Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[ok doser]

... the "billions" of years philosophy is not science.

it isn't good science - it relies on unprovable assumptions and unjustifiable extrapolations

 

[Right Divider]

So, no answer then. Telling. We know that incest can cause congenital defects in children and yet somehow, magically, it just didn't back then?

Nothing magic about it.

Your silly "theory of evolution" has blinded your mind.

You remind me of this:

2Pe 3:3-7 KJV Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

 

[ok doser]

Lucky you! Wish I could have the same. :chuckle:

you could pick up where we left off - you were struggling to answer my question about the inherent wrongness of incest - so far all you've managed to come up with is "the nuns taught me it was icky"

Ok, so same question.

What is inherently wrong about me and my adult sister getting married?

Biological: genetic
Sociological: disturbs the family unit/order
Religious: supposedly it's an abomination
Philosophical: gross

Were (Was?) Adam and Eve's genetic material flawed?

My sister is post menopausal.



If I marry my adult sister with the full blessing of my family what is disturbed?





Not a consideration with Adam-and-Eve.

And in the context of my sister and myself, you're not my religious leader.





That's the nuns talking :chuckle:

I'm really curious to see if you can even recognize that your argument is inherently flawed, wrt your acceptance of homosexuality

 

[annabenedetti]

you could pick up where we left off - you were struggling to answer my question about the inherent wrongness of incest - so far all you've managed to come up with is "the nuns taught me it was icky"

Liar.

Most humans think it's "icky."

If the idea interests you so much, by all means pick up the phone and call your sister, you pervert.

 

[ok doser]

Liar.

Most humans think it's "icky."

If the idea interests you so much, by all means pick up the phone and call your sister, you pervert.

aaaand, we're done - challenged to discuss a difficult issue rationally and logically, anna prefers to go emo :sigh:

 

[Right Divider]

Liar.

Most humans think it's "icky."

Appeal to the majority proves nothing. It is a logical fallacy.

When did God declare is wrong is the question.

AGAIN I ASK:

Since God created ONE man and ONE woman.... how can their children have children?

 

[annabenedetti]

Appeal to the majority proves nothing. It is a logical fallacy.

:rotfl:

Incest aversion is one of the most universal traits humans possess. Nothing fallacious about it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nothing magic about it.

Your silly "theory of evolution" has blinded your mind.

You remind me of this:

You haven't explained how congenital birth defects happen as a result of incest now and yet apparently didn't back then. There's so many disconnects with your position it's not even funny. The theory of evolution is not "silly", it's established science. Your latter is just pompous childishness and you should stop doing that.

 

[ok doser]

:rotfl:

Incest aversion is one of the most universal traits humans possess.

right up there with an aversion toward homosexuals :thumb:

Nothing fallacious about it.

it's a fallacious argument

 

[Right Divider]

:rotfl:

Incest aversion is one of the most universal traits humans possess. Nothing fallacious about it.

Begging the question.... you cannot discuss facts... only your emotional ideas.

AGAIN I ASK: Since God created ONE man and ONE woman.... how can their children have children?

 

[Right Divider]

You haven't explained how congenital birth defects happen as a result of incest now and yet apparently didn't back then.

Because, in the beginning, there were no defects in the genome.

There's so many disconnects with your position it's not even funny.

Begging the question is your favorite tactic.

Try discussing facts for a change.

The theory of evolution is not "silly", it's established science.

Only in the warped minds of "true believers" like yourself.

Your latter is just pompous childishness and you should stop doing that.

 

[Idolater]

You haven't explained how congenital birth defects happen as a result of incest now and yet apparently didn't back then. There's so many disconnects with your position it's not even funny. The theory of evolution is not "silly", it's established science. Your latter is just pompous childishness and you should stop doing that.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Say evolution is true.

Then in order for the human species to propagate, there must have actually been an "Adam" and "Eve" at some point (leaving aside how each a male and a female were produced), and these two were either full siblings or they were not, but regardless, just one generation removed from them (their children), there must have been incest, in order for the species to propagate.

The problems from incest would have presented, there is some small proportion of conceptions that would have gone full term and the children would have survived (the third generation). All the others would have miscarried or died in infancy or otherwise not reproduced.

The full siblings (either "Adam" and "Eve", or their children) would have experienced great trouble in reproducing successfully, but presumably there must have been enough successful children to permit now first cousins (third generation) to reproduce, which known to be far more successful than full siblings at having children who survive and who can reproduce themselves.

Does that sound right?

 

[Right Divider]

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Say evolution is true.

Just playing God's advocate here.

God created one man and one woman in the beginning....

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because, in the beginning, there were no defects in the genome.


Begging the question is your favorite tactic.

Try discussing facts for a change.


Only in the warped minds of "true believers" like yourself.

How do you know there were no defects? Just sprang up down the line did they? There's nothing warped about accepting science either but fundamentalism automatically precludes anything that doesn't fit in with it.

 

[Right Divider]

How do you know there were no defects?

Why would there be defects to start with?

Just sprang up down the line did they?

We know of many environmental factors that presently cause defects.

There's nothing warped about accepting science either but fundamentalism automatically precludes anything that doesn't fit in with it.

I fully accept real science, just not the baloney called "evolution".

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another

Two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, and they put their pants on one leg at a time.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why would there be defects to start with?


We know of many environmental factors that presently cause defects.


I fully accept real science, just not the baloney called "evolution".

Do you even know why incest results in congenital defects? Educate yourself.

No, you don't. You lap up pseudo scientific bunk because actual science doesn't fit in with your belief system. That, however, is not how science works.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Say evolution is true.

Then in order for the human species to propagate, there must have actually been an "Adam" and "Eve" at some point (leaving aside how each a male and a female were produced), and these two were either full siblings or they were not, but regardless, just one generation removed from them (their children), there must have been incest, in order for the species to propagate.

The problems from incest would have presented, there is some small proportion of conceptions that would have gone full term and the children would have survived (the third generation). All the others would have miscarried or died in infancy or otherwise not reproduced.

The full siblings (either "Adam" and "Eve", or their children) would have experienced great trouble in reproducing successfully, but presumably there must have been enough successful children to permit now first cousins (third generation) to reproduce, which known to be far more successful than full siblings at having children who survive and who can reproduce themselves.

Does that sound right?

Evolution wouldn't necessitate two people of the same bloodline having to reproduce to propagate the species.

 

[Idolater]

Evolution wouldn't necessitate two people of the same bloodline having to reproduce to propagate the species.

How is it supposed to work? New species do come from mutations, right? Are you saying that a male and a female can be generated independently and at the same time (to permit reproduction between them, it wouldn't do for a novel male to live at one time and a novel female at another, they have to be contemporaries)? Isn't the start of any new species, according to evolution, a new male and a new female? How else, in the example of mankind, could the species propagate, without a literal "Adam" and "Eve" to reproduce? Is the thought that new mutants develop contemporaneously and independently and then find one another to reproduce?

 

[Arthur Brain]

How is it supposed to work? New species do come from mutations, right? Are you saying that a male and a female can be generated independently and at the same time (to permit reproduction between them, it wouldn't do for a novel male to live at one time and a novel female at another, they have to be contemporaries)? Isn't the start of any new species, according to evolution, a new male and a new female? How else, in the example of mankind, could the species propagate, without a literal "Adam" and "Eve" to reproduce? Is the thought that new mutants develop contemporaneously and independently and then find one another to reproduce?

I really don't get your hang up here. There wouldn't need to be two people who were blood related to reproduce aka "Adam & Eve".