Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[mmksparbud]

Not when you only have a population of two it can't. Do you understand what genetic bottlenecks are? Do you understand what diploid means?



The Flood didn't happen and one of the most glaring evidences that it didn't is the lack of a genetic bottleneck in every terrestrial vertebrate species including humans from ~4,000 years ago.

Adam and Eve had all the diversity in their genetic makeup needed. They were unique, made , not born. Their DNA was different from everyone else as everyone else was a combo of DNA from both parents, they were uniquely male and female. And I said this before, but it may have been on another thread,---Eve could have had several hundred children in her lifetime. Today, one woman has been known to have over 20 children, I know of one that had 22. (I dialyzed her husband)---that is in about 35 years. Eve was perfect, perfect health,, no genetic flaws to pass on, neither did her children. It seems that they started having children when they were around 60 (Eve's children that is)--by the time Adam and Eve died, it only says how old Adam was at over 900 years and no clue as to how long Eve was having children)---they would have been elbow deep in kids, grand children, great grand children, great great and so on---
with Noah, there were 8 of them, not 2---though down the ladder some from being as perfect as Adam and Eve, they as yet had no genetic flaws to pass on and the edict to not marry brothers and sisters did not get handed down until Moses--by then the gene pool was tainted and could no longer sustain that practice.

 

[USincognito]

Adam and Eve had all the diversity in their genetic makeup needed.{snip}

So that's a "no" on understanding what diploid means and what genetic bottlenecks are. I can see you also don't understand the difference between providing evidence to support your position and just making stuff up.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Adam and Eve had all the diversity in their genetic makeup needed

Provide evidence for this claim.

They were unique, made , not born

Provide evidence for this claim.

And I said this before, but it may have been on another thread,---Eve could have had several hundred children in her lifetime

Provide evidence for this claim.

Eve was perfect, perfect health,, no genetic flaws to pass on, neither did her children.

Provide evidence for this claim.

by the time Adam and Eve died, it only says how old Adam was at over 900 years and no clue as to how long Eve was having children)

You're telling me I should believe a man was 900 years old? LOL! Again....provide evidence for this claim.

with Noah, there were 8 of them, not 2---though down the ladder some from being as perfect as Adam and Eve, they as yet had no genetic flaws to pass on and the edict to not marry brothers and sisters did not get handed down until Moses--by then the gene pool was tainted and could no longer sustain that practice.

You see the problem with this entire post is that.....you don't provide any evidence. Instead you just make stuff up.

 

[mmksparbud]

Provide evidence for this claim.



Provide evidence for this claim.



Provide evidence for this claim.



Provide evidence for this claim.



You're telling me I should believe a man was 900 years old? LOL! Again....provide evidence for this claim.



You see the problem with this entire post is that.....you don't provide any evidence. Instead you just make stuff up.

And that is why creationists and evolutionists can't hold a discussion---I don't make up stuff. It comes from the bible which to you is made up stuff. See, you provide no prove for you believes, only some evidence that you read the way you want, but you yourselves have said science does not deal in proof. You want us to prove stuff and it too can not be proven. You can't prove God doesn't exist, I can't prove to you He does. So we all talk apples and oranges that make no sense to the other. We find your statements as ridiculous as you find ours.

 

[Speedwell]

And that is why creationists and evolutionists can't hold a discussion---I don't make up stuff. It comes from the bible which to you is made up stuff. See, you provide no prove for you believes, only some evidence that you read the way you want, but you yourselves have said science does not deal in proof. You want us to prove stuff and it too can not be proven. You can't prove God doesn't exist, I can't prove to you He does. So we all talk apples and oranges that make no sense to the other. We find your statements as ridiculous as you find ours.

Except that none of that sciencey-sounding nonsense you posted can be found in sripture

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It comes from the bible which to you is made up stuff.

The bible is your claim. You must provide evidence for those claims.

See, you provide no prove for you believes, only some evidence that you read the way you want, but you yourselves have said science does not deal in proof

Evolution is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" because it is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from several different scientific disciplines. Nothing is 100% proven as scientific theories are falsifiable, meaning that new evidence could potentially arise that could falsify a theory. Evolution has stood up to and passed every single test it has ever faced. It is supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by nothing.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, I can't prove to you He does

Why believe in it if you cannot provide evidence for the claims?

We find your statements as ridiculous as you find ours.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false. Evolution is supported by evidence and has been applied to modern medicine. Creationism has not.

 

[USincognito]

And that is why creationists and evolutionists can't hold a discussion---I don't make up stuff. It comes from the bible which to you is made up stuff. See, you provide no prove for you believes, only some evidence that you read the way you want, but you yourselves have said science does not deal in proof. You want us to prove stuff and it too can not be proven. You can't prove God doesn't exist, I can't prove to you He does. So we all talk apples and oranges that make no sense to the other. We find your statements as ridiculous as you find ours.

He didn't ask you for "proof" and he didn't ask for a paragraph of metadebate. He asked you to provide evidence for your claims.

Do you have any or not?

 

[mmksparbud]

He didn't ask you for "proof" and he didn't ask for a paragraph of metadebate. He asked you to provide evidence for your claims.

Do you have any or not?

How can there be any evidence of something that was destroyed 1000's of years ago?

Except that none of that sciencey-sounding nonsense you posted can be found in sripture

You can't find that Adam and Eve were created, not born of man and woman? You can't find how old Adam was? You can't find that brothers and sisters are told to not marry when Moses was given the law? You can't find where there were 8 who were saved at the time of Noah? You believe when God pronounced His creation "good" (the actual word was "functional")that it meant something less than in perfect working order?? You can not figure out that Eve was in perfect health with perfect weather, no floods, no droughts, no hardships like today and plenty of food and could have therefore given birth to several hundred children over 100's of years??? Cain and Abel are believed to be twins---how many twins could she have had (or more than just 2) I realize there are Christians who have done away with the once basic believe in the book of Genesis--I take it you are one of those. My condolences. There are, however, a few of us who do still believe in the word of God as written---literal, poetic, prophetic, parables---where applicable.

"The highest officially recorded number of children born to one mother is 69, to the first wife of Feodor Vassilyev** (1707-1782) of Shuya, Russia. Between 1725 and 1765, in a total of 27 confinements, she gave birth to 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets. 67 of them survived infancy."
https://did%3D0509f1caba24efef3d855ad953ac34e6cc0045ab%3Bid%3D40535100349%3Bkey%3DtBxBo7yVwFbaJUC68czyQA%3Bname%3Dtheoddmentemporium
I think Eve could have outdone her by a few hundred.

 

[Speedwell]

How can there be any evidence of something that was destroyed 1000's of years ago?



You can't find that Adam and Eve were created, not born of man and woman? You can't find how old Adam was? You can't find that brothers and sisters are told to not marry when Moses was given the law? You can't find where there were 8 who were saved at the time of Noah? You believe when God pronounced His creation "good" (the actual word was "functional")that it meant something less than in perfect working order?? You can not figure out that Eve was in perfect health with perfect weather, no floods, no droughts, no hardships like today and plenty of food and could have therefore given birth to several hundred children over 100's of years??? Cain and Abel are believed to be twins---how many twins could she have had (or more than just 2)

That's what it says, but that post of yours was nothing but hot air, made up to sound like like it had something to to with Adam and Eve's genomes, a subject you can know nothing about at this late date and which cannot be found in scripture.

I realize there are Christians who have done away with the once basic believe in the book of Genesis--I take it you are one of those. My condolences. There are, however, a few of us who do still believe in the word of God as written---literal, poetic, prophetic, parables---where applicable.

It doesn't matter what I think of Genesis. Nonsense is nonsense.

 

[mmksparbud]

I never mentioned genomes!!! I said they were created male and female---different from us-- we get our DNA from both parents, they had none---they were different! Why is that so hard to understand? They had to be different from us, they had no parents, they were pure female and male--we are a combo. You think they had a belly button?? A belly button is a scar from the umbilical cord, they had no cord, they were never carried in the womb, why would they have a scar from it? You have said not one single thing about what you consider nonsense---

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

we get our DNA from both parents, they had none---they were different!

Bold- Biologically impossible.

They had to be different from us, they had no parents, they were pure female and male

Provide evidence for your claim. Saying "its in the bible" is a circular argument.

 

[mmksparbud]

Bold- Biologically impossible.



Provide evidence for your claim. Saying "its in the bible" is a circular argument.

No kidding!!---That is why God created them.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Bold- Biologically impossible.



Provide evidence for your claim. Saying "its in the bible" is a circular argument.

There are some things you just can't fix....

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No kidding!!---That is why God created them.

evidence please

 

[mmksparbud]

LOL!! You know that can't done. That's why it's called faith by us, believe in myths by you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's why it's called faith by us

Is faith a reliable way to find out what is true?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Is faith a reliable way to find out what is true?

If I have faith that my car will start even though there's no gas in it...what happens?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If I have faith that my car will start even though there's no gas in it...what happens?

EDIT: oops, thought you were the original person I posted to. Sorry.

 

[mmksparbud]

No---you first have to decide what you put your faith in, I put it in the bible, you put it in scientific evidence. Then, when you try to discern truth, you test it according to what you believe. I test things first by what the bible says, then by scientific evidence. You place it in your evidence--period. You then toss out anything that doesn't add up. I weigh the 2 but will always go for the bible first and then the evidence. Like I believe in the Exodus--science says it didn't happen, I believe on faith it did---science may discover it did later.
Heb_11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.



If anyone is having computer problems, please report them. They will look into things if more than one person complains. Every time I come on here I have to clean my computer, or it just about stops. I just cleaned 14 threats.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No---you first have to decide what you put your faith in, I put it in the bible, you put it in scientific evidence

Faith is believing things without evidence. So what you're saying about me doesn't even make sense. I follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

I test things first by what the bible says, then by scientific evidence

This is starting at a conclusion and working backwards. It's called pseudoscience and its intellectually dishonest.

You place it in your evidence--period. You then toss out anything that doesn't add up

What do you mean toss out anything that doesn't add up? You don't seem to understand how science works. If experiment disagrees with hypothesis, you throw the hypothesis out because it is wrong. You're starting at a conclusion and working backwards....this is pseudoscience. It's why Intelligent Design loses in court every single time because it is unscientific nonsense.

Like I believe in the Exodus--science says it didn't happen, I believe on faith it did---science may discover it did later.

This is basically admitting you aren't willing to change your mind based on the available evidence. This is being intellectually dishonest and willful ignorance. You are choosing magical thinking over verifiable evidence.

Heb_11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Is believing things without evidence a virtue? Yes or no.