A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[dad]

Sorry, you can't take baby steps yet.

I am very worried about your failing memory. I will remind you that you could not answer what 2 + 2 was equal to. Until we go over that idea that you ran away from there is no point in trying to answer this foolish question of yours.

Sorry you think your math really had anyone stumped.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. Adam and Eve really lived. Whatever debunked them in your head is a delusion.

Technically speaking, there had to have been a sort of "first generation" of what would be considered modern humans, but whether or not there were only two, seeing as it takes at least 50 humans to have enough genetic variation to support a viable population, 2 wouldn't have been enough, but many people state that there were other humans around and that Adam and Eve were just special in some way.

Btw, liking your new avatar dad, it suits you.

 

[dad]

Technically speaking, there had to have been a sort of "first generation" of what would be considered modern humans, but whether or not there were only two, seeing as it takes at least 50 humans to have enough genetic variation to support a viable population, 2 wouldn't have been enough, but many people state that there were other humans around and that Adam and Eve were just special in some way.

Btw, liking your new avatar dad, it suits you.

Ha. Well, genetics could not have been the same in the former nature. Adam and Eve had kids...the kids must have had more children with each other, where else could they come from? That means genetics were different. God knew that. He later made special laws prohibiting such a thing! The evidence mounts. There was also the fast evolving, long life spans and etc that strong suggest a different former nature.

One cannot use present state genetics to trace life back to former state folks.

The whole resulting model from such an exercise would be fiction...such as the primordial utterances of science so called on Adam and Eve!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ha. Well, genetics could not have been the same in the former nature. Adam and Eve had kids...the kids must have had more children with each other, where else could they come from? That means genetics were different. God knew that. He later made special laws prohibiting such a thing! The evidence mounts. There was also the fast evolving, long life spans and etc that strong suggest a different former nature.

One cannot use present state genetics to trace life back to former state folks.

The whole resulting model from such an exercise would be fiction...such as the primordial utterances of science so called on Adam and Eve!

You don't find the idea of constant inbreeding disturbing?

 

[dad]

You don't find the idea of constant inbreeding disturbing?

I would today. But I don't in a different nature if God planned it that way.

By the way when I hear the phrase constant inbreeding I think right away of the claims of so called science. In box..inbred..circular fantasies.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would today. But I don't in a different nature if God planned it that way.

So if you were told by god to have intercourse with your sister, you wouldn't be bothered by it (I assume, considering it is god telling you to do it, that you would) a little?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would today. But I don't in a different nature if God planned it that way.

By the way when I hear the phrase constant inbreeding I think right away of the claims of so called science. In box..inbred..circular fantasies.

Circular fantasies? What?

 

[dad]

So if you were told by god to have intercourse with your sister, you wouldn't be bothered by it (I assume, considering it is god telling you to do it, that you would) a little?

God tells us stuff by His word. He already lowered the gavel on that, thankfully. In this state it is a bad thing.

 

[dad]

Circular fantasies? What?

Right, science assumes present state laws, then makes models based on those and round we go.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God tells us stuff by His word. He already lowered the gavel on that, thankfully. In this state it is a bad thing.

I don't recall a biblical verse that condemns inbreeding. Considering the practice only ended relatively recently, I can't imagine there is one (the practice as a normal thing, that is).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, science assumes present state laws, then makes models based on those and round we go.

If those models could, say, make a prediction about something in the past correctly, so far back that it would have to be in what you consider to be the prior state, would that validate consistency in state?

 

[poikilotherm]

Ha. Well, genetics could not have been the same in the former nature. Adam and Eve had kids...the kids must have had more children with each other, where else could they come from? That means genetics were different. God knew that. He later made special laws prohibiting such a thing! The evidence mounts. There was also the fast evolving, long life spans and etc that strong suggest a different former nature.

One cannot use present state genetics to trace life back to former state folks.

The whole resulting model from such an exercise would be fiction...such as the primordial utterances of science so called on Adam and Eve!

Evolutionary rates were faster, genetics were different? And from other creationists I hear radioactive decay rates were different as were tectonic plate movements, the heights of mountains and carnivores diets etc. Would it not be more parsimonious to assume the Genesis story is not historical?

 

[dad]

I don't recall a biblical verse that condemns inbreeding. Considering the practice only ended relatively recently, I can't imagine there is one (the practice as a normal thing, that is).

I look at it more as God knowing what is good and what is harmful, and making rules for men accordingly.


Le 18:11 -The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Le 18:12 -Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

Le 18:13 -Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

Le 18:18 - Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

Le 20:17 -And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing;

 

[dad]

Evolutionary rates were faster, genetics were different? And from other creationists I hear radioactive decay rates were different as were tectonic plate movements, the heights of mountains and carnivores diets etc. Would it not be more parsimonious to assume the Genesis story is not historical?

No, why assume God is a liar? The future is different too! Ho hum

 

[dad]

If those models could, say, make a prediction about something in the past correctly, so far back that it would have to be in what you consider to be the prior state, would that validate consistency in state?

They are hooped! If all they use is the present they cannot go back accurately beyond this state, and even to some degree near the years after the change.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I look at it more as God knowing what is good and what is harmful, and making rules for men accordingly.


Le 18:11 -The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Le 18:12 -Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

Le 18:13 -Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

Le 18:18 - Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

Le 20:17 -And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing;

I am concerned, those only state two siblings can't marry or a child can't marry its aunt or uncle. It doesn't say that parents can't take their own children as wives, nor does it say anything about cousins. Physically speaking, the closest you can be as far as by blood to a person without most of the risks of inbreeding is second cousin. And even that is pushing it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They are hooped! If all they use is the present they cannot go back accurately beyond this state, and even to some degree near the years after the change.

So then, should they be able to do it, it would disprove your theory? And of they truly could not do it, it would prove your theory?

 

[dad]

I am concerned, those only state two siblings can't marry or a child can't marry its aunt or uncle. It doesn't say that parents can't take their own children as wives, nor does it say anything about cousins. Physically speaking, the closest you can be as far as by blood to a person without most of the risks of inbreeding is second cousin. And even that is pushing it.

Those were just some fast googled examples of relatives and the no sex thing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Those were just some fast googled examples of relatives and the no sex thing.

Ok, so it isn't all of them then...

 

[GenemZ]

You have to be a bit more specific. The "dust" of the Earth is not what life arose from.

And the dust of the Earth may not react strongly, but it is far from inert.

Technically...the term dust of the earth refers to the elements of the earth. The chemical composition.

Here is an example of many elements of which the body consists of...

Many are only found as trace minerals in the human body.

I Googled some of the more obscure elements. Ones that are not normally associated with the human body, and was surprised to see its a part of our body content.
And here is a more specific reference: http://tinyurl.com/pw7kpql




.