[_ Old Earth _] Inbreeding

[Loren Michael]

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?

Of course, there are many traditionalists that will spurn this information. But, let us look at a little proof:

For Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations. What exactly do you think 'perfect in his generations' means. I know, I know, never thought about it much huh?

Noah was a direct descendant of Adam and Eve. Obviously, THE ONLY ONE LEFT. Just as God threatened to start over with Moses, He had already done this once before with Noah.

So, to sum this up. Genetics are the building blocks of life. God created Adam and Eve with 'perfect' genetics. Therefore, all the problems that we encounter today through inner-breeding did not exist then. There have to be 'negative' traits to pass on for them to be passed on. If Adam and Eve themselves had NO negative traits to pass on, then there weren't any so long as they weren't introduced into their gene pool. This took time. This is also a prime example of how God tried to influence His people to maintain their 'purity'. Not just in Spirit, but in their bloodlines.

And as further proof, by the time of Moses, many negative traits had entered the gene pool. Obviously most of the Hebrews had gone outside their bloodline and through this inner-breeding, negative traits had begun to flourish. It was at this time that brother and sister were no longer to mate.

...i don't like to get into debates on how to interpret the bible- it's not my place to judge... but (and correct me if i am wrong, please!) aren't we all purported to be descendants of adam and eve?

 

[Quid]

You're mistaken. In science there are no 100% certain facts. Ever. That's why it allows for change. That's why Newton's Gravity is no longer used for space exploration, launching satellites, etc. E=MC^2 which has proven to always be correct so far is still just a theory because it may not always be correct. All of science is just an assumption. But it's an assumption that's cured illness, built homes, grown better crops, and has helped spread the word of God to every corner of the Earth.

 

[Loren Michael]

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?

...newton? who's chronology of world history, which he worked on for years, had as its starting date the point at which Jason and the Argonauts found the golden fleece? who believed in alchemy? newton was kind of weird.

 

[Wertbag]

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.

What I was pointing out is that life expectancy has increased with technology. By the Bible stories we would expect to find ancient people with very long lives and modern people without. What we find is the exact opposite, ancient people had hard lives in bad conditions and this led to shorter lives, while modern people with medicine, housing, sewers etc live on average twice as long as in the past.
While God could have done anything He likes to change people, it doesn't say that he did, any additional miracles are being added without Biblical support.
A translation error where the years were in fact months (900 years = 75 years if they were months) or some other form of calander would fix this strange claim.

 

[Barbarian]

You are one funny guy.

Thanks. I did it for a living for a short time.

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'?

Yeah. In science, a theory is a well-established idea or series of ideas, supported by evidence. That's as good as it gets in science.

I guess that is a pretty good indication of where your information comes from.

Yep. In science, evidence is everything.

Step back to me in fifty years or so and then see if these 'theories' have ever been proven.

Theories are never proven. Nothing in science can ever be shown to be logically certain. Nevertheless, it does pretty well using evidence, don't you think?

You who choose to accuse a belief in God as theory

It can't be a theory. It is supported by faith, not evidence.

or an idea have every right in the world to deny the Creator.

Why would I do that? I love God, and follow Him, to the best of my ability.

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.

You know, it's always the people who are worst about that, who think it doesn't apply to them.

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.

I expect a lot of folks will be thinking that.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

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?

Wow, you're obstinant. They say 'may have' because they're at the early stages of development of the technique and their uncertainty in the results is too great to be completely sure. Someone who gets 2-4 good results in this sort of experiment and declares that they've found the fountain of youth will be ignored because they're being imprecise and haven't taken their error properly into account. But it ISN'T speculation. They have got results, promising results at that. They haven't completed their work so they probably are just publishing their first papers on the topic. Hardly shaky ground.

And no I meant the Torah.

 

[Imagican]

So,

Here we go again. You contradict a statement that I made. Offer proof that I'm wrong. And then you admit that the 'proof' that you offer is not complete, or conclusive, but promising. See, this is the kind of stuff that causes creationist to turn away from science. A never ending desire to contradict with speculation.

Science has NO IDEA what specifically causes us to age. They have certainly recorded the aging process but still don't know what sparks it. It's most certainly genetic and will probably one day be proven. But right now anything offered it just a guess. There are no facts yet.

Your idea of proof seems to be, "ah, well, you know, as many planets and stars and stuff like that out there, well, you know, there's got to be aliens". This is pretty funny.

And I offer once again that your definition of theory and your use of this word are not consistent. There is much in science that is PROVEN FACT. NO speculation, no guessing any more, no ideas, but FACT. You choose those aspects of science that 'have no proof' only ideas, and offer this as science in general. Nope, research maybe, but certainly not all science is 'speculation, or guessing. Much of it is proven without a doubt.

Evolution of man is not even necessarily what I would consider a 'science' to start with. You would have to have some proofs that man has evolved in order to make it a 'science'. As it stands right now, there is no proof. Just people trying to answer questions with speculation.

"Aliens dude, that's the answer".

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

You're making claims about science that are simply not true. Science provides the best answer that it can give, no more. Statistics were developed to find the best answers and to show how much error we think there is in that answer.

Science has NO IDEA what specifically causes us to age. They have certainly recorded the aging process but still don't know what sparks it. It's most certainly genetic and will probably one day be proven. But right now anything offered it just a guess. There are no facts yet.

That's just plain wrong. The scientists in the article I linked to believe that they had stumbled on something fundamental to aging because the results were significant changes in lifespans. What is undisputable is the fact that they have had a result, this gives us a fairly pointed clue.

There are also plenty of facts, we know a great deal about what occurs during the aging process and we have several points on which we can find reasons for aging. As a result there are several theories dealing with the subject.

Much of it is proven without a doubt.

Hardly, doubt is part of science, inherently.