Adam & Eve's Children - Incest?

John Wells said:

I will add one more to your list, and I know you will agree:

John 3:19-21
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
(NIV)


ColoradoFB said:

Then it was never science. Science is based on fact, which leads me to a comment on what Jesus said in John 3. So often you have a discovery in the scientific community and they are quick to attempt to make it fit their theory. First in their minds, it can’t be evidence for a literal creation, (such as Genesis does teach) so they force it to fit in their fairy tail. They do so because they don’t want to believe in the light of the world but rather, remain in darkness. And they want to do so willingly. (2 Peter 3:5)

 

Then it was never science. Science is based on fact</font>[/QUOTE]Not so. Science takes a hypothesis, tests it, formulates and refines, develops theories, etc. If new data reflect a change, as has happened many times (e.g. plate tectonics, moon origins, etc), then old views are further refined. It is an iterative process. That does not negate what is learned via the scientific process.

New discoveries usually open up more questions than they resolve. This is how we expand our set of knowledge.

 

Hang in there, Colorado. The question does not resonate with me either given that I also hold to the mythic character of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. I don't think I have ever run across such an issue raised by the originator of this line, but tremendous theological insight in these chapters is sometimes missed in favor of pursuing rather odd ideas.

 

From http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Let's talk real science. Here's the Scientific Method:

According to the above, macroevolution is not even strong enough to be a hypothesis or theory, since it has never been observed. Nobody has observed a microorganism evolve into a beaver. Such macroevolution has only been postulated as a possibility based on the variety we see today.

It is most certainly not a theory, since there have never been any experiments that have borne out this thing prematurely labelled as a hypothesis. Nobody has reproduced the process of macroevolution in the lab, and nobody is likely to ever do so, because (assuming it were true) it would require millions/billions of years to reproduce the process in a way that would reliably confirm the premature hypothesis.

Scientists often refer to evolution as a theory because they rarely differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution can be observed, therefore they paint the whole concept with a wide brush and say, voila, macroevolution is a theory. But all they've done is extrapolate the evidence for microevolution into evidence for macroevolution. That is nothing more than a dream or fantasy. Extrapolation works when you can demonstrate scientifically that the extrapolation has a legitimate basis. One must demonstrate scientifically that, given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution. Obviously, this has never been done. Nobody has watched bacteria adapt to various antibiotics until the bacteria eventually turned into a beaver.

Finally, allow me to head off an tired objection: Some say that speciation is evidence of macroevolution. This is patently false. The biological species concept (speciation through reproductive isolation) is an arbitrary concept that doesn't even work for anything but a narrow band of life. It doesn't work for plant life, for example. And it is contradicted by examples such as the lion and tiger, which can produce fertile offspring (the liger). Finally, speciation doesn't produce significantly different life forms. It may produce two different kinds of mosquitos, but it doesn't produce a mosquito and a wasp (or, to keep the illustrations consistent, a beaver).

 

The reason you cannot observe transpecies evolution is it is a very slow process lasting many human lifetimes. But then, neither have you observed God!

From DICTIONARY.COM:

Given definition #1, you can indeed generate an hypothesis of evolution, based on observations of what you call microevolution, as well as the fossil records, dating, etc. Granted, you will never observe the entire process because you do not live long enough. I think what you get into is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Now, let me say for the sake of argument that the entire understanding of biological evolution is flawed...proven by some heretofore unknown discovery to be a total misunderstanding of the facts. That STILL doesn't make Genesis true. This is the old "God of the Gaps", the things we don't understand...God did it. Gods used to cause thunder until we understood meteorology & electricity. Gods caused disease until we understood microbiology. The God of the Gaps has gotten very small, and continues to shrink everyday. Even assuming evolution is flawed doesn't mean Genesis is a literally true story. Just as likely aliens planted the species here from a planet circling Alpha Centauri. Maybe Noah carried the animals here on a flying saucer. Maybe the earth is supported by four turtles carrying it on their backs.


BTW, Norm...thanks!

 

Just want to add that my God of the Gaps stuff above by no means limits what God can do. I am just making the point that Genesis ain't the way he did it, IMO. God is too great and too big to be limited to creation mythologies.

 

John, your raving is a prime example of why Baptists get a bad name. Until you can show you have something of value to say, other than your ad hominems and irrational ranting, you are officially on my "skip" list.

 

Amen.

 

Given definition #1, you can indeed generate an hypothesis of evolution, based on observations of what you call microevolution, as well as the fossil records, dating, etc. </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. The observations to which you refer are fossils (different varieties within a species, and different species) and microevolution. You can therefore hypothesize that microevolution occurs, and hypothesize that there were varieties of species that are now extinct. You can also hypothesize ways to "date" various materials.

But that's all. The rest is pure extrapolation based not on observed phenomenon, but only on the a-priori (and baseless) assumption that evolution occurred. Therefore definition #1 does not apply, since you are inventing an explanation for something you've never observed.

The definition also rules out evolution on the basis of "phenomenon" and "scientific problem". There is no known phenomenon of macroevolution, since macroevolution has never been observed. There is no "scientific problem" of macroevolution, because one does not need macroevolution to explain anything. So macroevolution does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

 

You failed to respond to my hypothetical. I said, if for the sake of argument we surmise that evolution is not the correct answer, it doesn't make Genesis literally true. It is not the only other explanation.

Can you address that?

 

Diane, the "clergy" who support a six day literal creation are much more likely to be the mail-order type. Those who went to seminary tend to be much more comfortable with accepting the biblical writings for what they are.

Joshua

 

That's not true. I know many pastors who went to seminary who believe in a literal creation AND that the Bible is Literal. Of course, they didn't go to modernistic liberal seminaries. Just because you've allowed yourself to be brainwashed by the likes of the "Harry Emerson Fosdick school of theology," doesn't make it so.

 

What would be the point of addressing that? You apparently believe a fantasy masquerading as science. I believe the Bible, which you claim is a myth.

The interesting difference, which I suspect you won't acknowledge, is that the reason evolution is fantasy is because it is based entirely on speculation without any observation of it actually happening. In sharp contrast, the Bible account of creation is written by the Creator and confirmed as true by the One through Whom everything was created, the One who is obviously a first-hand eyewitness to the account -- Jesus.

I don't expect you to agree with the above, which is why an answer to your hypothetical is meaningless. Do you actually think that anything I say would change your mind, or anything you say would change mine?

 

SheEagle, I didn't say it was impossible for someone to go to seminary and still believe in a six-day literal creation. What I said was that a higher percentage of non-seminary-trained clergy believe such a thing.

Joshua

 

What would be the point of addressing that? You apparently believe a fantasy masquerading as science. I believe the Bible, which you claim is a myth. </font>[/QUOTE]The point is that those who take Genesis literally always begin by trying to punch holes in evolution, therefore let's assume they are right about evolution. That it is wrong. NOW, show me why Genesis is literally true. Not too much to ask someone to give me evidence, is it?

Let's not worry about trying to tear down other viewpoints...tell me why yours is the correct one.

You make my point...I said assume you are right about evolution. So quit worrying about evolution and tell me why Genesis is to be a literal account of creation. Convince me it all happened 6k years ago. Convince me those are 24-hour days. Where is your evidence? Something more than it is written in a book that was put together in ancient times that goes against every observation of the world available. I have never seen a talking serpent, water turn to blood, sticks turning to snakes, ad infinitum. I trust observation and experience over mythological stories that run counter to how the world operates. God has revealed himself in his creation, and it doesn't match up with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

CIRCULAR REASONING ALERT!!

"The Bible is literally true because it says so in the Bible."

No, you say it is meaningless because you have no hard evidence to support your claim of a literally true Genesis. The hypothetical is EXACTLY what you claim to believe...that biological evolution is not true.

Is that the goal? Hmmm...I thought debate is a mental exercise worthy of pursuing on its own.

 

To all those who promote Genesis being a myth or fables, I certainly hope your salvation is based on more than a myth. Then, again, maybe you're only fooling yourselves. If Genesis is a fable, maybe the rest of the Bible is too?

This is really a sad time for "Baptists."

 

SheEagle9/11! Just minutes ago I wondered how those "Christian's" who believe in Genesis as a fable can witness to the unsaved. "Well, God didn't create the world the way the Bible says He did and there was no Garden of Eden but Jesus was real and oh... forget about the flood, but you need to be saved, but don't believe that part about the parting of the Red Sea or Jesus walking on water..."

Diane