Need Support

[★ Citsonga ★]

Also, be careful not to fall into the trap of confusing ID with creationism. While there is some overlap between adherants, creationism (in America, anyway) is a strict reading of Genesis, while ID is not. One can believe in evolution and ID at the same time, but not evolution and creationism. Creationist leaders have been very outspoken against ID for that very reason. Though they share the same goal of pushing religion in school, they are not simply two different terms for the exact same thing.

 

ID was an intentional re-branding of creationism. Though Hugh Ross is an old-earther, he still considers himself a progressive creationist. I've seen a few of the big IDers slip up and use the term creationist. I think there may have been a documentary about this. IDers use sciencey words and try to recruit representatives with clout, but it's still just dressed up creationism. As Phillip Johnson said, their goal is not to prove ID. It's to equate it with belief in God and equate natural selection with non-belief.

 

From a legal standpoint, ID has served the purpose of re-branding creationism, but in reality that's not exactly what it is. If it were, then all creationists would be on board with ID, but they're not. It's a separate movement that doesn't focus on a literal reading of Genesis like creationism does. That doesn't make it a better movement, as they're both fallacious and based on the intent of getting religion into science classes, but they absolutely are not one-and-the-same.

 

For clarification, when I say "creationism," I mean the movement that is typically referred to as simply "creationism," which is young-earth creationism. The movement known as "old-earth creationism" or "progressive creationism" is typically qualified by specifying the whole name (including the "old-earth" or "progressive"), and that is not what I'm referring to when I simply say "creationism."

 

I was involved in the creationist movement when "intelligent design" started coming out, and I assure you that many creationist leaders were strongly opposed to ID, because it was seen as a compromise. "Creationists" want the creationism based on a literal view of the Bible to be the basis of their so-called "science," not the more ambiguous approach of ID.

 

For example, here is a blog attacking ID from prominent creationist Ken Ham: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/08/31/intelligent-design-is-not-enough/

 

If ID and creationism were one and the same, then Ken would be attacking his own movement there. But he's not, because they are not one and the same. Many, many people have made the error of equating the two, but it's an error nonetheless. ID is similar to creationism, but they are not the same movement.

[★ Citsonga ★]

TrueFreedom, thanks for posting that 3 hour video. I'm half-way through it and so far it's been very good.

 

I do want to point out one mischaracterization, though. Starting at 1:02:13 he claims that creationists say that God could not create by evolution. I have never met a creationist who would say that, nor did I believe that when I was a creationist. The claim is not that God is incapable of using evolution, but that he simply didn't do so. In other words, God could have created through evolution if he had chosen to, but if he had done so, then the Bible's creation account would indicate an evolutionary process instead of claiming a direct creation.

 

Otherwise, so far so good.

 

OMG have read all the posts.........if yall can't agree........then what? I am so confused...........but, that's nothing new........I will continue to listen to te videos yall sent me..........ty for responding to me!! Patty.........xx

 

Sorry for any confusion. That little flaw is simply AronRa's slight misunderstanding of the creationist mindset (he was never a creationist, so I can forgive him for that misunderstanding). It does not in any way take away from the evidence for evolution that he presents.

[TrueFreedom]

Thanks, Citsonga. Can we agree that ID is in the family of creationism, that it is a form of creationism, as progressive creationism and old-earth creationism are? No need to confuse Patty any further.

[TrueFreedom]

Patty, We do agree that the Bible, Bible God/gods, and Christianity are false/erroneous/harmful. We can't all agree on everything, can we?

 

xx TF

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thanks, Citsonga. Can we agree that ID is in the family of creationism, that it is a form of creationism, as progressive creationism and old-earth creationism are? No need to confuse Patty any further.

 

Yes, they all fall under the same umbrella of religion masquerading as science.

[starlyte777]

Patty, We do agree that the Bible, Bible God/gods, and Christianity are false/erroneous/harmful. We can't all agree on everything, can we?

 

xx TF

 

ok listened to Dawson.........very articulate.......very funny...........talked in rounds......but, promoted his book brilliantly........xx

[starlyte777]

Also, be careful not to fall into the trap of confusing ID with creationism. While there is some overlap between adherants, creationism (in America, anyway) is a strict reading of Genesis, while ID is not. One can believe in evolution and ID at the same time, but not evolution and creationism. Creationist leaders have been very outspoken against ID for that very reason. Though they share the same goal of pushing religion in school, they are not simply two different terms for the exact same thing.

 

ID was an intentional re-branding of creationism. Though Hugh Ross is an old-earther, he still considers himself a progressive creationist. I've seen a few of the big IDers slip up and use the term creationist. I think there may have been a documentary about this. IDers use sciencey words and try to recruit representatives with clout, but it's still just dressed up creationism. As Phillip Johnson said, their goal is not to prove ID. It's to equate it with belief in God and equate natural selection with non-belief.

 

From a legal standpoint, ID has served the purpose of re-branding creationism, but in reality that's not exactly what it is. If it were, then all creationists would be on board with ID, but they're not. It's a separate movement that doesn't focus on a literal reading of Genesis like creationism does. That doesn't make it a better movement, as they're both fallacious and based on the intent of getting religion into science classes, but they absolutely are not one-and-the-same.

 

For clarification, when I say "creationism," I mean the movement that is typically referred to as simply "creationism," which is young-earth creationism. The movement known as "old-earth creationism" or "progressive creationism" is typically qualified by specifying the whole name (including the "old-earth" or "progressive"), and that is not what I'm referring to when I simply say "creationism."

 

I was involved in the creationist movement when "intelligent design" started coming out, and I assure you that many creationist leaders were strongly opposed to ID, because it was seen as a compromise. "Creationists" want the creationism based on a literal view of the Bible to be the basis of their so-called "science," not the more ambiguous approach of ID.

 

For example, here is a blog attacking ID from prominent creationist Ken Ham: http://blogs.answers...-is-not-enough/

 

If ID and creationism were one and the same, then Ken would be attacking his own movement there. But he's not, because they are not one and the same. Many, many people have made the error of equating the two, but it's an error nonetheless. ID is similar to creationism, but they are not the same movement.

 

please explain to me what is ID..........ty xx

[starlyte777]

Also, be careful not to fall into the trap of confusing ID with creationism. While there is some overlap between adherants, creationism (in America, anyway) is a strict reading of Genesis, while ID is not. One can believe in evolution and ID at the same time, but not evolution and creationism. Creationist leaders have been very outspoken against ID for that very reason. Though they share the same goal of pushing religion in school, they are not simply two different terms for the exact same thing.

 

ID was an intentional re-branding of creationism. Though Hugh Ross is an old-earther, he still considers himself a progressive creationist. I've seen a few of the big IDers slip up and use the term creationist. I think there may have been a documentary about this. IDers use sciencey words and try to recruit representatives with clout, but it's still just dressed up creationism. As Phillip Johnson said, their goal is not to prove ID. It's to equate it with belief in God and equate natural selection with non-belief.

 

From a legal standpoint, ID has served the purpose of re-branding creationism, but in reality that's not exactly what it is. If it were, then all creationists would be on board with ID, but they're not. It's a separate movement that doesn't focus on a literal reading of Genesis like creationism does. That doesn't make it a better movement, as they're both fallacious and based on the intent of getting religion into science classes, but they absolutely are not one-and-the-same.

 

For clarification, when I say "creationism," I mean the movement that is typically referred to as simply "creationism," which is young-earth creationism. The movement known as "old-earth creationism" or "progressive creationism" is typically qualified by specifying the whole name (including the "old-earth" or "progressive"), and that is not what I'm referring to when I simply say "creationism."

 

I was involved in the creationist movement when "intelligent design" started coming out, and I assure you that many creationist leaders were strongly opposed to ID, because it was seen as a compromise. "Creationists" want the creationism based on a literal view of the Bible to be the basis of their so-called "science," not the more ambiguous approach of ID.

 

For example, here is a blog attacking ID from prominent creationist Ken Ham: http://blogs.answers...-is-not-enough/

 

If ID and creationism were one and the same, then Ken would be attacking his own movement there. But he's not, because they are not one and the same. Many, many people have made the error of equating the two, but it's an error nonetheless. ID is similar to creationism, but they are not the same movement.

 

sorry just read this..............much clearer now.......NOTTTTTTTTTTTT .............but, ty for trying.......why so many groups of creationism and so many groups of atheism? makes one wonder...........ty cit xx

[TrueFreedom]

 

please explain to me what is ID..........ty xx

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such asnatural selection."^[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".^[3] The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,^{[n 1][4]} and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.^{[n 2]}

 

As for groups of atheism, all that atheism means is that you don't believe in theistic gods. It doesn't mean that you believe anything.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Also, be careful not to fall into the trap of confusing ID with creationism. While there is some overlap between adherants, creationism (in America, anyway) is a strict reading of Genesis, while ID is not. One can believe in evolution and ID at the same time, but not evolution and creationism. Creationist leaders have been very outspoken against ID for that very reason. Though they share the same goal of pushing religion in school, they are not simply two different terms for the exact same thing.

 

ID was an intentional re-branding of creationism. Though Hugh Ross is an old-earther, he still considers himself a progressive creationist. I've seen a few of the big IDers slip up and use the term creationist. I think there may have been a documentary about this. IDers use sciencey words and try to recruit representatives with clout, but it's still just dressed up creationism. As Phillip Johnson said, their goal is not to prove ID. It's to equate it with belief in God and equate natural selection with non-belief.

 

From a legal standpoint, ID has served the purpose of re-branding creationism, but in reality that's not exactly what it is. If it were, then all creationists would be on board with ID, but they're not. It's a separate movement that doesn't focus on a literal reading of Genesis like creationism does. That doesn't make it a better movement, as they're both fallacious and based on the intent of getting religion into science classes, but they absolutely are not one-and-the-same.

 

For clarification, when I say "creationism," I mean the movement that is typically referred to as simply "creationism," which is young-earth creationism. The movement known as "old-earth creationism" or "progressive creationism" is typically qualified by specifying the whole name (including the "old-earth" or "progressive"), and that is not what I'm referring to when I simply say "creationism."

 

I was involved in the creationist movement when "intelligent design" started coming out, and I assure you that many creationist leaders were strongly opposed to ID, because it was seen as a compromise. "Creationists" want the creationism based on a literal view of the Bible to be the basis of their so-called "science," not the more ambiguous approach of ID.

 

For example, here is a blog attacking ID from prominent creationist Ken Ham: http://blogs.answers...-is-not-enough/

 

If ID and creationism were one and the same, then Ken would be attacking his own movement there. But he's not, because they are not one and the same. Many, many people have made the error of equating the two, but it's an error nonetheless. ID is similar to creationism, but they are not the same movement.

 

sorry just read this..............much clearer now.......NOTTTTTTTTTTTT .............but, ty for trying.......why so many groups of creationism and so many groups of atheism? makes one wonder...........ty cit xx

 

Sorry. That was in response to TF, not an attempt to explain something for you.

 

Basically, there are different schools of thought among Christians, so I'll try to simplify them the best I can.

 

Bible literalists advocate what is called "young earth creationism," or often simply "creationism" for short. That is the view that God created exactly as Genesis 1 says, and the whole Bible is meant literally, and therefore the earth can only be a few thousand years old (based on adding up the ages in the genealogies). They vehemently oppose evolution.

 

Some other Christians argue for "old earth creationism," also known as "progressive creationism." That view is that God created somewhat as Genesis 1 says, but they don't take the days literally, thus allowing for a much older earth. They also oppose evolution.

 

Some other Christians hold to "theistic evolution," which is the view that evolution is scientific fact, but that God guided it.

 

Then there are Christians who push "intelligent design," which is simply the argument that life is too complex to have not had an intelligent designer, which logically would have to be God (although they usually refrain from using the term "God," so as to *sound* more scientific and less religious). It's possible to hold to any of the other three positions while being a proponent of "intelligent design," because the ID movement doesn't align itself specifically with any one of the other positions (although nearly all ID adherents seem to fall into one of the two creationsm categories rather than theistic evolution).

[starlyte777]

okay a new problem........hope yall can help.......talked to my hubby for 2 hours about what I've learned and what he believes.....he didn't want to watch any videos, but posed these questions, which I said I would pass along to the Forum......hope yall can help:

1. What blew up in the Big Bang?

2. After whatever blew up, how long until man came one the scene?

3. If man evolved from apes, who don't all apes have a sould ans self-identity?

4. Adam and Eve were pure DNA........so incest didn't happen

5. Noah had pure DNA..........no incest...........the reason God had to kill all the people was because of fallen angels/demons who had intercourse with humans, thus corrupting their DNA

6. Lev 18 prohibits incest of any kind

 

I have tried to answer these questions, but failed.........I'm not a bible scholar or an expert on anything......that being said....please send me only relevant videos we can watch together that will address these issues........if possible........thank you all........Patty........xx

[starlyte777]

Patty, We do agree that the Bible, Bible God/gods, and Christianity are false/erroneous/harmful. We can't all agree on everything, can we?

 

xx TF

 

Obviously not......wer are just human xxxxx

[jblueep]

Mom,

 

I can come and sit with dad and explain all of this in person if he wants to, but for now, here's some short answers. Others can provide specific videos I'm sure:

 

1. What blew up in the Big Bang?

 

There are plenty of theories, but the bottom line for me is "what does that have to do with the bible god?". Ancient man invented god to explain the unexplainable, e.g. earthquakes, tornadoes, eclipses, tsunamis. Since he didn't understand how these natural phenomenons occurred, he said "that's god". It's known as "the god of the gap". As societies grow and gain knowledge, they learn how things actually work and have less of a need for the god of the gap. Even if someone were to concede that "god" made the big bang happen, then which of the thousands of gods man invented did it?

 

2. After whatever blew up, how long until man came one the scene?

 

The best guess right now is that the universe we know is about 14 billion years old. Homo sapiens came on the scene about 200,000 years ago.

 

3. If man evolved from apes, who don't all apes have a sould ans self-identity?

 

Man didn't evolve from apes. That's a straw man argument that creationists use. Man and apes had a common ancestor. Who is to say that apes don't have a "soul" or self-identity? What is a soul anyway?

 

4. Adam and Eve were pure DNA........so incest didn't happen

 

Yeah, give me a scripture reference for that one

 

5. Noah had pure DNA..........no incest...........the reason God had to kill all the people was because of fallen angels/demons who had intercourse with humans, thus corrupting their DNA

 

Yeah, give me a scripture reference for that one

 

6. Lev 18 prohibits incest of any kind

 

The ten commandments also prohibit murder and theft, but according to the bible, god commanded Israel to do both on multiple occasions.

[★ Citsonga ★]

okay a new problem........hope yall can help.......talked to my hubby for 2 hours about what I've learned and what he believes.....he didn't want to watch any videos, but posed these questions, which I said I would pass along to the Forum......hope yall can help:

 

I'll leave the science questions for the science people, but I'll see what I can do with the others.

 

4. Adam and Eve were pure DNA........so incest didn't happen

 

Incest is defined as "sexual intercourse between closely related persons," so it doesn't matter how "pure" Adam & Eve's DNA would have been. If all mankind came from their children, then their children had to engage in incest, because there would not have been anyone outside their immediate family to procreate with. There is no way around that fact.

 

Now, as far as their DNA being "pure," that's a typical creationist argument, but it's not based on proof, but rather the *assumption* that the creation story in Genesis is true. There is no evidence that the story is true (while there is ample evidence for evolution), and Genesis 1 & 2 contain two contradictory creation accounts. That, when coupled with the plethora of other problems with the Bible, renders the account completely unreliable and demonstrably false to at least some degree.

 

5. Noah had pure DNA..........no incest...........

 

Again, incest is defined as "sexual intercourse betwen closely related persons," and Noah's grandchildren would have had nobody who was any more distant than their cousins to procreate with. That, again, is incest, by definition.

 

Now, as far as Noah's DNA being "pure" (or at least close enough to "pure" for incest to not cause genetic problems), that's just an *assumption* put forth by creationists. There is no evidence that the Noah story is true (while there is ample evidence against it), and the story is based on two contradictory accounts (as I explained in detail earlier in this thread). That, when coupled with all the other Bible problems, renders the account completely unreliable and demonstrably false to at least some degree.

 

the reason God had to kill all the people was because of fallen angels/demons who had intercourse with humans, thus corrupting their DNA

 

This argument is also fallacious. Think about it. How could the DNA of everyone outside of Noah's family be corrupted without Noah's family's DNA being corrupted? How could Noah's sons have taken wives from other families with corrupted DNA and not be expected to pass that corrupted DNA along to their offspring? That argument is simply ridiculous. Besides, why would those three ladies get a free pass while the rest of their families had to drown in the flood? The argument is nothing more than a flimsy attempt by Christian apologists to try to make the God of the Bible to seem less like the monster he's portrayed as being.

 

6. Lev 18 prohibits incest of any kind

 

Right. In the Bible's chronology, the laws against incest didn't come until after the flood. Thus, incest was not condemned in Genesis, and of course incest would be a requirement to build civilization both after the creation of Adam & Eve and after Noah's family was all who were left after the flood.

[mcdaddy]

1. The singularity. Matter/energy has probably always existed in some form.

 

2. Almost 14 billion years.

 

3. A soul has never been proven to exist. Justike a unicorn or flying spaghetti monster.

 

4. Adam and eve never existed, same for Noah (number 5). They are myths plagiarized from other ancient tales.

 

6. The OT Law is completely screwed up. That should be self evident if you just read it.

[starlyte777]

Mom,

 

I can come and sit with dad and explain all of this in person if he wants to, but for now, here's some short answers. Others can provide specific videos I'm sure:

 

1. What blew up in the Big Bang?

 

There are plenty of theories, but the bottom line for me is "what does that have to do with the bible god?". Ancient man invented god to explain the unexplainable, e.g. earthquakes, tornadoes, eclipses, tsunamis. Since he didn't understand how these natural phenomenons occurred, he said "that's god". It's known as "the god of the gap". As societies grow and gain knowledge, they learn how things actually work and have less of a need for the god of the gap. Even if someone were to concede that "god" made the big bang happen, then which of the thousands of gods man invented did it?

 

2. After whatever blew up, how long until man came one the scene?

 

The best guess right now is that the universe we know is about 14 billion years old. Homo sapiens came on the scene about 200,000 years ago.

 

3. If man evolved from apes, who don't all apes have a sould ans self-identity?

 

Man didn't evolve from apes. That's a straw man argument that creationists use. Man and apes had a common ancestor. Who is to say that apes don't have a "soul" or self-identity? What is a soul anyway?

 

4. Adam and Eve were pure DNA........so incest didn't happen

 

Yeah, give me a scripture reference for that one

 

5. Noah had pure DNA..........no incest...........the reason God had to kill all the people was because of fallen angels/demons who had intercourse with humans, thus corrupting their DNA

 

Yeah, give me a scripture reference for that one

 

6. Lev 18 prohibits incest of any kind

 

The ten commandments also prohibit murder and theft, but according to the bible, god commanded Israel to do both on multiple occasions.

 

I agree with all you said, J.........but, I cant begin to explay to M......I'm at a loss here......call him and ask if you can come over and explain it yourself......will b home tomorrow.......otherwise..........i dunno............just hanging on by a thread here.......love you xx

[TrueFreedom]

The big bang is a complex topic. We have no way of comprehending the time/space fabric outside of the big bang and the universe in which we dwell. In order to discuss the origins of the universe you need to be able to step outside of what we understand as time and space.

 

Man IS an ape, btw. We are just much more intelligent than our closest surviving relatives who descended from the same ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago. Evolution also has nothing to do with beginnings, only progressions. The study of beginnings is commonly referred to as abiogenesis, an entirely different field.

[starlyte777]

1. The singularity. Matter/energy has probably always existed in some form.

 

2. Almost 14 billion years.

 

3. A soul has never been proven to exist. Justike a unicorn or flying spaghetti monster.

 

4. Adam and eve never existed, same for Noah (number 5). They are myths plagiarized from other ancient tales.

 

6. The OT Law is completely screwed up. That should be self evident if you just read it.

 

ty, but, that wont do it for him............just saying............xx

[TrueFreedom]

You can't convince someone on these topics with bullet points. If someone wants to know how something works he needs to study. He can either accept an authority or strive to understand for himself. No easy answers here...

[starlyte777]

okay a new problem........hope yall can help.......talked to my hubby for 2 hours about what I've learned and what he believes.....he didn't want to watch any videos, but posed these questions, which I said I would pass along to the Forum......hope yall can help:

 

I'll leave the science questions for the science people, but I'll see what I can do with the others.

 

4. Adam and Eve were pure DNA........so incest didn't happen

 

Incest is defined as "sexual intercourse between closely related persons," so it doesn't matter how "pure" Adam & Eve's DNA would have been. If all mankind came from their children, then their children had to engage in incest, because there would not have been anyone outside their immediate family to procreate with. There is no way around that fact.

 

Now, as far as their DNA being "pure," that's a typical creationist argument, but it's not based on proof, but rather the *assumption* that the creation story in Genesis is true. There is no evidence that the story is true (while there is ample evidence for evolution), and Genesis 1 & 2 contain two contradictory creation accounts. That, when coupled with the plethora of other problems with the Bible, renders the account completely unreliable and demonstrably false to at least some degree.

 

5. Noah had pure DNA..........no incest...........

 

Again, incest is defined as "sexual intercourse betwen closely related persons," and Noah's grandchildren would have had nobody who was any more distant than their cousins to procreate with. That, again, is incest, by definition.

 

Now, as far as Noah's DNA being "pure" (or at least close enough to "pure" for incest to not cause genetic problems), that's just an *assumption* put forth by creationists. There is no evidence that the Noah story is true (while there is ample evidence against it), and the story is based on two contradictory accounts (as I explained in detail earlier in this thread). That, when coupled with all the other Bible problems, renders the account completely unreliable and demonstrably false to at least some degree.

 

the reason God had to kill all the people was because of fallen angels/demons who had intercourse with humans, thus corrupting their DNA

 

This argument is also fallacious. Think about it. How could the DNA of everyone outside of Noah's family be corrupted without Noah's family's DNA being corrupted? How could Noah's sons have taken wives from other families with corrupted DNA and not be expected to pass that corrupted DNA along to their offspring? That argument is simply ridiculous. Besides, why would those three ladies get a free pass while the rest of their families had to drown in the flood? The argument is nothing more than a flimsy attempt by Christian apologists to try to make the God of the Bible to seem less like the monster he's portrayed as being.

 

6. Lev 18 prohibits incest of any kind

 

Right. In the Bible's chronology, the laws against incest didn't come until after the flood. Thus, incest was not condemned in Genesis, and of course incest would be a requirement to build civilization both after the creation of Adam & Eve and after Noah's family was all who were left after the flood.

 

ok ty.........my brain is tired............and the constant verbal battle is exhausting.......ty for responding tho.......xx

[mcdaddy]

1. The singularity. Matter/energy has probably always existed in some form.

 

2. Almost 14 billion years.

 

3. A soul has never been proven to exist. Justike a unicorn or flying spaghetti monster.

 

4. Adam and eve never existed, same for Noah (number 5). They are myths plagiarized from other ancient tales.

 

6. The OT Law is completely screwed up. That should be self evident if you just read it.

 

ty, but, that wont do it for him............just saying............xx

 

of course it won't.

[mcdaddy]

Wanting answers comes from within. He doesnt want to know. He wants to hold on to his warm fuzzy fairy tale.

 

Just the way it 'tis.

[mwc]

1. What blew up in the Big Bang?

Nothing "blew up" strictly speaking. I just read "A Universe From Nothing" and according to it the universe came from literally nothing. No pre-existing space. No pre-existing energy. Nothing. This is the least stable state. Then, spontaneously, on a quantum level, there was something. *poof* And with all the conditions just right it could expand. If these conditions weren't right it just went away. *poof* So did this happen many times before? Who can say? But *poof* the universe did and with the conditions being right it expanded. Then, almost like hitting a switch, it slowed, then cooled. Then started on it's way to being the recognizable universe we know now.

 

2. After whatever blew up, how long until man came one the scene?

Roughly 13.72 billion years (give or take).

 

3. If man evolved from apes, who don't all apes have a sould ans self-identity?

Man didn't evolve from apes. "Souls," in some supernatural sense, aren't something that have been demonstrated to exist. As I recall Apes have been shown to be self-aware. If "soul" equates to being "self-aware" then apes have souls.

 

4. Adam and Eve were pure DNA........so incest didn't happen

What is a "pure DNA?" Can Adam and Eve be demonstrated to have existed? Can they be shown to have this "pure DNA?" I would have no knowledge what kind of DNA a "dirt man" and "rib woman" would have. Adam and Eve would not be incest. Masturbation perhaps. Having sex with their off-spring would be incest no matter what DNA they might possess. The idea being no "bad" genetic mutations could pass as a result of the act. But incest passes both good and bad traits not just bad. The incest takes place as a result of sex with a close familial relation not negative genetic traits that may be passed.

 

5. Noah had pure DNA..........no incest...........the reason God had to kill all the people was because of fallen angels/demons who had intercourse with humans, thus corrupting their DNA

Again how can we know any of this information about Noah? If he existed. If his DNA was "pure." Incest doesn't hinge on his DNA. Ionizing radiation, a bad copy, a virus, and other things can all alter DNA. I have never seen any evidence of "[intercourse with] fallen angels/demons" altering DNA. Not ever. It's also not mentioned in the biblical text that this was why the world was supposedly destroyed. The text says that the "god" of the bible was angry with everything even the animals, plants and the ground itself. So what, exactly, were these demons up to? They must have altered more than just the human DNA if everything needed to be done away with.

 

6. Lev 18 prohibits incest of any kind

It came after. The easy way around this is that many of these rules can be "progressive" as a type of "progressive revelation" but then it gets resistance when Islam rolls around or the Mormons with their "revelations." It's only "progressive" up until their group and then the "revelations" stop. So "god" reveals a little bit. Things don't work. A little more. Nope. More. Still bad. And so one. Then "jesus." All done. Maybe a little more will happen at the "end times" but that's it. Then game over. So that verse was just one little step along the way that didn't quite work out.

 

mwc

[TrueFreedom]

You might find this documentary on the history of God interesting. It's not aimed at debunking God or religion, just explaining various ideas from around the world.

[starlyte777]

thank you all for your responses,...........I read them to my H.......we wasn;t impressed.........we watched a couple I had saved.......still not impressed.....he says there is no evidence that God exists.........BUT there is NO evidence that He doesn't........refused to watch anymore. I'm not savvy enough to debate him yet......what he really wants to know is about Noah's Ark.........he believies the animals were babies........NOT carniverous until after the flood.....therefore only needed plants,etc to live........which wouldn't produce much waste.......sooooooo........back to square one........if you have the PERFECT...lol.....video on the ARK and how they all fit, lived, etc......please send to me.......and label it ARK so I know which one to show him..........sorry to put you all in this position, but you said from the beginning that I was not alone..........so, I need your help. ty so much! Patty xxx