Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
No, right, but even if "Adam" and "Eve" themselves weren't close relations, their children were. Is there any way according to evolution that mankind propagated without incest?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Because there would have been far more than just two original "parents", so to speak. Unlike the literal Adam & Eve paradigm whereby the only reproduction could occur between siblings.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
How? What's the mechanism for the generation of these first generation humans? Is mutation involved, as I mentioned, or some other way?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Are you familiar with the theory of evolution? You can get a better explanation reading up online than I can provide and it would answer your questions.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, I know why. The problem did NOT exist in the beginning.
It also appears that you do not even know what the word congenital means.
I know how science works. I work in a scientific field.
You on the other hand... do not know how science works. You think that scientific truth is determined by fallacious appeals to authority or popularity.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Are you saying that it is being claimed, in this tread, that persons alive right now, in the 21st century, can, without commission of immorality, have sexual relations with those of their 21st century contemporaries whose proximity of blood relation to them falls within boundaries of consanguinity such that sexual relations between them would, in the 21st century, be classified as incest?
By the way, your hero--your shameless, Satan-worshiping god--the fraudster Charles Darwin--was (to borrow your phrase) "busy arguing for incest" in the 19th century by marrying his first cousin, Emma Wedgewood, and by having 10 children with her.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Do you mean humans--"far more than just two original" humans?
Now, though you insanely deny that there was ever a time when there were only two humans, would you at least admit that there had to have been a time when there was some discrete number of humans, before which time there were no humans at all?
The stupidity required of you and your fellow Darwin cheerleaders to say that, though there once was a time when there were no humans at all, nevertheless, there was somehow never a time when there was one, and only one human (Adam), and there was somehow never a time when there were two, and only two humans (Adam and Eve). So, according to your guano-loco, Darwin-cheerleader insanity, for some period of time, there was not even one human, and then, spontaneously--skipping over a period of just one human, and a period of just two humans, of just three humans, of just four humans, etc.--there was some number of original humans "far more than just two". That you can sit here, on TOL, and pretend to take yourself seriously while you say things like that the number of original humans was "far more than just two" (nay, "far more than just [one]", even) illustrates just how reprehensibly shameless a liar you are on behalf of your worthless, God-despising cause as a Darwin cheerleader.
Has any non-human ever given birth to a human?
Has any human ever given birth to a non-human?
By the way, it's hilarious that you just called Adam and Eve siblings by saying that the only reproduction that could occur between them was a reproduction between siblings.:darwinsm:
Right Divider
Body part
:french:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Then why did it suddenly spring up afterwards? If there was no problem with initial inbreeding then why was it condemned down the line? I'm well aware of what the word congenital means thanks and it's not irrelevant here. If you want to simply address the obvious defects that are high risk in incestuous relationships then hey, have at it.
You may well be versed and proficient in a scientific job but it certainly isn't anything to do with anything that determines the age of the earth. Science does not start with a pre-set conclusion and shoe horns data to fir in with it by way of, like young earth creationism.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
For starters, it wouldn't have been Adam & Eve who were siblings but their offspring. Your "Darwin cheerleader" garbage has gone beyond boring by now as well...
Right Divider
Body part
Why does it have to be "suddenly"?
If you just believed the truth, this would not be a problem for you.
Since God created ONE man and ONE woman.... how do you expect them to "be fruitful and multiple" without their children interbreeding?
This is a problem TODAY... but NOT at the beginning.
Science simply means KNOWLEDGE and that KNOWLEDGE is NOT limited to your five senses.
You simply reject the KNOWLEDGE that God has given. That leaves you in a position of believing just about anything, true or not.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Doy. Again, that's exactly why it is hilarious that you said that Adam and Eve were siblings. You said so by saying that the only reproduction that could occur between Adam and Eve was a reproduction between siblings:
I love your choice of words, here, because your being a Darwin cheerleader is you handing out garbage--Darwin cheerleader garbage.
You've whet my curiosity, here, to learn from you just where, or to what something goes, according to you, after it has "gone beyond boring".:think:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, where did it become wrong then?
It's not a problem for me as incest wouldn't be part of the equation to start with.
With your belief, incest is unavoidable. With evolution, there's no such thing.
Why now and not then? Why did it become wrong?
Science isn't limited or constrained by fundamentalist belief systems that start with a belief and then try to shoe horn data to fit in with it. The irony of your latter is almost funny.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
To start with, Adam and Eve were not siblings, nor father and daughter, nor son and mother, nor cousins, so sexual relations between them were not, and could not have been incest. So discussion of incest is wholly irrelevant to any discussion of the literality of Adam and Eve.
Cain and his wife were siblings, but sexual relations between Cain and his wife were not incest--that is to say, sexual relations between Cain and his wife were not [sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other]. If you wish to say, on the contrary, that Cain and his wife were [classed as being too closely related to marry each other], you have the problem of being called upon to try to inform us by whom they were classed as such, and when they were classed as such.
Right Divider
Body part
Why are you so obsessed with this?
The real point is that God created ONE man and ONE woman, just like He said that He did. You make Him out to be a liar.
Again... ONE man and ONE woman... their children are the only other people on earth.
That's just so convenient for you, isn't it.
But incest is not wrong unless God says that it is. You, and some others here, don't believe God when He tells you that He created ONE man and ONE woman. Shame on you.
If you cannot tell the difference between the way that God created things and the way that they are now.... well... that's your problem.
The Bible has ALL of this information. Too bad you reject it.
Science isn't limited or constrained by your materialistic belief system that starts with the rejection of God's Word and the elevation of man-made opinions.
There are detailed genealogies in the Bible that include a man named Adam. And yet you claim that he is an allegory. Maybe you think that they are all allegories.... maybe Jesus is an allegory... NOPE, they are ALL literal people.
1 Chronicles and Luke 3
Post of the day. :first:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If there wasn't anything wrong with it in the first place then why did God decide to make it abhorrent down the line? How about the children who have suffered through the changes in design where incest caused such birth defects? Can you explain that, or at least point to an explanation in the bible that outlines such?
Otherwise, there's no disconnect with accepting evolution that does away with any such moral quandry and having a belief, such as Barb and Alate One have constantly shown on here. Fundamentalism is just a restrictive system of belief that's man made and can be discarded for the bunk that it usually is.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
RD, I'm on the same Bible-believing page with you, of course, but may I suggest that Cain's sexual relations with his wife--although his wife was his sister--were not incest? I say this because incest cannot rationally be defined as sexual relations between brother and sister, even though for many ages on up through our present age, all sexual relations between brother and sister have been, and are, indeed, incest.
In fact, we can easily learn that incest cannot rationally be defined as sexual relations between brother and sister by the fact that, were it so, then sexual relations between, say, father and daughter, could not be incest, since sexual relations between father and daughter are not sexual relations between brother and sister. As I said to Arthur Brain , in post #256, according to Google's dictionary entry for 'incest', incest is "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other". According to what Google says, here, Bible-despisers such as Arthur Brain and others who claim that Cain's sexual relations with his sister-wife would have been incest have an impossible burden to inform us as to who--by the time of Cain's sexual relations with his sister-wife--had classed Cain and his sister-wife "as being too closely related to marry each other", and to inform us of when they had been so classed.
Let me put it this way, in a nutshell: The way I view it, incest has always been wrong, so long as there has been incest; however, sexual relations between brother and sister have not always been incest--and so, have not always been wrong.