Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

So even if incestuous marriage was reasonable for the times... there's still a ****-ton of people to come from the very very very few that were there then. Unless adam, eve, cain and able were part bunny... I don't think even incest can come close to explaining the population.

According to the bible there have been about 4400 years since the flood. If you take the 8 people who supposedly survived the flood and figure they doubled every hundred years, that would be 2 raised to the 48th power, give or take.

Care to estimate how large a number that would be?

Can you say trillions?

Did adam or eve or any of the survivors from the flood have red hair ?

Apparently Esau did

So, were any of them black or asian? Where did they come from ?

Well given what we know of genetics and such... I'd have to say that all of the original 8 looked very similar and shared many traits. So then you are saying that, given your 4800 years, all of these physical changes appeard randomly over 200 generations?

Well given what we know of genetics and such... I'd have to say that all of the original 8 looked very similar and shared many traits. So then you are saying that, given your 4800 years, all of these physical changes appeard randomly over 200 generations?

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Neo - What's your take on the tower of bable story? Am I to understand that you believe in the evolutionary development of different human traits instead?

Diest TKO wrote:

Neo - What's your take on the tower of bable story? Am I to understand that you believe in the evolutionary development of different human traits instead?

Are you speaking of micro evolution? I think that has been well established. I am not on the same page as those who propose macro evolution, however. I don't think they are all in agreement, either.

As far as the development of language, when did humans first begin to record history? Wasn't it about the same time for all ethnic/national groups? As far as I can recall, and you may correct me on this, it is variously believed to be about 5000 years ago.

About the same time as the story of Babel.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well given what we know of genetics and such... I'd have to say that all of the original 8 looked very similar and shared many traits. So then you are saying that, given your 4800 years, all of these physical changes appeard randomly over 200 generations?

Noah's wife may or may not have shared his genetic traits.

Same thing with Noah's sons and their wives.

They may have married someone who looked quite different (aside from the expected male/female differences )

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well given what we know of genetics and such... I'd have to say that all of the original 8 looked very similar and shared many traits. So then you are saying that, given your 4800 years, all of these physical changes appeard randomly over 200 generations?

Noah's wife may or may not have shared his genetic traits.

Same thing with Noah's sons and their wives.

They may have married someone who looked quite different (aside from the expected male/female differences )

Perhaps my memory of the story of Noah is a little rusty... but wouldn't the only people that Noah's sons and daughters have been able to mate with be.... their siblings, or their parents?

And we all see how well that work out nowadays....

As far as the development of language, when did humans first begin to record history? Wasn't it about the same time for all ethnic/national groups? As far as I can recall, and you may correct me on this, it is variously believed to be about 5000 years ago.

About the same time as the story of Babel.

Several factors helped make us civilized, sentient human beings. Here we examine briefly a half-dozen such factors in relatively recent human evolution and more or less chronologically: the dawning of rudimentary brasserie technology, the discovery of the useful barbecue, the development of symbolic language in the form of obscene hand gestures..........

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Genesis allows for unlimited yesrs before God decided to prepare the earth. And 6 huge unspecified time periods, not literal days to prepare the earth and create animals, man etc. But the bible only allows about 6000 years from the time of Adam until now for the appearance of races. I'm not going to try to explain it. If God did indeed create the first humans, their apparent rapid development of variations may very well have been his intent.

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Genesis allows for unlimited yesrs before God decided to prepare the earth. And 6 huge unspecified time periods, not literal days to prepare the earth and create animals, man etc. But the bible only allows about 6000 years from the time of Adam until now for the appearance of races. I'm not going to try to explain it. If God did indeed create the first humans, their apparent rapid development of variations may very well have been his intent.

So if you say the 6 days isn't literal, then why should we take this whole nonsense about adam/eve/the flood literally?

If incest was the norm back then, why don't we all look like the British royal family???

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Well I think it goes hand-in-hand. You can't support genesis and say that african(black) and asian people came from the same few in such a short time. And I'm pretty sure you've argued against the earth being older than 6k years... so what's it gonna be ?

Genesis allows for unlimited yesrs before God decided to prepare the earth. And 6 huge unspecified time periods, not literal days to prepare the earth and create animals, man etc. But the bible only allows about 6000 years from the time of Adam until now for the appearance of races. I'm not going to try to explain it. If God did indeed create the first humans, their apparent rapid development of variations may very well have been his intent.

So if you say the 6 days isn't literal, then why should we take this whole nonsense about adam/eve/the flood literally?

The bible makes a claim about itself that it is the inspired word of God (See 2Timothy 3:16). If that is true, then even if the Adam and Eve story were merely allegorical, you would still be faced with the moral lesson therein.