<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 5 2003, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 5 2003, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the children did only hump each other, where is your proof?. if they didn't, your whole argument crumbles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, now I lost you completely. Or you lost me. If A&E were the <b>only</b> humans on the planet, who else did their children hump, except each other? Im sure a relationship between man and badger can be very deep, but as far as Im concerned, they can't make children, so the only possibility is that Eve had sex with her own children and those children had sex with each other. Now that sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it?
Or do you care to explain how A&E spawned 6 billion people without inbreeding? I'm dying to know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Recent argument with Euoplocephalus has prompted me to clarify this. You can use scripture to show why God allows evil to exist, or give a very very good reason why he should, you just can't say things like "God is perfect, so i'm sure that evil exists for a reason". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that is true, but making those posts with quotes from the bible are so dangin hard. I mean, the bible is immensely huge! Hopefully google will do something right for a change. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I understand where you are coming from skulkbait and I thank you for your input, as it is apreciated. Reading other people's opinions on your own arguement broadens one's view.
Yes, I finally found passages in the bible I thought I share to you all, or should I say, google did it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
24. He put forth to them another parable, saying, The kingdom of heaven is compared to a man sowing good seed in his field. 25. But while men were asleep, his enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26. And when the blade sprang up, and yielded fruit, then appeared also the tares. 27. And the servants of the household approaching, said to him, Lord, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it tares? 1 28. And he said to them, An enemy 2 hath done this. And his servants said to him, Is it thy will then that we go away and gather them? 29. But he said, No; lest, while you are gathering the tares, you root out along with them the wheat also. 30. Allow both to grow together till the harvest; and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but collect the wheat into my barn.--(A little after.) 36. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and came into the house, and his disciples approached him, saying, Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field. 37. But he answering, said to them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man. 38. And the field is the world. The good seed is the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of that wicked one. 39. And the enemy that soweth them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. 40. So then as the tares are gathered, and are burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of this world. 41. The Son of man will send his angels, and will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling-blocks, and those who commit iniquity. 42. And they will east them into a furnace of fire: there shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth. 43. Then the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
I think this pretty well sums up God's stance on evil. If you can dycypher the symbolsm and old use of words such as tare and thy, there is deep meaning in these words.
BTW, I am not the average Christian you'd meet. I like to question God once in a while and my faith can be shaky sometimes, or rather a lot of times.
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Oct 6 2003, 01:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Oct 6 2003, 01:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 24. He put forth to them another parable, saying, The kingdom of heaven is compared to a man sowing good seed in his field. 25. But while men were asleep, his enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26. And when the blade sprang up, and yielded fruit, then appeared also the tares. 27. And the servants of the household approaching, said to him, Lord, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it tares? 1 28. And he said to them, An enemy 2 hath done this. And his servants said to him, Is it thy will then that we go away and gather them? 29. But he said, No; lest, while you are gathering the tares, you root out along with them the wheat also. 30. Allow both to grow together till the harvest; and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but collect the wheat into my barn.--(A little after.) 36. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and came into the house, and his disciples approached him, saying, Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field. 37. But he answering, said to them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man. 38. And the field is the world. The good seed is the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of that wicked one. 39. And the enemy that soweth them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. 40. So then as the tares are gathered, and are burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of this world. 41. The Son of man will send his angels, and will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling-blocks, and those who commit iniquity. 42. And they will east them into a furnace of fire: there shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth. 43. Then the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
I think this pretty well sums up God's stance on evil... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While it is an interesting parable, it fails to make any claim as to God's stance on evil, it mearly points out something we already know: Evil exists, if God exists he lets it exist (otherwist we wouldn't observe it), and if he exists god will deal with it at the time of judgement. Perhaps that is good enough, but then there is the problem of God being all knowing. Since God would have known this was to happen and did not prevent 'The Enemy' (Sauron perhaps?) from doing it, he must have intended for evil to exist in the first place.
Another problem is that it implies God didn't create the evil seeds. If we are to take this as meaning that God did not create the souls that inhabit evil bodies, then that would mean that God has allowed some entity to copy his works (Copyright infringement? RIAA gonna' pwn j00 Sauron!), distort them, and plant them in his field. Worse yet it implies that souls are born evil and possibly are unable to repent because of it.
Anyway its a start. Blessid be thy google, for it fuels our discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 6 2003, 06:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 6 2003, 06:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 5 2003, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 5 2003, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the children did only hump each other, where is your proof?. if they didn't, your whole argument crumbles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, now I lost you completely. Or you lost me. If A&E were the <b>only</b> humans on the planet, who else did their children hump, except each other? Im sure a relationship between man and badger can be very deep, but as far as Im concerned, they can't make children, so the only possibility is that Eve had sex with her own children and those children had sex with each other. Now that sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it?
Or do you care to explain how A&E spawned 6 billion people without inbreeding? I'm dying to know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> exactly. Who said they werent the only humans on the planet? Cain found a wife from somewhere. It evidently wasnt inbreeding, or else we would not have the genetic variety we have today. The only other question is how many others were there? 10? 20? do you care to explain why there was only adam and eve
<a href='http://www.newscientist.com/' target='_blank'>New Scientist</a> has a few interesting article (im sorry i cant point you directly there) about genetics and breeding. One of them suggests that there Eve had seven daughters, from which the population is decended. another one talks about 15 mothers haveing daughters, and after about 20 generations, 14 of the lines would have been wiped out, leaving the population tracing back to one "mother"
Look at your family, descended from one set of grandparents. You hardly look like your cousins, yet you all come from the same pair of people. Now imagining that happening with your great great great great great great great great grandparents. Ok, so there is new genetic material coming in at all levels, but where did they come from. I dont want to get on to a discussion about Evolution, but that teaches that we all came from 1 person. not 2, 1 - the very first human - the monkey who got mutated. 1 person spawning 6 billion people is twice as improbable as two.
Now I get what you are talking about. I was always under the impression that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans, according to the Bible, on the face of the earth. Adam was certainly first and Eve was second. Bible doesn't say anything about God creating more humans, only that God created A&E and after that kicked them out of the paradise. Now maybe I'm being a nitpick, but that's a pretty big chunk missing from a bible: creation of all other humans. I'm not going to start finding it from Bible right now, but I thought it states that A&E <b>are</b> the mother and father of the whole human race. And the Cains wife thing just shows how flawed Bible actually is <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->we had to come from somewhere, so where?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fish came out of the sea, spread out on a large area, developed until thousands of monkeys started coming down from the trees. Slowly becoming humans. Now if you are not a friend of evolutional theories and claim, that God created humans from thin air and told us that we are not animals, howcome we have the leftovers of a tail? Or various other animal organs, that have no real use? Science proves that we were not always humans. Though you are right there that we all came from that one original cell.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 6 2003, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 6 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this may seem like a bit of a cop out, but just because the bible doesnt say something, doesnt mean it didnt happen.
Cain found a wife. where from? i dont know <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The bible tends to not mention things because for the time of its conception the explanations given were satisfactory for a - by our standards - primitive people.
Think about it, don't know about the rest of the world out there ? That explains why a local flood is deemed to be global. Or how Noah can take two of every living animal when you don't know about the millions that are elsewhere.
If your society isn't advanced enough to understand genetic problems coming from Adam and Eve being the 'father and mother' of us all then of course it seems like a perfectly logical explanation for how we came to be. Cain found a wife - if memory serves - from the land of Nod or some such.
You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle.
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Oct 5 2003, 10:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Oct 5 2003, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and I am sorry if I specifically refered to you or tried to explain God with faith or reason. The conclusion that I bring is somewhat opposite of what this thread was designed for. But as you can see, it has kind of turned into a debate of faith and reason. But carry on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do appreciate seeing your thoughts. I think you are quite correct that reason and faith do not always go hand-in-hand.
To my mind, I think alot of people, especially ex-christians do not really have a hard time accepting the idea that God exists. But when you have to rely on a really, really old document that frankly seems to have a lot of holes in it, to base your faith about who and what God is, and any relationship that may or may not be present with us... then I'm afraid you're going to lose alot of people.
I don't really see a life as series of tests...but something that is here for us to explore. I see 'sin' as a religious idea that men use to explain why bad things happen to us. It is a form of taking back a measure of control of our lives when we can say "If I do x then all my sins are gone". I see heaven as a 'carrot' that is used to encourage others to live/do things in a certain way.
I think it too arbitrary that some of us get that 'carrot' and others don't though. I think we will all go through some sort of a 'universal after-life' that applies to everyone, no matter what faith you might follow in this life. It really seems the only idea that makes sense to my mind. Especially given the fact that not all of us in life are given the same chances. So much depends on where you are born/who your parents are/ if you have the same mental/physical capacities as others.
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 6 2003, 09:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 6 2003, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I for one believe that the creation story is just that. a story. It was written for a people without the scientific understanding we have today, and it was written for a purpose. That purpose is still valid - to show that God created the earth and humans and we turned away from him. That i do believe. Whether Adam and Eve actually existed, if they were the only humans, i'm not so sure. The book of revelation is totally written in Code. It talks about seven headed beasts and talking donkeys and such. The first and last books of the bible are mainly. picture language, Jesus spoke in parables to the people so they would ask questions. "in hearing they hear not, in seeing they inderstand not" It is when we ask questions that we learn more. I personally do not believe the creation account or many of the stories in Genesis, such as Noah and the floos should be taken word for word. The important thing is the message behind them. in the creation story, the messgae is thet mess we are in is all our fault. In the flood, the message is that God will never destroy the whole world until it comes to judgement day. The whole of revelation is one big picture story.
The rest of the bible, such as the gospels, I believe is to be taken word for word. I believe that what they say happened actually happened
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 7 2003, 03:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 7 2003, 03:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 6 2003, 09:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 6 2003, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I for one believe that the creation story is just that. a story. It was written for a people without the scientific understanding we have today, and it was written for a purpose. That purpose is still valid - to show that God created the earth and humans and we turned away from him. That i do believe. Whether Adam and Eve actually existed, if they were the only humans, i'm not so sure. The book of revelation is totally written in Code. It talks about seven headed beasts and talking donkeys and such. The first and last books of the bible are mainly. picture language, Jesus spoke in parables to the people so they would ask questions. "in hearing they hear not, in seeing they inderstand not" It is when we ask questions that we learn more. I personally do not believe the creation account or many of the stories in Genesis, such as Noah and the floos should be taken word for word. The important thing is the message behind them. in the creation story, the messgae is thet mess we are in is all our fault. In the flood, the message is that God will never destroy the whole world until it comes to judgement day. The whole of revelation is one big picture story.
The rest of the bible, such as the gospels, I believe is to be taken word for word. I believe that what they say happened actually happened <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't normally ask, but I'm too curious for my own good so... if that is what you really believe then why have you been defending those 'stories' so adamantly?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->exactly. Who said they werent the only humans on the planet? Cain found a wife from somewhere. It evidently wasnt inbreeding, or else we would not have the genetic variety we have today. The only other question is how many others were there? 10? 20? do you care to explain why there was only adam and eve<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No that takes time rather than anything else. Over a long period a population will start to develop mutations that begin to make them more genetically diverse. We can measure these mutations by using molecular clocks, which are essentially proteins with a relatively conserved function but some hyper mutable regions. This is how we know where certain peoples on the planet diverged and the like.
The most probable answer is either that Adam and eve had other children that were female (and remembering the bible doesn't tend to care about mentioning women in general) and probably interbred. The bible doesn't state anyone other than Adam and Eve were created as such. So very likely there is a lot of inbreeding going on.
Even if 20-30 more people had been created then they are still going to be a mass of inbred hicks by around 10 generations. More than likely they would of been exterminated by some virus or bacterium by this point too.
But this is irrelevant, because I have no idea why either of you think this is important. If we want to talk about bottlenecks we already HAVE a doosy of one in Noahs ark. Simply put, there is a confirmed SMALL number of humans on the ark, and 2 of every animal. Not only has every species of animal just hit the largest bottleneck they'd ever of experienced, but humanity too.
With LESS time than even from creation to regenerate todays diversity from only a handful more people... Well that is completely impossible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eve had seven daughters, from which the population is decended. another one talks about 15 mothers haveing daughters, and after about 20 generations, 14 of the lines would have been wiped out, leaving the population tracing back to one "mother"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except, we're closer to Noah (and whoever) than Adam and Eve. The simple reason for this is everyone else is exterminated in the flood except for Noahs and his family.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at your family, descended from one set of grandparents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two thank you very much, I don't practice inbreeding. One set from my mother, one set from my father.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You hardly look like your cousins, yet you all come from the same pair of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My cousins are only 25% genetically related to me, this really doesn't make much sense from you at all.
And your logic is extremely (fatally even) flawed.
My family tree would clearly go like this, where X is a male, and 0 is a female: My grandparents X-O l X-0-------0-X l l Me! -> X O----X <-My cousins
In this case my mothers parents had two children, both girls who both married (with luck this is clear enough). From my father I recieve 50% of my genetics, from my mother the other half. However, from my <i>grandparents I only recieve 25% of one members genes. This is because my mother has only received 50 % of both her parents genes.</i>
My cousins are similar, in that case they have possibly 50% of my mothers genes. She breeds with a man who is not my father (I hope not anyway D:), who is 50% unrelated to me. This means that my cousins will recieve 50% of her genes, yet, be only 25% similar to me (remember, my Mother is only 50% genetically identical to my sister, assuming full random recombination).
This is in an outbred population where you have men coming into the gene pool above who are NOT genetically distinct. In terms of any sort of bottleneck, the closer they are to the females above, the more genetically indistinct everyone else is. Hence the reduced genetic diversity.
[Edit] NOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY DIAGRAM! MY BEAUTIFUL DIAGRAM! IT KILLED IT! IT KILLED IT! WHY!! WHY!!!!!!!!!!! Oh well...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now imagining that happening with your great great great great great great great great grandparents. Ok, so there is new genetic material coming in at all levels, but where did they come from. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly not your grandparents alone O_o. It comes from other breeding populations and their grandparents <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont want to get on to a discussion about Evolution, but that teaches that we all came from 1 person. not 2, 1 - the very first human - the monkey who got mutated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering you aren't overly sure about genetics (evident above) I wouldn't really comment until you've read a bit more about it.
However, the mutations that lead to a new species do not render them unable to breed with the rest of the population. They provide a selective force for the genes frequency to INCREASE in the population. If there is a selective benefit to having that gene (or a cost, normally it is both) then selection may start favouring the splitting of a population. Eventually the newly mutated animals either split off and form a new population, or the old one is wiped out and superceded.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 person spawning 6 billion people is twice as improbable as two.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But this never occurs by evolution.
Anyway.
This thread has been interesting reading <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
how many pairs of species do you know of that can mate and produce fertile offspring?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wouldn't normally ask, but I'm too curious for my own good so... if that is what you really believe then why have you been defending those 'stories' so adamantly? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because i believe that there is an element of truth behind them
(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 6 2003, 03:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 6 2003, 03:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 6 2003, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 6 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> this may seem like a bit of a cop out, but just because the bible doesnt say something, doesnt mean it didnt happen.
Cain found a wife. where from? i dont know <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The bible tends to not mention things because for the time of its conception the explanations given were satisfactory for a - by our standards - primitive people.
Think about it, don't know about the rest of the world out there ? That explains why a local flood is deemed to be global. Or how Noah can take two of every living animal when you don't know about the millions that are elsewhere.
If your society isn't advanced enough to understand genetic problems coming from Adam and Eve being the 'father and mother' of us all then of course it seems like a perfectly logical explanation for how we came to be. Cain found a wife - if memory serves - from the land of Nod or some such.
You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Noah took two kinds of every animal, meaning he took two dogs, and NOT two german sheperds, two border collies, two cocker spaniels, two great danes.
The world before the flood was indeed much different from todays world. Possibly quite similar to Gondwanaland or whatever it is called. And much of the continental shifting ensued during this flood.
Could it be that Adam and Eve were inhererently genetically rich. They may have had a much more diverse gene pool. which is why God permitted the relations with brothers and sisters. This was later 'outlawed' in Leviticus. This is believed to be because the population was such that this was not necessary and the gene pool had significantly broken down into the various pools that in continuing to do so would result in the genetic problems people would have today.
As for evolution, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that we have indeed a young earth.
For example, most of you know well that the moon affects the earths oceans bringing them into a football shape to give us the tides. Because of this, the length of the earth's day increases by 0.02 seconds each century. If you go back a couple of billion years then it turns into a very short earth day. --> Actually I forgot where I was going with this one, maybe it will come back to me, and I will edit it or someone will post something against it and I will remember why it is a good point.
Another is the amount of salt contained in the ocean, If there was none to begin with and you subtract the adding the salt that gets added each year. Then the earth is not even close to half a billion years old. I forget the figures for this.
I am sorry this is not more of an organised argument. but it is late and I will be willing to try and back these up for those that need it .
Creation is the only logical explanation of how things came to be,
Why is evolution so prevalent, because it appears to be the 'best' theory that doesn't attribute anything to God.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 7 2003, 12:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 7 2003, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because i believe that there is an element of truth behind them <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh...no there isn't. The whole world didn't drown, God didn't create human out of thin air but we evolved slowly etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thank you. Aegeri just proved my point that old testament is full of bull.... 'stories' that seem to be rather incorrect concidering they came from a perfect being. However it's very likely that they were flawed, not because God decided to tell them that way, but because the people who made up those stories didn't have the scientific knowledge of our time. I don't think God would want something so insignificant to be written in to his holy book, the cornerstone of his whole religion, as a flooding of one small part of the world. Or is it the moral of the story that he wanted to record for future generations, through a little exaggeration(like claiming that the whole world flooded): mess with the best, die like the rest?
This gives us a fairly good reason to look at the whole Bible sceptically, which is another topic but that doesn't matter because all of the religion topic eventually lead us in to God exists/doesn't debates <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 7 2003, 10:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 7 2003, 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 7 2003, 12:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 7 2003, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because i believe that there is an element of truth behind them <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh...no there isn't. The whole world didn't drown, God didn't create human out of thin air but we evolved slowly etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thank you. Aegeri just proved my point that old testament is full of bull.... 'stories' that seem to be rather incorrect concidering they came from a perfect being. However it's very likely that they were flawed, not because God decided to tell them that way, but because the people who made up those stories didn't have the scientific knowledge of our time. I don't think God would want something so insignificant to be written in to his holy book, the cornerstone of his whole religion, as a flooding of one small part of the world. Or is it the moral of the story that he wanted to record for future generations, through a little exaggeration(like claiming that the whole world flooded): mess with the best, die like the rest?
This gives us a fairly good reason to look at the whole Bible sceptically, which is another topic but that doesn't matter because all of the religion topic eventually lead us in to God exists/doesn't debates <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scientific knowledge of our time???
I am sure the medieval people who thought the world was flat, or riding on the back of the turtle, or whatever the people thought that they couldn't be wrong and the world was indeed flat**edit**. However it says somewhere in the bible, Job, I am sure but I would have to edit to correct this, that he suspends the Earth on nothing.
Perhaps one of the biggest arguments that the Bible is TRUE lies in this verse here Job 38:31.
Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loosen the cords on Orion?
It so happens that the stars in the constellation Pleiades are actually getting closer together (very slowly of course) and the stars in the constellation Orion are drifting apart slowly. The people of the time would not have the scientific knowledge to know this. The Bible has changed since then, you claim. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the Bible is pretty much unchanged from when it was written in days of ye old.
Additionally, the scientific knowledge of our time is a lot compared to a thousand years ago, but we have so much we don't know so it is folly to base a lot of this on our current scientific knowledge. As we laugh how we thought the world was flat, so too will our descendants some day laugh at us in the same way
ARGH, there is so much I could go into. You could get me into the 5th dimension (has to do with black holes and event horizons) which A) takes up a lot of time which i don't have, I have a speech to give in 11 hours which I haven't written B) I doubt I would give the argument justice in a forum and without refreshing myself with the theory. I need a couple of good diagrams.
For now, I will be back Regards Quatro
**edit** SORRY for the grammatical errors, its 2am and I need to go to bed, will fix this up tomorrow.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 7 2003, 04:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 7 2003, 04:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 7 2003, 12:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 7 2003, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because i believe that there is an element of truth behind them <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh...no there isn't. The whole world didn't drown, God didn't create human out of thin air but we evolved slowly etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thank you. Aegeri just proved my point that old testament is full of bull.... 'stories' that seem to be rather incorrect concidering they came from a perfect being. However it's very likely that they were flawed, not because God decided to tell them that way, but because the people who made up those stories didn't have the scientific knowledge of our time. I don't think God would want something so insignificant to be written in to his holy book, the cornerstone of his whole religion, as a flooding of one small part of the world. Or is it the moral of the story that he wanted to record for future generations, through a little exaggeration(like claiming that the whole world flooded): mess with the best, die like the rest?
This gives us a fairly good reason to look at the whole Bible sceptically, which is another topic but that doesn't matter because all of the religion topic eventually lead us in to God exists/doesn't debates <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did i say <b>what</b> the element of truth was?
No, so dont go putting words into my mouth. I have already stated what the element of truth was earlier in my post, if you could be bothered to read it.
(btw, God didnt create humans out of thin air, he creatyed out of the earth. At least try to have some knowledge of the topic under discussion before you talk about it. Your lack of knowledge makes me, the reader, sceptical. If you cannot get a little fact straight, It gives me a very good reason to look at the everybody's posts sceptically)
Aegeri pointed out that it is through genetic mutation that a breeding pair can produce so many varieties.
I point this out though, if you odnt believe that one breeding pair can produce a varied species such as ours, <b> how can you believe that <i>1 single cell</i> can produce billions of different species, each with billions of variations?</b> You think adam and eve spawning the entire human race is impossible, yet you are pefectly happy to believe that every living being on this earth now and in the past came from 1 single cell!
It is sort of naive to believe something handed to you without facts tied to it. Granted, naivity isn't always a bad thing. However, in this instance, we're looking for facts to support why God created evil. "Going on faith" is not using facts to support anything. It is trivial to say "God works in mysterious ways." For the sake of the argument, nobody should be allowed to say this. Provide evidence or say nothing at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I point this out though, if you odnt believe that one breeding pair can produce a varied species such as ours, how can you believe that 1 single cell can produce billions of different species, each with billions of variations? You think adam and eve spawning the entire human race is impossible, yet you are pefectly happy to believe that every living being on this earth now and in the past came from 1 single cell! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes it that much more feasible for God to convey his message in the Bible in the form of a story, and not try to explain the concept of a cell to a bunch of farmers who are just trying to get their minds around the science of argriculture. The church once believed the center of the universe was the earth too, if you recall. The church admitted they were wrong before. Why couldn't they be wrong about evolution? There are skeleton structures which implies something else is going on here that the church has yet to explain. Evolution makes a lot of sense out of it, and the church can't give any proof of "creationism".
Unless there is sufficient evidence to believe "creationism," you'll have many fans of evolution. That's just the way it works. We're looking for proof, not beliefs.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 7 2003, 06:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 7 2003, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (btw, God didnt create humans out of thin air, he creatyed out of the earth. At least try to have some knowledge of the topic under discussion before you talk about it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Spare your words. Out of thin air is a metaphore, not to be taken literally. I know that God created Adam out of earth and Eve out of Adam. Don't cling on little things, you can't dodge my arguments like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I point this out though, if you odnt believe that one breeding pair can produce a varied species such as ours, <b> how can you believe that <i>1 single cell</i> can produce billions of different species, each with billions of variations?</b> You think adam and eve spawning the entire human race is impossible, yet you are pefectly happy to believe that every living being on this earth now and in the past came from 1 single cell!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Adam and Eve were supposedly homo sapiens. Humans, just like us. Now there is a difference between humans inbreeding across few thousands years(Impossible for humans to survive like that) and a cell that has cloned itself, mutated, created several different animal species, diversified and finally evolved to a human through BILLIONS of years. I'm rather astounded that I have to explain this to anyone, but if you want, I'll continue teaching you more elementary evolution theories(even if I'm not smart enough to do that <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Though I don't really think you don't know this stuff by yourself. You are just testing if I know this so you could win the debate that way <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Like Aegeri pointed out(now take notes): <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if 20-30 more people had been created then they are still going to be a mass of inbred hicks by around 10 generations. More than likely they would of been exterminated by some virus or bacterium by this point too.
But this is irrelevant, because I have no idea why either of you think this is important. If we want to talk about bottlenecks we already HAVE a doosy of one in Noahs ark. Simply put, there is a confirmed SMALL number of humans on the ark, and 2 of every animal. Not only has every species of animal just hit the largest bottleneck they'd ever of experienced, but humanity too.
With LESS time than even from creation to regenerate todays diversity from only a handful more people... Well that is completely impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bible is simply too flawed to come from God. Word.
Read this for info on where Cain got his wife and you might get some insights.
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/cains_wife.asp' target='_blank'>Cain's Wife </a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I read a <b>lot</b> of that, not all but it seems that it's pretty much backing up my point: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now even if we assume for a moment that it would be genetically possible for two humans to generate such genetical diversity as is witnessed today, Bible is still flawed. Now even brave Z.X. seems to have admitted that A&E and their children must have interbred. That's forbidden in the Bible.
Give up Z.X, your fight is hopeless <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Read it again... ALL of it... I read all of your arguments. Please return the courtesy. Every point you brought up in your last post is addressed in the article I linked. Everything from Intermarriage being forbidden in the Bible to the reasons why A&E's (as you put it) children did interbreed without consequence genetically.
Read it again... ALL of it... I read all of your arguments. Please return the courtesy. Every point you brought up in your last post is addressed in the article I linked. Everything from Intermarriage being forbidden in the Bible to the reasons why A&E's (as you put it) children did interbreed without consequence genetically.
Just read the article. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I read more of it(though I scrolled some obvious yadda yadda parts) and the explanation is that A&E were <b>perfect</b> creations of God. That's a great explanation, but why would God give humans leftovers of a tail? Or some other extra organs and stuff that man has no use, that science claims are something that we have still left from our animal ancestors? And I won't take "Lord works in mysterious ways" for an answer.
Edit: or for that matter, if human was created so different from animals, why have we found skeletons of close human relatives(homo erectus etc.)?
<!--QuoteBegin--Donnel+Oct 7 2003, 10:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 7 2003, 10:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp' target='_blank'>Vestigal Organs - A lot of info</a>
And for a refutation of one of your supposed "missing link" skeletons...
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1261.asp' target='_blank'>I Present Lucy, the australopithecine</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You links certainly are thought provoking, however saying "we may find use for appendix" is like saying "we may find heart completely useless". We still share astounding similarities, some 95% of DNA, with a chimp(ordon't remember which for sure). Also I'm rather astounded by the fact that A&E, as it seems, have been less 'evolved' than we are. If they were the first humans, then they must have walked really low, as opposed to our straight walking. Now one may state that A&E were originally supposed to just swing around in trees and eat fruits and whatnot, but they still couldn't use their hands or their brains didn't function as well ours do. And snakes don't talk <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Btw, don't link me to answersisgenesis.com for this matter. I read it and I might as well link you to some atheist site with quantities of good reading too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Oct 7 2003, 08:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Oct 7 2003, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now even brave Z.X. seems to have admitted that A&E and their children must have interbred. That's forbidden in the Bible.
Give up Z.X, your fight is hopeless <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> buh?
when did i say that?
Sorry, my memory is pretty hopeless at recalling my mistakes
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->saying "we may find use for appendix" is like saying "we may find heart completely useless"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually that is nothing the same. We know that the heart has a function. 20 years ago, we thought that the Tonsils that we all have (or have had removed) were useless when in fact it is now known that they help to prevent throat diseases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We still share astounding similarities, some 95% of DNA, with a chimp.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Similarities /= (does not equal) same DNA. Just because they have opposable thumbs and we do to, does not make them evolutionary ancestors.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also I'm rather astounded by the fact that A&E, as it seems, have been less 'evolved' than we are. If they were the first humans, then they must have walked really low, as opposed to our straight walking. Now one may state that A&E were originally supposed to just swing around in trees and eat fruits and whatnot, but they still couldn't use their hands or their brains didn't function as well ours do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure what you were getting at with this, because you are refuting something from the article I linked without actually making any statements that actually oppose it. There is no evidence that Adam and Eve were less "evolved" then us. In fact, the contrary would seem to be true as they advanced in technology far faster then the supposed Neandrathal ever did.
[QUOTE=Z.X. Bogglesteinsky,Oct 7 2003, 10:51 PM] [QUOTE=Dread,Oct 7 2003, 08:02 PM] Now even brave Z.X. seems to have admitted that A&E and their children must have interbred. That's forbidden in the Bible.
Give up Z.X, your fight is hopeless <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> [/QUOTE] buh?
when did i say that?
Sorry, my memory is pretty hopeless at recalling my mistakes [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Aegeri pointed out that it is through genetic mutation that a breeding pair can produce so many varieties.[/QUOTE]
It just seemed that you didn't oppose it. Sorry, my mistake.
[QUOTE=Donnel]No but when a fallen angel takes the FORM of a serpent, there is no reason why it can't talk.[/QUOTE]
I see your point. Pretty evolved fellas were these Adam and Eve. Snake starts talking..."yeah, dats coo'. It happens" <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Now if A&E actually talked, that means it can not have happened too long time ago. So how about our non-talking cavemen ancestors? Also I'd like to see your point of view on Noah. World didn't flood completely, or do you have some new astonishing scientific reasearch on this matter too? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> That Noah packed all the animals in his really big canoe and recreated the whole world population?
Edit: I have succeeded in breaking the quotes. Yay for me. I think that's enough achievements for the day. I say goodnight to you gentlemen. I'll be back in aproximately 17 hours.
Starting new evolution topic. Get back on track! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Donnel+Oct 7 2003, 03:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 7 2003, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp' target='_blank'>Vestigal Organs - A lot of info</a>
And for a refutation of one of your supposed "missing link" skeletons...
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1261.asp' target='_blank'>I Present Lucy, the australopithecine</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Coming from South Africa I can safely say that more complete skeletons have been found.
Whether they are the "missing link" or not, is I suppose open to debate. Looking at the skull though, I really don't see how there can be much doubt.
Comments
Okay, now I lost you completely. Or you lost me. If A&E were the <b>only</b> humans on the planet, who else did their children hump, except each other? Im sure a relationship between man and badger can be very deep, but as far as Im concerned, they can't make children, so the only possibility is that Eve had sex with her own children and those children had sex with each other. Now that sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it?
Or do you care to explain how A&E spawned 6 billion people without inbreeding? I'm dying to know.
Yes, that is true, but making those posts with quotes from the bible are so dangin hard. I mean, the bible is immensely huge! Hopefully google will do something right for a change. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I understand where you are coming from skulkbait and I thank you for your input, as it is apreciated. Reading other people's opinions on your own arguement broadens one's view.
Yes, I finally found passages in the bible I thought I share to you all, or should I say, google did it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
24. He put forth to them another parable, saying, The kingdom of heaven is compared to a man sowing good seed in his field. 25. But while men were asleep, his enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26. And when the blade sprang up, and yielded fruit, then appeared also the tares. 27. And the servants of the household approaching, said to him, Lord, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it tares? 1 28. And he said to them, An enemy 2 hath done this. And his servants said to him, Is it thy will then that we go away and gather them? 29. But he said, No; lest, while you are gathering the tares, you root out along with them the wheat also. 30. Allow both to grow together till the harvest; and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but collect the wheat into my barn.--(A little after.) 36. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and came into the house, and his disciples approached him, saying, Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field. 37. But he answering, said to them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man. 38. And the field is the world. The good seed is the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of that wicked one. 39. And the enemy that soweth them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. 40. So then as the tares are gathered, and are burned in the fire, so shall it be at the end of this world. 41. The Son of man will send his angels, and will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling-blocks, and those who commit iniquity. 42. And they will east them into a furnace of fire: there shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth. 43. Then the righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
I think this pretty well sums up God's stance on evil. If you can dycypher the symbolsm and old use of words such as tare and thy, there is deep meaning in these words.
BTW, I am not the average Christian you'd meet. I like to question God once in a while and my faith can be shaky sometimes, or rather a lot of times.
I think this pretty well sums up God's stance on evil... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it is an interesting parable, it fails to make any claim as to God's stance on evil, it mearly points out something we already know: Evil exists, if God exists he lets it exist (otherwist we wouldn't observe it), and if he exists god will deal with it at the time of judgement. Perhaps that is good enough, but then there is the problem of God being all knowing. Since God would have known this was to happen and did not prevent 'The Enemy' (Sauron perhaps?) from doing it, he must have intended for evil to exist in the first place.
Another problem is that it implies God didn't create the evil seeds. If we are to take this as meaning that God did not create the souls that inhabit evil bodies, then that would mean that God has allowed some entity to copy his works (Copyright infringement? RIAA gonna' pwn j00 Sauron!), distort them, and plant them in his field. Worse yet it implies that souls are born evil and possibly are unable to repent because of it.
Anyway its a start. Blessid be thy google, for it fuels our discussion.
Okay, now I lost you completely. Or you lost me. If A&E were the <b>only</b> humans on the planet, who else did their children hump, except each other? Im sure a relationship between man and badger can be very deep, but as far as Im concerned, they can't make children, so the only possibility is that Eve had sex with her own children and those children had sex with each other. Now that sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it?
Or do you care to explain how A&E spawned 6 billion people without inbreeding? I'm dying to know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
exactly. Who said they werent the only humans on the planet? Cain found a wife from somewhere. It evidently wasnt inbreeding, or else we would not have the genetic variety we have today. The only other question is how many others were there? 10? 20? do you care to explain why there was only adam and eve
<a href='http://www.newscientist.com/' target='_blank'>New Scientist</a> has a few interesting article (im sorry i cant point you directly there) about genetics and breeding. One of them suggests that there Eve had seven daughters, from which the population is decended. another one talks about 15 mothers haveing daughters, and after about 20 generations, 14 of the lines would have been wiped out, leaving the population tracing back to one "mother"
Look at your family, descended from one set of grandparents. You hardly look like your cousins, yet you all come from the same pair of people. Now imagining that happening with your great great great great great great great great grandparents. Ok, so there is new genetic material coming in at all levels, but where did they come from. I dont want to get on to a discussion about Evolution, but that teaches that we all came from 1 person. not 2, 1 - the very first human - the monkey who got mutated. 1 person spawning 6 billion people is twice as improbable as two.
we had to come from somewhere, so where?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->we had to come from somewhere, so where?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fish came out of the sea, spread out on a large area, developed until thousands of monkeys started coming down from the trees. Slowly becoming humans. Now if you are not a friend of evolutional theories and claim, that God created humans from thin air and told us that we are not animals, howcome we have the leftovers of a tail? Or various other animal organs, that have no real use? Science proves that we were not always humans. Though you are right there that we all came from that one original cell.
Cain found a wife. where from? i dont know
Cain found a wife. where from? i dont know <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible tends to not mention things because for the time of its conception the explanations given were satisfactory for a - by our standards - primitive people.
Think about it, don't know about the rest of the world out there ? That explains why a local flood is deemed to be global. Or how Noah can take two of every living animal when you don't know about the millions that are elsewhere.
If your society isn't advanced enough to understand genetic problems coming from Adam and Eve being the 'father and mother' of us all then of course it seems like a perfectly logical explanation for how we came to be. Cain found a wife - if memory serves - from the land of Nod or some such.
You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle.
I do appreciate seeing your thoughts. I think you are quite correct that reason and faith do not always go hand-in-hand.
To my mind, I think alot of people, especially ex-christians do not really have a hard time accepting the idea that God exists. But when you have to rely on a really, really old document that frankly seems to have a lot of holes in it, to base your faith about who and what God is, and any relationship that may or may not be present with us... then I'm afraid you're going to lose alot of people.
I don't really see a life as series of tests...but something that is here for us to explore. I see 'sin' as a religious idea that men use to explain why bad things happen to us. It is a form of taking back a measure of control of our lives when we can say "If I do x then all my sins are gone". I see heaven as a 'carrot' that is used to encourage others to live/do things in a certain way.
I think it too arbitrary that some of us get that 'carrot' and others don't though. I think we will all go through some sort of a 'universal after-life' that applies to everyone, no matter what faith you might follow in this life. It really seems the only idea that makes sense to my mind. Especially given the fact that not all of us in life are given the same chances. So much depends on where you are born/who your parents are/ if you have the same mental/physical capacities as others.
You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I for one believe that the creation story is just that. a story. It was written for a people without the scientific understanding we have today, and it was written for a purpose. That purpose is still valid - to show that God created the earth and humans and we turned away from him. That i do believe. Whether Adam and Eve actually existed, if they were the only humans, i'm not so sure. The book of revelation is totally written in Code. It talks about seven headed beasts and talking donkeys and such. The first and last books of the bible are mainly. picture language, Jesus spoke in parables to the people so they would ask questions. "in hearing they hear not, in seeing they inderstand not" It is when we ask questions that we learn more. I personally do not believe the creation account or many of the stories in Genesis, such as Noah and the floos should be taken word for word. The important thing is the message behind them. in the creation story, the messgae is thet mess we are in is all our fault. In the flood, the message is that God will never destroy the whole world until it comes to judgement day. The whole of revelation is one big picture story.
The rest of the bible, such as the gospels, I believe is to be taken word for word. I believe that what they say happened actually happened
You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I for one believe that the creation story is just that. a story. It was written for a people without the scientific understanding we have today, and it was written for a purpose. That purpose is still valid - to show that God created the earth and humans and we turned away from him. That i do believe. Whether Adam and Eve actually existed, if they were the only humans, i'm not so sure. The book of revelation is totally written in Code. It talks about seven headed beasts and talking donkeys and such. The first and last books of the bible are mainly. picture language, Jesus spoke in parables to the people so they would ask questions. "in hearing they hear not, in seeing they inderstand not" It is when we ask questions that we learn more. I personally do not believe the creation account or many of the stories in Genesis, such as Noah and the floos should be taken word for word. The important thing is the message behind them. in the creation story, the messgae is thet mess we are in is all our fault. In the flood, the message is that God will never destroy the whole world until it comes to judgement day. The whole of revelation is one big picture story.
The rest of the bible, such as the gospels, I believe is to be taken word for word. I believe that what they say happened actually happened <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't normally ask, but I'm too curious for my own good so... if that is what you really believe then why have you been defending those 'stories' so adamantly?
No that takes time rather than anything else. Over a long period a population will start to develop mutations that begin to make them more genetically diverse. We can measure these mutations by using molecular clocks, which are essentially proteins with a relatively conserved function but some hyper mutable regions. This is how we know where certain peoples on the planet diverged and the like.
The most probable answer is either that Adam and eve had other children that were female (and remembering the bible doesn't tend to care about mentioning women in general) and probably interbred. The bible doesn't state anyone other than Adam and Eve were created as such. So very likely there is a lot of inbreeding going on.
Even if 20-30 more people had been created then they are still going to be a mass of inbred hicks by around 10 generations. More than likely they would of been exterminated by some virus or bacterium by this point too.
But this is irrelevant, because I have no idea why either of you think this is important. If we want to talk about bottlenecks we already HAVE a doosy of one in Noahs ark. Simply put, there is a confirmed SMALL number of humans on the ark, and 2 of every animal. Not only has every species of animal just hit the largest bottleneck they'd ever of experienced, but humanity too.
With LESS time than even from creation to regenerate todays diversity from only a handful more people... Well that is completely impossible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eve had seven daughters, from which the population is decended. another one talks about 15 mothers haveing daughters, and after about 20 generations, 14 of the lines would have been wiped out, leaving the population tracing back to one "mother"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except, we're closer to Noah (and whoever) than Adam and Eve. The simple reason for this is everyone else is exterminated in the flood except for Noahs and his family.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at your family, descended from one set of grandparents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two thank you very much, I don't practice inbreeding. One set from my mother, one set from my father.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You hardly look like your cousins, yet you all come from the same pair of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My cousins are only 25% genetically related to me, this really doesn't make much sense from you at all.
And your logic is extremely (fatally even) flawed.
My family tree would clearly go like this, where X is a male, and 0 is a female:
My grandparents
X-O
l
X-0-------0-X
l l
Me! -> X O----X <-My cousins
In this case my mothers parents had two children, both girls who both married (with luck this is clear enough). From my father I recieve 50% of my genetics, from my mother the other half. However, from my <i>grandparents I only recieve 25% of one members genes. This is because my mother has only received 50 % of both her parents genes.</i>
My cousins are similar, in that case they have possibly 50% of my mothers genes. She breeds with a man who is not my father (I hope not anyway D:), who is 50% unrelated to me. This means that my cousins will recieve 50% of her genes, yet, be only 25% similar to me (remember, my Mother is only 50% genetically identical to my sister, assuming full random recombination).
This is in an outbred population where you have men coming into the gene pool above who are NOT genetically distinct. In terms of any sort of bottleneck, the closer they are to the females above, the more genetically indistinct everyone else is. Hence the reduced genetic diversity.
[Edit] NOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY DIAGRAM! MY BEAUTIFUL DIAGRAM! IT KILLED IT! IT KILLED IT! WHY!! WHY!!!!!!!!!!! Oh well...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now imagining that happening with your great great great great great great great great grandparents. Ok, so there is new genetic material coming in at all levels, but where did they come from. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly not your grandparents alone O_o. It comes from other breeding populations and their grandparents <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont want to get on to a discussion about Evolution, but that teaches that we all came from 1 person. not 2, 1 - the very first human - the monkey who got mutated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering you aren't overly sure about genetics (evident above) I wouldn't really comment until you've read a bit more about it.
However, the mutations that lead to a new species do not render them unable to breed with the rest of the population. They provide a selective force for the genes frequency to INCREASE in the population. If there is a selective benefit to having that gene (or a cost, normally it is both) then selection may start favouring the splitting of a population. Eventually the newly mutated animals either split off and form a new population, or the old one is wiped out and superceded.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 person spawning 6 billion people is twice as improbable as two.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But this never occurs by evolution.
Anyway.
This thread has been interesting reading <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wouldn't normally ask, but I'm too curious for my own good so... if that is what you really believe then why have you been defending those 'stories' so adamantly? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because i believe that there is an element of truth behind them
(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)
Cain found a wife. where from? i dont know <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible tends to not mention things because for the time of its conception the explanations given were satisfactory for a - by our standards - primitive people.
Think about it, don't know about the rest of the world out there ? That explains why a local flood is deemed to be global. Or how Noah can take two of every living animal when you don't know about the millions that are elsewhere.
If your society isn't advanced enough to understand genetic problems coming from Adam and Eve being the 'father and mother' of us all then of course it seems like a perfectly logical explanation for how we came to be. Cain found a wife - if memory serves - from the land of Nod or some such.
You still believe in a book that omits critical details ? If God created 20 men and women or whatever number takes your fancy then why not just say so ? Maybe someone decided to edit the original story at a later date to add in the whole 'Nod' angle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Noah took two kinds of every animal, meaning he took two dogs, and NOT two german sheperds, two border collies, two cocker spaniels, two great danes.
The world before the flood was indeed much different from todays world. Possibly quite similar to Gondwanaland or whatever it is called. And much of the continental shifting ensued during this flood.
Could it be that Adam and Eve were inhererently genetically rich. They may have had a much more diverse gene pool. which is why God permitted the relations with brothers and sisters. This was later 'outlawed' in Leviticus. This is believed to be because the population was such that this was not necessary and the gene pool had significantly broken down into the various pools that in continuing to do so would result in the genetic problems people would have today.
As for evolution, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that we have indeed a young earth.
For example, most of you know well that the moon affects the earths oceans bringing them into a football shape to give us the tides. Because of this, the length of the earth's day increases by 0.02 seconds each century. If you go back a couple of billion years then it turns into a very short earth day. --> Actually I forgot where I was going with this one, maybe it will come back to me, and I will edit it or someone will post something against it and I will remember why it is a good point.
Another is the amount of salt contained in the ocean, If there was none to begin with and you subtract the adding the salt that gets added each year. Then the earth is not even close to half a billion years old. I forget the figures for this.
I am sorry this is not more of an organised argument. but it is late and I will be willing to try and back these up for those that need it .
Creation is the only logical explanation of how things came to be,
Why is evolution so prevalent, because it appears to be the 'best' theory that doesn't attribute anything to God.
Quatro
Uh...no there isn't. The whole world didn't drown, God didn't create human out of thin air but we evolved slowly etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thank you. Aegeri just proved my point that old testament is full of bull.... 'stories' that seem to be rather incorrect concidering they came from a perfect being. However it's very likely that they were flawed, not because God decided to tell them that way, but because the people who made up those stories didn't have the scientific knowledge of our time. I don't think God would want something so insignificant to be written in to his holy book, the cornerstone of his whole religion, as a flooding of one small part of the world. Or is it the moral of the story that he wanted to record for future generations, through a little exaggeration(like claiming that the whole world flooded): mess with the best, die like the rest?
This gives us a fairly good reason to look at the whole Bible sceptically, which is another topic but that doesn't matter because all of the religion topic eventually lead us in to God exists/doesn't debates <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Uh...no there isn't. The whole world didn't drown, God didn't create human out of thin air but we evolved slowly etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thank you. Aegeri just proved my point that old testament is full of bull.... 'stories' that seem to be rather incorrect concidering they came from a perfect being. However it's very likely that they were flawed, not because God decided to tell them that way, but because the people who made up those stories didn't have the scientific knowledge of our time. I don't think God would want something so insignificant to be written in to his holy book, the cornerstone of his whole religion, as a flooding of one small part of the world. Or is it the moral of the story that he wanted to record for future generations, through a little exaggeration(like claiming that the whole world flooded): mess with the best, die like the rest?
This gives us a fairly good reason to look at the whole Bible sceptically, which is another topic but that doesn't matter because all of the religion topic eventually lead us in to God exists/doesn't debates <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientific knowledge of our time???
I am sure the medieval people who thought the world was flat, or riding on the back of the turtle, or whatever the people thought that they couldn't be wrong and the world was indeed flat**edit**. However it says somewhere in the bible, Job, I am sure but I would have to edit to correct this, that he suspends the Earth on nothing.
Perhaps one of the biggest arguments that the Bible is TRUE lies in this verse here
Job 38:31.
Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?
Can you loosen the cords on Orion?
It so happens that the stars in the constellation Pleiades are actually getting closer together (very slowly of course) and the stars in the constellation Orion are drifting apart slowly. The people of the time would not have the scientific knowledge to know this. The Bible has changed since then, you claim. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the Bible is pretty much unchanged from when it was written in days of ye old.
Additionally, the scientific knowledge of our time is a lot compared to a thousand years ago, but we have so much we don't know so it is folly to base a lot of this on our current scientific knowledge. As we laugh how we thought the world was flat, so too will our descendants some day laugh at us in the same way
ARGH, there is so much I could go into. You could get me into the 5th dimension (has to do with black holes and event horizons) which
A) takes up a lot of time which i don't have, I have a speech to give in 11 hours which I haven't written
B) I doubt I would give the argument justice in a forum and without refreshing myself with the theory. I need a couple of good diagrams.
For now, I will be back
Regards
Quatro
**edit**
SORRY for the grammatical errors, its 2am and I need to go to bed, will fix this up tomorrow.
Uh...no there isn't. The whole world didn't drown, God didn't create human out of thin air but we evolved slowly etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(thank you aegeri, for answering Dread's question btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, thank you. Aegeri just proved my point that old testament is full of bull.... 'stories' that seem to be rather incorrect concidering they came from a perfect being. However it's very likely that they were flawed, not because God decided to tell them that way, but because the people who made up those stories didn't have the scientific knowledge of our time. I don't think God would want something so insignificant to be written in to his holy book, the cornerstone of his whole religion, as a flooding of one small part of the world. Or is it the moral of the story that he wanted to record for future generations, through a little exaggeration(like claiming that the whole world flooded): mess with the best, die like the rest?
This gives us a fairly good reason to look at the whole Bible sceptically, which is another topic but that doesn't matter because all of the religion topic eventually lead us in to God exists/doesn't debates <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did i say <b>what</b> the element of truth was?
No, so dont go putting words into my mouth. I have already stated what the element of truth was earlier in my post, if you could be bothered to read it.
(btw, God didnt create humans out of thin air, he creatyed out of the earth. At least try to have some knowledge of the topic under discussion before you talk about it. Your lack of knowledge makes me, the reader, sceptical. If you cannot get a little fact straight, It gives me a very good reason to look at the everybody's posts sceptically)
Aegeri pointed out that it is through genetic mutation that a breeding pair can produce so many varieties.
I point this out though, if you odnt believe that one breeding pair can produce a varied species such as ours, <b> how can you believe that <i>1 single cell</i> can produce billions of different species, each with billions of variations?</b> You think adam and eve spawning the entire human race is impossible, yet you are pefectly happy to believe that every living being on this earth now and in the past came from 1 single cell!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I point this out though, if you odnt believe that one breeding pair can produce a varied species such as ours, how can you believe that 1 single cell can produce billions of different species, each with billions of variations? You think adam and eve spawning the entire human race is impossible, yet you are pefectly happy to believe that every living being on this earth now and in the past came from 1 single cell! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes it that much more feasible for God to convey his message in the Bible in the form of a story, and not try to explain the concept of a cell to a bunch of farmers who are just trying to get their minds around the science of argriculture. The church once believed the center of the universe was the earth too, if you recall. The church admitted they were wrong before. Why couldn't they be wrong about evolution? There are skeleton structures which implies something else is going on here that the church has yet to explain. Evolution makes a lot of sense out of it, and the church can't give any proof of "creationism".
Unless there is sufficient evidence to believe "creationism," you'll have many fans of evolution. That's just the way it works. We're looking for proof, not beliefs.
Spare your words. Out of thin air is a metaphore, not to be taken literally. I know that God created Adam out of earth and Eve out of Adam. Don't cling on little things, you can't dodge my arguments like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I point this out though, if you odnt believe that one breeding pair can produce a varied species such as ours, <b> how can you believe that <i>1 single cell</i> can produce billions of different species, each with billions of variations?</b> You think adam and eve spawning the entire human race is impossible, yet you are pefectly happy to believe that every living being on this earth now and in the past came from 1 single cell!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Adam and Eve were supposedly homo sapiens. Humans, just like us. Now there is a difference between humans inbreeding across few thousands years(Impossible for humans to survive like that) and a cell that has cloned itself, mutated, created several different animal species, diversified and finally evolved to a human through BILLIONS of years. I'm rather astounded that I have to explain this to anyone, but if you want, I'll continue teaching you more elementary evolution theories(even if I'm not smart enough to do that <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Though I don't really think you don't know this stuff by yourself. You are just testing if I know this so you could win the debate that way <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Like Aegeri pointed out(now take notes):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if 20-30 more people had been created then they are still going to be a mass of inbred hicks by around 10 generations. More than likely they would of been exterminated by some virus or bacterium by this point too.
But this is irrelevant, because I have no idea why either of you think this is important. If we want to talk about bottlenecks we already HAVE a doosy of one in Noahs ark. Simply put, there is a confirmed SMALL number of humans on the ark, and 2 of every animal. Not only has every species of animal just hit the largest bottleneck they'd ever of experienced, but humanity too.
With LESS time than even from creation to regenerate todays diversity from only a handful more people... Well that is completely impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bible is simply too flawed to come from God. Word.
Read this for info on where Cain got his wife and you might get some insights.
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/cains_wife.asp' target='_blank'>Cain's Wife </a>
Read this for info on where Cain got his wife and you might get some insights.
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/cains_wife.asp' target='_blank'>Cain's Wife </a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read a <b>lot</b> of that, not all but it seems that it's pretty much backing up my point:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now even if we assume for a moment that it would be genetically possible for two humans to generate such genetical diversity as is witnessed today, Bible is still flawed. Now even brave Z.X. seems to have admitted that A&E and their children must have interbred. That's forbidden in the Bible.
Give up Z.X, your fight is hopeless <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Read it again... ALL of it... I read all of your arguments. Please return the courtesy. Every point you brought up in your last post is addressed in the article I linked. Everything from Intermarriage being forbidden in the Bible to the reasons why A&E's (as you put it) children did interbreed without consequence genetically.
Just read the article.
Read it again... ALL of it... I read all of your arguments. Please return the courtesy. Every point you brought up in your last post is addressed in the article I linked. Everything from Intermarriage being forbidden in the Bible to the reasons why A&E's (as you put it) children did interbreed without consequence genetically.
Just read the article. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I read more of it(though I scrolled some obvious yadda yadda parts) and the explanation is that A&E were <b>perfect</b> creations of God. That's a great explanation, but why would God give humans leftovers of a tail? Or some other extra organs and stuff that man has no use, that science claims are something that we have still left from our animal ancestors? And I won't take "Lord works in mysterious ways" for an answer.
Edit: or for that matter, if human was created so different from animals, why have we found skeletons of close human relatives(homo erectus etc.)?
And for a refutation of one of your supposed "missing link" skeletons...
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1261.asp' target='_blank'>I Present Lucy, the australopithecine</a>
And for a refutation of one of your supposed "missing link" skeletons...
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1261.asp' target='_blank'>I Present Lucy, the australopithecine</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You links certainly are thought provoking, however saying "we may find use for appendix" is like saying "we may find heart completely useless". We still share astounding similarities, some 95% of DNA, with a chimp(ordon't remember which for sure). Also I'm rather astounded by the fact that A&E, as it seems, have been less 'evolved' than we are. If they were the first humans, then they must have walked really low, as opposed to our straight walking. Now one may state that A&E were originally supposed to just swing around in trees and eat fruits and whatnot, but they still couldn't use their hands or their brains didn't function as well ours do. And snakes don't talk <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Btw, don't link me to answersisgenesis.com for this matter. I read it and I might as well link you to some atheist site with quantities of good reading too <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Give up Z.X, your fight is hopeless <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
buh?
when did i say that?
Sorry, my memory is pretty hopeless at recalling my mistakes
Actually that is nothing the same. We know that the heart has a function. 20 years ago, we thought that the Tonsils that we all have (or have had removed) were useless when in fact it is now known that they help to prevent throat diseases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We still share astounding similarities, some 95% of DNA, with a chimp.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Similarities /= (does not equal) same DNA. Just because they have opposable thumbs and we do to, does not make them evolutionary ancestors.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also I'm rather astounded by the fact that A&E, as it seems, have been less 'evolved' than we are. If they were the first humans, then they must have walked really low, as opposed to our straight walking. Now one may state that A&E were originally supposed to just swing around in trees and eat fruits and whatnot, but they still couldn't use their hands or their brains didn't function as well ours do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure what you were getting at with this, because you are refuting something from the article I linked without actually making any statements that actually oppose it. There is no evidence that Adam and Eve were less "evolved" then us. In fact, the contrary would seem to be true as they advanced in technology far faster then the supposed Neandrathal ever did.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And snakes don't talk <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No but when a fallen angel takes the FORM of a serpent, there is no reason why it can't talk.
Give up Z.X, your fight is hopeless <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> [/QUOTE]
buh?
when did i say that?
Sorry, my memory is pretty hopeless at recalling my mistakes [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Aegeri pointed out that it is through genetic mutation that a breeding pair can produce so many varieties.[/QUOTE]
It just seemed that you didn't oppose it. Sorry, my mistake.
[QUOTE=Donnel]No but when a fallen angel takes the FORM of a serpent, there is no reason why it can't talk.[/QUOTE]
I see your point. Pretty evolved fellas were these Adam and Eve. Snake starts talking..."yeah, dats coo'. It happens" <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Now if A&E actually talked, that means it can not have happened too long time ago. So how about our non-talking cavemen ancestors? Also I'd like to see your point of view on Noah. World didn't flood completely, or do you have some new astonishing scientific reasearch on this matter too? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> That Noah packed all the animals in his really big canoe and recreated the whole world population?
Edit: I have succeeded in breaking the quotes. Yay for me. I think that's enough achievements for the day. I say goodnight to you gentlemen. I'll be back in aproximately 17 hours.
Starting new evolution topic. Get back on track! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And for a refutation of one of your supposed "missing link" skeletons...
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1261.asp' target='_blank'>I Present Lucy, the australopithecine</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coming from South Africa I can safely say that more complete skeletons have been found.
Whether they are the "missing link" or not, is I suppose open to debate. Looking at the skull though, I really don't see how there can be much doubt.
<a href='http://www.geotoursafrica.com/english/news.htm' target='_blank'>Africa links</a>