Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

    I really don't get your hang up here. There wouldn't need to be two people who were blood related to reproduce aka "Adam & Eve".
    No, right, but even if "Adam" and "Eve" themselves weren't close relations, their children were. Is there any way according to evolution that mankind propagated without incest?
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
      No, right, but even if "Adam" and "Eve" themselves weren't close relations, their children were. Is there any way according to evolution that mankind propagated without incest?
      Because there would have been far more than just two original "parents", so to speak. Unlike the literal Adam & Eve paradigm whereby the only reproduction could occur between siblings.
      Well this is fun isn't it?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

        Because there would have been far more than just two original "parents", so to speak.
        How? What's the mechanism for the generation of these first generation humans? Is mutation involved, as I mentioned, or some other way?
        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

        @Nee_Nihilo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
          How? What's the mechanism for the generation of these first generation humans? Is mutation involved, as I mentioned, or some other way?
          Are you familiar with the theory of evolution? You can get a better explanation reading up online than I can provide and it would answer your questions.
          Well this is fun isn't it?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

            Do you even know why incest results in congenital defects? Educate yourself.
            Yes, I know why. The problem did NOT exist in the beginning.

            It also appears that you do not even know what the word congenital means.

            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
            No, you don't. You lap up pseudo scientific bunk because actual science doesn't fit in with your belief system. That, however, is not how science works.
            I know how science works. I work in a scientific field.

            You on the other hand... do not know how science works. You think that scientific truth is determined by fallacious appeals to authority or popularity.
            Last edited by Right Divider; September 17, 2020, 06:02 AM.
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post

              I find it ironic that those most likely to rail against sexual immorality are now busy arguing for incest.
              Are you saying that it is being claimed, in this tread, that persons alive right now, in the 21st century, can, without commission of immorality, have sexual relations with those of their 21st century contemporaries whose proximity of blood relation to them falls within boundaries of consanguinity such that sexual relations between them would, in the 21st century, be classified as incest?

              By the way, your hero--your shameless, Satan-worshiping god--the fraudster Charles Darwin--was (to borrow your phrase) "busy arguing for incest" in the 19th century by marrying his first cousin, Emma Wedgewood, and by having 10 children with her.






              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

              MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

                By the way, your hero--your shameless, Satan-worshiping god--the fraudster Charles Darwin--was (to borrow your phrase) "busy arguing for incest" in the 19th century by marrying his first cousin, Emma Wedgewood, and by having 10 children with her.

                Icky!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                  Because there would have been far more than just two original "parents", so to speak. Unlike the literal Adam & Eve paradigm whereby the only reproduction could occur between siblings.
                  Do you mean humans--"far more than just two original" humans?

                  Now, though you insanely deny that there was ever a time when there were only two humans, would you at least admit that there had to have been a time when there was some discrete number of humans, before which time there were no humans at all?

                  The stupidity required of you and your fellow Darwin cheerleaders to say that, though there once was a time when there were no humans at all, nevertheless, there was somehow never a time when there was one, and only one human (Adam), and there was somehow never a time when there were two, and only two humans (Adam and Eve). So, according to your guano-loco, Darwin-cheerleader insanity, for some period of time, there was not even one human, and then, spontaneously--skipping over a period of just one human, and a period of just two humans, of just three humans, of just four humans, etc.--there was some number of original humans "far more than just two". That you can sit here, on TOL, and pretend to take yourself seriously while you say things like that the number of original humans was "far more than just two" (nay, "far more than just [one]", even) illustrates just how reprehensibly shameless a liar you are on behalf of your worthless, God-despising cause as a Darwin cheerleader.

                  Has any non-human ever given birth to a human?

                  Has any human ever given birth to a non-human?

                  By the way, it's hilarious that you just called Adam and Eve siblings by saying that the only reproduction that could occur between them was a reproduction between siblings.
                  What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                  MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                    The stupidity required of you and your fellow Darwin cheerleaders to say that, though there once was a time when there were no humans at all, nevertheless, there was somehow never a time when there was one, and only one human (Adam), and there was somehow never a time when there were two, and only two humans (Adam and Eve). So, according to your guano-loco, Darwin-cheerleader insanity, for some period of time, there was not even one human, and then, spontaneously--skipping over a period of just one human, and a period of just two humans, of just three humans, of just four humans, etc.--there was some number of original humans "far more than just two". That you can sit here, on TOL, and pretend to take yourself seriously while you say things like that the number of original humans was "far more than just two" (nay, "far more than just [one]", even) illustrates just how reprehensibly shameless a liar you are on behalf of your worthless, God-despising cause as a Darwin cheerleader.

                    All of my ancestors are human.
                    Originally posted by Squeaky
                    That explains why your an idiot.
                    Originally posted by God's Truth
                    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                      Has any human ever given birth to a non-human?
                      well, there's Dorothy Howell Rodham to start with


                      and Marian Shields Robinson

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                        Yes, I know why. The problem did NOT exist in the beginning.

                        It also appears that you do not even know what the word congenital means.


                        I know how science works. I work in a scientific field.

                        You on the other hand... do not know how science works. You think that scientific truth is determined by fallacious appeals to authority or popularity.
                        Then why did it suddenly spring up afterwards? If there was no problem with initial inbreeding then why was it condemned down the line? I'm well aware of what the word congenital means thanks and it's not irrelevant here. If you want to simply address the obvious defects that are high risk in incestuous relationships then hey, have at it.

                        You may well be versed and proficient in a scientific job but it certainly isn't anything to do with anything that determines the age of the earth. Science does not start with a pre-set conclusion and shoe horns data to fir in with it by way of, like young earth creationism.
                        Well this is fun isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

                          Do you mean humans--"far more than just two original" humans?

                          Now, though you insanely deny that there was ever a time when there were only two humans, would you at least admit that there had to have been a time when there was some discrete number of humans, before which time there were no humans at all?

                          The stupidity required of you and your fellow Darwin cheerleaders to say that, though there once was a time when there were no humans at all, nevertheless, there was somehow never a time when there was one, and only one human (Adam), and there was somehow never a time when there were two, and only two humans (Adam and Eve). So, according to your guano-loco, Darwin-cheerleader insanity, for some period of time, there was not even one human, and then, spontaneously--skipping over a period of just one human, and a period of just two humans, of just three humans, of just four humans, etc.--there was some number of original humans "far more than just two". That you can sit here, on TOL, and pretend to take yourself seriously while you say things like that the number of original humans was "far more than just two" (nay, "far more than just [one]", even) illustrates just how reprehensibly shameless a liar you are on behalf of your worthless, God-despising cause as a Darwin cheerleader.

                          Has any non-human ever given birth to a human?

                          Has any human ever given birth to a non-human?

                          By the way, it's hilarious that you just called Adam and Eve siblings by saying that the only reproduction that could occur between them was a reproduction between siblings.
                          For starters, it wouldn't have been Adam & Eve who were siblings but their offspring. Your "Darwin cheerleader" garbage has gone beyond boring by now as well...
                          Well this is fun isn't it?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                            Then why did it suddenly spring up afterwards?
                            Why does it have to be "suddenly"?

                            If you just believed the truth, this would not be a problem for you.

                            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                            If there was no problem with initial inbreeding then why was it condemned down the line?
                            Since God created ONE man and ONE woman.... how do you expect them to "be fruitful and multiple" without their children interbreeding?

                            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                            I'm well aware of what the word congenital means thanks and it's not irrelevant here. If you want to simply address the obvious defects that are high risk in incestuous relationships then hey, have at it.
                            This is a problem TODAY... but NOT at the beginning.

                            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                            You may well be versed and proficient in a scientific job but it certainly isn't anything to do with anything that determines the age of the earth. Science does not start with a pre-set conclusion and shoe horns data to fir in with it by way of, like young earth creationism.
                            Science simply means KNOWLEDGE and that KNOWLEDGE is NOT limited to your five senses.

                            You simply reject the KNOWLEDGE that God has given. That leaves you in a position of believing just about anything, true or not.

                            All of my ancestors are human.
                            Originally posted by Squeaky
                            That explains why your an idiot.
                            Originally posted by God's Truth
                            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                              For starters, it wouldn't have been Adam & Eve who were siblings but their offspring.
                              Doy. Again, that's exactly why it is hilarious that you said that Adam and Eve were siblings. You said so by saying that the only reproduction that could occur between Adam and Eve was a reproduction between siblings:

                              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              Because there would have been far more than just two original "parents", so to speak. Unlike the literal Adam & Eve paradigm whereby the only reproduction could occur between siblings.
                              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              Your "Darwin cheerleader" garbage has gone beyond boring by now as well...
                              I love your choice of words, here, because your being a Darwin cheerleader is you handing out garbage--Darwin cheerleader garbage.

                              You've whet my curiosity, here, to learn from you just where, or to what something goes, according to you, after it has "gone beyond boring".
                              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                              MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                Why does it have to be "suddenly"?
                                Well, where did it become wrong then?

                                If you just believed the truth, this would not be a problem for you.
                                It's not a problem for me as incest wouldn't be part of the equation to start with.

                                Since God created ONE man and ONE woman.... how do you expect them to "be fruitful and multiple" without their children interbreeding?
                                With your belief, incest is unavoidable. With evolution, there's no such thing.

                                This is a problem TODAY... but NOT at the beginning.
                                Why now and not then? Why did it become wrong?

                                Science simply means KNOWLEDGE and that KNOWLEDGE is NOT limited to your five senses.

                                You simply reject the KNOWLEDGE that God has given. That leaves you in a position of believing just about anything, true or not.
                                Science isn't limited or constrained by fundamentalist belief systems that start with a belief and then try to shoe horn data to fit in with it. The irony of your latter is almost funny.

                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X