Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Incest, Adam, and Eve

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 4:07:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, everyone knows the incest argument. Here's a new take.

A: Adam and Eve are the first humans created, yes?
B: Yes
A: Adam and Eve had children, correct?
B: Yes
A: Does this mean that eventually, they children had to reproduce, or they had to reproduce with their parents?
B: No, God created more human beings
A: If God created more human beings, did he create them with original sin?

OPTION ONE:

B: No, God did not create them with original sin.
A: Then it must mean that they became sinful as soon as they came in contact with Adam and Eve's family.
B: Yes.
A: God punished Adam and Eve because they committed the first sin. If he created sinless people, they would not be able to sin since they did not partake of the tree.

OPTION TWO:
B: Yes, God did create them with original sin.
A: What kind of God would create such an imperfect being, and what imperfect God would consign them to such a fate when they have no connection to the sin of Adam and Eve?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 4:30:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
and not enough genes in the pool of two people to form all our ethic diversities.. .lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 4:34:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 4:30:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
and not enough genes in the pool of two people to form all our ethic diversities.. .lol

Unless, of course, you believe in the diversification of genes pools through adaptation over time. Essentially, you would have to believe in a form of Macro-Evolution, and if you believe in Macro-Evolution, you would not believe in Adam and Eve in the first place.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 4:47:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 4:34:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/23/2012 4:30:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
and not enough genes in the pool of two people to form all our ethic diversities.. .lol

Unless, of course, you believe in the diversification of genes pools through adaptation over time. Essentially, you would have to believe in a form of Macro-Evolution, and if you believe in Macro-Evolution, you would not believe in Adam and Eve in the first place.

The most common response to that gene diversification would be Tower of Babel, methinks.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 5:30:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 4:47:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/23/2012 4:34:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/23/2012 4:30:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
and not enough genes in the pool of two people to form all our ethic diversities.. .lol

Unless, of course, you believe in the diversification of genes pools through adaptation over time. Essentially, you would have to believe in a form of Macro-Evolution, and if you believe in Macro-Evolution, you would not believe in Adam and Eve in the first place.

The most common response to that gene diversification would be Tower of Babel, methinks.

Babel was the fall and rise of languages and the birth of different nations. However, previously all humans shared similar genes, and the genes changed over time as a result of the separation.

That is basically natural selection.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 7:11:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Kleptin, Kleptin, Kleptin, you have it all wrong. THOSE people had their own trees of knowledge as well and they too ate of it. Except this one short guy named Drew but he was annoying so God just smote him. It's all apart of the hidden teachings.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 9:24:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 4:07:53 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, everyone knows the incest argument. Here's a new take.

A: Adam and Eve are the first humans created, yes?
B: Yes
A: Adam and Eve had children, correct?
B: Yes
A: Does this mean that eventually, they children had to reproduce, or they had to reproduce with their parents?
B: No, God created more human beings
A: If God created more human beings, did he create them with original sin?

OPTION ONE:

B: No, God did not create them with original sin.
A: Then it must mean that they became sinful as soon as they came in contact with Adam and Eve's family.
B: Yes.
A: God punished Adam and Eve because they committed the first sin. If he created sinless people, they would not be able to sin since they did not partake of the tree.

OPTION TWO:
B: Yes, God did create them with original sin.
A: What kind of God would create such an imperfect being, and what imperfect God would consign them to such a fate when they have no connection to the sin of Adam and Eve?

The argument that i heard before is, that Adam and Eve and their children were allowed to undergo incest because they were perfect. Today, we cannot, because our DNA has degredaded due to the second law of thermodynamics, and therefore if we try to do incest, our babies turn out deformed.

Of course, when you think about it, its utter BS. But still, this is the explanation i heard from a creationist/christian before.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 9:10:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 9:24:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/23/2012 4:07:53 PM, Kleptin wrote:
So, everyone knows the incest argument. Here's a new take.

A: Adam and Eve are the first humans created, yes?
B: Yes
A: Adam and Eve had children, correct?
B: Yes
A: Does this mean that eventually, they children had to reproduce, or they had to reproduce with their parents?
B: No, God created more human beings
A: If God created more human beings, did he create them with original sin?

OPTION ONE:

B: No, God did not create them with original sin.
A: Then it must mean that they became sinful as soon as they came in contact with Adam and Eve's family.
B: Yes.
A: God punished Adam and Eve because they committed the first sin. If he created sinless people, they would not be able to sin since they did not partake of the tree.

OPTION TWO:
B: Yes, God did create them with original sin.
A: What kind of God would create such an imperfect being, and what imperfect God would consign them to such a fate when they have no connection to the sin of Adam and Eve?

The argument that i heard before is, that Adam and Eve and their children were allowed to undergo incest because they were perfect. Today, we cannot, because our DNA has degredaded due to the second law of thermodynamics, and therefore if we try to do incest, our babies turn out deformed.

Of course, when you think about it, its utter BS. But still, this is the explanation i heard from a creationist/christian before.

Lol, well, here's the thing. Whether we accept Biology, or we accept Creationism, there was some incest involved in the inception of every species, including man.

That Creationist that spoke to you -- he or she was a thinker, I'll tell you that. He or she clearly came up with a Biological property, but explained it in such a way that suggests he or she has no background in science.

It's not that Adam and Eve were perfect, per se. It's more that, presumably (and this would be the case when we first evolved from our hybrid ancestor, as well), their genes were unmitigated. You see, a little bit of incest is actually alright -- it's a lot a bit of incest that becomes a problem. Although Eve was supposedly created from Adam, God could have certainly given her an entirely different DNA construction, rendering her completely sexually compatible with Adam. Whether their children would be sexually compatible is up for question... but, believe it or not, I'm pretty sure that their children would be sexually compatible with them.

That sounds repulsive to us now, but there are over 6 billion of us running around, and we're all related. We've been here for a couple hundred thousand years already. Our DNA is a diverse soup of thousands of generations. So, yes, doing that nowadays is a big no-no. But, believe it or not, science makes it okay to populate the Earth if you're the first.

It would have to. Otherwise, God would have had to just put everything here at the same time. ;)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 9:15:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 9:10:44 AM, Ren wrote:
Whether their children would be sexually compatible is up for question... but, believe it or not, I'm pretty sure that their children would be sexually compatible with them.

I take that back. Their children would be more sexually compatible with them if their children came out genetically similar. However, if hypothetically, all of both Adam and Eve's chromosomes were dominant, then there's a 50% chance that two children would be completely genetically dissimilar. This means that, if they have two boys and two girls, there's a statistical likelihood that each pair would be sexually compatible with the other.

Fancy that.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 10:38:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's all useless speculation either way about A&E. God could have created them with enough genetic variation to prevent any abnormalities. Obviously if they had children, there kids had to have procreated with each other (which is an abomination to God).

It would also have been problematic after the Flood. There were only 8 survivors (Noah, Ham, Shem, Japheth and their respective wives). That means cousins were f*cking each other.

Well, either that or the whole thing is a fairy tale. Take your pick.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)