughout history are recorded very clearly in the earth and biologically, our bodies also have clear stories etched within our genes and physical traits.

 

There are monkeys because humans didnt evolve from monkeys, rather both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.  Asking why there are monkeys in the world is like asking why you have cousins.  Its because you didnt "evolve" from your cousin, you and your cousin both "evolved" from a more distant ancestor (youre both within the lineage of your grandparent)..

 

then you follow up commenting on carbon dating being proven innacurate and making some statement about a T rex, but carbon dating isnt even used to date anything related to any dinosaur.

 

These words indicate that you are not educated with this material (that or youre just joking trying to sound like someone who doesnt).

 

In reality, there are many forms of radiometric dating that are correlated and cross checked against eachother along with relative dating methods.  For people who are actually aware of what this means, it is unreasonable to call any of this "innacurate". 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234996509-the-age-of-the-earth/

 

Heres a topic i made some time ago for anyone interested in material related to the age of the earth ^^.

 

The comment on oil fields is untrue, if anyone thinks it is true and would like to defend this idea, post research.

 

Also, I am a geologist by research and profession. If anyone is sincerely interested in this material and isnt simply going to "troll" me, feel free to PM me or post sincere questions.  I cant be bothered debating people who arent educated with the material, but i can teach sincere people.

 

Not educated, and not overly serious about the whole thing because it matters so little today. I do have a cousin that might make one wonder though.

 

Not going to argue for the main reason you would not be arguing with me, but with the sources I searched. It would be one educated guess against another. If I had the source at hand I'd link you and you could tell me. I'll take a look at your link but my main point was that the earth could be billions of years old, but that doesn't mean man is, so ChristianLady doesn't have to take ridicule from anyone. 

 

I never said T rex, but maybe you know which test was done that got such strange findings. Going way back, but I seem to remember someone carbon dating a letter as really old after it spent 20 minutes in an oven. 

 

All in all, I believe the flood messed everything up and that's why they find sea shells on top of mountains. I'm thinking that's another topic for another day.

 

I'm still under the impression that much of the past past discoveries are in part imagination. That's why it's all still in theory. We all know Darwin had a good imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to make statements like "one educated guess against another" and talk down on certain alleged research, you should post that research or post those claims.

Otherwise you're just speaking.

The link I posted about dating of the earth in my last post is speaking based on research of radioisotope dating. Our understanding of this material is used in several fields of science. It's used to date the earth, it's used in physics in understanding thermodynamics, it's used in medical fields with relation to cancer treatment, it's used on astronomy to understand the development and life of stars etc.

It's not some outlandish assumed science. It's well understood and frequently used in many ways by scientists around the globe.

So to come out trying to call it false is a bold thing to do and if you do call it false, you need justification.

Granted this is an Internet forum and anyone can say anything they want without justification, but if you're sincerely interested in understanding and spreading truth, you can't be all willy nilly saying whatever comes to mind.

With that said, I'll wait to see what research you have. Otherwise I'll just assume your words are false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that you cannot take the story of Adam and Eve literally and still believe in evolution and human genetics because they are incompatible. The only thing that remains is to treat these stories as parables. Most Christians and Jews have already moved on from literal interpretations of the Bible, but most Muslims are still behind which is impeding their progress.

Did you read all responses to the thread or just the original post? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to make statements like "one educated guess against another" and talk down on certain alleged research, you should post that research or post those claims.

Otherwise you're just speaking.

The link I posted about dating of the earth in my last post is speaking based on research of radioisotope dating. Our understanding of this material is used in several fields of science. It's used to date the earth, it's used in physics in understanding thermodynamics, it's used in medical fields with relation to cancer treatment, it's used on astronomy to understand the development and life of stars etc.

It's not some outlandish assumed science. It's well understood and frequently used in many ways by scientists around the globe.

So to come out trying to call it false is a bold thing to do and if you do call it false, you need justification.

Granted this is an Internet forum and anyone can say anything they want without justification, but if you're sincerely interested in understanding and spreading truth, you can't be all willy nilly saying whatever comes to mind.

With that said, I'll wait to see what research you have. Otherwise I'll just assume your words are false.

I get why you jumped all over my post.

Science is ever evolving and ever changing but it's important scientists be right regardless. Not sure why you would have to "assume" my research is false. Either you know or you don't?

For one, it's not research, it's only based on what I've learned, which may have changed since I learned it. Science has.

 

I spent years calibrating measure and test equ. so I know a few things about digital representation.

 

Your findings are still based on data and calculations. I have a friend who tests core samples for the oil industry. He knows all the big words in the business, but it's still calculated and maintains a tolerance of +/- w/e. 

 

Radioisotopes is a really big word and encompasses a horrendous amount of uses and a vast array of processes . We looked into a couple of them more than a few years ago to improve processes and fault detection in our welding areas. I believe the main reason we didn't go with any, (besides cost) was because of the many processes we had and adapting new procedures to each is difficult amidst an aging work force. That and their dependance on trichlorethylene. 

 

I'm not calling it false, and don't take it personal. Regardless, if you can't call it an educated guess then you'll have to call it an exact science. Can you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one, it's not research, it's only based on what I've learned, which may have changed since I learned it. Science has.

 

We can also say that science has developed. Darwins idea about genetical drift was correct, but he was wrong in saying that humans derive from the apes. Today we know that Chimpansies and humans are a sort of cousins, with 98,5% the same genes. Considering the tools Darwin had, he can be forgiven for this mistake. It has also recently by DNA analysis been shown that a skelleton found in USA, dated to 12.000 BC, is a direct forefather of native Americans. Or is it so that we cannot trust the datings methods? If so, I would like to know why.

 

It would be great to see why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For placid, i will just quote you to stay on topic here.

 

"The whole evolution thing is rather problematic though. If everything evolved from something that is now extinct, why are there so many monkeys? They have proven the carbon dating system to be totally inaccurate, and have admitted many times it's only been a guess" "One dinosaur was tested and it seems the legs were some 40 million years older than the rest of it."

 

So, the part at the end there in particular "they have proven the carbon dating system to be false".

 

This in particular is something that, it just isnt true. And so, rather than just telling you it is not true, I attempted to give you the opportunity to demonstrate truth in your words by posting research.

 

Which is impossible to do because it doesnt exist, but i wanted to see if perhaps you could show me something that might have been worth while.

 

You havent done so and i do not think you will. So i will continue on with my assumption (i do not have ultimate knowledge of all things), that you are speaking words that are not true.

 

-------------------------------

 

Now, there was also some conflation going on between dating methods used for ancient living things, and dating methods such as carbon dating which you cannot use to test a dinosaur for its age. But the quote below says just that, one dinosaur was tested and it seems the legs were some 40 my older than the rest of it.

 

This just doesnt make any sense^

 

"One dinosaur was tested and it seems the legs were some 40 million years older than the rest of it."

 

So, this mixing of commentary, along with "they have proven the carbon dating system to be false", together is a statement that, if it were true, many fields of science and all the applications revolving around this material would collapse and it would be clear as day to any scientist that works with or around it.

 

So for this reason i assume your words are false.

 

but again, i offer the opportunity for you to post research, that way i can see specifically what youre referring to.

 

You havent posted any research.  From the looks of how this conversation is going, I assume that you are not going to, so your words appear to be baseless, and I will continue to assume that they are unless you can show me otherwise.

 

That is all there is to this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm not calling it false"

 

"they have proven the carbon dating system to be false"

 

 

To conclude here, It is true that for dating methods there is always a standard deviation or a confidence interval in your data, but typically these values are minute and when you use multiple dating methods, and correlate the results, you create research that is far from "false".


For viewers

 

If I ask one family member of yours, how old you are, it is possible that family member will think youre 35, it is possible they will think youre 34 or 36.  But if I ask 5 family members how old you are, and i also look at say, your facebook page or your birth certificate or maybe some family photos of birthday parties etc.

 

I can generally get an idea of how old you are, even if uncle jerry thought your birthday was in september, though its actually in october.

 

So, this is generally how radioactive dating works, there are many dating methods, often they are used and compared with eachother, numerous samples may be taken from the same location or multiple locations far away from eachother. There are many relative methods for dating as well. These methods are examined along side one another.

 

The reality is, these methods depict a pretty clear image of earth history, it is based in sound science. The dating methods correlate with many fundamental and well understood concepts in physics, geography, geology and a multitude of fields of science.

 

Ill also add that, not only is there great reason to believe that the earth is very old, but there is also great reason not to believe that the earth is say, 6000 years old (not to say that you or anyone else in this room believes that).  Aside from radioactive dating, understanding physics and geology and the structures the earth builds over time, depicts environments that would take millions of years.

 

For example, you may find dinosaur tracks, they may be upside down with other continuous rocks over top of or below them. To form certain structures that exist on earth in 6000 years, though it could be possible with physics breaking creation, is more reasonably explained using every day physics and an earth that is billions of years old.

 

Instead of believing that a cake defied physics and formed in 20 seconds with special flavors and neat layers and whipped cream etc.  It is easier just to believe that the cake was baked in my oven over the past half hour, and after that i took my time and i put the whipped cream on myself in about 10 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking scientists are a lot like engineers. I recognize the tone.

 

I said...they have proven the carbon dating system to be totally inaccurate,

 

You said I said... they have proven the carbon dating system to be false.

 

notice a difference? 

 

No, I am not going to bother finding the sources again because you obviously know better so why would I? It serves no purpose.

 

I stand corrected and would rather learn than take on a challenge of you against someone elses information so unless you have more to profess and need someone to be wrong for you...

 

I like the dance between educated guess and exact science though. 

Oh to be 35 again, give or take a few thousand years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SoP

There are today no serious sscientists that claim the earth is only 6.000 years, or that there were no humans on earth 100.000 years ago, so searching for them will be in vain.

Better to read about how dating methods work. Radioactive methods are not the only tools and lots of info is to be found on internet, to begin with.

Carbon-14 method becomes less exact the older material you examine but is pretty precise for items younger than lets say 40.000 years. For items much older other isotopes are used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. If a single cell can come into being, survive, and then multiply so much to create ALL life then how come Europeans having just three ancestors or Adam and Eve, a single pair, parenting all human beings seem so scientifically far fetched?

 

That theoretical first living cell, by the way, also happens to be so clever that it fathered not only all animals but also all plants, fungi, diseases and viruses(?) too.

 

hans-landa-o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SoP

There are today no serious sscientists that claim the earth is only 6.000 years, or that there were no humans on earth 100.000 years ago, so searching for them will be in vain.

Better to read about how dating methods work. Radioactive methods are not the only tools and lots of info is to be found on internet, to begin with.

Carbon-14 method becomes less exact the older material you examine but is pretty precise for items younger than lets say 40.000 years. For items much older other isotopes are used.

I'm not claiming the earth is only 6000 years old, nor that Adam and Eve were the first people on it.

 

There would be no reason for God to put a mark on Cain before sending him out if there were no other existing humans that might kill him, plus it's hard to imagine that Cain built a city on his own, nor sensible that someone would build a city for themself. 

 

The only records we have start with Adam and Eve and follow the bloodline forward. Many things have happened on this earth without being recorded, it's not recomended we assume nothing happened without being recorded.

 

When we get down to precision or accuracy the layman sees them as synonymous, but in the world of measurement they are deliberately contrasted as a means of perfecting a process, in my case it was quality control. To go into detail would mean I'd have to go back and relearn all the $10 words I willingly forgot. 

 

The variables I had to deal with the most were contamination, and the coefficient of linear expansion, predominantly thermal expansion from various causes. Cross that with the many materials that expand at different rates and it can become a real head scratcher. The biggest variant I dealt with was the human factor, not only the physical differences, but attitude, preconceptions, and imagination.

 

Trying to get one guy to repeatably measure to the thousandths of an inch was tough enough, add another guy. Now, try to get them to agree on ten thousandths of an inch, and forget the hundred thousanths, even though my masters were measured to the micro-inch. To overcome the human factor required instruments that cost thousands of dollars and it all comes down to what you can convince management is required. 

 

As far as evolution goes...there are the evolutionists, and the creationists, which both have heated opinions, and why would I enter that merry-go-round? 

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was void and without form. How long was "day" 1? The Bible separates evolution into days, but we know those days weren't 24 hours. They could have been thousands, or even millions of years. It is also possible that the earth was formed from external elements that could have been billions of years old. I believe God put things in place and let them evolve naturally.

 

The Bible says the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, which could indicate there was no dry land to start with. Water is the main source of life so it's not so hard to understand why it would be the first thing to show up on earth. Note later God said "Let there be a firmament" which would indicate that dry land emerged from the water. I'm of the opinion that this was one chunk of land and not the continents as we have them today. 

 

Regardless of how fancy the measuring sticks we poke in the ground there is one thing that is never explained. Since the flood, which was only 4-5 thousand years ago, man has managed to reproduce 6 billion people. If man was 100 thousand years old, how many people inhabited the earth before the flood? There has to be more evidence than one tooth found in Nebraska. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...