First born

[Subduction Zone]

Only in the Scientific community, which isn't saying much.

2 Cor. 10:12
But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

That is where it counts. The ranting and raving of uneducated masses cannot refute it. And since you are relying on the works of the scientific community that makes your claim here highly ironic to say the least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
Is it your contention.
1) Cain was not the first born mammal?
2) Adam and Eve were not Cains parents?
3) Cain was not of the Human species?

Cain is the only mammal which we are able to document, if there was some other mammal born before Cain, it was not recorded.

Cain is a myth. Most Christians know this.

 

[JIMINZ]

That is where it counts. The ranting and raving of uneducated masses cannot refute it. And since you are relying on the works of the scientific community that makes your claim here highly ironic to say the least.

.
Your equating The Theory of Evolution with the Scientific Community, would be like you calling yourself an Electrician, because you can turn on the bathroom light switch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
Your equating The Theory of Evolution with the Scientific Community, would be like you calling yourself an Electrician, because you can turn on the bathroom light switch.

Not even close. You can't do biology without evolution. That is a huge section of the sciences.

Of those that understand the theory over 99% accept it. Only a few loons, liars, and losers oppose it in the world of science.

 

[ViaCrucis]

.
Is it your contention.
1) Cain was not the first born mammal?

I'm of the position that Cain was probably not a person who lived historically. And if he was, then no, no he was not the first born mammal. And even one takes the story literally, I suspect there were mice having litters before Cain came to full term.

2) Adam and Eve were not Cains parents?

Well they obviously were, that's what the story says.

3) Cain was not of the Human species?

Well obviously he was, that's what the story says.

Cain is the only mammal which we are able to document, if there was some other mammal born before Cain, it was not recorded.

The fossil record shows there were tens of millions of years before the time Cain supposedly lived in which mammals existed. So, no, there are plenty of mammals documented as having been born--by the simple fact that they existed and their fossils are able to be dug up and observed.

Eohippus, 47-56 millions years old.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JIMINZ]

I'm of the position that Cain was probably not a person who lived historically. And if he was, then no, no he was not the first born mammal. And even one takes the story literally, I suspect there were mice having litters before Cain came to full term.



Well they obviously were, that's what the story says.



Well obviously he was, that's what the story says.



The fossil record shows there were tens of millions of years before the time Cain supposedly lived in which mammals existed. So, no, there are plenty of mammals documented as having been born--by the simple fact that they existed and their fossils are able to be dug up and observed.

Eohippus, 47-56 millions years old.

-CryptoLutheran

Now your saying that when Moses wrote Genesis he lied.
If what you say is true, how can you claim Salvation?

If one part of the Biblical record is untrue, then none of it can be trusted.

Everyone is damned, it's all a great hoax. ....sure.

 

[JIMINZ]

Not even close. You can't do biology without evolution. That is a huge section of the sciences.

Of those that understand the theory over 99% accept it. Only a few loons, liars, and losers oppose it in the world of science.

.
And what is that percentage to the population of the world?
100 cracked pots?....Oh I forgot you 101.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
And what is that percentage to the population of the world?
100 cracked pots?....Oh I forgot you 101.

Your life depends upon those "crack pots". Of course we could give you "creationist" medicine.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Now your saying that when Moses wrote Genesis he lied.

1) Moses didn't write Genesis.
2) No, the author(s) of Genesis didn't lie, no more than Jesus "lied" when He taught using parables. If you believe that Cain being a non-historical person makes Genesis a "lie" then you have to also say that Jesus lied when He told His parables, because the eponymous Good Samaritan wasn't a real person either.

If what you say is true, how can you claim Salvation?

Because I'm a baptized Christian whose trust is in the Son of God who gave His life for me and who, having been raised from the dead has overcome death and in Him alone, by God's kindness, mercy, and grace, I trust for my eternal salvation. How about you?

If one part of the Biblical record is untrue, then none of it can be trusted.

Well, as an argument goes that's a bad one. We don't apply that kind of logic to anything else, because it's inherently fallacious to do so, so why would one apply it to the Bible? I mean do you walk into a library and if you come across the fantasy or science fiction section conclude that everything written in every book in the library is untrustworthy? Because that's precisely the argument you are making, because the Bible is a library.

But to address your question, flawed as it is, I didn't say the Biblical record is untrue, I said this story isn't historical. Again I would bring mention to the parables of Jesus, the Parable of the Good Samaritan isn't false, it's absolutely true; but the truth of the parable isn't in the historicity of the events or figures spoken about, but in what it is communicating, because the point isn't to say, "This is what happened at a specific, real point in time". The question is about what is being communicated through language, we judge truth based on whether what is being said is true or false. If I say, "My love for my wife is like a red rose" the truth of that statement isn't found by finding out which rose I'm talking about, but rather the truth of my love for my wife which by use of simile I compare to the beauty of a red rose.

Everyone is damned, it's all a great hoax. ....sure.

I'm not sure why you believe everyone is damned. I certainly don't, I trust in the God who has revealed Himself to us in and through Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, and He has shown Himself to be a God who deeply loves us and desires that we have life with Him. I would encourage you to, as you call yourself a Christian, believe and trust in the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bhsmte]

Now your saying that when Moses wrote Genesis he lied.
If what you say is true, how can you claim Salvation?

If one part of the Biblical record is untrue, then none of it can be trusted.

Everyone is damned, it's all a great hoax. ....sure.

What evidence do you have that moses wrote genesis?

 

[bhsmte]

.
And what is that percentage to the population of the world?
100 cracked pots?....Oh I forgot you 101.

You rely on science, every hourof every day of your life. Every time you visit a doctor, you are relying on the theory of evolution, as painful as that may be for you.

 

[lesliedellow]

What evidence do you have that moses wrote genesis?

If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, it is strange that the pronoun "I" never once occurs in connection with his name.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born?

No. Populations evolve. Individuals don't.
There was never a "first mammal", just like there was never a "first spanish speaking child".

What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species)

All newborns are of the same species as its direct parents.
Evolutions is a gradual process and individuals don't evolve - populations do. And they do so over a great many generations, each contributing changes in an ever-accumulating way, not overnight.

Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

A challenge for what exactly?

Up front, I do not believe anyone can provide such evidence but I have been wrong before and this may be one of those times, time will tell.

Nobody will be able to give you this evidence, that's true.
Here's the funny part: if such evidence would actually exist, it would falsify evolution as presently understood. You seem to not be aware of that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.
Interesting, the only thing Evolutionists can come up with to prove the THEORY is a color chart, I think Darwin would be embarrassed by such foolishness.

I think Jesus would be embarrassed by your dishonesty.

1. capitalizing the word "theory" here, exposes first and foremost an extreme ignorance on how science works and what that word means in a scientific context.

2. the color gradient analogy is not meant as "proof" for a scientific theory of biology. It is given to clarify how the OP question is a nonsense question, as it assumes a false version, a strawman, of how evolution supposedly works.

If a question is invalid, the only proper thing to do is point out why the question is invalid. Invalid questions can not be answered, on the count of them being invalid.

For example, when someone asks you "what does blue taste like", you go on to explain what colors are and how they aren't things that even can have a taste to begin with. It's the only way one can address the question. There is no possibility of answering an invalid question in a valid way. The question asks for the taste of something that can't have a taste by definition.

I have already given you the Name of the first Mammal born. (Cain)
I gave you his parentage. (Adam and Eve)
I gave you his specie. (Human)

Your fundamentalist religious beliefs do not count as valid facts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"why not educate yourself about modern biology"

This kind of suggestion, "educate yourself, study biology, take a course in biology, etc. is suggested often. Why, if all the experts that post in this group cannot answer my questions, how are any of those suggestions going provide an answer? Surely, indoctrination would not be part of the equation...would it?

Informing yourself on the basics of biology, evolution in particular, would make you realise that your question is invalid.

Invalid questions can't have sensible answers.

When you start with an inherently flawed concept of the theory you are hellbend on arguing against, then only nonsense can and will follow.

I get that you don't like people pointing that out to you, but it's really all we can do...
It's upto you to educate yourself in the matters your are interested in. You can't possibly expect us to give you a biology crash course on an internet forum.

I, and several others, will be more then glad to help you along and do our best to answer any honest questions you may have, but it's very clear that you simply aren't interested.

As per your own words, you are OFTENLY suggested to go inform yourself on how biology really works.
You have been notified in this thread on multiple occasions that:
- your idea of how evolution works is flawed
- that your question, as a direct result of this flawed understanding, is inherently nonsensical/invalid

And it seems you just don't want to hear it. Instead of then asking what your mistake is, and trying to understand it, you insist on us having to defend your flawed version of this theory. And then you pet yourself on the back, thinking you somehow scored some points, when somebody "can't answer your questions".

It's pretty...well... you know.

Let's just say that it isn't very honorable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I missed your answers to the two questions, are they are "ill formed"? How should they have been phrased so as to be "formed" properly?

For the upteenth time...............

Your questions flow from an ignorance on how evolution works.
Your question literally implies that at some point 2 members of species A gave birth to species B. And you are giving us species B and then asking us to identify its direct parents of species A.

Evolution does not work that way.

Evolution works through the gradual accumulation of micro-changes.

This means that each and every newborn of any and all species was of the same species as its direct parents.

Just like no latin speaking mother has ever raised a spanish speaking child, no member of species A has ever given birth to a member of species B.

It does not work that way. It's a gradual process, which works through the accumulation of small changes over many generations.

There is no "first mammal"

What did my OP ask or did you just ignore it as usual?

Your OP asks for a piece of evidence that would support YOUR FLAWED VERSION of evolution theory.

No such evidence exists.
The only evidence that DOES exist, supports the ACTUAL VERSION of evolution theory. Which, in case it wasn't clear yet, is different from what you understand it to be.

 

[lesliedellow]

Informing yourself on the basics of biology, evolution in particular, would make you realise that your question is invalid.

Invalid questions can't have sensible answers.

When you start with an inherently flawed concept of the theory you are hellbend on arguing against, then only nonsense can and will follow.

I get that you don't like people pointing that out to you, but it's really all we can do...
It's upto you to educate yourself in the matters your are interested in. You can't possibly expect us to give you a biology crash course on an internet forum.

I, and several others, will be more then glad to help you along and do our best to answer any honest questions you may have, but it's very clear that you simply aren't interested.

As per your own words, you are OFTENLY suggested to go inform yourself on how biology really works.
You have been notified in this thread on multiple occasions that:
- your idea of how evolution works is flawed
- that your question, as a direct result of this flawed understanding, is inherently nonsensical/invalid

And it seems you just don't want to hear it. Instead of then asking what your mistake is, and trying to understand it, you insist on us having to defend your flawed version of this theory. And then you pet yourself on the back, thinking you somehow scored some points, when somebody "can't answer your questions".

It's pretty...well... you know.

Let's just say that it isn't very honorable.

I never thought I would find myself saying, "Come back Dad, all is forgiven."

 

[Aman777]

Sorry, but your claims have been shown to be wrong time after time after time.

Post just one tiny bit of actual "evidence" which supports your false accusation or everyone will see who is wrong and who is violating the 9th Commandment, again. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

It is superior to a law in that it has an explanation for why those repeated experimental observations are made. In other words a scientific theory is basically a law with explanations.

False, unless the Theory is true. If the ToE is examined, it's nothing but a false assumption of godless men who have tried for centuries to eliminate God from His own Creation. We know more than God, they preach to our babies in Schools. We teach the Truth of Science during the week and leave religion to the weekend, they spew.

These "Scoffers of the last days" offend our children about their faith in Jesus, not knowing that a more terrible punishment awaits them for their evil deeds. Mat 18:6 Soon, they will be exposed to the world for their incomplete satanic ToE will be proven totally False. It is based on incomplete facts which cannot explain Human origins no matter how many meanings of words they change in order to make it fit with their false speculations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Post just one tiny bit of actual "evidence" which supports your false accusation or everyone will see who is wrong and who is violating the 9th Commandment, again. God Bless you

Been there done that. And yes, you are the one that is clearly violating the Ninth. Not only have I done this, so has just about everyone else that has debated with you.