Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

In The Beginning....


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

 

 

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

 

 

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

  • rep_up.png
  •  
  • 0

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-bump!)

 

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

 

 

Re-re--re-re-bump!

 

 

Re-re-re-re-re-bump!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BAA mate, Ironhorse hasn't been active since 17/11/16 (unless he's lurking and not logging on) He could be having computer problems again?

 

Perhaps one of the other Christians here would like to take a crack at the topic of the thread? Varying points of view are always welcome. (See post #1 for the opening topic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA mate, Ironhorse hasn't been active since 17/11/16 (unless he's lurking and not logging on) He could be having computer problems again?

 

Perhaps one of the other Christians here would like to take a crack at the topic of the thread? Varying points of view are always welcome. (See post #1 for the opening topic)

 

That's fine by me, LF.

 

smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I should add, and when IH does get back we hit him up again. I am by no means abandoning this topic with him.

 

Just if End3 or any of the others wants to jump in please feel free to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

From now on re-bumping for Ironhorse's attention will happen both here and via private messaging.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sent Today, 03:33 PM

LogicalFallacy would like you to respond please in the Den please, Ironhorse.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 03 November 2016 - 04:19 PM

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

Ok, I'm going to agree with the professor this time.
 




Quote

Quote

Ironhorse
I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.


Ok, Noah's son's and their wives are the ones repopulating after the flood.

Let's say each pair has 3 children - that's 9 children. 8 of them can get hitched - your options are Brother to sister (direct incest) or 1st cousin to 1st cousin sex.

Wikipedia defines incest as "sexual activity between family members or close relatives" First cousins under any definition is close relative.

So we still have Noah's sons committing incest with God's blessing. And that's not speculation - that's in the bible. Or at least it can very reasonably be assumed that's what happened from information in the Bible.

The rest of what you say is such pure speculation that we might as well discuss the potential for dragons to exist. (I am quite happy to have a discussion on dragon - they are a pet interest of mine and I have debated possible existence before)

Your answer previously was the line was pure, that's changed to a reducing purity. We haven't even discussed that evolution and DNA sequencing shows that there was no such genetic bottle neck 4,400 years ago. And of course the only 'evidence' for humans living so long is the Bible. There is not a shred of evidence that humans could ever live that long, or that even if they could that incest would not sill have the same detrimental impact.

So if we tie this into "The simplicity" thread all this is not simply apparent from what we see, it is very complex, and requires tremendous amounts of faith as it goes against what we know. At the least, the genetic purity argument was dead in the water when Adam fell.

 


In addition to BAA's bump, here's another bump. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

From now on re-bumping for Ironhorse's attention will happen both here and via private messaging.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sent Today, 03:33 PM

LogicalFallacy would like you to respond please in the Den please, Ironhorse.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 03 November 2016 - 04:19 PM

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

Ok, I'm going to agree with the professor this time.

 

 

 

Quote

Quote

Ironhorse

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

Ok, Noah's son's and their wives are the ones repopulating after the flood.

 

Let's say each pair has 3 children - that's 9 children. 8 of them can get hitched - your options are Brother to sister (direct incest) or 1st cousin to 1st cousin sex.

 

Wikipedia defines incest as "sexual activity between family members or close relatives" First cousins under any definition is close relative.

 

So we still have Noah's sons committing incest with God's blessing. And that's not speculation - that's in the bible. Or at least it can very reasonably be assumed that's what happened from information in the Bible.

 

The rest of what you say is such pure speculation that we might as well discuss the potential for dragons to exist. (I am quite happy to have a discussion on dragon - they are a pet interest of mine and I have debated possible existence before)

 

Your answer previously was the line was pure, that's changed to a reducing purity. We haven't even discussed that evolution and DNA sequencing shows that there was no such genetic bottle neck 4,400 years ago. And of course the only 'evidence' for humans living so long is the Bible. There is not a shred of evidence that humans could ever live that long, or that even if they could that incest would not sill have the same detrimental impact.

 

So if we tie this into "The simplicity" thread all this is not simply apparent from what we see, it is very complex, and requires tremendous amounts of faith as it goes against what we know. At the least, the genetic purity argument was dead in the water when Adam fell.

 

In addition to BAA's bump, here's another bump. 

 

 

Re-bumped here and via private messaging, directly to Ironhorse's inbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

From now on re-bumping for Ironhorse's attention will happen both here and via private messaging.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sent Today, 03:33 PM

LogicalFallacy would like you to respond please in the Den please, Ironhorse.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 03 November 2016 - 04:19 PM

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

Ok, I'm going to agree with the professor this time.

 

 

 

Quote

Quote

Ironhorse

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

Ok, Noah's son's and their wives are the ones repopulating after the flood.

 

Let's say each pair has 3 children - that's 9 children. 8 of them can get hitched - your options are Brother to sister (direct incest) or 1st cousin to 1st cousin sex.

 

Wikipedia defines incest as "sexual activity between family members or close relatives" First cousins under any definition is close relative.

 

So we still have Noah's sons committing incest with God's blessing. And that's not speculation - that's in the bible. Or at least it can very reasonably be assumed that's what happened from information in the Bible.

 

The rest of what you say is such pure speculation that we might as well discuss the potential for dragons to exist. (I am quite happy to have a discussion on dragon - they are a pet interest of mine and I have debated possible existence before)

 

Your answer previously was the line was pure, that's changed to a reducing purity. We haven't even discussed that evolution and DNA sequencing shows that there was no such genetic bottle neck 4,400 years ago. And of course the only 'evidence' for humans living so long is the Bible. There is not a shred of evidence that humans could ever live that long, or that even if they could that incest would not sill have the same detrimental impact.

 

So if we tie this into "The simplicity" thread all this is not simply apparent from what we see, it is very complex, and requires tremendous amounts of faith as it goes against what we know. At the least, the genetic purity argument was dead in the water when Adam fell.

 

In addition to BAA's bump, here's another bump. 

 

 

Re-bumped here and via private messaging, directly to Ironhorse's inbox.

 

 

Re-re-bumped here and via private messaging, directly to Ironhorse's inbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This has just been PMed to Ironhorse.

 

From now on re-bumping for Ironhorse's attention will happen both here and via private messaging.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sent Today, 03:33 PM

LogicalFallacy would like you to respond please in the Den please, Ironhorse.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted 03 November 2016 - 04:19 PM

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:snapback.png

Ok, I'm going to agree with the professor this time.

 

 

 

Quote

Quote

Ironhorse

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

Ok, Noah's son's and their wives are the ones repopulating after the flood.

 

Let's say each pair has 3 children - that's 9 children. 8 of them can get hitched - your options are Brother to sister (direct incest) or 1st cousin to 1st cousin sex.

 

Wikipedia defines incest as "sexual activity between family members or close relatives" First cousins under any definition is close relative.

 

So we still have Noah's sons committing incest with God's blessing. And that's not speculation - that's in the bible. Or at least it can very reasonably be assumed that's what happened from information in the Bible.

 

The rest of what you say is such pure speculation that we might as well discuss the potential for dragons to exist. (I am quite happy to have a discussion on dragon - they are a pet interest of mine and I have debated possible existence before)

 

Your answer previously was the line was pure, that's changed to a reducing purity. We haven't even discussed that evolution and DNA sequencing shows that there was no such genetic bottle neck 4,400 years ago. And of course the only 'evidence' for humans living so long is the Bible. There is not a shred of evidence that humans could ever live that long, or that even if they could that incest would not sill have the same detrimental impact.

 

So if we tie this into "The simplicity" thread all this is not simply apparent from what we see, it is very complex, and requires tremendous amounts of faith as it goes against what we know. At the least, the genetic purity argument was dead in the water when Adam fell.

 

In addition to BAA's bump, here's another bump. 

 

 

Re-bumped here and via private messaging, directly to Ironhorse's inbox.

 

 

Re-re-bumped here and via private messaging, directly to Ironhorse's inbox.

 

 

Re-re-re-bumped here and via private messaging, directly to Ironhorse's inbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

number-7-light-blue-hi.png

 

This is the number of times I have asked Ironhorse the following question.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

 

 

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

 

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

 

Xjs_4beD.png

 

This is the number of days that have elapsed since i first put this question to Ironhorse.

 

yellow-rounded-number-0-clip-art-at-clke

 

This is the number of responses he has made to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A copy of post # 84 has just been PMed to Ironhorse's Inbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

sdelsolray: Aye, but we can show the lurkers and the de-converting that Christianity's mindless indoctrination cannot withstand reasoned argument.

 

Ironhorse:

 

 

 

Ironhorse

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone.

Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.

 

Ok, Noah's son's and their wives are the ones repopulating after the flood.

 

Let's say each pair has 3 children - that's 9 children. 8 of them can get hitched - your options are Brother to sister (direct incest) or 1st cousin to 1st cousin sex.

 

Wikipedia defines incest as "sexual activity between family members or close relatives" First cousins under any definition is close relative.

 

So we still have Noah's sons committing incest with God's blessing. And that's not speculation - that's in the bible. Or at least it can very reasonably be assumed that's what happened from information in the Bible.

 

The rest of what you say is such pure speculation that we might as well discuss the potential for dragons to exist. (I am quite happy to have a discussion on dragon - they are a pet interest of mine and I have debated possible existence before)

 

Your answer previously was the line was pure, that's changed to a reducing purity. We haven't even discussed that evolution and DNA sequencing shows that there was no such genetic bottle neck 4,400 years ago. And of course the only 'evidence' for humans living so long is the Bible. There is not a shred of evidence that humans could ever live that long, or that even if they could that incest would not sill have the same detrimental impact.

 

So if we tie this into "The simplicity" thread all this is not simply apparent from what we see, it is very complex, and requires tremendous amounts of faith as it goes against what we know. At the least, the genetic purity argument was dead in the water when Adam fell.

 

Apologies boys n girls, my city has had a power cut for two days, and my home still has not internet. I am suing the Russians.

 

And Ironhorse bump - Questions to answer re my quoted post:

 

1) Do you stand by your statement: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

 

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as outlined above?

 

3) In light of the obvious conflicts above do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eight_ball_clip_art_24202.jpg

 

This is the number of times I have asked Ironhorse the following question.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

 

 

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

 

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

forty-six-13.jpg

 

This is the number of days that have elapsed since i first put this question to Ironhorse.

 

Whoopi-Goldberg.jpg

 

This is the number of responses he has made to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A copy of the above message has just been PMed to Ironhorse in the continuing hope that he will answer the question...

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

 

 

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

 

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A copy of the above message has just been PMed to Ironhorse in the continuing hope that he will answer the question...

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

 

 

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

 

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

 

 

 

The "prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed".

 

That's some funny make-believe.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Bump!

Ironhorse please respond to the following questions:

1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)?

3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering less and less if Ironhorse is ever going to answer and wondering more and more if Ironhorse has gone to be with his Lord.

 

Let's all pray for him to have a revival and come back with renewed enthusiasm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nine-603820.jpg

 

This is the number of times I have asked Ironhorse the following question.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

 

 

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

 

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

600px-US_50_svg.png

 

This is the number of days that have elapsed since i first put this question to Ironhorse.

 

number-zero-in-a-square-with-rounded-cor

 

This is the number of responses he has made to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A copy of the above post has just been PMed to Ironhorse's Inbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Bump!

 

Ironhorse please respond to the following questions:

 

1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

 

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)?

 

3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

Ironhorse bump again! Actually that's at least the 3rd time with the three questions above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

Bump!

 

Ironhorse please respond to the following questions:

 

1) Do you stand by your statement in relation to repopulation after the flood: "I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone" in light of my evidence that Noah's Son's Son's and Daughters were immediate family and thus even after the flood incest wasn't "long gone"?

 

2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)?

 

3) In light of the obvious conflicts with incest, and evolutionary theory, do you not think that both the creation and flood stories are myth/fables or metaphorical?

Ironhorse bump again! Actually that's at least the 3rd time with the three questions above.

 

 

Bump again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

74308997.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^omg that guy was daily comedy back in the gulf war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^omg that guy was daily comedy back in the gulf war.

 

Gulf War #2, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be the tenth (10th) time I've put this question to you, Ironhorse.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

Ironhorse, were you just giving your view or just speculating, when you wrote this...?

Posted 14 October 2016 - 12:04 PM

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

It's been fifty nine (59) days since I first put this to you...so please answer the question before it's 2017, so that I don't have to copy it fifty nine times!

 

If you have nothing to fear, nothing to hide and nothing to lose, please answer this simple question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A copy of the above post has just been PMed directly to Ironhorse's Inbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.