Literal Genesis requires incest and would have created a threatened species

[Fascinated With God]

It is possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a genetically perfect breeding pair with a large potential for variation & a long life span. Birth defects occur when both the male parent & female parent have a mutation or genetic mistake in the same loci/allele & it is expressed in the offspring. In genetically pure parents like Adam & Eve, who live several centuries & had many children, mutations would accumulate very slowly & so the likelihood of any of these "mistakes" being expressed in the genome of their offspring is lower. One parent's gene is likely to mask the other.

What you are arguing for would only further reduce your model's prediction of the amount of human genetic diversity present today, and your model already forces a dramatic underestimation for the amount of diversity present today.

Genetic diversity in the species is not eliminated unless natural selection occurs.

"Natural selection" only reduces diversity in the case of catastrophic die offs, which is not normally referred to as "natural" selection.

For instance, the pygmy tribes in Africa have only very small people because they were isolated. But if 1 of their members were to mate with say, a tall European, the offspring have a great potential for diversity. Also, in Adam & Eve's time, disease was not a problem. Weather conditions were better with more moisture & less UV light penetrating the ozone, longer life spans, different living conditions & healthier diets.

Disease would be a problem, not for them but for *us*. Even if Adam, Eve & Noah were all superhuman and invulnerable, which I think is a comic book superman model of Adam & Eve, you still have the problem that disease would be an overwhelming problem for us today if we all descended from just six people 5,000 years ago.

You people keep changing the subject back to Adam & Eve's disease resistance. It is like you folks are wired to misread this because it is much easier to slide the subject from present to past than it is to deal with this issue in the present. It suggests to me that y'all are stuck in the past.

What the OP is actually about is what *our* disease resistance would be like *today* if we all came from six people just 5,000 years ago. If that were so the human race would be even more susceptible to extinction than cheetahs. There is no way that a disease could come along and kill 90% of a population (Indians and small pox) or 50% (Europeans and bubonic plague). If a disease were deadly enough to kill one previously healthy person, it would kill 100%, total extinction. There would be no in-between, no partial population kills in epidemics.

But on the plus side, if we were all descended from just six people only 5,000 years ago we would all be so closely related that huge numbers of people would be compatible organ donors. There would be a far shorter waiting time for people who need transplants. Just as any cheetah can accept a skin graft from any other cheetah without provoking an immune response.

A population bottleneck in cheetahs is an absolutely different issue. A bottleneck does not speak about the origin of cheetahs in the 1st place.

Why does the fact that cheetahs originated before the bottleneck change the comparison between the cheetah bottleneck 10,000 years ago (which actually happened) and the proposed human bottleneck 5,000 years ago (for which there is not a shred of evidence)? Your theory that 5,000 years ago was the origin of our species does not alter the fact that it would still be a bottleneck that would make us all FAR more closely related to each other than we actually are, with no possiblity for there being different races.

And the cheetahs that were left to repopulate may have had very little genetic diversity due to genetic entropy over time & the forces of natural selection.

Less genetic enthropy could not possibly produce greater diversity, it would produce precisely the opposite, even less genetic diversity. Natual selection on the other hand does not reduce diversity, only catastrophic dies-offs do. So none of the things you mention here actually reduce or increase diversity in the manner that you seem to think.

Cheetahs cannot be used to measure the diversity in humans. Human beings are also extremely closely related. We differ by no more than 0.02% of our DNA.

If cheetahs are more diverse then why don't they have races? (Before 10,000 years ago they did).

NB: Creationists do not propose a genetic bottleneck 6000 years ago. They propose the creation of Adam & Eve. A bottleneck is what occured at the time of Noah's flood with 3 couples to repopulate (Noah's sons).

Good point, which even further reduces the amount of genetic diversity that could possibly exist today. You are just digging your hole deeper.

 

[ChetSinger]

...So all of the strongest scientific evidence on the subject clearly contradicts the notion that Europe's population exploded from a half dozen individuals in the Middle East 5,000 years ago.

Isn't it interesting that if you use different measuring sticks when extrapolating into the distant past you can get different results?

And isn't it interesting that the study I mentioned included both Europeans and Africans? That's new, I think.

As a Christian, do you see the value in evidence that corroborates a plain reading of the scripture? For example, I've read scholarly monographs that map many of the names in the Table of Nations to later cultures. Those names can be tied to many specific geographical areas, including parts of Europe and Africa. Now along comes a new DNA study, which included both Europeans and Africans, and concludes that the measured portion of their DNA experienced rapid divergence beginning 5,000 years ago.

As a believer, do you see the value that kind of evidence has to our faith?

The Bible claims to describe actual people, in actual places, in specific times. The history described in our scriptures has been under steady attack for more than a century. So when we see evidence of its veracity we have a good reason to publish it, don't we?

For example:

• Learned people once claimed that David was a myth. Then we discovered archaeological evidence of him.
• Learned people once claimed that the Pentateuch couldn't be as old as claimed because Hebrew wasn't a written language at that time. Then we discovered Ugarit.
• Learned people once claimed that Nazareth was a fabrication. Then we found the inscription at Caesarea Maritima.

I have a suggestion: don't quickly oppose evidence that supports a plain reading of scripture. I'm not suggesting you blindly accept such evidence; just that you not be quick to dismiss it.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Isn't it interesting that if you use different measuring sticks when extrapolating into the distant past you can get different results?

That sometimes happens, but I do not see evidence of that in this situation.

And isn't it interesting that the study I mentioned included both Europeans and Africans? That's new, I think.

So you claim. Can you provide any links describing this supposed study?

As a Christian, do you see the value in evidence that corroborates a plain reading of the scripture?

I don't think YEC is a plain reading, it is a fanatical distortion. It requires God condoning incest. It requires God's creation to be an intentionally misleading deception. It is an attempt to force a square peg through a round hole. It is also materialistic and anti-spiritual, trying to force spiritual truths into a base entirely materialistic context. It leads away from God and calls God's creation a deception and lie. It is very unhealthy spiritually.

For example, I've read scholarly monographs that map many of the names in the Table of Nations to later cultures. Those names can be tied to many specific geographical areas, including parts of Europe and Africa. Now along comes a new DNA study, which included both Europeans and Africans, and concludes that the measured portion of their DNA experienced rapid divergence beginning 5,000 years ago.

All evidence points to a divergence 40 to 50 thousand years ago.

As a believer, do you see the value that kind of evidence has to our faith?

God supposedly condoning incest is good for our faith? Fabricated evidence and calling God's creation an overwhelming cosmic deception is not in the least bit spiritually healthy. Fanaticism and willful ignorance of an overwhelming body of evidence, sticking your head in the sand and denial, these are psychologically unhealthy practices, as well as spiritually unhealthy.

The Bible claims to describe actual people, in actual places, in specific times. The history described in our scriptures has been under steady attack for more than a century. So when we see evidence of its veracity we have a good reason to publish it, don't we?

I strongly believe that science does comfirm the Bible, the flood occured, for example. But science also clearly contradicts your immoral "literal" (materialistc) interpretation that humanity was born through incest.

I have a suggestion: don't oppose evidence that supports a plain reading of scripture. I'm not suggesting you blindly accept such evidence; just that you don't oppose it.

Bring on this supposed study that will most likely be from some disreputable source.

 

[ChetSinger]

...So you claim. Can you provide any links describing this supposed study?

...

Bring on this supposed study that will most likely be from some disreputable source.

I already did; it was the one in Science.

God supposedly condoning incest is good for our faith? Fabricated evidence and calling God's creation an overwhelming cosmic deception is not in the least bit spiritually healthy. Fanaticism and willful ignorance of an overwhelming body of evidence, sticking your head in the sand and denial, these are psychologically unhealthy practices, as well as spiritually unhealthy.

I strongly believe that science does comfirm the Bible, the flood occured, for example. But science also clearly contradicts your immoral "literal" (materialistc) interpretation that humanity was born through incest.

I guess I should return to the subject of your thread. Regarding close intermarriage, do you disapprove of Abraham marrying his half sister?

 

[Calminian]

God supposedly condoning incest is good for our faith?

God does not condone it now but did before the law of Moses. Sarah was actually Abraham's sister. Even if you're an old earther, this shouldn't be a problem for you biblically. Abraham's marriage to Sarah would have been prohibited at Moses' time. This shouldn't stumble anyone's faith, in fact they should trust what God has said about this. Back in early human history, close relation marriages were not considered incest. (the word in english also implies a statutory crime, which may also be stumbling you.)

But just to give you some perspective, it's important to understand that Abraham lived relatively close to the time of the flood. Most don't realize that Noah's son Shem who was actually on the ark, outlive Abraham. The earth's population at this time was still very small, and the gene pool was still very pure and therefore God allowed close relations to procreate. Eventually God stopped it in accordance with His perfect knowledge.

If that's really stumbling to your faith, maybe it's time to take stock of what your faith is built on? Is it built on God's word? Or is it based on modern naturalism?

Fabricated evidence and calling God's creation an overwhelming cosmic deception is not in the least bit spiritually healthy. Fanaticism and willful ignorance of an overwhelming body of evidence, sticking your head in the sand and denial, these are psychologically unhealthy practices, as well as spiritually unhealthy......

The idea that biblical creationism is deception on God's part stems from the idea that all miracles are deception. Remember, the guests at the wedding in Cana were deceived about the wine Jesus created. But this was not because Jesus deceived them. They were deceived because they were ignorant about the miracle he had performed. The 6 day creation was also a miracle (or series of miracles), and many are deceived because of it. You would be among those, but it's not because the Creator deceived you. You are deceived because you are choosing naturalistic philosophies over God's revelation. Instead of looking at evidence through God's word, you're looking at it from a naturalistic anti-miracle perspective.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I already did; it was the one in Science.

I already replied to that. You obviously just completely ignored my reply. None of the journal articles cited by the creationist paper that you pointed to actually say what the creationists claim. It is a hack job.

Here are my comments on that article for a second time. Hopefully this time you will actually read it rather than just blowing right past it and completely ignoring it:

==========================================================================

These creationist web sights are hardly scientific. The references really bear this out:

Tomkins, J. 2012. Human DNA Variation Linked to Biblical Event Timeline. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org July 23, 2012, accessed December 31, 2012.
​

That was a reference to another article in the same creationists publication.

Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.
​

There is no reference to finding a bottleneck in this article, it only talks about the huge population explosion which everyone knows was brought about by the discovery of agriculture 13,000 years ago.

Fu, W, et al. Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. Nature. Published online before print, July 13, 2012.
​

No reference to a bottle neck in this article either.

Keinan, A and A. Clark. 2012. Recent Explosive Human Population Growth Has Resulted in an Excess of Rare Genetic Variants. Science. 336 (6082): 740-743.
​

Ditto.

Sanford, J. C. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, 3rd ed. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
​

This is not a journal article, it is a paperback. And he seems to be going on about the deterioration of gene pools as a result of low selection pressures (i.e. lack of culling) as if this were somehow rejected by scientists, which is completely false. Even farmers know that the vitality of the herd will deteriorate over time, which is why they will pay so much more for wild bulls and staggs to reinvograte the gene pool and overall health of the herd.



None of these references support your article's claim that there was a population bottleneck 5,000 years. The authors of your article are making a completely bogus reference to a nonexistent population bottleneck that never occured 5,000 years go.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I already did; it was the one in Science.

That article says nothing about a population bottleneck, and EVERYONE knows there was a population explosion after the discovery of agriculture, so that was just a throw away statement of common knowledge, not a result of any findings in the study.




Here is the evidence, posted again, that overwhelmingly refutes (without intending to) the comic book notion that the human race stems from just 6 individuals only 5,000 years ago. Maybe you will actually bother to read it this time.


========================================================



There are two primary sources of evidence about the population explosion associated with the discovery of agriculture in the Middle East 10,000 years ago (and then again 8,000 years ago in Mezo-America). The genetic evidence from comparing ancient European DNA to modern European DNA is that the expansion of agriculture from the Middle East to Europe did not involve a displacement of the native hunter-gatherer population (just as the spread of early homo sapiens into Europe, from 35,000 years ago to 25,000 years ago, did not involve a displacement of the Neanderthal, but rather the Neanderthal dissolved by intermarriage into a larger population, leavings us with 4% Neanderthal DNA as modern Europeans).

The new linguistic evidence comes from taking all the phonetically similar words from all know Indo-European languages present and past and grouping them into “phonems”. Each language can be plotted as a very long sequence of ones and zeros, with each bit in the sequence corresponding to whether or not a particular phonem exists in that language. These long sequences of ones and zeros can be treated like DNA. The new mathematical techniques pioneered by DNA research on determining the time of divergence between different genomes also work with these phonem sequences.

There were two competing theories on where the Indo-European languages originated from: Turkey 10,000 years ago (the domestication of wheat) or the Steppes of Asia 5,000 years ago (the domestication of the horse). The phonem evidence points overwhelmingly to Turkey 10,000 years ago.



So all of the strongest scientific evidence on the subject clearly contradicts the notion that Europe's population exploded from a half dozen individuals in the Middle East 5,000 years ago.







.

 

[Fascinated With God]

If that's really stumbling to your faith, maybe it's time to take stock of what your faith is built on? Is it built on God's word? Or is it based on modern naturalism?

It is not a stumbling block to my faith, I don't have faith. I have experience. Faith is what you have when you aren't really sure, but you are trying really hard to convince yourself (and usually overcompensating). Do you have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? No, of course not, it is a certainty that you have experienced.

What you have done is succeeded in is convincing me that the early Hebrews were a lot more primitive than I had realized. But that is hardly a reflection on God.

The idea that biblical creationism is deception on God's part stems from the idea that all miracles are deception.

That is self-serving hogwash. When Moses' staff turned into a snake what was the deception? When Jesus manifested enough bread and fish to feed a huge crowd where was the deception?

Your attempted to try to paint a parallel between miracles and deception is really just an unintended insult to God.

Remember, the guests at the wedding in Cana were deceived about the wine Jesus created. But this was not because Jesus deceived them.
They were deceived because they were ignorant about the miracle he had performed.

There is no record of a lie being told. Did anyone ask, "wasn't that water befiore?" No. A lie is when someone asks a question and is given a false answer. There is no evidence of that here.

And even if it were true, this would have been such a tiny white lie compared the massive cosmic deception that you are claiming is a somehow justifiedable deception.

Now, compare Jesus' motive to be secretive (not deceptive) which was a very easily understood and justifiable cause, and compare it to the supposed cosmic deception that you propose? What is the purpose for this cosmic deception? Your answer is just to say that it is a miracle and leave it at that. Such reasoning could be used to justify any act of any kind, and crazy people and cults frequently do use precisely the same kind of reasoning.

The 6 day creation was also a miracle (or series of miracles), and many are deceived because of it. You would be among those, but it's not because the Creator deceived you. You are deceived because you are choosing naturalistic philosophies over God's revelation. Instead of looking at evidence through God's word, you're looking at it from a naturalistic anti-miracle perspective.

Just because I don't believe in Santa Claus doesn't mean I am anti-miracle. You are the ones trying to reduce the spiritual statements in Genesis to base physical meanings and throwing out the spiritual meaning. I am not an anti-spiritual materialist, you are.

 

[ChetSinger]

That article says nothing about a population bottleneck, and EVERYONE knows there was a population explosion after the discovery of agriculture, so that was just a throw away statement of common knowledge, not a result of any findings in the study.

I guess we'll just part on this disagreeing then. Peace.

 

[Calminian]

It is not a stumbling block to my faith, I don't have faith. I have experience. Faith is what you have when you aren't really sure, but you are trying really hard to convince yourself (and usually overcompensating). Do you have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? No, of course not, it is a certainty that you have experienced.

Just want to point out that biblical faith is not quite the same as we use the term today. It basically means trust. Do I trust the sun will come up tomorrow? Yes. Do I trust the Christ rose form the dead? Yes. Do I trust the God's account of origins is accurate? Yes. Just wanted to clear that up. In english the term has come to mean blind faith, which the Bible never supports.

That is self-serving hogwash. When Moses' staff turned into a snake what was the deception? When Jesus manifested enough bread and fish to feed a huge crowd where was the deception?

I'm merely serving my God by trusting in his Word over yours.

now the I used the wine as an example as one of the guests was under the impression this was a higher quality aged wine, but even the fish and bread Jesus created could have been desceptive to a skeptic like yourself who didn't witness the miracle. Jesus probably multiplied small dried fish which I understand was a customary way to preserve and eat them. Someone coming along after the fact that did not know about the miracle would have believed much more time and preparation had gone into making that fish. In fact he would have believed that that fish would have grown to maturity before being caught, cleaned and dried. Yet in truth, the fish appeared on the scene instantaneously. Would that have been deception? Of course not. The skeptic examining the fish would have been ignorant (perhaps willfully ignorant) that a miracle had taken place.

Now suppose a believer had come up to him and said, "hey that fish is just minutes old, because Jesus created it already like that!" The skeptic might reply, "but if that's true then God is deceiving us and God wouldn't do that therefore it must be old just like it looks."

In essence that's what you're doing. You and he have the same presuppositions. You don't want to accept that God can work outside of normal scientific processes in the area of origins, so you've bought into the idea of randomness and billions of years.

But this seems to be getting way off the topic of incest, except for the fact that it all comes down to trusting God's word, over modern naturalistic theories. I want people to trust Genesis that they might be blessed by it. Abraham trust God by acting very contrary to conventional knowledge. He left the peaceful safe land of his clan for a hostile land. But he trusted God and was blessed. We should too. You should too.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I guess we'll just part on this disagreeing then. Peace.

You can't afford to actually examine the evidence because deep down inside you know its true.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Now suppose a believer had come up to him and said, "hey that fish is just minutes old, because Jesus created it already like that!" The skeptic might reply, "but if that's true then God is deceiving us and God wouldn't do that therefore it must be old just like it looks."

How is a manifestation a deception? That doesn't make any sense. Food appears, how is that misleading anyone?

In essence that's what you're doing. You and he have the same presuppositions. You don't want to accept that God can work outside of normal scientific processes in the area of origins, so you've bought into the idea of randomness and billions of years.

If YEC is true then all the light from galaxies would be a frabrication of something that never actually existed. Manifesting food does not involve creating something that deceptively looks like something else entirely.

But this seems to be getting way off the topic of incest, except for the fact that it all comes down to trusting God's word, over modern naturalistic theories. I want people to trust Genesis that they might be blessed by it. Abraham trust God by acting very contrary to conventional knowledge. He left the peaceful safe land of his clan for a hostile land. But he trusted God and was blessed. We should too. You should too.

I trust in God very much, which is why I don't believe that He would have created a cosmic lie for no good reason.

 

[Fascinated With God]

In essence that's what you're doing. You and he have the same presuppositions. You don't want to accept that God can work outside of normal scientific processes in the area of origins, so you've bought into the idea of randomness and billions of years.

You are making false assumptions about me. I have experienced many miracles that defy the current known laws of physics, but I do not wish to diminish the glory of God's creation that took eons to reach fruition. I think that wanting to reduce the time scale of God's creation down to something that you can at least begin to wrap your mind around, stems from a source of insecurity. Having God working on time scales of eons is very threatening to you, deep down inside (it is am emotional response, not a rational response).

But he trusted God and was blessed. We should too. You should too.

Your insinuation that I do not trust in God is rather insulting. You are the one that does not trust God's creation, not me. You are perfectly happy to believe that the light from the stars is all a hoax. You think God pulls hoaxes; but my faith is not teetering, so I don't have to cling to clearly false ideas in order to bolster a lagging faith.

 

[Calminian]

How is a manifestation a deception? That doesn't make any sense. Food appears, how is that misleading anyone?

I would say the same thing about the universe. How is the fact that it appeared thousand of years ago a deception? It is here. It was formed to function as is, already functional. It was a miracle. How is that deceptive?

If YEC is true then all the light from galaxies would be a frabrication of something that never actually existed. Manifesting food does not involve creating something that deceptively looks like something else entirely.

Ah the infamous light-in-transit theory which all YEC's reject. You see this is a theory with no basis in the Bible. There is not a single verse that expresses such an idea, and therefore it has no bases for belief. Yet this is the straw man old earthers put forth all the time. Now if you want to say that the light-in-transit theory and fabricated supernovas, etc. is deception that's fine. The problem is, you have to link it to the Bible and to YECs. I don't see the concept anywhere in scripture. I also believe it would not be in the character of God to do that. Therefore I reject it on philosophical and theological grounds (not on scientific grounds by the way).

But I don't see how this helps you. God didn't say He created any light in transit, but He did say He created the heavens earth and sea in 6 days, some thousands of years ago in a very concise series of biblical accounts. Why don't you believe Him?

 

[Calminian]

You are making false assumptions about me. I have experienced many miracles that defy the current known laws of physics, but I do not wish to diminish the glory of God's creation that took eons to reach fruition. I think that wanting to reduce the time scale of God's creation down to something that you can at least begin to wrap your mind around, stems from a source of insecurity. Having God working on time scales of eons is very threatening to you, deep down inside (it is am emotional response, not a rational response).

Please share some of these miracles you've experienced. I'll then show you how your own reasoning works when applied to them.

Your insinuation that I do not trust in God is rather insulting. ...

I'll just say that just because someone is deceived about God's creation doesn't mean God deceived them. Likewise, just because you are insulted, doesn't mean anyone actually insulted you. I'm simply encouraging you to trust God's word.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Ah the infamous light-in-transit theory which all YEC's reject. You see this is a theory with no basis in the Bible. There is not a single verse that expresses such an idea, and therefore it has no bases for belief. Yet this is the straw man old earthers put forth all the time. Now if you want to say that the light-in-transit theory and fabricated supernovas, etc. is deception that's fine. The problem is, you have to link it to the Bible and to YECs. I don't see the concept anywhere in scripture. I also believe it would not be in the character of God to do that. Therefore I reject it on philosophical and theological grounds (not on scientific grounds by the way).

So I take it that you don't believe in electricity or atoms either?

But I don't see how this helps you. God didn't say He created any light in transit, but He did say He created the heavens earth and sea in 6 days, some thousands of years ago in a very concise series of biblical accounts. Why don't you believe Him?

Nowhere does the Bible give a date for when the universe began.





.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I would say the same thing about the universe. How is the fact that it appeared thousand of years ago a deception? It is here. It was formed to function as is, already functional. It was a miracle. How is that deceptive?

Because there is an enormous body of evidence from many different fields of science that point to a drastically older age, and not the slightest shred of evidence to support your theory.

 

[mathetes123]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

For example, cheetahs are consider a threatened species because of a population bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. This bottleneck is nowhere near as extreme as the one Creationists propose for humans just 6,000 years ago, and yet cheetahs are so closely related to one another that transplanted skin grafts do not provoke immune responses.

I can only assume that you are making an argument for evolution. How can you believe that disease would have caused extinction of 100% of the people and at the same time suggest that mutations which tend to be destructive would not have had the same result in the case of evolution. It sounds like you are applying a different standard in each case to suit your preconceptions.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I would say the same thing about the universe. How is the fact that it appeared thousand of years ago a deception? It is here. It was formed to function as is, already functional. It was a miracle. How is that deceptive?

Because there is an enormous body of evidence that points to the contrary, and not the slightest shred of evidence to support your theory.

Please share some of these miracles you've experienced. I'll then show you how your own reasoning works when applied to them.

I woke up one night feeling as if I was shooting upwards like a rocket. Everything in the room started glowing a shimmering white, brighter and brighter. At a certain point I reached a peak and gradually began to accelerate downwards. I panicked and something inside me began flailing out trying to grab onto anything, but there was nothing to hold onto. (What was weird was that it wasn’t my hands flailing, it was something unknown inside me). After a few seconds I gave up as everything got dimmer and dimmer. For a moment everything was dark and normal, but as I continued to sink everything started to turn red and I felt as though the pressure was increasing. When I eventually got to the bottom I felt like I was deep under the ocean and everything was glowing bright red. I remember thinking, ‘I hope I don’t get stuck down here!’ Then I began rising up as the red got dimmer and dimmer until I reached the median point where we are and everything returned to normal.

So heaven and hell really are up and down, but it is in an extra-physical dimension, not a 3D up or down.

========================================================

My second example was something I witnessed. I was at a cookout with my best friend while his in-laws were visiting. His wife’s cousin got into a heated argument with my friend and wanted to fight him. My friend is a world class professionally trained boxer who could have beaten this guy to a pup, but because there were children present he held his temper, refused to fight him and instead challenged him to a game of free throw shots. The other guy was much better at basketball than my friend, but when they played my friend played impossibly well, not missing a single shot. He had never played a game like that before or since in his life. The cousin was so overwhelmed that he realized that it must have been the grace of God on my friend that allowed him to do that, and shook my friend’s hand and apologized.

======================================================


I think that is enough for the moment.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I can only assume that you are making an argument for evolution. How can you believe that disease would have caused extinction of 100% of the people and at the same time suggest that mutations which tend to be destructive would not have had the same result in the case of evolution. It sounds like you are applying a different standard in each case to suit your preconceptions.

A fatal mutation initially effects a single individual, not an entire group, so there is no chance of it wiping out an entire population.







.