Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blame it on the evolutionists for trying to ram down the unsuspecting throats of the populace the untennable, unscientific, commical idea of evolution. I mean, really? . . . single celled amoebas making fish and the fish turning into chimps and chimps turning into humans? Really? I mean, REALLY?
You aught to watch the video. These so-called scientists actually give the reason why the chimps wanted to grow taller . . . the grass was too tall for them to see over. Really. I'm not making this up.
It doesn't matter if the video was 100 years long or 1000 years long or 2 hours long. It is still wrong no matter how you cut it.
Yeah, I see what you mean.
It makes a heckuvva' lot more sense that an Omni-god poofed himself into existence, poofed the universe into existence - including the earth, of course, a few thousand years ago - and then grabbed some dirt to make a man. And I gather he thought all that was pretty good.
But the man he made looked a tad lonely, so the Omni-Poofed-god grabbed one of the man's ribs and turned it into a bodacious - but unfortunately - subject-to-the-charms-of-a-snake's tongue - woman companion.
Because the dumb woman the Omni-Poofed-god made decided to eat the fruit the snake the Omni-Poofed god created to tempt her, he naturally had to curse mankind with Original Sin. Which makes sense to some people.
But the OP-god decided he'd best find a fix for the Original Sin he forced man to assume, so he figured he'd chop himself into three different gods and send one of them to pretend to die in order to expiate the sins he created for the people he created to assume.
I sure hope the folks playing along at home can follow this because it's around this point, 40-some years ago, I decided I no longer could. I turned away from Christianity in order to follow where my spirit led.
Aside from the fact they could have had Teflon back then *grin*,
It is possible that under very ideal conditions which they had, each girl could have had 6 or more children per 9 months. I doubt they waited for the girls back then to go through school then college and then get married. They probably waited till they hit puberty and the cycle repeated.
Suppose A&E had 3 boys 3 girls per year.
By year 10 A & E could have 60 or more children.
Then those 60 children by, oh around year 12 to 13 would have 180 children and A & E an additional 12 or so children.
12 to 13 years later, those former children would have around 540 children in their year one. But the original 60 children would still be producing around 180 children per year for 12 to 13 years and A & E around 6 children a year or around 98 children.
If Cain killed Abel when he was around 30 years old, how many humans could there have been who would want to take out Cain for killing Abel? And what if Cain killed Abel when Cain was over 100 years old?
What's funny is evolutionists believe that if the Bible is correct, with inbreeding there would be all kinds of problems.
You think one couple could have 60 or more children in 10 years?
I don't see why I have to. We KNOW that those problems exist - they STILL exist even today. It is logical to assume that they existed then, too. In fact, the problems were probably much, much worse given their lack of knowledge and technology in treating diseases and infections.
What needs to be proven is that there was EVER a perfect environment where everything was just peachy keen all the time - and everyone grew up healthy and fit, living hundreds of years, etc. I'm dealing with a reality we know exists while you're dealing with a magical fairytale land that only lacks unicorns and princesses to be deemed high fantasy.
Once more, I don't really have to. Your entire premise is built on the assumption that life was (magically) perfect from Adam to Noah - that a completely unrealistic set of events occured not once but hundreds of times in order to get the absolute maximum number of people all the while ignoring the genetic ramifications of all that inbreeding.
All of the Christian websites I've visited is assuming reality was quite a bit different pre-flood even though there is no evidence of this. For example, no other historical book makes any claim that people were routinely living 500-900 years or that every family was having 10 children. There's also no evidence that the environment was perfect, free of disease, war, famine, etc. That sounds like Eden, not the rest of earth. You seem to be implying that the proverbial Fall of Man happened during the Flood rather than when humanity was expelled from Eden.
Therefore, Christianity IS playing the Magic Card because how else could all of that have happened without the intervention of a supernatural god using magic to change physics, genetics, germ theory, and a hundred other well-accepted scientific principles.
*heavy sigh* You want me to prove things scientifically and yet you apparently believe in YEC. That's a bit like asking me to kill someone to prove I'm not a murderer, don't you think? If you can reject science to the point where you believe in YEC and that Pangea existed just a few thousand years ago, nothing I can say scientifically is going to penetrate that impeneterable murk of faith.
That ... uh ... young earth creationism is a load of bunk? But I guess science doesn't really matter. Empirical evidence just can't stand against the immense knowledge and wisdom one can get from the scribblings of Bronze Age desert goatherders I guess .... dunnae.
I wonder how they knew of Pangea in the OT...Inbreeding doesn't cause defecgs unless there already exists genetic defects in the parents...
You think one couple could have 60 or more children in 10 years?
The greatest officially recorded number of children born to one mother is 69, to the wife of Feodor Vassilyev (b. 1707–c.1782), a peasant from Shuya, Russia. In 27 confinements she gave birth to 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets and four sets of quadruplets.
Numerous contemporaneous sources exist, which suggest that this seemingly improbably and statistically unlikely story is true. The case was reported to Moscow by the Monastery of Nikolsk on 27 Feb 1782, which had recorded every birth. It is noted that, by this time, only two of the children who were born in the period c. 1725–65 failed to survive their infancy. The Gentleman's Magazine (1783, 53, 753) recounts: "In an original letter now before me, dated St Petersburg, Aug 13, 1782, O. S. Feodor Wassilief [sic], aged 75, a peasant, said to be now alive and in perfect health, in the Government of Moscow, has had–
By his first wife:
4 x 4 = 16
7 x 3 = 21
16 x 2 = 32
----------
27 births 69 children
By his second wife:
6 x 2 = 12
2 x 3 = 6
---------
8 births 18 children
"In all, 35 births, 87 children, of which 84 are living and only three buried. . . The above relation, however astonishing, may be depended upon, as it came directly from an English merchant at St Petersburg to his relatives in England, who added that the peasant was to be introduced to the Empress."
In Saint Petersburg Panorama, Bashutski, 1834, the author notes that:
"In the day of 27 February 1782, the list from Nikolskiy monastery came to Moscow containing the information that a peasant of the Shuya district, Feodor Vassilyev, married twice, had 87 children. His first wife in 27 confinements gave birth to 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets and four sets of quadruplets. His second wife in eight confinements gave birth to six pairs of twins and two sets of triplets. F. Vassilyev was 75 at that time with 82 of his children alive."
And the Lancet (1878) refers to a twin study carried out by the French Academy and:
"Apropos of the enquiry, the Committee of the Academy recall an account of a quite extraordinary fecundity that was published by M. Hermann in his "Travaux Statistiques de la Russie," for Fedor Vassilet [sic]. . . who, in 1782, was aged 75 years, had had, by two wives, 87 children." (source: Most prolific mother ever )
Adam and Eve could have had 8 or more babies per year.
It makes a heckuvva' lot more sense that an Omni-god poofed himself into existence, poofed the universe into existence - including the earth, of course, a few thousand years ago - and then grabbed some dirt to make a man. And I gather he thought all that was pretty good.
Does the Bible say God poofed Himself into existence?
Quote:
But the man he made looked a tad lonely, so the Omni-Poofed-god grabbed one of the man's ribs and turned it into a bodacious - but unfortunately - subject-to-the-charms-of-a-snake's tongue - woman companion.
Really? Does the Bible say God took a rib out of the man and turned it into a woman?
Quote:
Because the dumb woman the Omni-Poofed-god made decided to eat the fruit the snake the Omni-Poofed god created to tempt her, he naturally had to curse mankind with Original Sin. Which makes sense to some people.
It was actually the dying process He cursed mankind with. Read Romans 5:12. It was death that was passed through into all mankind and for that, all sin. In Genesis it was said to Adam: "The day you eat of the fruit, to die shall you be dying."
Quote:
But the OP-god decided he'd best find a fix for the Original Sin he forced man to assume, so he figured he'd chop himself into three different gods and send one of them to pretend to die in order to expiate the sins he created for the people he created to assume.
According to the Bible, God didn't have to come up with a plan B to fix what Adam and Eve did. The Bible says He had the fix planned before they sinned. Also, the Bible doesn't state He chopped Himself into three different gods. "For us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is. But not in all is there this knowledge."
Quote:
I sure hope the folks playing along at home can follow this because it's around this point, 40-some years ago, I decided I no longer could. I turned away from Christianity in order to follow where my spirit led.
I sure hope the folks playing along at home can see how wrong TroutDude got it.
Nice diversionary tactic. You may incredibly inaccurate statements about evolution, building a strawman to tear down. You are called on it. You refer to a History Channel show on YouTube as your argument that "evolutionists" believe what you claim they do.
Back to the matter at hand. You do not demonstrate an understanding of evolution. If you really believe that what you have put forward is how evolutionary biologists have discovered and showed it works, then I can understand why you doubt it. But what you're arguing against is not what evolutionary biologists or anyone in this thread is positing.
Oh please. If I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution, where does that leave your evolutionary scientists? They are the ones that made the movie "The World in Two Hours." They are the ones that said the reason the chimps turned into humans was because the grass was too tall for them to look over. Don't transfer their stupidity to me. I'm just saying what they said. If you think it is stupid, it is their stupidity, not mine. If there is a lack in understanding, blame it on your evolutionary scientists, not me.
Oh please. If I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution, where does that leave your evolutionary scientists? They are the ones that made the movie "The World in Two Hours." They are the ones that said the reason the chimps turned into humans was because the grass was too tall for them to look over. Don't transfer their stupidity to me. I'm just saying what they said. If you think it is stupid, it is their stupidity, not mine. If there is a lack in understanding, blame it on your evolutionary scientists, not me.
Let's see your evidence that this was produced by "evolutionary scientists."
You cannot choose a source at random and call them "your evolutionary scientists."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
