Creationism is NOT Biblical

[Assyrian]

I see --- and how would you explain the sudden appearance of a whole race of humans, without not one person engaging in incest?

Well, if there was a sudden appearance of humans as the Creationist viewpoint would suggest, incest would be mandatory for the human population to continue. But, thankfully, real evolution doesn’t act on individuals and requires an entire population to change so we never find ourselves in the dire situation where the breeding population consists of only a handful of individuals.

Well, I'm not going to go in-depth with questions on this subject anymore, as there is way too much denial, with none of my questions getting answered. (ex. Who were Eve's parents?) The rhetoric is enough to make me sick --- and I'm just happy to leave it with the fact that evolution is built upon beastiality and/or incest --- despite your rhetorical denials.

There is no sudden appearance. It is a gradual process*. There is no simultaneous evolution in different places needed. If you get populations evolving in different places, they will diverge and likely refuse/not be able to mate with each other when they do meet. So how do you get incest from that?

Questions like these simply show that you have not grasped that evolution is a process that occurs at a population level. You don't find individuals in a breeding population that are a different species from each other, so bestiality is not an issue. And you do find a whole population gradually evolving--not single individuals closely related to each other--so incest is not a necessity.

*Some exceptions to be noted in the case of speciation via hybridization. However, there is no indication of speciation by hybridization in the human lineage.

Gluadys, I'm not going to go into this a third (or fourth) time. I have begged and begged and begged and begged for an explanation, and just get answers like you give me.

Scientifically, you can't single out the first human being. By the time you can discriminate H. sapiens from its ancestral population, many generations have passed since any conceivable first human being was born.

Speciation is not an event such that you can pinpoint even a generation as the first human generation. Applying the label H. sapiens to a population--in distinction from other hominins, can only be done in hindsight, and only rather arbitrarily.

Singling out a particular individual in a group as H. sapiens would be even more arbitrary. Taxonomically H.sapiens are those individuals who meet the morphological criteria which taxonomists have decided will be determinative for the species.

But no individual is actually a different species than its parents, siblings, extended family or tribal group. No taxonomist's label changes that.

So it wouldn't really matter what name was put on the taxon. The first human was the same species as the population it belonged to. And any marital relations it has with another member of the population outside its nuclear family is neither bestial nor incestuous.

The first human was the same species as the population it belonged to.

What kind of sentence is this?
It's this kind of rhetoric that tells me even you guys don't know what you're saying.
The first Ford ever built was like every other Ford in existence at the time?

You ask for an explanation, yet when lemmings and gluadys go to the trouble of explaining it to you, you dismiss it as rhetoric. You did the same over in C&E and dismissed the explanations you were given there as rhetoric too. Don't you want to understand evolution before you keep making your silly claims about incest and bestiality?

 

[shernren]

You ask for an explanation, yet when lemmings and gluadys go to the trouble of explaining it to you, you dismiss it as rhetoric. You did the same over in C&E and dismissed the explanations you were given there as rhetoric too. Don't you want to understand evolution before you keep making your silly claims about incest and bestiality?

And then you go and end it with a rhetorical question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you want to understand evolution before you keep making your silly claims about incest and bestiality?

Absolutely not --- I'm not asking for a dissertation on evolution --- I'm asking for a very simple answer to a very simple question --- and am expecting the answer in the format of Genera-species. In other words, I'm looking for: "Homo __________ ".

I look for only those two words --- anything else, and I assume you're just trying to Buffa ... er ... Bison bison me with rhetoric.

 

[Assyrian]

I am afraid your 'simple answer to a simple question' requires you dropping you misconceptions behind your simple question first. Go back over what lemmings and gluadys said and try to understand what they are saying before you try to pick holes in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am afraid your 'simple answer to a simple question' requires you dropping you misconceptions behind your simple question first. Go back over what lemmings and gluadys said and try to understand what they are saying before you try to pick holes in it.

No --- I want a straightforward answer --- what gave birth to the first Homo sapien?

 

[gluadys]

Well, they also have lots of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen. But, the real issue is the digital code that is the genome.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24.

Nevertheless, the digital code of their respective genomes is 98% identical. So why call the genome "new"?

They cant mate. Thats the point. Its not morphology (genitals), its not the incompatible genome that is the issue.

If the incompatible genome is not the issue, why focus on a "new genome"?

It would seem that speciation and genetic incompatibility don't actually need new genomes. Small genetic modifications can suffice to establish a new species.

 

[gluadys]

What kind of sentence is this?

It's this kind of rhetoric that tells me even you guys don't know what you're saying.

The first Ford ever built was like every other Ford in existence at the time?

That is one of the key differences between mechanical production and biological production. Yes, I know what I am saying and anyone who has taken the time to understand that evolution--and speciation--are population processes, not an event that happens to specific individuals, will understand what I am saying.

Absolutely not --- I'm not asking for a dissertation on evolution --- I'm asking for a very simple answer to a very simple question --- .

The problem is that your simple question can only be answered simply if you have already understood the dissertation on evolution--in which case you wouldn't need to ask the question because you would already know the answer.

So you need to take the roundabout way to get to your answer. You need to be willing to read, study, ponder and understand a dissertation on evolution.

No --- I want a straightforward answer --- what gave birth to the first Homo sapien?

A hominin.

 

[Mallon]

A hominin.

... and a mammal.
... and a vertebrate.
... and a chordate.
... and a deuterostome.
... and a bilaterian.
... and a metazoan.
... and an animal.



gluadys is right, AV. No one is trying to avoid your question. The very question you are asking demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of speciation on your part. Species are continuous, not discrete. In a breeding population, there's no one objective point at which you can say THIS is a new species. The designation of 'species' is entirely retroactive.

 

[busterdog]

Chromosome 2 is the result of a Robertsonian translocation, 1 in a thousand people have this mutation and as a result they only have 45 chromosomes, because no genetic material was lost in the process, they can still reproduce with normal individuals with 46 chromosomes and their children may have either 45 or 46 chromosomes as a result.

Like Downs syndrome, a red herring. This is not speciation.

 

[marlowe007]

Moses [and then Joshua] also wrote the [real] Book of Jasher =the Upright Record- a history of the Patriarch's, from the beginning up to the time of Joshua entering Canaan, and any details of the events are made clear in the reading of that book. Cain wandered east of Eden. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters as commanded, and multiplying of the Adam kind continued as the males and females were born, grew up, and married and had sons and daughters and so on and so forth.

As I stated earlier, I'll accept the book of Jasher as a credible source of evidence (but weak evidence nonetheless). However, you still can't claim that creationism is Biblical, because the incestuous relationships on which the doctrine is based are found nowhere in Genesis, and would undoubtedly be frowned upon by God.

Creationists accuse me of twisting scripture, but in the same breath they start blabbering about some vague rubbish like "bottlenecks" or "perfect genomes" to compensate for their lack of scriptural evidence.

 

[marlowe007]

And you omit or are unaware of the human genome (secular) studies which prove that the human race had a single mother some 10 - 20 k years ago.

Secular evidence will confirm no such thing. The mtDNA extracted from Mungo man shows that he was not descended from Mitochondrial Eve, and yet he was a modern human.

But even if the evidence did support your position, it's hypocritical to use science when it suits you but completely ignore it when it doesn't.

 

[gluadys]

Secular evidence will confirm no such thing. The mtDNA extracted from Mungo man shows that he was not descended from Mitochondrial Eve, and yet he was a modern human.

But even if the evidence did support your position, it's hypocritical to use science when it suits you but completely ignore it when it doesn't.

Sorry, you've just shown that you don't understand who Mitochondrial Eve is.

It is perfectly possible for a modern human being of 40,000 years ago to be a descendant of one of her siblings rather than her.

She is still the common female ancestor of the whole human race of today.

Mungo man is simply a fossil of one of the many human lineages which have completely died out since her generation.

 

[lemmings]

Like Downs syndrome, a red herring. This is not speciation.

It is not an example of specialization; it produces a normal child because no genetic material is lost. Down syndrome would only occur in the offspring if the mutation is in an unbalanced form and exists in Chromosome 21, this is extremely rare and only happens in 3% of the individuals with the translocation.

 

[busterdog]

Secular evidence will confirm no such thing. The mtDNA extracted from Mungo man shows that he was not descended from Mitochondrial Eve, and yet he was a modern human.

But even if the evidence did support your position, it's hypocritical to use science when it suits you but completely ignore it when it doesn't.

"Hypocritical" is the wrong word to use with your example of "faith" about what science might prove in the future.

 

[Assyrian]

I am afraid your 'simple answer to a simple question' requires you dropping you misconceptions behind your simple question first. Go back over what lemmings and gluadys said and try to understand what they are saying before you try to pick holes in it.

No --- I want a straightforward answer --- what gave birth to the first Homo sapien?

So you want to keep asking for a straight forward answer, instead of trying to understand why your question does not make sense. That is sad.

 

[archaeologist2]

The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him.

where does it say they were unrelated? are you sure he wasn't referring to kin who wanted revenge for the killing of abel?

If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of?

we do not know how many children adam and eve had by that time

And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?

his sister. God did not outlaw incest till long after noah.

Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).

noit does not mangle the chronology as we have no idea of the timeline. because seth was refered to as a replacement of abel does it mean other sons and daughters did not exist at that time.

i will have to check the passage later to be sure.

Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born --

Adam and Eve were created fully grown, thus they could have had cain and abel by the time they were 5 years old, physically.

which is atypical of that era. Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

not at all. again further investigation of the passage is warranted.

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".

the definition is as stands she was the mother of all things, now you are twisiting definitions to prove your point.

When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.

it is difficult to explain all the nuances of scriptures to those who do not believe. don't base your conclusions on just a few verses when the topic is deeper than that.

 

[marlowe007]

the definition is as stands she was the mother of all things, now you are twisiting definitions to prove your point.

I take your point but the idea that I meant to convey, was, the Bible does not always speak in a universal context whenever it uses the words "all", "whole" and "every."

If Moses did have the YEC narrative in mind then he must've been extremely incompetent. I say this because so many intelligent people (including Francis Collins in his book) have arrived at the same conclusions as the OP.

I'm huldah153, to avoid confusion.

 

[archaeologist2]

I take your point but the idea that I meant to convey, was, the Bible does not always speak in a universal context whenever it uses the words "all", "whole" and "every."

no it does not BUT that doesn't mean that where it speaks in universal context that it actually meant a limited area or people.

If Moses did have the YEC narrative in mind then he must've been extremely incompetent. I say this because so many intelligent people (including Francis Collins in his book) have arrived at the same conclusions as the OP.

so basically what you are saying is, God didn't know what He was talking about and needs lessons from men like Collins. it is obvious that people want to demote scripture to a human construct, so that they can attack it and justify their disobedience to God's word.

secular science is heavily influenced by evil and until you factor in the truth, you will always come to such absurd thoughts as quoted above. this discussion is not a YEC vs. OEC but truth vs. lies. there is nothing in the Bible that supports an OEC point of view.

every passage of scripture fits creation as stated in Gen. 1. if you look long and hard enough, you will see that NO TIME FRAME is given for when the beginning was. this does not mean that OEC is correct, no, God still created in 6 24 hour days, there were only 2 humans at the start of life and everything progresses as God laid out with the influence of evil which entered the world at the fall of adam.

this also doesn't mean that YEC can claim a creation of 6,000 years. the best we can do is say 'in the begining...' because that is all we know. a true christian has to realize and accept that evil (the devil) is playing with people's minds as he gets them to accept a theory from a truly secular man and his supporters,{something God said NOT to do}

what christians have to realize is that they are in disobedience to God if they try to marry a secular idea with spiritual truth. IF evolution was the way it was done all the disciples, all the church fathers, all the true christian leaders from time beginning would have written about it. AND all people owul dhave the ooportunity to study it and see it in actual action.

they didn't and God did not turn to darwin and wallace to correct an error. that would have been unjust and unfair. Which is why we do not see evolution in action today but see the results of creation taking place every hour of the day.

 

[marlowe007]

IF evolution was the way it was done all the disciples, all the church fathers, all the true christian leaders from time beginning would have written about it. AND all people owul dhave the ooportunity to study it and see it in actual action.

they didn't and God did not turn to darwin and wallace to correct an error. that would have been unjust and unfair. Which is why we do not see evolution in action today but see the results of creation taking place every hour of the day.

Darwin and Wallace were hardly the first guys to suggest an old earth and a mutable nature of species. The idea that species could change over time was an accepted fact of the ancient Greek philosophers. You had Anaximander (the first to actually suggest man was descended from fish), Thales of Miletus, Empedocles and others.

The fact that Jesus and the disciples never mentioned evolution does not make it wrong. They never spoke about Gravity or Quantum Physics either. So, we should abandon everything that isn't recorded in the Bible, is that what you're saying?

 

[shernren]

what christians have to realize is that they are in disobedience to God if they try to marry a secular idea with spiritual truth.

That's right folks. So the next time somebody you know falls sick you can either pray or send for the doctor - but don't do both at once. That would be disobedience to God.

IF evolution was the way it was done all the disciples, all the church fathers, all the true christian leaders from time beginning would have written about it. AND all people owul dhave the ooportunity to study it and see it in actual action.

they didn't and God did not turn to darwin and wallace to correct an error. that would have been unjust and unfair. Which is why we do not see evolution in action today but see the results of creation taking place every hour of the day.

That's right folks, and remember that the Church Fathers were also unanimously geocentric too. God didn't turn to Galileo and Kepler to correct an error either, and who of you has ever seen the earth move?

Wow archie you are on fire today.