Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Here's an interesting article on homosexuality and biblical scholarship

203 posts in this topic

Posted

The main thing that is bothering me about what you are saying in regards to early humans was that they "were like small popluations within themselves" and "God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits." It seems to me that all of our evidence that I know of so far suggests that this is just not possible. Can clarify this in such a way as to explain how this special DNA worked in regards to holding extra traits?

This next question is asked just from a literary viewpoint: Though Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I see no reason at all to interpret that as nothing at all existing before either. This beginning isn't necessarily the beginning of EVERYTHING. What do you think of this? Also can you consider that the language of the time did not allow for a proper explanation of multiple start systems and as such did not even attempt to describe a creation of the universe?

My comment of "populations within themselves" is a little misleading, by it I mean a man and a woman in those days had multiple children because their days were long on the earth. So let's do some math here. Say Adam and Eve had 100 children. (50 sons and 50 daughters). In essence Adam and Eve represents in this case 100 people, and that was part of my angle about them being small populations within themselves. Now let's say those hundred children paired up (50 pairs), and each pair produced another hundred. Now you have 5,102 people on the earth. This is just using a hundred children as a base. I would probably say that Adam had more than one hundred, and so forth.

The other part about my statement concerning Adam and Eve being populations within themselves, and this gets tricky and of course I have no evidence for it, is they were specially created as the first human beings. Common descent says that everything we are was passed down through our ancestors, going back to the first microbe life. Yet if God created us, and we evolved from Adam, God created all the information within Adam because he had no ancestor. Also we know Adam was created to live forever, so his DNA was godlike. Even after the fall, that DNA slowly began to decline. After the flood judgement, it rapidly declined to where now people are only living 70 to 80 years on average. If we had relations with very close relatives, the children won't survive after the second or third generation. So many will ask me what godlike DNA like, and what evidence suggests the things I'm saying? Well, I'm still studying these things out. Einstein didn't come up with his theories in a day did he, nor did the experimentation came about to help prove his theories the next day? It involved years of work, and his work was built upon generations of scientific study before him. (Not that I'm comparing myself to Einstein, just saying) I will say I'm coming along and along.

are you arguing that err there were multiple copies of genes within a single individual in that time, Matthias? I am trying to understand what you mean by "God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits."

Hopefully I answered your question in the post above. I'm still a work in progress. B)

Seriously, it all boils down to one very simple thing for me....

Evidence or GTFO.

Patience my good friend. Evidence like this needs to be unraveled. Even if the world was once perfect, how can I find evidence of it in a now imperfect world? Behold, everywhere I look I see corruption. So I have to bring this information out, whereas observational science looks on the surface.

and theres where the merry go around goes. faith and evidence and the ying and yang of that and searching and not seeing everything laid out and spelled out enough for the evidence one might want. thus, faith comes into play.

Faith isn't about believing in something you can't prove exist. Faith simply means trusting in something or someone you know exist. In the ability of that someone or something. Faith produces the evidence because you know the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

wow that is a metric fugton of speculation

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

did anyone honestly read any of page 9 because I sure as hell didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

did anyone honestly read any of page 9 because I sure as hell didn't

I know when I see a wall of text by a young earth creationist, i just dive right in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it must be nice to be able to make up stuff like "their DNA was divine and slowly got worse over time" to explain gaps in your theories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"go ask Alice....when she's 10 feet tall"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My comment of "populations within themselves" is a little misleading, by it I mean a man and a woman in those days had multiple children because their days were long on the earth. So let's do some math here. Say Adam and Eve had 100 children. (50 sons and 50 daughters). In essence Adam and Eve represents in this case 100 people, and that was part of my angle about them being small populations within themselves. Now let's say those hundred children paired up (50 pairs), and each pair produced another hundred. Now you have 5,102 people on the earth. This is just using a hundred children as a base. I would probably say that Adam had more than one hundred, and so forth.

The other part about my statement concerning Adam and Eve being populations within themselves, and this gets tricky and of course I have no evidence for it, is they were specially created as the first human beings. Common descent says that everything we are was passed down through our ancestors, going back to the first microbe life. Yet if God created us, and we evolved from Adam, God created all the information within Adam because he had no ancestor. Also we know Adam was created to live forever, so his DNA was godlike. Even after the fall, that DNA slowly began to decline. After the flood judgement, it rapidly declined to where now people are only living 70 to 80 years on average. If we had relations with very close relatives, the children won't survive after the second or third generation. So many will ask me what godlike DNA like, and what evidence suggests the things I'm saying? Well, I'm still studying these things out. Einstein didn't come up with his theories in a day did he, nor did the experimentation came about to help prove his theories the next day? It involved years of work, and his work was built upon generations of scientific study before him. (Not that I'm comparing myself to Einstein, just saying) I will say I'm coming along and along.

The other possibility is that your creation story is just a story... which would mean you wouldn't have to jump through logical hoops that don't make a whole lot of sense. I'm not trying to be as insulting as that comes out; I respect your attempts to rationalize Biblical literalism, but I think that it is just as likely and plausible that your creation stories were recorded by fallible men and thus the stories themselves are fallible, so literalism may not be the best idea because even if something akin to Genesis was how the "earth was created", it seems unlikely Genesis would be a reliable source to explore that given it's creation by fallibility.

Anyway...

What mechanism do you propose that would lead to "DNA decline"? How are you defining "DNA decline"? Are you talking about loss of variation due to natural selection? This would require allelic variation that is impossible from a single individual, unless you are proposing Adam had multiple copies of a gene and only passed on one particular copy to each offspring. Why do you suppose that "DNA decline" is what lead to shorter lifespans? What about DNA caused that? Do you have any evidence to support that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Kral I forgot to answer your last question of me about the language of Genesis concerning the beginning of time, and how it relates to the age of the earth. We can say that before time was created (days), God created the earth and space. At that time the earth was formless, and space was empty. It wasn't until God spoke light into existence, and the seperation of light from the darkness, did the first day occur. What was this "light" God spoke? I believe it has something to do with time itself, and the introduction of this light was the beginning of time.

With all that said, God formed the earth and formed everything in the universe within a week. We know this from His statement of the Sabbath rest law. After that it's just adding up the years from Adam to Jesus, and finally adding on modern times to get an approximate age.

The other possibility is that your creation story is just a story... which would mean you wouldn't have to jump through logical hoops that don't make a whole lot of sense. I'm not trying to be as insulting as that comes out; I respect your attempts to rationalize Biblical literalism, but I think that it is just as likely and plausible that your creation stories were recorded by fallible men and thus the stories themselves are fallible, so literalism may not be the best idea because even if something akin to Genesis was how the "earth was created", it seems unlikely Genesis would be a reliable source to explore that given it's creation by fallibility.

Anyway...

What mechanism do you propose that would lead to "DNA decline"? How are you defining "DNA decline"? Are you talking about loss of variation due to natural selection? This would require allelic variation that is impossible from a single individual, unless you are proposing Adam had multiple copies of a gene and only passed on one particular copy to each offspring. Why do you suppose that "DNA decline" is what lead to shorter lifespans? What about DNA caused that? Do you have any evidence to support that?

I have good reason to believe it's not just a story. Which is why I'm studying these things out. I look at the world around me, and see many things that add up if the story were true. I also see consistency throughout the Bible concerning God, which is amazing considering the many men who wrote concerning Him. So it's because of those things, I have reason to believe there is more to the Genesis account than is let on.

So what is my mechanism for DNA decline? That is getting into the technical side and as I said I'm still studying those things. Would you look at DNA today and say it's "declining" in any way? We certainly know with each generation, more and more mutations happen. Yet that change is pretty stable, and it's stable everywhere you turn. As I said before, there may not be any physical evidence of the perfect world around today, because everything is corrupt.

Of course with all that said, I'm sure I could find something about our DNA that could suggest something to my hypothesizing, but I probably couldn't prove anything with it. I would need Adam's perfect genome to compare to our current genome to prove a "decline". Also, enviroment also contributed to our shorter lifespans. So I'll continue to research this.

Perhaps the better question you all can ask me is why do I feel there is something to the Bible that suggests it could be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

More and more mutations happen? Are you arguing mutation rate is increasing? Or just mutations are accumulating? There is a significant difference in that. You sound like you think mutations are bad - which, of course, might be the case if you assume that there was ever perfection. But there's nothing to support there was perfection but a book, whose account of the origin of life is not supported by any evidence from science.

You may want to look into the evidence of common descent of all primates. I know you will likely conclude that we just can't understand why God would have made them all so similar or put retroviruses in our genome, but eh... maybe you'll realize that perhaps Genesis doesn't need to be interpreted literally for your faith to stand.

I really don't care why you think the Bible must be interpreted literally, and i'm not trying to be offensive there... I just don't. I'm more interested in hearing your hypotheses and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Kral I forgot to answer your last question of me about the language of Genesis concerning the beginning of time, and how it relates to the age of the earth. We can say that before time was created (days), God created the earth and space. At that time the earth was formless, and space was empty. It wasn't until God spoke light into existence, and the seperation of light from the darkness, did the first day occur. What was this "light" God spoke? I believe it has something to do with time itself, and the introduction of this light was the beginning of time.

With all that said, God formed the earth and formed everything in the universe within a week. We know this from His statement of the Sabbath rest law. After that it's just adding up the years from Adam to Jesus, and finally adding on modern times to get an approximate age.

Just so you know I'll address this another day. I haven't forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

More and more mutations happen? Are you arguing mutation rate is increasing? Or just mutations are accumulating? There is a significant difference in that. You sound like you think mutations are bad - which, of course, might be the case if you assume that there was ever perfection. But there's nothing to support there was perfection but a book, whose account of the origin of life is not supported by any evidence from science.

You may want to look into the evidence of common descent of all primates. I know you will likely conclude that we just can't understand why God would have made them all so similar or put retroviruses in our genome, but eh... maybe you'll realize that perhaps Genesis doesn't need to be interpreted literally for your faith to stand.

I really don't care why you think the Bible must be interpreted literally, and i'm not trying to be offensive there... I just don't. I'm more interested in hearing your hypotheses and the like.

My hyothsesis isn't complete yet. You've repeated what I've said concerning my limitations in proving things like DNA decline. (I would need an example of a perfect genome to compare ours) Yet that is the limit of science. I'm talking on information about the very beginning of earth and the universe. Science is a current day, observational study. From what we can see and observe today, we speculate on what likely took place in the past. However the limit is our observation. To put it on an astronomical level, we speculate that 4% of the universe is made up of matter. The other 96% we don't know what it is. That is just based on our current day observation. This doesn't count the stuff that was once observable, and now no longer.

My viewpoint takes this into account. Once I have a full hypothesis, I can begin experimenting with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's my dream to study out the book of Genesis, and truly experiment to prove the account true or false.

I can save you some time on this..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites