Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[SkyWriting]

I didn't have a pastor. I had a reverend.

I interpret scripture differently than you. I don't have to interpret our species as having been propogated by two individuals, resulting in inevitable incest. The Bible contains maaaaany metaphors.

There are two explanations. Some say Adam was the first man created, so there were no DNA/incest problems to worry about. Some say Adam was the first man created from a pool of humanoid forms.

As for metaphors, most are clearly identified. In most cases God has used real people, places, and events as metaphors.
God need not fabricate anything.

 

[Nostromo]

God need not fabricate anything.

God also need not start the human race from a single mating pair, leading to the inevitable questions about incest.

 

[AV1611VET]

God also need not start the human race from a single mating pair, leading to the inevitable questions about incest.

There's that uniformitarianism rearing its ugly head.

 

[SkyWriting]

ID certainly couldn't make it look worse. It is actually ID proponents that are trying to run away from the creaitonist moniker, and for good reason.

Barely. Creationism is believing in what the Bible says.

Intelligent Design is pointing to the facts that information
cannot be fabricated by non-intelligent sources, that matter
does not assemble itself into living systems, that the
living systems we do see have nearly infinite complexity,
and that everything we see points to an intelligent
designer.

Anything that creates something better than what it starts
with is a perpetual motion machine. Information, energy,
heat, you name it. They are all hoaxes.

 

[SkyWriting]

There's that uniformitarianism rearing its ugly head.

Maybe it's a cousin that's been hanging around too close for comfort at the family pot-luck.

 

[SkyWriting]

God also need not start the human race from a single mating pair, leading to the inevitable questions about incest.

Incest would not be a PROBLEM. Sad to not have other choices (I say) but not a medical problem it might be with you & your sister. Sorry, your DNA is not as pure as Adam & Eve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe it's a cousin that's been hanging around too close for comfort at the family pot-luck.

-- Ouch!

 

[SkyWriting]

More like it's a transitional spelling.

Everything evolves...and other balognies.

 

[British Bulldog]

Everything evolves...and other balognies.

If evolution weren't true, incest wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Jazer]

Some say Adam was the first man created,

Now Science says that Adam ( Science or Bible Adam) was the most recent common ancestor for a group of people or in the case of Science Adam for all people alive today. Funny how Science should verify that all people living today does descend from one man. If anything you would expect the opposite. But once again science shows us that the Bible is true. There is no conflict between the Bible and Science.

 

[Orogeny]

Funny how Science should verify that all people living today does descend from one man. If anything you would expect the opposite.

What, that one man descended from all people living today? Somehow the math doesn't work out...

 

[Davian]

...
There is no conflict between the Bible and Science.

Using your line of reasoning, would there be a conflict between Science, and say, Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (first edition)?

 

[mpok1519]

There are two explanations. Some say Adam was the first man created, so there were no DNA/incest problems to worry about. Some say Adam was the first man created from a pool of humanoid forms.

I'm sure there are many crackpot explanations.

As for metaphors, most are clearly identified. In most cases God has used real people, places, and events as metaphors.
God need not fabricate anything.

Wrong. A metaphor has no clear identification. Its not meta, if it can be clearly identified. Because if you are observing it to identify it, the heisenberg uncertainty comes into play, of once you observe something, you are tainting its natural environment, thus negating any objectivity.

You cannot attach objectivity, to scripture. Because it is something so far beyond human comprehesion, that you cannot attach the realities of the natural world to it.

 

[mpok1519]

Barely. Creationism is believing in what the Bible says.

Intelligent Design is pointing to the facts that information
cannot be fabricated by non-intelligent sources, that matter
does not assemble itself into living systems, that the
living systems we do see have nearly infinite complexity,
and that everything we see points to an intelligent
designer.

Anything that creates something better than what it starts
with is a perpetual motion machine. Information, energy,
heat, you name it. They are all hoaxes.

well, the argument is this: the natural world is intelligent. It does order itself, at every condition. And life is apart of that order, permitting certain conditions.

And those conditions, in an infinite universe, are not only possible, but inevitable.

 

[mpok1519]

Now Science says that Adam ( Science or Bible Adam)

What the heck does that mean? There is no "science Adam". There is only "Bible" Adam.

Whatever that means in the first place.

was the most recent common ancestor for a group of people or in the case of Science Adam for all people alive today.

I don't think "Science Adam" wants to be attached to your theories. I think Adam just wants to be himself. Hes tired of the peer pressure, of people wanting him to be someone other than Adam.

Funny how Science should verify that all people living today does descend from one man.

Source other than the Bible? Evidence? Please?

If anything you would expect the opposite. But once again science shows us that the Bible is true. There is no conflict between the Bible and Science.

Well, you're free to believe what you, want to believe.

 

[Nostromo]

Incest would not be a PROBLEM. Sad to not have other choices (I say) but not a medical problem it might be with you & your sister. Sorry, your DNA is not as pure as Adam & Eve.

That's not the point... I'm aware of the claims about it not being a problem, though the 'pure' DNA comment seems to be entirely speculation.

The point is that we're having this discussion at all. A great many people have a natural distaste for incest, so why set things up in a way that is going to cause this conflict? Incest is clearly prohibited in Leviticus, so why use it as the foundation of the human race when it would be just as easy not to do so?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not the point... I'm aware of the claims about it not being a problem, though the 'pure' DNA comment seems to be entirely speculation.

We're not going to go changing things around just because you think 'pure DNA seems to be entirely speculation'.

Incest is clearly prohibited in Leviticus, so why use it as the foundation of the human race when it would be just as easy not to do so?

Because that's not how you properly interpret Scripture.

It wasn't taboo until it was prohibited in writing.

When Cain killed Abel, there was no death penalty as yet enacted, therefore God did just the opposite -- He placed a mark on Cain that whoever found him would not harm him.

Later, after the Flood, in Genesis 9, God enacted the death penalty.

 

[British Bulldog]

Actually, our natural revulsion at the idea of incest is an evolutionary trait. Children that spend their very early years together, like brothers and sisters, are 'programmed', for want of a better word, to be disinterested in each other sexually later on. This can be demonstrated by siblings who are separated at birth and introduced later finding each other sexually attractive more frequently than siblings who grew up together. And unrelated siblings growing up in the same family from babyhood finding each other less sexually attractive than they would otherwise. Further proof is privided by the statistics of father-daughter incest being about 100 times more frequent between stepfathers and stepdaughters than with direct blood relatives. It's an unpleasant subject, but we find it unpleasant because evolution has 'programmed' us to find it unpleasant, in the same way we find unpleasant smells repellent.

 

[Nostromo]

Now Science says that Adam ( Science or Bible Adam) was the most recent common ancestor for a group of people or in the case of Science Adam for all people alive today. Funny how Science should verify that all people living today does descend from one man. If anything you would expect the opposite. But once again science shows us that the Bible is true. There is no conflict between the Bible and Science.

Except that it doesn't show that the Bible is true, if anything it shows the opposite. Y-Chromosome Adam is the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of every man alive today, but he's not the only ancestor, he hasn't always been the most recent common ancestor, and he's certainly not the first man.

You and I might both share a grandfather, and to all our male children he would be their most recent common ancestor, but that doesn't mean we didn't have any other grandparents.

 

[Nostromo]

It wasn't taboo until it was prohibited in writing.

That isn't really an answer to the question I asked. It obviously wasn't taboo until it was prohibited in writing, but it's only an issue after it was prohibited in writing. Everyone who has ever read both those passages has been aware that incest is wrong, but God chose to use it even though he didn't have to.

Later, after the Flood, in Genesis 9, God enacted the death penalty.

Don't you mean during the flood?

The idea of an absolute morality flies out the window when you read the OT.