Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

Ok? I already know that. The issue is that all talk of "eating relatives" and "having sex with relatives" and so on and so forth, does not really challenge whether an idea is true, nor does it get anybody anywhere. If the reason you reject evolution as true is because "if it is true, then I am eating my relatives", then seriously, you are not an intellectually honest human being. The consequences of something being true do not to disprove it from being true unless those consequences are obviously false. (as seen in a reductio ad absurdum)

Hint: Common ancestor.

ruveyn

Depending on how you interpret Genesis 1 and 2, it might not be quite so cut and dry. Genesis 1:26--"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..." Genesis 1:31 concludes with "Evening came, and then morning: the sixth day." Adam isn't even mentioned until Genesis 2, which seems to happen AFTER the 7th day. The typical creationist explanation is that Genesis 2 appends Genesis 1 by going into further detail about the creation of man. But the way I read Genesis 1 suggests "man" in the plural sense. If so, that would mean Adam was a special case, a unique creation that speaks for and represents all of humankind. If so, there'd be plenty of genetically diverse human beings already in place for the third and subsequent generations from Adam. It would also explain how it is that so many diverse races descended from Noah after the rest of humanity was destroyed (thus leaving the three sons and their wives). Now, true, all that would have been left in Noah's line would have been 1st cousins, but I can think of "ickier" things that could have happened.

We also know in the Law that close familial relations (mothers/sons, fathers/daughters, brothers/sisters) were condemned. It seems that this practice was only acceptable in the period of the patriarchs and that the relationship of Aaron and Miriam might have been the result of Egyptian influence (known practicers of incestuous relationships). If Adam truly WAS the first human from which we descend, it might also not be unthinkable that brother/sister pairs happened within one or two generations, extending to cousins beyond that, and then a separation of tribes much like that of the ancient pre-Exodus Israelites in which one may take a wife from another tribe. By the time of Moses, incest was as much obsolete from necessity as it might have been "ick."

Incidentally, I did once unknowingly date two of my cousins--thankfully, neither were "blood" relatives!

Well, ok, but Eve is considered to be first woman, which we know of from Genesis 2 given that "Adam was lonely" and "woman is named such because woman was taken out of man", which in this case means Adam's ribs. Additionally, Adam is considered the first man by Christian texts given 1 Cor 15:45, which labels Adam the first man.

And yeah, you also already brought up Noah, which still gets back to that issue I already brought up. It wouldn't matter about Adam if the traditional creationist response on Noah is correct.


Um... ok? I really don't have the major problem, I just thought that jc6chan was being ridiculous. I mean, as it stands, I know that I am descended from 1st cousins somewhere in my line, so that's just that.

So why you have such a problem with me? I thought you were an evolutionist who thinks the idea of humans coming from Adam and Eve ridiculous.

Your ancestors are your parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on. Do you really think if a member of an ancestral species were found alive it would be old enough to be your "great to the power of ?" grandparent? Are you expecting some kind of immortal caveman? I would have thought immortal cavemen would be somewhat like the Spanish Inquisition. I know I am not expecting it.

Um... ok? Well that just means that Adam and Eve are the first people in the Bible who are NAMED and given special attention by God. Further, the Genesis genealogy traces Noah back to Adam. So as far as anyone has ever been concerned Adam might as well have been the first man.

If, indeed, Adam really was the first man, then I stand corrected.

I already said, in the very thing you quote, that I don't have a problem with you, I just think you're ridiculous. I think your efforts are just absurd and intellectually dishonest. I am not arguing that "Adam and Eve is ridiculous", I am saying that "Adam and Eve" commit you to a belief that sounds disgusting.

I mean, let's just look at some of your later comments:





Both of them silly. The first one:


Is actually in response to a comment where I say this:



Which, seems an accurate statement for a society in which 99+% of biologists believe in evolution and have for a good number of decades by this point, where evolution has entered high school textbooks and stayed there even following court rulings from judges that themselves have no reason to irrationally love evolution, and where even some relatively conservative Christians accept evolution.

And your response?? Non sequitur. You make a completely irrelevant comment about "eating relatives".

Darwin suggests that creatures transformed into other creatures over successive generations. While this sounds like evolution it also sounds less like science and more like science-fiction. Darwin's evolution isn't the same as environmental adaptation; a more scientifically proven evolution. I don't believe in transformational evolution as Darwin alludes to because there's never been proof of it in the billion years of human existence. Scientists will continue to point to monkeys and skeletal remains to show commonalities between us and them but they're merely coincidences. The truth is there are millions of examples of creatures adapting to new environments, and over a course of a few generations forming new species. Even the Wikipedia article on Evolution states this: "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species."

Last edited by kxmode on 13 May 2010, 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But its true though, if you believe humans evolved from every other living thing. Sorry about the having sex with monkeys comment though.

Do you have a sister? Go look at her and imagine feeling extreme lust for her. Maybe shes not nearby... a picture then? Or try to imagine her being turned on by you.

It is a fact that you would require sexual attraction to achieve an erection for copulation. The bible suggests that not only did Adam and Eves kids feel lust and have sex with each other, but their children did as well, and their childrens children. For hundreds of years.

And then in Noahs time, his grand kids started it all over again.

So imagine that your mom and dad were brother and sister. And your uncle and aunt were brother and sister. And then you married your first cousin. Or maybe you married one of your other aunts.

And the kids you have are going to marry their cousins too. That means your cousin is also your brother or sister. And you are sexually attracted to them.

And your dad would say "Son, she's a fine wife for you. You'll have a long and happy life together."

Do you think your sister is hot? Can you imagine being pressed tightly to her naked body without feeling revulsion? Imagine the smell of her sweat, warm moisture and the noises she makes. Gross huh?

Its true though, if you believe humans descended from Adam and Eve. Your ancestors were driven mad with passion by the thought of their own family.

Changing the topic is a technique used when one has no rebuttal. Your statement had nothing to do with his, and this makes it look like you concede his point.

I'm not offended, but the comments are non sequiturs. They are utterly irrelevant and somewhat silly. I mean, heck, the comment on "I don't want to eat my relatives", just doesn't even make much sense given that we think of relatives as being within a certain amount of related-ness. If the bloodline divergence happened 1000 years ago, then we typically don't consider a person a relative at all. In the case of shrimp, there is a divergence of millions upon millions of years.

No he does not, although if you construe that your parents transformed into you then you might interpret his meaning as being such. What Darwin suggested can be summed up as "change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations and correlated to diversity in the reproductive success of various characteristics within an environmental niche, and with the capacity to result in diversification into new species.

I do not know what you have gotten wrong, but you start your post by rejecting what you then latter posit as "the truth". I suspect you actually do not understand what it is you are arguing about and are simply flag waving with no real comprehension of the debate and having chosen your side on an arbitrary basis without regard for evidence or reality.


That truth is precisely what Darwin suggested, so please do clarify what it is that you imagine you are arguing against.

There are so many things wrong with this passage that I literally don't know where to start.

Species change over time. Any changes that happen to them is due to aging, disease and accident. Any random changes to their genetic structure may be passed to the next generation (but not necessarily). A sequence of such changes coupled with survival selection is what drives changes in species and the formation of new species.

ruveyn

Thank you. Exactly a point I wanted to make. For example Americans are more allergic to a variety of foods than they were in the past, forcing many to dramatically alter diets. As a result new generations are born completely allergic to foods that used to be completely safe. But to suggest these changes may cause humans to mutant into other forms seems a little strange.