₦airaland Forum

The point there is we will continue to ask this question a million times, to complicate the issue more, ABEL AND CAINE were the two sons of Adam and Eve, Cain killed Abel and ran to a distant land in the bible and had a wife there. My question is who gave birth to that wife since Abel and caine were the only children of the only man and woman on earth? . Religion has made Christians most especially to be indolent in spirit. To help solve the problem , the biblical story of Adam and eve was simply an illustration of the fall of Man. An illustration of the over cultivation of the intellect which made man to lose interest on his real task here on earth. I can still write more if you guyz so demand.

sylarsquins:
So ur tryna tell me Adam populated d earth, if yes then y we all different n remember Eve was his only woman?.

Sometimes we let religion and the bible deceive us, well am no longer in that category.

I now believe in facts and what I see. So you can quote the bible all you want I still aint coming around anytime soon.

Let's all the facts here.
Bible: God created man and woman . first man = Adam, first woman= Eve

Science: Man evolved through evolution.
First man: . . . . . First woman : . . . .

God has a very complete theory

Adam was not the first creature but adam was the first man ever to roam the earth the earth has existed way back b4 adam was created by God, b4 the creation of adam we have beast of the filed eg like the dinosaur and other big beast, that was when God said let's create man in our own image and man was made unto him woman was made so they can keep each others company and reproduce if u wanna know more request my bbm pin

This is purely religious and metaphysical (i must add)as it relate directly to GOD
perhaps,sme persons may try to provide prove of adam being the first man but such attempt ll only succeed in creating anoda metaphisical question(DNA),however;i would like to point dat religious matters are based on Faith ,,no one has ever succeeded in using reason to prove things relating to God.
If one believes dat Adam was d first man -fine,if one does not-good.
I dont think its a prerequisite to making heaven

HAPPY SUNDAY

Hmm adam d 1st man,n his wife,dey had children and so on,if its simple as that then evolution is true because africans,caucasians,indians,chinese,aborigenes dnt look alike,what happened?viruses,bacteria,protozoans mutate,sickle cell disease is said 2b a mutation in africans 2escape malaria infecting us.what i think is d creation story is a summary of evolution...man was made frm dust,der was no word (or knowledge) abt microbes then and if d world was made in 6 24hrs days it wld b chaotic,dats nt d nature of God

tutusaint:
Let's all the facts here. Bible: God created man and woman . first man = Adam, first woman= Eve
Science: Man evolved through evolution. First man: . . . . . First woman : . . . .
God has a very complete theory

Sori mate buh Gods theory are without rea facts, just faith.

adellam16:
guy don't come here to cause problem. If u don't believe he is d first man, ur choice. Dis topic does not make sense why did I say so? Dats cos u want religion and science to clash. Why do u like to see people fight and quarrel knowing fully well dat our existence is a mystery? Why. Ask humans dese questions? If u have doubts try and get in contact with our creator. Only He has d ansas. Don't come here to cause commotion

in other words religion rules abi

starlingslimnet:
Ask yourself Why your puppy no have the same DNA like hm Papa. This science you guys are talking about can't even tell where the wind comes from or where it goes. They see the snow come but they don't know where it stays. They can't even explain Why fingers is not equal. People here discussing with you guys don't know what they are into. Your fears is what is disturbing you...you are here for the purpose which nairaland is made for.... You Freemasons will be damned.

You don't have answer then you just shuush! And let people who have something to say talk.

I know your type

Idiots keep believing Darwin who himself called it THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND NOT FACTS OF EVOLUTION...Use ur heads people...Don't question God's words,even my Qur'an said same as the Bible

ChynoBEATS:
Dude ..go and Find out about

Nephillims the Sons of Anak



That'll settle the blockade of Views in your foresight

N it'll Ease your headache

How does that affect my topic, I can see where am going to man. My forsight is on point

fabulousbrainzz:
Idiots keep believing Darwin who himself called it THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND NOT FACTS OF EVOLUTION...Use ur heads people...Don't question God's words,even my Qur'an said same as the Bible

Why shoudnt we question dem, coz his God?. When the rea fact is out there in the open for us all to see and be liberated

adellam16:
guy don't come here to cause problem. If u don't believe he is d first man, ur choice. Dis topic does not make sense why did I say so? Dats cos u want religion and science to clash. Why do u like to see people fight and quarrel knowing fully well dat our existence is a mystery? Why. Ask humans dese questions? If u have doubts try and get in contact with our creator. Only He has d ansas. Don't come here to cause commotion

there is nothing like commotion here, every tribe in the world has is own story of first man(mythology) just to prove their supremacy over other tribes, so the Adam story is jst based on jews mythology just like greek,yoruba,igbo,nupe,Chinese ,roman and others.

sylarsquins:
I believe in the scientific explantion on the evolution of man because it provides acuurate details and explanation on how Man came into being.

The Christian point of view is base on beliefs, no true facts recorded and besides fossils of the early Man are still being dug out by archaeologist.

Ask youself this one question, what is the proof that Adam was indeed the 1st man on earth?.

This answers shows ur are not a christian.. and dont ask me how I know because by pple's fruits u know dem.... A christian is a person who believes in every word of God as Jesus pointed out in his temptation to d devil.... but by every word dat proceeds frm d mouth of God... U want answers why not pray.. or dont u know dat scientist modelled almost all deir creation frm God's model... No wonder st Paul rightly wrote... "always learning buh never able to come to the knowledge of truth"....

Dbrainiac1:
Just go heaven. U go know.
Mtcheeew. Wic kind useless question be dis?

That is my problem with u guys, nw am useless coz ve left u wit ur dafted belief for I have seen the light

crixtex:
This answers shows ur are not a christian.. and dont ask me how I know because by pple's fruits u know dem.... A christian is a person who believes in every word of God as Jesus pointed out in his temptation to d devil.... but by every word dat proceeds frm d mouth of God... U want answers why not pray.. or dont u know dat scientist modelled almost all deir creation frm God's model... No wonder st Paul rightly wrote... "always learning buh never able to come to the knowledge of truth"....

Am not a Christian nor a Muslim, I just know better now for I'm now an enlightened one.

For those who think it is Blasphemy to question is Adam was truly the first man on earth, the following are bible passage for verification that the bible itself is not 100% clear on the subject;
Genesis 4
13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

Question:
1. If cain is the first generation of the Adam tree or if there are no other people living on the face of the earth, who was he afraid of will kill him?
2. Who are the people inhabiting the land of Nod that Cain moved to when he "departed the presence of the Lord" in verse 16?
3. Who is Cain's wife if it is not his Sister (remember he has departed the garden where is family lives)

Finally, there are lots of holes and inconclusions in the bible and christians should honestly answer biblical questions if they know, but stop being defensive in ignorance and demonising those who ask honest question. Thessalonians 5:21 says to question everything.

sylarsquins:
Why shoudnt we question dem, coz his God?. When the rea fact is out there in the open for us all to see and be liberated

Sometimes I try not to ask questions but there lot of loopholes in this books esp with creation of man.

And when you ask they will say don't question God.

Sometimes I womder if they are also philophoser trying to answer evolution questions.

sylarsquins:
The Big question is " How did Man come into existence"?. The many religions we have today and those of the old gods possesses different beliefs on how Man came into being.

As a Christian, i learnt through the bible how Man came into life and I don't have to share it because I believe everyone knows that including non Christians because am not here to quote the Bible as am not that religious.

The generally known belief on how man came into the world is best explained through academia which states the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary
pathway.

My BIG question is, which should we believe and if Truly Adam came 1st from God, how then did he populate the world to what it is right now?.

IGNORANCE.

furthermore I would like to add to my previous post that if the argument now is that how come the entire mankind does not share the same DNA I will say this. DNA is your signature, it is your unique identity on certain levels. We do have the same DNA worldwide as humans but individually we do not. There is always a slight variation in each individual but we all grew up as humans who originated from the fertilized egg of a woman.

if you argue that we all should have the same DNA in totality that is wrong because we have the structure but not the identity. If you say all DNA should be the same how come a child born to person A cannot share the same DNA identity with a member of his or her family and we can actually pinpoint who the child belongs to even if the entire family comes for the same DNA test. OP your DNA is unique to you and even if you have a child his or her DNA will also be unique to them and different from yours but a chemical structure in yours would still link you.

YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PLAUSIBLE IF YOU COULD PROVIDE US RESULTS CARRIED OUT FROM ADAM AND EVES DNA.

Ask yourself are you a random gathering of neurons and cells? Did it just so happen that your brain is located in your head and not your bum? That your heart works with your veins, brain and lungs at the same time? That your intestines happen to have an acidic substance that breaks down your food and your brain lets you know when to defecate? God help you as you think right.

naijadeyhia:
OP i see you need help in your walk with God! Your post is a cry for help. I want you to read something i posted after this introduction. Its a must read for people in your situation. Please be patient and read it because i excluded any and every bible references so its just a simple logical reasoning same as yours.


[b]Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists myriad variations and permutations.

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

We have varieties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this is just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.

Evolutionists believe that, if given enough time, random or chance mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon or preserve.

However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the environment will never qualify as genetic engineering!

Mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don't do any damage to buildings, there are also mutations that don't do any biological harm. But, even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

Most biological variations within a biological kind (i.e. varieties of humans, dogs, cats, horses, mice, etc.) are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not because of mutations.

For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes would be helpful here. What we call "genes" are actually segments of the DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health problems and even death.

There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.

The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.

Such changes, as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into the DNA of a more complex one.

Yes, it is true that the raw biological materials and chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in every species, but the problem is that the random forces of nature (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes programming for entirely new traits. Again, mutations only have the ability to produce variations of already existing traits. It would require intelligent manipulation of genetic material (genetic engineering) to turn a fish into a human being. The random forces of the environment cannot perform such genetic engineering!

If the environment doesn't possess the ability to perform genetic engineering and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one explain the genetic and biological similarities which exist between various species and, indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, creationists believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer who designed and created similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex. Even humans employ this principle of common design in planning the varied architecture of buildings!

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Many have confused natural selection with evolution itself. Yes, Charles Darwin did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but what many don't understand is that natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations.

Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally possible? When a biological change or variation occurs within a species and this new variation (such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved ("selected" and be passed on to offspring. That is called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". But, neither "natural selection" nor "survival of the fittest" has anything to do with producing biological traits and variations.

The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. Darwin did not realize what produced biological variations. Darwin simply assumed that any kind of biological change or variation was possible in life. However, we now know that biological traits and variations are determined by the genetic code.

Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in Nature? As we have seen all biological variation or evolution is limited to within plant and animal kinds.

Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!

How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

Scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying, "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

Usually what is meant by the term "biological kind" is a natural species but this may not always be the case. The key to keep in mind here is that in order for evolution in nature to occur from one biological "kind" to another biological "kind" entirely new genes would have to be generated and not just merely modifications and/or recombination of already existing genes. If, for example, offspring are produced which cannot be crossed back with the original stock then there is, indeed, a new species but if no new genes or traits developed then there is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the two distinct species would continue to belong to the same "kind".

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature[/b]

Aint crying for help mate, ve found what I needed before makin dz thread. Am an enlightened one now

dozymars:
IGNORANCE.

Nope u are, if only u can see the light. Am so enlightened mate, I'll urge u to do the same.

sylarsquins:
That is my problem with u guys, nw am useless coz ve left u wit ur dafted belief for I have seen the light

believe in god word
hell is real

Tocheagle:
TUFACE WAS THE FIRST MAN ON EARTH AND ANNIE WAS THE FIRST WOMAN

Lwkmd. Thought I had seen it all.. This is an upgrade...

Religious beliefs are one area that is difficult to debate. I am a bible student and so I know quite well that the best a christian can do is seek God's revelation on areas of the bible that appear contradictory.
The are so many accounts of events in the bible that contradicts itself. One of such is the account on creation of man.
Gen 1 told us beasts were created first before man while Gen 2 said Adam was created first before God created the beasts and brought them to Adam to give them a name.

sylarsquins:
Am not a Christian nor a Muslim, I just know better now for I'm now an enlightened one.

Yea bro dats better... I m not surprised at ur questions again, since u ve come out to clarify ur stand...
In answer to your sir, as I christian I choose to believe dat Adam was d first because God's word says so... Also, d bible stated dat humans were to b fruitful and multiply starting wit Adam, and humanity had followed this.. Also, d bible says humans were to die, starting Adam, and humanity as follwed ds trend too... Also, some of d bible stories ve been proven to b true.. So as a christian, I m persuaded dat Adam was d first man on earth according to d bible..... buh dat may b wrong buh I dont have to question God because he knows d best... Recall, dat He never wanted Adam to eat dat fruit; dea was also a reason for dat, though dat action brought good and evil....
As an enlightened one, do u go against this, can u prove ur facts.. tnx...

baibijay:
Sometimes I try not to ask questions but there lot of loopholes in this books esp with creation of man.

And when you ask they will say don't question God.

Sometimes I womder if they are also philophoser trying to answer evolution questions.

I don't believe in the bible, u might and dats ur choice. Buh its better if u can make personal research on dz topic, mate ud be carried away as u go deeper therfore making you see the light. Don't fight it buh embrace it

Scrypt:
[color=#000030]For God to prove himself on demand, physically, would be a grave disappointment, and the strongest Christians should be considerably grateful that he chooses not to do so. The skeptic endlessly demands proof, yet God refuses to insult the true intelligence of man, the '6th sense', the chief quality, the acumen which distinguishes man from the rest of creation, faith.

Criss Jami


To those who will believe, no proof is necessary, to those who will not, no conviction is possible. Stop wasting typing energy on these people abeg.

I laugh and waka pass.

[/color]

I like this.. We who believe; believe by faith and not by sight.

seaboyzen:
believe in god word
hell is real

Hell is real to u buh not to me, I believe when we die we roam the earth. Christianity is a forced religion and hell is the reason why Christians are Christians.

If u ask me, Christians aint Christains out of free will buh the fear of hell.

Op yes God created man from the book of Genesis and the population of the earth was made possible by reproduction,it was and still is a gradual process as Adam and Eve gave birth their kids ended up marrying themselves and giving birth to other humans, other living and non living organisms came to be just by commands from God.. Hope this helps a bit Op.. If you are a christian as you say questions like this should be posed in a bible study class and your dozbts would be cleared we all have our doubts too you know

sylarsquins:
So ur tryna tell me Adam populated d earth, if yes then y we all different n remember Eve was his only woman?.

Sometimes we let religion and the bible deceive us, well am no longer in that category.

I now believe in facts and what I see. So you can quote the bible all you want I still aint coming around anytime soon.

guy dem no tell u say ur weather and climate can affect ur skin type and colour.wen adam and eve started multiplying, people will move to other region of the earth with different climates.if science can believe that climate can wether a rock for it to bcum the soil u are standing on den i guess it can change the physical condition of man. And for the language, d reason is in ur bible.

crixtex:
Yea bro dats better... I m not surprised at ur questions again, since u ve come out to clarify ur stand...
In answer to your sir, as I christian I choose to believe dat Adam was d first because God's word says so... Also, d bible stated dat humans were to b fruitful and multiply starting wit Adam, and humanity had followed this.. Also, d bible says humans were to die, starting Adam, and humanity as follwed ds trend too... Also, some of d bible stories ve been proven to b true.. So as a christian, I m persuaded dat Adam was d first man on earth according to d bible..... buh dat may b wrong buh I dont have to question God because he knows d best... Recall, dat He never wanted Adam to eat dat fruit; dea was also a reason for dat, though dat action brought good and evil....
As an enlightened one, do u go against this, can u prove ur facts.. tnx...

If u can remember, God told Adam not to eat the fruit else he'll die afterwards. Buh after Adam did he got enlightened, he saw the light and the world for what it is. Since Adam ate and didn't die, would u call God a liar or not?

[color=#000099][/color]

sylarsquins:
I'm not disputing the fact that God is real, or Christians n der beliefs. I jst don't believe in the bible on its idea of the origin of man

if u don't want to believe in the bible on it idea of the origin of man is ok believe what ever u want to believe that is if u even believe on anything