Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted December 29, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2016 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 2, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2017 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Bump again I note Ironhorse that you responded to at least 7 threads today EXCEPT this one which has questions outstanding from BAA and myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 2, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2017 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: LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said: 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. A Re-re-re-re-bumped question from BAA. Unsure whether Ironhorse responded to BAA privately? BAA please confirm, and if so are you able to post IH answer? (Assuming it doesn't breach confidentiality) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 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: LogicalFallacy, on 31 Oct 2016 - 11:26 PM, said: 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. A Re-re-re-re-bumped question from BAA. Unsure whether Ironhorse responded to BAA privately? BAA please confirm, and if so are you able to post IH answer? (Assuming it doesn't breach confidentiality) Nope, LF. Ironhorse hasn't responded to any private messages from me since Dec 4. So there's no confidentiality to breach. All I'm getting back from him is dead air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 3, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2017 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Bump again I note Ironhorse that you responded to at least 7 threads today EXCEPT this one which has questions outstanding from BAA and myself. Bump again for the 5th time... its actually probably more, but this particular quote format has been re bumped 5 times. IH if you don't have an answer, or are conceding our points then please let us know so I can summarize and complete the topic for the benefit of others who come here. So far the summary from you, as pointed out by BAA is a lot of speculating. You have done nothing to even remotely successfully argue against God endorsed incest. My question are in blue, they cannot be missed in among all the writing. @ BAA Dead air aye? Sounds like religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 The dodger dodges skillfully. You won't pin him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 The dodger dodges skillfully. You won't pin him down. The the show must go on, Jeff. For us to serve our fellow members and the lurkers it's not even necessary for us to 'win' by pinning him down. All we have to do is to keep on showing them that he won't be pinned down. The people who observe these threads aren't dummies. They can spot a shyster when they see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 4, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 4, 2017 What BAA said. The fact that Ironhorse is not willing to answer, or answers with non answers speaks volumes, and those thinking about leaving Christianity should take note - as should any Christian reading as well. If you think you have an answer then join up and fire away. It's ok - they tell lies about atheists, we don't bite... but we are tenacious with our topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 IH has no idea how many he has helped deconvert, more than he has turned back I'd wager. I wish we knew for certain. It would be instructive to all but IH. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 7, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2017 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Bump again I note Ironhorse that you responded to at least 7 threads today EXCEPT this one which has questions outstanding from BAA and myself. Bump again for the 5th time... its actually probably more, but this particular quote format has been re bumped 5 times. IH if you don't have an answer, or are conceding our points then please let us know so I can summarize and complete the topic for the benefit of others who come here. So far the summary from you, as pointed out by BAA is a lot of speculating. You have done nothing to even remotely successfully argue against God endorsed incest. My question are in blue, they cannot be missed in among all the writing. @ BAA Dead air aye? Sounds like religion 6th bump Ironhorse, is it possible to bribe you into answering the questions above honestly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 10, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2017 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Bump again I note Ironhorse that you responded to at least 7 threads today EXCEPT this one which has questions outstanding from BAA and myself. Bump again for the 5th time... its actually probably more, but this particular quote format has been re bumped 5 times. IH if you don't have an answer, or are conceding our points then please let us know so I can summarize and complete the topic for the benefit of others who come here. So far the summary from you, as pointed out by BAA is a lot of speculating. You have done nothing to even remotely successfully argue against God endorsed incest. My question are in blue, they cannot be missed in among all the writing. @ BAA Dead air aye? Sounds like religion 6th bump Ironhorse, is it possible to bribe you into answering the questions above honestly? My bad - I'm out a whole number! 8th bump. Ironhorse, questions in the quoted section for you to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinzon Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 We need scorecards yesterday!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Maybe a list of the top 5 excellent unanswered questions that we can vote as the most in need of a good answer. That way IH could google an answer for us more easily. You know how he likes to keep it simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinzon Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Maybe a list of the top 5 excellent unanswered questions that we can vote as the most in need of a good answer. That way IH could google an answer for us more easily. You know how he likes to keep it simple. that would be the greatest clusterfuck in the history of clusterfucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 "All we are is ducks in the wind". - IH probably (by faith these lyrics are real) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 10, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2017 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Bump again I note Ironhorse that you responded to at least 7 threads today EXCEPT this one which has questions outstanding from BAA and myself. Bump again for the 5th time... its actually probably more, but this particular quote format has been re bumped 5 times. IH if you don't have an answer, or are conceding our points then please let us know so I can summarize and complete the topic for the benefit of others who come here. So far the summary from you, as pointed out by BAA is a lot of speculating. You have done nothing to even remotely successfully argue against God endorsed incest. My question are in blue, they cannot be missed in among all the writing. @ BAA Dead air aye? Sounds like religion 6th bump Ironhorse, is it possible to bribe you into answering the questions above honestly? My bad - I'm out a whole number! 8th bump. Ironhorse, questions in the quoted section for you to answer. Shinzon, Jeff I think you folks are mocking my counting abilities 9th Bump. IH you are active and actually providing great answers in other thread/s. Please do so here. Also BAA has an unanswered question on the previous page... you might have to hunt it down... something about speculation about the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 14, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 14, 2017 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Bump again I note Ironhorse that you responded to at least 7 threads today EXCEPT this one which has questions outstanding from BAA and myself. Bump again for the 5th time... its actually probably more, but this particular quote format has been re bumped 5 times. IH if you don't have an answer, or are conceding our points then please let us know so I can summarize and complete the topic for the benefit of others who come here. So far the summary from you, as pointed out by BAA is a lot of speculating. You have done nothing to even remotely successfully argue against God endorsed incest. My question are in blue, they cannot be missed in among all the writing. @ BAA Dead air aye? Sounds like religion 6th bump Ironhorse, is it possible to bribe you into answering the questions above honestly? My bad - I'm out a whole number! 8th bump. Ironhorse, questions in the quoted section for you to answer. IH you are active and actually providing great answers in other thread/s. Please do so here. Also BAA has an unanswered question on the previous page... you might have to hunt it down... something about speculation about the bible. You know the song "Four days late and right on time"? referring to Jesus raising Lazarus - well maybe Ironhorse would like to be on time even though he hasn't responded for.... @#$%!!!! 73 days. IH last post was 2/11/16. 73 Days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 17, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2017 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. And bump again again Ironhorse, no excuses - you are here and posting. Please reply to our questions. Bump again I note Ironhorse that you responded to at least 7 threads today EXCEPT this one which has questions outstanding from BAA and myself. Bump again for the 5th time... its actually probably more, but this particular quote format has been re bumped 5 times. IH if you don't have an answer, or are conceding our points then please let us know so I can summarize and complete the topic for the benefit of others who come here. So far the summary from you, as pointed out by BAA is a lot of speculating. You have done nothing to even remotely successfully argue against God endorsed incest. My question are in blue, they cannot be missed in among all the writing. @ BAA Dead air aye? Sounds like religion 6th bump Ironhorse, is it possible to bribe you into answering the questions above honestly? My bad - I'm out a whole number! 8th bump. Ironhorse, questions in the quoted section for you to answer. IH you are active and actually providing great answers in other thread/s. Please do so here. Also BAA has an unanswered question on the previous page... you might have to hunt it down... something about speculation about the bible. You know the song "Four days late and right on time"? referring to Jesus raising Lazarus - well maybe Ironhorse would like to be on time even though he hasn't responded for.... @#$%!!!! 73 days. IH last post was 2/11/16. 73 Days! Bump again. Going on 77 days. I'd like readers to note that Ironhorse is active and looking at the lions den but refusing to answer the questions posed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 22, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2017 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? Aaannnndd they are off and running, the Christians have taken off and have a good head start, the ex-Christians are chasing them with questions but it doesn't look like they can catch them. The Christians have fair bolted! What an exciting race thus far! Oh and it appears there is a spill with the ex-christians - Logical Fallacy just tried to post more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text. Looks like he has to restart the quoting. I'm telling you folks he's got a hard job to catch up to Ironhorse who is currently leading the no answer days by 81 days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 LF: Ironhorse has no clue how to answer your questions, at least in the sense of addressing them rationally. He lacks fundamental understandings of what the biological theory of evolution is and what it is not. I doubt he even understands what a genetic bottleneck is, as posed in your first question. Again, the issue with incest is the strong similarity of the two parent's genomes, not the purity of them. And "purity" is a red herring. The human genome traces back billions of years through evolutionary history. It contains thousands and thousands of mutations, copying errors, horizontal gene transfers, etc. To assume the human genome was ever "pure" is just nonsense. Also, I am unaware of any tenet or concept within the biological theory of evolution which contemplates, utilizes or promotes "pureness" of any genome from any species. Pureness in the genome is just religious wishful thinking at work, aka religious faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 22, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2017 Hi sdelsolray I know. But at least the lurkers get to see what happens when a christian gets cornered. Instead of saying yeah you have a point, they just cut n run. I did try and get out of him whether or not he is a young earth creationist or not, because the argument put to a YEC needs to be different. But no answer... how surprising I'm not sure whether to wrap up this thread with a summary of points. I'll see what BAA says as he also has questions outstanding from a page or two back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I read the other day concerning BAA's leave of absence. This has been in my thoughts. Looking forward to his return. Now to these questions... 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"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God.See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation.How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 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? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 The fact that someone can basically say "I have no clue why, I just believe." is stunning. Thumbelina and many others continue to mention how ex-Christians were "hurt" by church, or "had a bad experience" that caused them to fall away. Nope. We were just able to make the logical connection that so eludes our friendly troll, "The Artful Dodger" IH. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 24, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2017 I read the other day concerning BAA's leave of absence. This has been in my thoughts. Looking forward to his return. Now to these questions... 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"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 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? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions resulted from this assertion: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone, despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Regarding question 3 you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist. Can you also confirm your position on evolutionary theory? Can you also give us specific reasons for your belief that it occurred as stated considering the total lack of evidence to support such events? Thanks LF Ironhorse, you also haven't answered BAA per his quoted post below: 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 More sharing options...
Moderator LogicalFallacy Posted January 29, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2017 I read the other day concerning BAA's leave of absence. This has been in my thoughts. Looking forward to his return. Now to these questions... 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"? I stand by that view. I not going to claim how I view these passages is the absolute truth. 2) How would any purity argument fit into evolutionary theory as previously discussed (see post #86)? First: “Your entire salvation depends on how well you 'guess' Ironhorse.” No, salvation is in Christ, not how well I think or guess about God. See my answer to your first question. My answer has nothing to do with my salvation. How would it fit in evolutionary theory? I have no idea. 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? I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures. We can go around and around on what literary devices that might or might be at play in the story, but it does not change the main message of the text. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions resulted from this assertion: I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone, despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Regarding question 3 you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist. Can you also confirm your position on evolutionary theory? Can you also give us specific reasons for your belief that it occurred as stated considering the total lack of evidence to support such events? Thanks LF Ironhorse, you also haven't answered BAA per his quoted post below: 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. Ironhorse, not running again are we? I really don't want to have to wait another 84 days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts