In The Beginning....

[LogicalFallacy]

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

 

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.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

BAA and my replies:

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

I have presented my point.

 

You did so in post  # 14 on the 14th.  It's now the 22nd and this is post # 37.

Logical Fallacy and myself have since responded to your claim about Adam's genetic purity.   But you have not responded to the specifics of our different challenges.  I will let LF deal with his own challenge, but mine consisted of pointing out that the Romans 5 and 8 quotes clearly show that Adam's genetic purity did not degrade slowly over a long period of time.  It was polluted from the moment he sinned.  Meaning that from that moment on, his genetic makeup was not pure.  Your 'gradual-decline-outside-of-Eden' argument contradicts this.  Now you need to address what Romans (and Genesis 2, below) say about when Adam's gene's were corrupted with sin.

 

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

 

Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view.

 

You should concede because your position is contradicted by what Paul says in Romans.

The pollution of the whole of creation happened within Eden and before Cain was born.  This totally refutes your argument.  Do you deny that your argument has been refuted?  Y / N ?

 

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

 

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs and I am not afraid to defend them.

 

Then do so by dealing with what Romans says about the Fall and the corruption of ALL creation happening within Eden and before Cain was born.  

Defend or concede, Ironhorse.  Saying that you are fine when the OT and NT contradict you is neither defense nor concession.  That's dodging.

 

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

 

You keep this running narrative about my silence. Except when I experienced computer trouble a few weeks ago, I have been active here almost weekly.

 

Activity (like talking about your driving license) is not the same as you defending your beliefs.

If you're not afraid to defend your beliefs, then do so whenever they are questioned by us.

Trying to call activity, defense will not work, btw.

You have to be prodded into defending by repeat requests from us.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

The following is my reply to you in post #23 with an added note.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect. NOTE: Yes, sin entered Adam and Eve and this included  the genetic codes but it was a slow and gradual decline.

 

No. This is false.  Read Romans 5 and 8.  

Or better still, please tell me where and when Adam died spiritually.  Within Eden, before Cain was born?  

Or gradually, over however many of the 930 years of his life he spent outside of Eden?  

Please also note that what Paul writes in Romans agrees with what is written in Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

When Adam ate he died spiritually and so therefore his genes were made impure...   ON   THAT   DAY  .

There's a wealth of material in the Bible I can use to support this.  Scripture tells us quite a lot about how and when spiritual death and spiritual rebirth happen.  

But for now Ironhorse, please address what Romans and Genesis have to say about Adam's spiritual death.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply.

 

But this thread is ongoing - with arguments and scripture from LogicalFallacy and myself that you still need to address, Ironhorse.

 

This isn't over.

 

Defend or concede.

 

 

 

 

I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual.

 

 

Please indicate that you are conceding or defending, Ironhorse.

 

Are you conceding that what you wrote on Oct 14...

 

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.

 

...was wrong?

 

 

LogicalFallacy is right again, Ironhorse.

 

Your Oct 14 quote contradicts and invalidates what you've written today.

 

"I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual."

 

The genetic line in those early times cannot have been pure if Adam corrupted his own physical makeup.  There are only two possible conditions - pure or impure.  Today you say that Adam's genes were impure once he sinned.  But that event preceded the expulsion from Eden, the birth of Cain and Abel and Cain saying to God that anyone who finds him will kill him.  Therefore, you earlier argument (that the people who might kill Cain were the products of genetically-pure incest) is invalid, unscriptural and wrong.

 

You have invalidated and refuted your earlier argument.  Now you need to acknowledge that you have done this.  Please just do the honest thing and admit you were wrong.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[sdelsolray]

...

Noah was born 1056 years after Adam was created. This was the 10th generation. Although corrupted, I still think the genetic decline was gradual. Noah lived to age 950. The long life spans started coming to an end with Jacob. Jacob died at age 147.

Noah’s three sons had wives. They were part of the 11th generation.

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. I have also heard and read people who have speculated beyond the scriptures that God created other people after Adam and Eve to populate the earth. It is not recorded in scripture but I guess it could have happened. I don't know. 

 

I just try to explain this according to what I do understand from the Creation story.

 

 

What you "understand" of the Biblical creation story is laced with nonsense apologetics.

 

The reason incest is avoided by many successful sexually reproducing species is because of the genetic abnormalities which many offspring exhibit when the parents are closely related.  It has little to do with the "purity" of the genome (whatever "purity" means).  It has everything to so with the similarity of the genes from the two parents.  A brother and sister have many identical genes.  If they have a child the mixing of their similar genomes can create an offspring with serious genetic problems.  The mythical Adam and Eve children had the same level of similarities as my children do.

 

Of course, don't let the science interfere with your wishful thinking.  And, make sure you avoid and disclaim any facts which interfere with you religious fantasy.

 

Put simply, the "purity" argument is a red herring, at least with regards to incest.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

BAA and my replies:

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

I have presented my point.

 

You did so in post  # 14 on the 14th.  It's now the 22nd and this is post # 37.

Logical Fallacy and myself have since responded to your claim about Adam's genetic purity.   But you have not responded to the specifics of our different challenges.  I will let LF deal with his own challenge, but mine consisted of pointing out that the Romans 5 and 8 quotes clearly show that Adam's genetic purity did not degrade slowly over a long period of time.  It was polluted from the moment he sinned.  Meaning that from that moment on, his genetic makeup was not pure.  Your 'gradual-decline-outside-of-Eden' argument contradicts this.  Now you need to address what Romans (and Genesis 2, below) say about when Adam's gene's were corrupted with sin.

 

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

 

Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view.

 

You should concede because your position is contradicted by what Paul says in Romans.

The pollution of the whole of creation happened within Eden and before Cain was born.  This totally refutes your argument.  Do you deny that your argument has been refuted?  Y / N ?

 

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

 

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs and I am not afraid to defend them.

 

Then do so by dealing with what Romans says about the Fall and the corruption of ALL creation happening within Eden and before Cain was born.  

Defend or concede, Ironhorse.  Saying that you are fine when the OT and NT contradict you is neither defense nor concession.  That's dodging.

 

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

 

You keep this running narrative about my silence. Except when I experienced computer trouble a few weeks ago, I have been active here almost weekly.

 

Activity (like talking about your driving license) is not the same as you defending your beliefs.

If you're not afraid to defend your beliefs, then do so whenever they are questioned by us.

Trying to call activity, defense will not work, btw.

You have to be prodded into defending by repeat requests from us.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

The following is my reply to you in post #23 with an added note.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect. NOTE: Yes, sin entered Adam and Eve and this included  the genetic codes but it was a slow and gradual decline.

 

No. This is false.  Read Romans 5 and 8.  

Or better still, please tell me where and when Adam died spiritually.  Within Eden, before Cain was born?  

Or gradually, over however many of the 930 years of his life he spent outside of Eden?  

Please also note that what Paul writes in Romans agrees with what is written in Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

When Adam ate he died spiritually and so therefore his genes were made impure...   ON   THAT   DAY  .

There's a wealth of material in the Bible I can use to support this.  Scripture tells us quite a lot about how and when spiritual death and spiritual rebirth happen.  

But for now Ironhorse, please address what Romans and Genesis have to say about Adam's spiritual death.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply.

 

But this thread is ongoing - with arguments and scripture from LogicalFallacy and myself that you still need to address, Ironhorse.

 

This isn't over.

 

Defend or concede.

 

 

 

 

I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual.

 

 

Please indicate that you are conceding or defending, Ironhorse.

 

Are you conceding that what you wrote on Oct 14...

 

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.

 

...was wrong?

 

 

LogicalFallacy is right again, Ironhorse.

 

Your Oct 14 quote contradicts and invalidates what you've written today.

 

"I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual."

 

The genetic line in those early times cannot have been pure if Adam corrupted his own physical makeup.  There are only two possible conditions - pure or impure.  Today you say that Adam's genes were impure once he sinned.  But that event preceded the expulsion from Eden, the birth of Cain and Abel and Cain saying to God that anyone who finds him will kill him.  Therefore, you earlier argument (that the people who might kill Cain were the products of genetically-pure incest) is invalid, unscriptural and wrong.

 

You have invalidated and refuted your earlier argument.  Now you need to acknowledge that you have done this.  Please just do the honest thing and admit you were wrong.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

You have invalidated and refuted your earlier argument.  Now you need to acknowledge that you have done this.  Please just do the honest thing and admit you were wrong.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Admit that I am wrong? I can’t even know for sure I am right.

I gave my view of what I think is in the scriptures on this subject and what I think is inferred. I am being honest.

Even if I am wrong, it does not invalidate or diminish my faith in Christ or the scriptures.

[sdelsolray]

...

Even if I am wrong, it does not invalidate or diminish my faith in Christ or the scriptures.

 

 

 

This sums it up quite completely.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

BAA and my replies:

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

I have presented my point.

 

You did so in post  # 14 on the 14th.  It's now the 22nd and this is post # 37.

Logical Fallacy and myself have since responded to your claim about Adam's genetic purity.   But you have not responded to the specifics of our different challenges.  I will let LF deal with his own challenge, but mine consisted of pointing out that the Romans 5 and 8 quotes clearly show that Adam's genetic purity did not degrade slowly over a long period of time.  It was polluted from the moment he sinned.  Meaning that from that moment on, his genetic makeup was not pure.  Your 'gradual-decline-outside-of-Eden' argument contradicts this.  Now you need to address what Romans (and Genesis 2, below) say about when Adam's gene's were corrupted with sin.

 

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

 

Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view.

 

You should concede because your position is contradicted by what Paul says in Romans.

The pollution of the whole of creation happened within Eden and before Cain was born.  This totally refutes your argument.  Do you deny that your argument has been refuted?  Y / N ?

 

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

 

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs and I am not afraid to defend them.

 

Then do so by dealing with what Romans says about the Fall and the corruption of ALL creation happening within Eden and before Cain was born.  

Defend or concede, Ironhorse.  Saying that you are fine when the OT and NT contradict you is neither defense nor concession.  That's dodging.

 

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

 

You keep this running narrative about my silence. Except when I experienced computer trouble a few weeks ago, I have been active here almost weekly.

 

Activity (like talking about your driving license) is not the same as you defending your beliefs.

If you're not afraid to defend your beliefs, then do so whenever they are questioned by us.

Trying to call activity, defense will not work, btw.

You have to be prodded into defending by repeat requests from us.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

The following is my reply to you in post #23 with an added note.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect. NOTE: Yes, sin entered Adam and Eve and this included  the genetic codes but it was a slow and gradual decline.

 

No. This is false.  Read Romans 5 and 8.  

Or better still, please tell me where and when Adam died spiritually.  Within Eden, before Cain was born?  

Or gradually, over however many of the 930 years of his life he spent outside of Eden?  

Please also note that what Paul writes in Romans agrees with what is written in Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

When Adam ate he died spiritually and so therefore his genes were made impure...   ON   THAT   DAY  .

There's a wealth of material in the Bible I can use to support this.  Scripture tells us quite a lot about how and when spiritual death and spiritual rebirth happen.  

But for now Ironhorse, please address what Romans and Genesis have to say about Adam's spiritual death.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply.

 

But this thread is ongoing - with arguments and scripture from LogicalFallacy and myself that you still need to address, Ironhorse.

 

This isn't over.

 

Defend or concede.

 

 

 

 

I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual.

 

 

Please indicate that you are conceding or defending, Ironhorse.

 

Are you conceding that what you wrote on Oct 14...

 

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.

 

...was wrong?

 

 

LogicalFallacy is right again, Ironhorse.

 

Your Oct 14 quote contradicts and invalidates what you've written today.

 

"I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual."

 

The genetic line in those early times cannot have been pure if Adam corrupted his own physical makeup.  There are only two possible conditions - pure or impure.  Today you say that Adam's genes were impure once he sinned.  But that event preceded the expulsion from Eden, the birth of Cain and Abel and Cain saying to God that anyone who finds him will kill him.  Therefore, you earlier argument (that the people who might kill Cain were the products of genetically-pure incest) is invalid, unscriptural and wrong.

 

You have invalidated and refuted your earlier argument.  Now you need to acknowledge that you have done this.  Please just do the honest thing and admit you were wrong.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

You have invalidated and refuted your earlier argument.  Now you need to acknowledge that you have done this.  Please just do the honest thing and admit you were wrong.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Admit that I am wrong? I can’t even know for sure I am right.

I gave my view of what I think is in the scriptures on this subject and what I think is inferred. I am being honest.

Even if I am wrong, it does not invalidate or diminish my faith in Christ or the scriptures.

 

 

Your certainty isn't the issue here, Ironhorse.  (And shame on you for trying to imply that it is!)

 

The very words of the Bible contradict what you've written in this thread.  

 

THAT is what you should be admitting you are wrong about.

 

Your Oct 14 post, "The genetic line in those early times was pure" contradicts what happened in Eden, as described in Genesis and as explained by Paul in Romans.

 

You admitted that the genetic line was not pure yesterday when you wrote, "I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways."

 

It doesn't matter if you were speculating or not, error is error and should be owned up to.

 

Please do the honest thing and do so.

[bornagainathiest]

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.

• 
•  
• 0

 

 

[florduh]

Even if I am wrong, it does not invalidate or diminish my faith in Christ or the scriptures.

 

As it should be. Religion has nothing going for it other than faith. Facts don't stand a chance against such blind belief.

[LogicalFallacy]

Hmmm interesting, after my 'coming out' my father has been 'lead by God' and researching and discovering 'scientific facts' that prove the bible is true. He completely fails to understand what has happened is a natural reaction to finding out ones son no longer believes what you thought he really believed.

Anyway its going to be interesting. I know that some of the stuff he has been looking at includes:

Archaeological Evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah (Quick research would indicate that cities burned with sulphur (brimstone) have been found by the dead sea. The Christian explanation: God rained brimstone. The natural explanation, area is heavy with this stuff including underground. It known there were earthquakes in the region. The hypothesis is that earthquakes released the sulphur which caught on fire and burned the cities... like is says in the Bible. That's true, but a natural explanation. The Christian counter is that God caused the sulphur and earthquake to happen. Hmmmm)

Mathematical proof that if time goes for too long (say 13.9 billion years ) then its TOO LONG for the universe and life to form therefore evolution is false and the earth is 6000 years old. (Apparently this is published by a NASA scientist) Heard of this hypothesis anyone?

COMPLEXITY - a single strand of DNA contains such complexity that no natural explanation could cause it: Therefore God. I've heard this intelligent design argument before. This essentially leads to infinite regress. Life is too complex to begin and requires more complex God, God is too complex requires even more complex creator... ad infinitum.

[bornagainathiest]

 

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.

• 
•  
• 0

 

 

(Bump!)

[LogicalFallacy]

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

 

 

 

 

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.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

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.

• 
•  
• 0

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-bump!)

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

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.

• 
•  
• 0

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-bump!)

[LogicalFallacy]

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Not to be forgotten and tying in with BAA's bump above.

 

We will get to the bottom of this incest issue.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Not to be forgotten and tying in with BAA's bump above.

 

We will get to the bottom of this incest issue.

 

Bump - anyone out there?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

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.

• 
•  
• 0

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-bump!)

 

 

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

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

• 
•  
• 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!

[sdelsolray]

...

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

 

 

 

It's likely neither but instead a mindless regurgitation of some apologetic to which he was exposed. 

[LogicalFallacy]

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.

[sdelsolray]

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.

...

At the least, the genetic purity argument was dead in the water when Adam fell.

 

 

Good post LF.  I only have one comment.

 

The genetic purity argument is itself yet another ad hoc apologetic.  The incest issue is an apology for that apologetic.  It's turtles all the way down.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

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.

...

At the least, the genetic purity argument was dead in the water when Adam fell.

 

 

Good post LF.  I only have one comment.

 

The genetic purity argument is itself yet another ad hoc apologetic.  The incest issue is an apology for that apologetic.  It's turtles all the way down.

 

Exactly, I'm trying to get some definitive answer out of IH or a concession.

 

Ad hoc apologetics I'm finding are very common among Christians - my church pastor gave one just he other day to explain away evil. "God didn't cause evil, no he needed someone else to do his dirty work (Satan) so God created Satan who fell, therefore God didn't create evil." Don't hit your head to hard on the table - it hurts! Um... Christians... I seem to be confused.... where did Satan come from? Possibly the all powerful all knowing God? But God didn't create evil, it was Satan who fell that created it you say. But who knew Satan would fall and create evil? God didn't know that you say? Well fuck me, he's not God then. Can't have it both was Christians.

 

By the way sdelsolray, since you seem to be well versed in evolution/genetics, am I right in saying that with the incest scenarios described in the bible we should see decreasing genetic diversity, not increasing? So Christians say all races came from Adam and Eve, I'd say based on genetics the gene pool should have shrunk and died off. How is my reasoning there?

[Jeff]

Sorry. IH retreats when the argument gets too steep to climb.

 

He will be back eventually. He will be refreshed and ready to start over with his mind cleared of all 'difficulties' in his simple faith. There will be feel-good posts for all to enjoy I'm sure.

But no satisfaction of real honest discussion.

[duderonomy]

I think we've had some effect on IH. I haven't seen him refer us to Bob Dylan or Bono in a while. 

[Guest end3]

Well my grandfather who was a rancher explained it this way....i.e. inbreeding livestock for beneficial outcomes. I think the expressions were, when it worked, it was linebreeding and hybrid vigor, vs. "look at that inbred son of a bitch"...

[sdelsolray]

...

By the way sdelsolray, since you seem to be well versed in evolution/genetics, am I right in saying that with the incest scenarios described in the bible we should see decreasing genetic diversity, not increasing? So Christians say all races came from Adam and Eve, I'd say based on genetics the gene pool should have shrunk and died off. How is my reasoning there?

 

 

Yes, there would be less diversity, but that does not necessarily mean the affected gene pool would suffer.  There are many example of populations with low allele frequency changes over generations and this is primarily due to a consistent environment resulting in minimal selection pressure for diversity to take root.

 

The problem with incest, however, is a bit different.  It tends to allow recessive traits to express themselves in offspring, many of which are harmful (e.g., cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia).  Some are not harmful (e.g., blue eyes).