1
   

Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 02:36 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
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 ?
Ham's son Cush apparently settled in Ethiopia. Whether he was black or not is another question.

Shem's descendant, Job was called the 'greatest of all the orientals' and apparently lived in what is now the Arabian Peninsula. What his physiological characteristics were and what resemblance he might have born to far eastern Asians, I can't determine.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 02:40 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 02:48 pm
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?
We have what we have. Whatever similarities or differences Noah's sons and daughters in law actually had is not known.

I thought it was well accepted that all humans have common ancestry. So all we are debating is the time issue, right?
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 03:02 pm
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 ?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 03:32 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 03:44 pm
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 Smile )
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 03:47 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 04:03 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 06:08 pm
neologist wrote:
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.

I'm not sure how micro or macro is relavant to the question. I just want a clear understanding of what you believe.

We have collections of similar genetic traits: We choose to call them "races:" African, Caucasian, Asian... etc.

My direct question is: Do you credit the presence of different races to evolution or the explanation given by the story of th tower of babel?

Additionally, I am interested in your thoughts on the story of babel itself. I personally have a great deal of qualms with that story specifically.
0 Replies
 
stlstrike3
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 06:30 pm
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 Smile )


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....
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 07:51 pm
stlstrike3 wrote:
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 Smile )


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....
Noah's grandchildren would be pairing with cousins, no doubt.

Your point is?
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 07:51 pm
neologist wrote:


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.


More like 6,000 for the Sumerians, but that's just for the tablets that survived. If recording history includes depicting a hunt or marking the lunar cycle, then it goes much further back.

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_cult_5.html

Credit for being the first to write texts usually goes to the Sumerians, those residents of a flat plain bordering the Persian Gulf in what was once called Mesopotamia Nearly 6000 years ago, this ancient civilization had created an intricate system of numerals, pictures, and abstract cuneiform symbols. Thousands of baked (hence durable) clay tablets have now been unearthed and each shows that a stylus of wood or bone was used to inscribe a variety of characters. Estimates of the Sumerians' basic vocabulary infer no fewer than 400 separate signs, each denoting a word or syllable. Animals such as the fish and wolf, as well as equipment such as the chariot and the sledge, are clearly depicted, but most Sumerian texts remain largely undeciphered. Because they display more than just pictures, the messages on these tablets already represent a reasonably advanced stage in the evolution of writing. Earlier civilizations perhaps responsible for inventing some of the Sumer symbols probably wrote exclusively on papyrus or wood that decayed long ago. Suggestively, modern computer studies that compare shared linguistic roots of known languages and likely rates of divergence among them (much like the biologist's tree of life) have recently revealed that the Hittite spoken language?-the forerunner of Indo-European languages including English and all the Germanic, Slavic, and Romance languages?-might well have been common among the Neolithic farmers of present-day Turkey as long ago as 9000 years........

.........Artifacts made by early humans provide more clues to the cognitive-able and manual-skill prerequisites for such advanced communications as speaking and writing. Excavations of caves, mostly in southern Europe, have revealed a wealth of small statues and bones having distinctive markings or etchings. Predating the most famous and beautiful of the ice-age art depicting buffalos and horses on cave walls?-the ~25,000 year old expertly rendered lifelike paintings at Lascaux and Chauvet in France?-the oldest of these carvings date back ~50,000 years, including a few stone statuettes displaying symbolic functions of some kind ........


......Science: Statue and bone markings might also reflect the origin of ancient science. Some of the etchings of ~40,000 years ago seem to correlate with the periodic lunar cycle depicting phases of the Moon?-perhaps among the first attempts to keep track of the seasons. Engravings of this sort, as well as large murals on the walls of caves, suggest that people of the late Stone Age were conscious of the seasonal variations in plants and animals. While some archaeologists prefer to interpret these deliberate bone markings as simple arithmetical games, these artifacts may well have been among the very first calendars?-in effect, systematic timekeeping instruments.
..........................

For thousands of years, humans have realized that the best way to dispel mystery is to understand it. 20,000-year-old cave paintings of southern France may be the oldest traces of early magico-religious ceremonies in Earth's dim recesses. These cave-wall images seem to depict rites in which elaborate myths perhaps linked the hunting men and the animals they killed.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 09:35 pm
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..........
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 10:08 pm
Chumly wrote:
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..........
You forgot fermentation!


Heathen!
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 10:34 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 10:41 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 10:43 pm
If incest was the norm back then, why don't we all look like the British royal family???
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 10:45 pm
Diane wrote:
If incest was the norm back then, why don't we all look like the British royal family???
Laughing

Probably because they didn't have a word for incest.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 10:47 pm
Ah so.
0 Replies
 
stlstrike3
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 11:12 pm
neologist wrote:
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.


You can't get away with calling the story of Adam and Eve allegorical. Jesus came to Earth, remember, to die in order to cleanse us of original sin.

So.... if the story of Adam and Eve is just an unpleasant fiction.... what sin exactly did Jesus die for?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2026 at 12:04:29