According to Genesis 5:5, Adam lived for 930 years. From a biological standpoint, cell division is a key part of growth and aging. My question is: If Adam’s cells continued to divide over such a long lifespan, does that imply he may have experienced continuous physical growth, possibly resulting in a giant-like stature? I'm especially interested in whether young-Earth creationist or literalist interpretations of Genesis support the idea that Adam was physically much larger than modern humans, particularly in light of ancient environments that may have included large animals (e.g., dinosaurs). Or is it more likely that his size was similar to ours, and the long lifespan simply reflected slower aging without continuous physical growth?

From [Abiogenesis - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) : > In biology, abiogenesis (from a-‘not’ + Greek bios ‘life’ + genesis 'origin') or **the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds**. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. The mainstream scientific understanding of abiogenesis postulates that life emerged naturally from non-living matter through chemical reactions that took place on a primitive Earth (or on another planet -- see [panspermia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Panspermia)) . Of course, this runs contrary to theistic views that place God as the designer and creator of life (e.g. see Genesis 1). According to Creationists, what are the strongest arguments against the feasibility of abiogenesis? Are there compelling reasons to reject the hypothesis that life could have emerged naturally from non-living matter without the purposeful intervention of an intelligent designer? ___ Relevant Biology Stack Exchange discussions: - [How hard would it be to create a protein "by chance"?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/85890) - [Experiments on abiogenesis in laboratories](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/55225)

There is already a question focused on biblical arguments, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6908/61679* , but I found none focused on scientific reasons. According to creationists, are there scientific grounds for being skeptical of the view that God used Darwinian mechanisms to bring about the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor? What are the main scientific arguments that creationists put forward to challenge [theistic evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) ?

The author of the Voyager books, Ashayana Dean, offers a graph that is called Diamond Sun DNA 12 strand Celestial human silicate lineage related to that of Jesus. Can you tell me if modern day humans have carried on this lineage?

Abigail Loraine Hensel and Brittany Lee Hensel (born March 7, 1990) are American conjoined twins. They key thing here is that they (are female and) have '1 set of reproductive organs' unlike 1. females with 2 vaginas like Hannah Kersey or Hazel Jones 2. conjoined twins with separate sets of reproductive organs like Lucio and Simplicio Godina and Carl and Clarence Aguirre . - BTW, both twins are conjoined twins from the ***Philippines ***, the only Catholic country in Asia besides East Timor. Even though they're a different case from Abby and Brittany, I don't think you can say Catholicism hasn't encountered at least a similar case. **Question: So what does Catholicism say about marriage for conjoined twins like them who *share* reproductive organs: Can they indeed get married (to separate males)?** - **In particular**, are they indeed **allowed to have sex with their respective spouses** even if obtaining carnal knowledge of 1 twin is equivalent to obtaining carnal knowledge of the other? Like... If Abby marries Carl and Brittany marries Daniel, then can Carl / Daniel have sex with Abby / Brittany even if it means Carl / Daniel would be obtaining carnal knowledge of Brittany / Abby? - Consider the following scenarios that may arise (**as guide sub-questions**, not necessarily the main points) : 1. If Carl and Abby are allowed to have sex and they do have sex, then after they are done, can Brittany and Daniel begin right afterwards? Can all 4 do it at the same time like alternately? Or does it have to be 1 pair after the other? 2. If Brittany isn't seeing anyone, then is it wrong for Brittany to ask Abby to have sex with Carl on a day Abby and Carl weren't particularly intending to have sex (but then Abby and Carl of course consent anyway) because Brittany wants sexual pleasure kinda like how Jews would ask non-Jews to operate electrical switches ? --------------- Aha! I found out that Judaism SE actually has a post for this. [What is the halachic status of adult conjoined twins?](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/30887/what-is-the-halachic-status-of-adult-conjoined-twins) Your move , Christianity SE! XD

I have a question regarding the "properties" of heaven. As far as I understand heaven is place outside of space and time. I imagine it like this since it is the only way i can make sense of eternity. However if we believe in resurrection, then it we will have our bodies which are material. If we are alive then our hears will beat. If there is a beat then time must exist since a beat represents a change between 2 instants. How does Catholic doctrine reconcile this (possible) paradox?

The Messiah Jesus is son of Maryam was a human being. He was born from a woman, he ate and drank, got up and went to sleep, suffered pain and wept… and God (Allaah) is far above all of that, Allah is far than biological characters such as sexuality so how could he be God or son of God? **Note:** My Goal is not to argue or to get votes but my goal is to try to understand what is the nature of the logic which works in christianity!

Genesis 30:25-43 is the story about Jacob's flock increasing by making streaks on Laban's goats using wood branches, so that > they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. (Genesis 30:39, NIV) This just doesn't make sense. It doesn't even come close to the Lamarck's Evolution Theory . How is this possible?

I have quite a specific question about the view of ancient Christians on the development of a child. I always assumed, that since the Ephesus Fathers considered being born of human woman as a paramount proof for Christ being truly human, that they must have considered the role of woman as important. On the other hand most ancient natural philosophers tended to diminish the role of woman, claiming that she is only the nurturer of male sperm. My question is: are there liturgical texts about Theotokos that would somehow reflect the views of contemporary Christians about this? I vaguely remember some mention of the role of blood of Mary, but I can't recollect if it was Octoechos or Menaion and what was exactly stated there.

We can now design bacterial genome from scratch, as mentioned in this thread on skeptics.se, and this opens up new and exciting possibilities for solving many problems the humanity is facing today, from efficient generation of drugs and fuels to pollution and world hunger (although the latter might require more advances before a feasible solution can be engineered). Naturally, most secular thinkers hail this as a dawn of new era for humanity with less suffering and more prosperity for everyone. Religious figures, on the other hand, almost universally condemn this advance. Why? What is the basis on which Christians dislike the idea of artificially created life forms? I understand that different branches may have different explanations. Since I'm don't know much of the difference between them, it's OK if in your answers you will concentrate on any one of your choice.

Motivated by the question [What are the theological implications/problems with theistic evolution?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6908/what-are-the-theological-implications-problems-with-theistic-evolution) , consider that Jasher 4:18 seems to imply that there is something wrong with the mixing of animal species to create "chimeras". The creationists group species into "kinds" but the naturalistic evolutionary view would probably say that the whole thing is a spectrum and that nothing is special about a particular given phenotype other than its current adaptability to the current environment, i.e. everything is just in continuous flux. But if Jasher 4:18 is true, then there is something "divinely special" about certain fixed phenotypes that we see nowadays. The two philosophies are completely in opposition. The technology to create chimeras will surely exist in future. What should a Christian say about chimeras? The view of Jasher 4:18 seems incontrovertible.

Viruses are quite nasty germs. Whereas bacteria serve many useful purposes and we need them, I wonder what the purpose of viruses in God's creation could be. Does Young Earth Creationism address what role viruses have in the world? I'd like to hear the YEC view on the following points: 1. Where did viruses come from? 2. What is their purpose? 3. Were viruses created? If so, by whom? 4. Does the Bible say anything applicable? If the Old Earth Creationist view is significantly different, please notify me. I expect them to be similar, but might ask another question focused on OEC if relevant.