• 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.

A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Ask the Jews why Jesus isn't their Messiah. They look at you with the same amused skepticism. Religion hardens hearts and minds, they killed or abused every descent prophet of truth sent to them!

No, they don't! The Jews merely disagree with my doctrine, some more strongly than others but none of them believe Christianity to be based on just rampant unintelligible stupidity.

You are truly delusional if you believe that is even half true, which of course, being one who believes a syllable of the literal insanity that is the UB, you do and are!

I mean, the UB nonsense is far worse than even the flat-earther conspiracy lunatics. There isn't a single intelligible aspect to the entire construct! It's just pure, raw, thick, sticky stupidity. There's way more reason to believe the Tooth Fairy actually exists!

Why anyone would waste their time discussing anything more substantive than the time of day with you is beyond my comprehension. You'd be more productive if you just had the doctor's place you in a coma.

Clete
 

Caino

Well-known member
No, they don't! The Jews merely disagree with my doctrine, some more strongly than others but none of them believe Christianity to be based on just rampant unintelligible stupidity.

You are truly delusional if you believe that is even half true, which of course, being one who believes a syllable of the literal insanity that is the UB, you do and are!

I mean, the UB nonsense is far worse than even the flat-earther conspiracy lunatics. There isn't a single intelligible aspect to the entire construct! It's just pure, raw, thick, sticky stupidity. There's way more reason to believe the Tooth Fairy actually exists!

Why anyone would waste their time discussing anything more substantive than the time of day with you is beyond my comprehension. You'd be more productive if you just had the doctor's place you in a coma.

Clete
You talk as if the UB frightens you? Unlike the Israelites creation myth the UB presents a logical, coherent explanation for creation via evolution.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You’ve read the UB?

I don't have to read nonsense to know that it's nonsense, in the same way that I don't have to drink alcohol to know that drunkenness is bad, or that I don't have to take drugs to know that they'll destroy my life and the lives of those around me.

I didn’t think so. Your opinion then is from ignorance.

I've read some of what you've posted on it here on TOL.

And from what I've read, I've determined that it is nonsense.

The creation story of the Israelites was debunked long ago.

Because you say so?
 

lucaspa

Member
A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

The unmitigated stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

On TOL, I've observed despisers of the Bible who are Darwin cheerleaders saying that there never was a time when there was only one human on earth (Adam), and that there never was a time when there were only two humans on earth (Adam and Eve).
In Genesis 1:27, there were never 2 humans, either. The Hebrew is clear that God created men and women. Both plural. So Genesis 1 has a population of several (hundreds?, thousands?) of people created at the same time.

Unless there is a founder event, where 2 members of a species are separated from the main population and isolated, there never will be a situation where there is every "only two humans", or "only two Pantheral leo" or "only two Balaenoptera musculus" (blue whale), etc.

Evolution happens to populations. The population slowly changes.

Intuitively you would think that, somewhere in the transformation of a population from species A to species B, there would be a time when there was a first individual of species B, but evolution doesn’t happen that way.

Evolution happens to **populations** over **generations. We can only tell there is a new species after the process is over. If at generation 1 there is species A and at generation 1,000 there is species B, we cannot point to any generation and say “at generation 500 was species A and at generation 501 was species B”

One thing about evolution is that changes **accumulate**. So you may have allele A that is species B instead of species A, but that is only 1 allele of one gene out of 26,000 genes (for humans). At a minimum several dozen genes (let’s say 50) need to be different. So in one generation you have all species A genes and 1 child has 1 allele in 1 gene that is species B. That’s 1 in 49. As that allele spreads, eventually everyone has Gene 1. Then a new mutation in a child is a an allele of species B. But that is still only 1 gene different out of 50 (Mom and Dad already have gene 1). This accumulates in different individuals. Individual X has 48 of the genes in common with species B but 2 genes of species A. Individual Y also has 48 of the genes of species B and 2 of species A, *but they are different genes*. So there is a mixture in the population of individuals that have almost all the genes of species B, but not quite. Even when you get some individuals that have all species B, they are still not a “new species”, because they are interbreeding with individuals that have most of genes of species B, but a few genes of species A.
Only when the entire population has genes of species B can we identify that *population* as a new species.

What you have stated, djengo, are the fallacies of Incredulity and Straw Man. First, you haven't understood what evolution claims or how it works. Second, it seems incredible to you that there is no 2 individuals of a new species. But what we are concerned about is what is real, not what you in particular think should be real.

Have you ever seen a person that was dead for 36 hours come back to life? Neither have I. It also sounds just as "stupid" as what you claim about evolution. But isn't that a central belief of Christianity? Don't you say that this happened? Not once, but at least twice? Lazarus and Jesus. You believe reality contradicts what our experience would call "stupid" or "incredible". Sauce for the goose. Same reasoning applies to your rant about evolution. Any denial of the similarity is the Special Pleading Fallacy.
 

Caino

Well-known member
In Genesis 1:27, there were never 2 humans, either. The Hebrew is clear that God created men and women. Both plural. So Genesis 1 has a population of several (hundreds?, thousands?) of people created at the same time.

Unless there is a founder event, where 2 members of a species are separated from the main population and isolated, there never will be a situation where there is every "only two humans", or "only two Pantheral leo" or "only two Balaenoptera musculus" (blue whale), etc.

Evolution happens to populations. The population slowly changes.

Intuitively you would think that, somewhere in the transformation of a population from species A to species B, there would be a time when there was a first individual of species B, but evolution doesn’t happen that way.

Evolution happens to **populations** over **generations. We can only tell there is a new species after the process is over. If at generation 1 there is species A and at generation 1,000 there is species B, we cannot point to any generation and say “at generation 500 was species A and at generation 501 was species B”

One thing about evolution is that changes **accumulate**. So you may have allele A that is species B instead of species A, but that is only 1 allele of one gene out of 26,000 genes (for humans). At a minimum several dozen genes (let’s say 50) need to be different. So in one generation you have all species A genes and 1 child has 1 allele in 1 gene that is species B. That’s 1 in 49. As that allele spreads, eventually everyone has Gene 1. Then a new mutation in a child is a an allele of species B. But that is still only 1 gene different out of 50 (Mom and Dad already have gene 1). This accumulates in different individuals. Individual X has 48 of the genes in common with species B but 2 genes of species A. Individual Y also has 48 of the genes of species B and 2 of species A, *but they are different genes*. So there is a mixture in the population of individuals that have almost all the genes of species B, but not quite. Even when you get some individuals that have all species B, they are still not a “new species”, because they are interbreeding with individuals that have most of genes of species B, but a few genes of species A.
Only when the entire population has genes of species B can we identify that *population* as a new species.

What you have stated, djengo, are the fallacies of Incredulity and Straw Man. First, you haven't understood what evolution claims or how it works. Second, it seems incredible to you that there is no 2 individuals of a new species. But what we are concerned about is what is real, not what you in particular think should be real.

Have you ever seen a person that was dead for 36 hours come back to life? Neither have I. It also sounds just as "stupid" as what you claim about evolution. But isn't that a central belief of Christianity? Don't you say that this happened? Not once, but at least twice? Lazarus and Jesus. You believe reality contradicts what our experience would call "stupid" or "incredible". Sauce for the goose. Same reasoning applies to your rant about evolution. Any denial of the similarity is the Special Pleading Fallacy.
The first human pair would have come by way of a mutation.

Cain feared a populated earth when leaving Adam and Eve, so you are correct that the earth was already populated when Cain left.

The crafty beast was already evil, already fallen when he tripped up Eve.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In Genesis 1:27, there were never 2 humans, either. The Hebrew is clear that God created men and women. Both plural. So Genesis 1 has a population of several (hundreds?, thousands?) of people created at the same time.

False.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” - Genesis 1:26-28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:26-28&version=NKJV

God made man, male and female.

Not males and females.

The Bible goes on to specify that God placed "the man" He created into the garden, and then created "a helper" for him.

None of that inherently implies that God really created more than two people, you have to read that into the text to get it.

Unless there is a founder event, where 2 members of a species are separated from the main population and isolated, there never will be a situation where there is every "only two humans", or "only two Pantheral leo" or "only two Balaenoptera musculus" (blue whale), etc.

Evolution happens to populations. The population slowly changes.

Intuitively you would think that, somewhere in the transformation of a population from species A to species B, there would be a time when there was a first individual of species B, but evolution doesn’t happen that way.

Evolution happens to **populations** over **generations. We can only tell there is a new species after the process is over. If at generation 1 there is species A and at generation 1,000 there is species B, we cannot point to any generation and say “at generation 500 was species A and at generation 501 was species B”

One thing about evolution is that changes **accumulate**. So you may have allele A that is species B instead of species A, but that is only 1 allele of one gene out of 26,000 genes (for humans). At a minimum several dozen genes (let’s say 50) need to be different. So in one generation you have all species A genes and 1 child has 1 allele in 1 gene that is species B. That’s 1 in 49. As that allele spreads, eventually everyone has Gene 1. Then a new mutation in a child is a an allele of species B. But that is still only 1 gene different out of 50 (Mom and Dad already have gene 1). This accumulates in different individuals. Individual X has 48 of the genes in common with species B but 2 genes of species A. Individual Y also has 48 of the genes of species B and 2 of species A, *but they are different genes*. So there is a mixture in the population of individuals that have almost all the genes of species B, but not quite. Even when you get some individuals that have all species B, they are still not a “new species”, because they are interbreeding with individuals that have most of genes of species B, but a few genes of species A.
Only when the entire population has genes of species B can we identify that *population* as a new species.

That's nice.

But moot, because A) God created man, He didn't cause man to evolve, and B) populations are made up of individuals.

What you have stated, djengo, are the fallacies of Incredulity and Straw Man. First, you haven't understood what evolution claims or how it works. Second, it seems incredible to you that there is no 2 individuals of a new species. But what we are concerned about is what is real, not what you in particular think should be real.

Could you explain how to go from zero humans to more than two humans without there being two humans at some point?

For example, maybe you could graph it, where the horizontal axis is time, and the vertical axis is the number of humans in integers starting from zero and going to at least three?

Can you get from one human to three humans without first crossing the point where there would be two humans?

Have you ever seen a person that was dead for 36 hours come back to life? Neither have I. It also sounds just as "stupid" as what you claim about evolution.

So you accuse 7D of a logical fallacy, but then use one yourself?

Hypocrite.

But isn't that a central belief of Christianity? Don't you say that this happened? Not once, but at least twice? Lazarus and Jesus. You believe reality contradicts what our experience would call "stupid" or "incredible". Sauce for the goose. Same reasoning applies to your rant about evolution. Any denial of the similarity is the Special Pleading Fallacy.

More hypocrisy.

I'll let 7d7 address you once he is able to log back in.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The first human pair would have come by way of a mutation.

Mutations are, at best neutral, and at worst, they are harmful or even deadly.

Any mutation that could change an organism significantly will kill said organism, and usually long before it can reproduce, typically in the egg stage.

Also, the Bible doesn't say God made man from a mutation.

It says He made man from the dust of the ground.

You don't have mutations in dust.

Cain feared a populated earth when leaving Adam and Eve, so you are correct that the earth was already populated when Cain left.

Why do you assume A) that Cain's story takes place immediately after Genesis 3, and B) that Adam and Even didn't have more children other than Cain, Abel, and Seth, and C) that those children did not marry and have children of their own?

The crafty beast was already evil, already fallen when he tripped up Eve.

Satan fell when he tempted Eve, in the garden.
 

Caino

Well-known member
Mutations are, at best neutral, and at worst, they are harmful or even deadly.

Any mutation that could change an organism significantly will kill said organism, and usually long before it can reproduce, typically in the egg stage.

Also, the Bible doesn't say God made man from a mutation.

It says He made man from the dust of the ground.

You don't have mutations in dust.



Why do you assume A) that Cain's story takes place immediately after Genesis 3, and B) that Adam and Even didn't have more children other than Cain, Abel, and Seth, and C) that those children did not marry and have children of their own?



Satan fell when he tempted Eve, in the garden.
I assume Cain didn’t marry his sister in Nod because we’ve been digging up the bones of humans that are hundreds of thousands of years old.
When the Israelites were creating their story of origins (in order to establish an authoritative line of descent) by appropriating Mesopotamian religious lore, they didn’t know that life was so old.

Today science has liberated us from the false narratives of the Israelites.
 

Caino

Well-known member
No, it's not. It is one of those fake "sciences" used by those that want to undermine and dismiss the Bible and God's own account of origins.
Radiometric dating is verifiable in the real world of facts. God didn’t write the Bible, humans did, then those church men claimed that God wrote the scripture books in order to control the congregation. Church government manipulates sincere believers into believing that to question the Bible is a sinful lack of faith in God.

Since I was a child I could see that the people who killed Jesus wrote a vastly exaggerated history about their place in the world. The Jews exalted themselves like Satan exalted himself. Both were brought low.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I assume Cain didn’t marry his sister in Nod

This is called special pleading.

Ignoring evidence in favor of your beliefs is a horrible way to learn about the past.

because we’ve been digging up the bones of humans that are hundreds of thousands of years old.

Because some scientist somewhere says they're that old?

Because the evidence says otherwise:


When the Israelites were creating their story of origins (in order to establish an authoritative line of descent) by appropriating Mesopotamian religious lore, they didn’t know that life was so old.

This is called begging the question. You are assuming that your position is correct in order to establish your position.

Today science has liberated us from the false narratives of the Israelites.

Well, no, science has confirmed most of the Bible.

Radiometric dating is verifiable in the real world of facts.

I'll let RD handle this assertion.

God didn’t write the Bible, humans did,

Well, no, God wrote the Bible using about 40 men as His pens.

then those church men claimed that God wrote the scripture books in order to control the congregation.

Sorry, but no. The Bible was written over a period of about 1600 years or so. Those "church men" don't exist.

Church government

No such thing.

manipulates sincere believers into believing that to question the Bible is a sinful lack of faith in God.

Considering that the Bible is, in fact, God's word, doubting His word is, in essence, by definition, a lack of faith in God.

Since I was a child I could see that the people who killed Jesus

You're really pushing it here. Back off of the anti-semitic remarks. This is your only warning.

In addition, the Jews weren't the only people who killed Jesus. The Gentiles are also guilty (Pilate).

wrote a vastly exaggerated history about their place in the world.

In what way is it exaggerated?

The Jews exalted themselves like Satan exalted himself. Both were brought low.

And you're better than them?
 
Top