[_ Old Earth _] Inbreeding

[Imagican]

Here is a logical answer to this post.

Adam and Eve were created 'perfect', both physically, Spiritually, and genetically. It wasn't until 'after' their descendents went 'outside' their bloodlines that negative genes were introduced into this bloodline. Why do you think that it has been 'so' important throughout the history of the Bible that God's chosen people be separate from all others?

You're still completely missing the issue. This isn't about "negative" traits and inbreeding. Adam and Eve, did not have room on their DNA for every "positive" genetic trait that we see in the human population. If you believe all humanity descended from Adam and Eve, then there must have been positive mutations in their descendents to explain the human gene pool today.

I guess you really didn't read my post. I NEVER said that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve.

What I stated is that their DNA was without flaw in their creation. inbreeding wasn't a problem with 'their' descendants. It's when their children and their childrens children went 'outside' their bloodlines that problems with genetics rose their ugly head.

 

[Imagican]

the avrege life span was somthing like 900 years and stuff,and I could go on and on

Thats one of the least believable statements made by the Bible. Over the years I've heard of people trying to say perhaps it was a translation error and should have been seasons/months/different calander etc.
Basically we know the human body and how age effects us, and simply it is not possible to live that long. The only reason life expectancy has been increasing over the last couple of centuries is improvements in housing, medicine, sanitation, food supply and surgery, none of which people in Adam's time had.
It doesn't matter if Adam was physically perfect and genetically perfect, he would still be at risk from injury, disease, parasites, wild animals, and his body would still wear out like the rest of us.
We know people in African nations who have poor housing, sanitation and poor food supply have the shortest life expectancy on the planet, as low as 40. If you think of the conditions that Adam had to survive in, kicked out of Eden with no food, no shelter, no survival training, no education, no medicine, no weapons, no tools... its illogical to believe someone in that state could live to any great age, let alone happily raise an inbreeding family to populate the world.

Wert,

You are quite confused my friend. Science to this day has ABSOLUTELY no idea why we start to age. They have seen the results of this change but STILL have NO idea why it happens.

Furthermore, people live no longer now than they have since Noah. More people live longer lives, so the average life expectancy is greater, but there have always been those that lived up into their 90's and such. You are simply misinformed.

And Wert, ever stop to think that much of the disease that we live with today are a product of civilization and at one time was 'almost' non-existent.
I mean if you think about it logically, what would these bacteria and viruses have lived off of before humans began to populate the planet? EVERYTHING has to have a food source or a host. Few hosts=few parasites. Common sense, right?

I find by the tone of your post that you obviously have your doubts about creation. That's alright. One day you too will know the truth. But mean time, why would you choose to post on a Christian web site if you don't believe any of this 'stuff'? I think it's because you are lost and looking for answers. If this is the case, you have come to a place that you may indeed find some of the answers that you so desperately seek. Open your heart as well as your mind and I promise that the truth is there for you.

 

[Imagican]

Wow. I'm curious guys. Are there people here 'just to argue' with Christians? And this is allowed? I mean, what in the world would someone that doesn't believe in God or Christ be doing posting on a 'Christian' forum? No one else to argue with? Parents won't listen to you anymore? No one else will either?

 

[Solo]

(observation that all the extra alleles in humans must have evolved since Adam and Eve)

Now add God to the mix and you might have something.

It's something without bringing religion into it. There's absolutely no doubt that almost all human alleles (most of them useful) evolved since Adam and Eve.

[quote:0e0ec]Just being up on the knowledge of the physical today has proven throughout history to be lacking, but the trust and faith in Jesus Christ added to the mix guarentees that all unanswered questions will one day be answered.

That one is answered right now. All those extra alleles evolved. No other way.

To set oneself up as being the authority and all-knowing of the physical realm just by reading books that align with one's bias is faulty at best, so to come across to a high school student as having all truth in such a negative manner is low.

I'm open to an alternative that doesn't require on some ad hoc nonscriptural miracles.

You my friend have much to learn.

We all do. But some of us are better at it than others.[/quote:0e0ec]

The religion of men has directed evolutionists in their understanding while the life that is in Jesus Christ has corrected all falacies of the religions of men. The life that is in Jesus Christ is not a religion, it is a new life full of truth and wisdom and understanding. Quite a different walk than those tied to the finite human condition. Many claim Jesus but their fruits tell on them.

 

[Wertbag]

Wow. I'm curious guys. Are there people here 'just to argue' with Christians? And this is allowed? I mean, what in the world would someone that doesn't believe in God or Christ be doing posting on a 'Christian' forum? No one else to argue with? Parents won't listen to you anymore? No one else will either?

I can't speak for the others that post here but personally I find it very interesting to hear both sides to the debate and to pose questions that seem hard to answer. I talk to people of different religions as a hobby and an education. Most of my friends wouldn't bother mostly due to apathy, I just perfer a good discussion on major topics.

Furthermore, people live no longer now than they have since Noah. More people live longer lives, so the average life expectancy is greater, but there have always been those that lived up into their 90's and such. You are simply misinformed.

Seems to be that people have a much greater life expectancy now than in the past. According to the National Centre for Health Statistics in the US in 1900 the average life expectancy was 47, in 1950 it was 68.2, in 2000 it was 77.
Another document that I found claims life expectancy in Roman times were as low as 25:
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
Or a good source of information about life expectancy is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Wikipedia also has a table showing:
Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
Neanderthal, 20
Neolithic, 20
Classical Greece,28
Classical Rome,28
Medieval England,33
1800's End of 18th Century,37
1900's Early 20th Century,50
1940's Circa 1940,65
Current (in the West),77-81

It is stated that improvements in medicine, the construction of sewers, housing and washing that have had a great increase in life expectancy. A definate upward trend caused by technology. There are certainly anomilies were someone will live to 90 when the life expectancy is 40, but there is never a person who lives to 200 with all our advanced technology let alone back in the days of Adam and Noah.
It would be a hard life surviving in that environment, and a hard life doesn't lead to a long life.

 

[Barbarian]

You are quite confused my friend. Science to this day has ABSOLUTELY no idea why we start to age. They have seen the results of this change but STILL have NO idea why it happens.

You've been misled. There is quite a lot of evidence, and we already know several factors that cause us to age.
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=166

And Wert, ever stop to think that much of the disease that we live with today are a product of civilization and at one time was 'almost' non-existent.

I mean if you think about it logically, what would these bacteria and viruses have lived off of before humans began to populate the planet? EVERYTHING has to have a food source or a host. Few hosts=few parasites. Common sense, right?

Most are borrowed from other animals.

Again, if you just set your pride aside and let God handle creation as He will, evolution will no longer trouble you.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Wert, those average ages are skewed by high infant mortality rates. They're probably a bit higher than that.

 

[Imagican]

You are quite confused my friend. Science to this day has ABSOLUTELY no idea why we start to age. They have seen the results of this change but STILL have NO idea why it happens.

You've been misled. There is quite a lot of evidence, and we already know several factors that cause us to age.
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=166

[quote:c3c8f]And Wert, ever stop to think that much of the disease that we live with today are a product of civilization and at one time was 'almost' non-existent.

I mean if you think about it logically, what would these bacteria and viruses have lived off of before humans began to populate the planet? EVERYTHING has to have a food source or a host. Few hosts=few parasites.

Common sense, right?

Most are borrowed from other animals.

Again, if you just set your pride aside and let God handle creation as He will, evolution will no longer trouble you.[/quote:c3c8f]

I believe that you deliberately chose to misunderstand what I stated. What I was trying to convey is that scientist do NOT know why aging 'starts'. Exactly what triggers it is unknown. This is QUITE obvious in that there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. It is genetically locked into our lives. Yes, I stated that we are plenty capable of observation of the effects of aging, but we are still unable to find the 'reason' that it begins. Speculation, yes, proof, no.

Evolution doesn't bother me in the least my friend. I am quite comfortable with the 'proof' offered by science and it's impact upon our understanding. I don't believe that 'anything' that has been 'proven' has conflicted with the Bible period.

And Wert, what possible connection have you created that indicates that the 'average' life expectancy has 'any' correlation to the maximum age with which a human can live? Yes, many children die before and after birth. Yes, many others die somewhere in between birth and their maximum 'potential'. But from all 'proof' that we have at our disposal, the 'maximum' limit to human life is somewhere in the range of 120 years. This is nothing 'new'. This has been obtainable by 'a few' individuals as far back as we can trace any significant 'proof'.

Now, why? Why is 120 our maximum life span? We have the answer. Now it's just a matter of acceptance. And if the Creator could shorten the limit our life spans, He could certainly alter our genetic make up so as to lengthen it.

 

[Imagican]

And specifically to The Barbarian,

You are one funny guy. Offering a website that deals with theory to try and argue a point. THEORY. Do you know what this word means? You actually contradicted my statement with someone elses 'theory'?

I guess that is a pretty good indication of where your information comes from. Step back to me in fifty years or so and then see if these 'theories' have ever been proven. Until then, do those of us that offer serious discussion the leisure of not having to argue around fantasy in order to discuss reality.

And I have noticed this alot in this area of discussion. Those that argue against creation continually offering their 'theories' of 'other' possibilities. Offering this as such is not a problem. But when these ideas or theories are introduced as some kind of understanding or fact, this is simply wishful thinking. Ideas are just that until proven otherwise.

You who choose to accuse a belief in God as theory or an idea have every right in the world to deny the Creator. As far as I know, He knew what would be in your hearts and for this cause has not offered His presence. But one day, after the denial is OVER, He will prove Himself to EVERYONE. I just wonder how arrogant and full of pride you folks will be then. I just wonder what thoughts will be passing through your self imagined over-sized brains when then your are in the presence of God. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS. Guess I wasn't as smart as I thought I was.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I believe that you deliberately chose to misunderstand what I stated. What I was trying to convey is that scientist do NOT know why aging 'starts'. Exactly what triggers it is unknown. This is QUITE obvious in that there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.

And now you get to shut up, because science is fully aware of what causes aging and is looking at ways of slowing the process.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... 18,00.html

Now, why? Why is 120 our maximum life span? We have the answer. Now it's just a matter of acceptance. And if the Creator could shorten the limit our life spans, He could certainly alter our genetic make up so as to lengthen it.

So, God changes human genetics without any effect other than a change in the rate at which people age is a better explanation that makes more sense than translation difficulties with the Torah. :roll:

 

[Frost Giant]

And specifically to The Barbarian,

You are one funny guy. Offering a website that deals with theory to try and argue a point. THEORY. Do you know what this word means? You actually contradicted my statement with someone elses 'theory'?

I guess that is a pretty good indication of where your information comes from. Step back to me in fifty years or so and then see if these 'theories' have ever been proven. Until then, do those of us that offer serious discussion the leisure of not having to argue around fantasy in order to discuss reality.

And I have noticed this alot in this area of discussion. Those that argue against creation continually offering their 'theories' of 'other' possibilities. Offering this as such is not a problem. But when these ideas or theories are introduced as some kind of understanding or fact, this is simply wishful thinking. Ideas are just that until proven otherwise.

You who choose to accuse a belief in God as theory or an idea have every right in the world to deny the Creator. As far as I know, He knew what would be in your hearts and for this cause has not offered His presence. But one day, after the denial is OVER, He will prove Himself to EVERYONE. I just wonder how arrogant and full of pride you folks will be then. I just wonder what thoughts will be passing through your self imagined over-sized brains when then your are in the presence of God. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS. Guess I wasn't as smart as I thought I was.

 

[Quadeshet]

: FrostGiant!

I am sorry, Imagician, the 'it's just a theory' argument doesn't hold at all.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

"Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced."

 

[Imagican]

OK Snapper-head,

From YOUR website:


The geneticists behind the study say the increase in lifespan is so striking, they may have tapped into one of the most fundamental mechanisms that controls the rate at which living creatures age.

Now, since you obviously don't know how to read, let me offer this to those that do.


they MAY have. This, my friend, is exactly the kind of drivel that I was referring to in my last post. MAY, MIGHT, COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE, WOULD HAVE, mean nothing more than that. Speculation. Since when did you start accepting speculation as FACT? Shaky shaky ground there my son.

So, now both of you hard-heads get to shut up.

And your last comment. Did you mean the Talmud?

 

[Imagican]

: FrostGiant!

I am sorry, Imagician, the 'it's just a theory' argument doesn't hold at all.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

"Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Einstein disproved much of the previous theory of physics. Nice try with the auto thing though. If I were a simpleton you may have been able to sell me that one.

The workings of an automobile are FACT not theory. Combustion is a FACT. Electricity is a FACT. Rubber is a FACT. Spark plugs are a FACT. There are NO facts that prove evolution of humans from anything other than humans. The missing link is just that and will always be: missing. It doesn't exist so it can't be found.

Theory is nothing more than an educated guess, barely a step beyond hypothosis most of the time. For every ten thousand theories maybe ten are even close to correct.

Once the theory is proven, it then becomes fact. TWO plus TWO is fact. Evolution of ALL life on this planet is just a guess. NO, changes certainly DO take place. But there is absolutely NO proof that humans evolved from anything other than humans.

 

[Imagican]

And specifically to The Barbarian,

You are one funny guy. Offering a website that deals with theory to try and argue a point. THEORY. Do you know what this word means? You actually contradicted my statement with someone elses 'theory'?

I guess that is a pretty good indication of where your information comes from. Step back to me in fifty years or so and then see if these 'theories' have ever been proven. Until then, do those of us that offer serious discussion the leisure of not having to argue around fantasy in order to discuss reality.

And I have noticed this alot in this area of discussion. Those that argue against creation continually offering their 'theories' of 'other' possibilities. Offering this as such is not a problem. But when these ideas or theories are introduced as some kind of understanding or fact, this is simply wishful thinking. Ideas are just that until proven otherwise.

You who choose to accuse a belief in God as theory or an idea have every right in the world to deny the Creator. As far as I know, He knew what would be in your hearts and for this cause has not offered His presence. But one day, after the denial is OVER, He will prove Himself to EVERYONE. I just wonder how arrogant and full of pride you folks will be then. I just wonder what thoughts will be passing through your self imagined over-sized brains when then your are in the presence of God. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS. Guess I wasn't as smart as I thought I was.

That's good. Really! And probably not a bad analogy. Thanks for the input.

 

[Imagican]

Copyright © 2000 by Jerry Wilson. Get permission to reprint.

 

[Quid]

So... since gravity is just a theory too, should we keep it out of science class as well then?

I mean, E=MC^2 is a very good theory, but just because we've used it to launch rockets or predict planetary movements with precision, that doesn't mean we should go about teaching it as if it were a fact. Only a complete idiot would think that.

Right?

 

[Imagican]

You and your science buddies feel free to redefine what ever words you don't agree with. But, let's see how The American Heritage dictionary defines this seemingly elusive word:

theory: 1. Systematically organized knowledge, esp. a set of assumptions or statements devised to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomenon. 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation. 3. A set of rules or principles for the study or practice of an art or discipline. 4. An assumption; conjecture.

Exactly what I tried to say before. Usually barely a step beyond hypothesis. Conjecture, assumption. Guess work. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't. But always nothing more than an idea. After it works it's no longer a theory. A question with proven answers is NOT a theory.

 

[Imagican]

So... since gravity is just a theory too, should we keep it out of science class as well then?

I mean, E=MC^2 is a very good theory, but just because we've used it to launch rockets or predict planetary movements with precision, that doesn't mean we should go about teaching it as if it were a fact. Only a complete idiot would think that.

Right?

Negatory my good friend. You who choose to go to space certainly 'need' to define such things. And so far we have done much to 'prove' certain aspects of gravity. But as anyone that studies this knows, we are constantly changing what we 'know' of it.

Relativity is something that many make reference to but probably NO ONE completely understands. Even the genius Einstein didn't understand EVERYTHING that he unlocked with his discovery.

NO, my friend, as I plainly stated previous; there are some theory that becomes 'fact' but very little. Much, much more is nothing more than speculation that will never be proven. Why, because it is fraught with misconceptions. Especially when theory is created simply to dispell other common beliefs. Some people will do ANYTHING to fight the will of God, no matter how ridiculous.

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and since you mention gravity. Do you know who discovered this theory? And, after a brief stint in science, do you know what this person spent the REST of his life pursuing?