The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

To be fair, after Adam sins God says what is there but death.
Now Adam was immortal up till this point (maybe the waters of life and all, who knows) because he did not die as soon as he sinned we are left to ask why God said what is there "now" but death. Stay with me. He could of lived for billions of years and the world could of been far more advanced with just as many people, but then he becomes mortal (only now would he count his age) and live for another 1,000 or so years. (whatever the Bible says). At this point we could only say its been about 6-7,000 years from the day he was kicked out the garden.

Now if you consider the story of Lilith and the whole she was Adams 1st wife made from soil as he was blah blah blah. Then it would make sense to say there were a lot of people alive at the time, if that is, God said to destroy (i think it was 100 but could be 1,000) of her children per day until she returns to the garden, blah blah blah. That's a lot, but lets just say there was no Lilith and Eve was the only one you could still make a lot of kids in a few billion years.

But to say Adam was made 6-7,000 years ago is not um...."sound" because 6.000 or 7,000 years is not enough to name every animal plant and all that, not to mention how dumb can Adam be to sin on day 1? I mean 24 hours would of passed just from getting the "welcome kit, here are the rules" from God. When would the serpent have time to trick them?


Anyway forgetting that for a moment you also said something about a new theory on the universe being eternal. But that is imposable because the universe is always changing and dieing, stars die rocks turn to dust so on and so forth. For anything to be eternal it must be never changing and never dieing. This is why they say God always was and always will be. We know the universe will at some point die, our sun will die the earth will die and so on because we see this in space all the time. So it can not be eternal.

But then again this is all only my opinion.

reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

a reply to: Barcs

You are very transparent.

I didn't ask you to quote previous posts, I asked you to explain it yourself.

Those posts were post by me, explaining it, in this very thread.

Not only did you blatantly misinterpret that study

Laughable, I don't even know how to respond to that.

You are very quick to accuse others of being ignorant and stupid, but aren't even looking at yourself.

Show me where I have called someone stupid...Ignorance is not stupidity.

a reply to: raymundoko

originally posted by: Barcs
If you wish to move forward from here, all I ask is that you address each one of my points and offer a rebuttal. Don't insult me with reading comprehension nonsense, claiming you know my intentions, or anything else that has nothing to do with the subject. If I'm wrong, then break it down for me. I'd happily do the same for you if you had questions about the science.

That's pretty clear right? All I wanted was to have an adult discussion about this without insults and condescending dribble about reading comprehension. You couldn't do that.

Your post:

I am only going to use posts from this thread to show all those were answered, and that you either didn't read them or you do indeed lack comprehension. (4 and 5 are new questions, or were intentionally ignored as they were so outlandish, I am addressing them here)

Do you not understand that early humans interbred to get to where we are today?

This shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge about early humans on your part.

Laughable, I don't even know how to respond to that.

When you address somebody in a condescending matter like that it puts people off. Plus you are absolutely wrong because I was talking about inbreeding, not interbreeding. There is a big difference between the 2 terms, and you pretended they meant the same thing for the sake of your argument. Now for somebody that constantly accuses me of poor reading comprehension and "a complete lack of scientific knowledge", it is a bit suspicious that you would be so condescending yet be completely wrong on your use of terminology. I'm not going to insult you over it or say you completely lack scientific knowledge, but your response to my inbreeding question was extremely lazy and poorly researched. Did you really think you addressed the question, or did you just hop on google for a quick solution without reading it?

Since you like the KJV so much

Which I have not even referenced.

That is a red herring on your part.

This isn't even true. Microbial ocean life is not a red herring. You made up some magical idea of a vision from god when you have no solid evidence that that actually happened that way or even that Moses wrote Genesis.

You are very transparent.

it's rather sad on your part.

It's sad that you can't argue or discuss a topic without the need to insult the person's intelligence. Is it really that difficult to focus on the subject matter?

a reply to: Barcs

That scientific paper specifically talked about inbreeding...cousins, siblings...

We show that her parents were related at the level of half-siblings and that mating among close relatives was common among her recent ancestors

in·breed
ˈinbrēd/
verb
gerund or present participle: inbreeding
breed from closely related people or animals,

in·ter·breed
ˌin(t)ərˈbrēd/
verb
1) (with reference to an animal) breed or cause to breed with another of a different race or species.
"wolves and dogs can interbreed"
2) (of an animal) inbreed.

That paper both discussed interbreeding and inbreeding of early hominids.

They way you argue is not good. You contradict yourself at almost every turn. How in the world do you expect someone not to come off condescending to you when it seems every little thing has to be perfectly explained to you? And again, you are confusing my calling out your ignorance of subject matter for attacking your intelligence. Those are not the same thing.

a reply to: raymundoko

Sorry, you can't backtrack out of this one.

My argument was about inbreeding and the inability of 2 individuals to populate the entire human race. You countered by saying:

You are using the argument of incest? Really? Do you not understand that early humans interbred to get to where we are today? This shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge about early humans on your part.

If you knew the difference between interbreeding and inbreeding, then why did you use interbreeding as an argument against incest? It is a complete non sequitur and red herring. Many of your responses in this thread have been exactly that, but you don't even notice it and refuse to acknowledge your mistakes.

Inbreeding was never required for humans or neanderthals to get to where we are today. Inbreeding leads to health issues and bottleneck of genes. You mentioned half siblings, but that isn't the same as 2 humans repopulating the entire earth (ie, REAL siblings, and son/mother or father/daughter). That would require incest and inbreeding to the extreme level and they would likely go extinct. You call the argument "outlandish" (along with my evolution reference) but it is a scientific fact. If you don't believe me, then just say so, and I'll provide a reference for anything in this response.

Inbreeding leads to numerous health issues and isn't conducive to genetic diversity and long term survival. It is scientifically impossible for a single couple to repopulate the entire earth and both human and neanderthal genomes clearly show that humans and their ancestors never dipped below 1000 reproducing individuals, so the idea of Adam and Eve populating the entire earth is demonstrably false. Again, people practice incest today, and people have done it in the past. That doesn't make it viable. If everyone did it, we would very likely go extinct.

They way you argue is not good. You contradict yourself at almost every turn. How in the world do you expect someone not to come off condescending to you when it seems every little thing has to be perfectly explained to you? And again, you are confusing my calling out your ignorance of subject matter for attacking your intelligence. Those are not the same thing.

I argue based on scientific facts. You say this is not good, yet you invoke magical visions of the creation process given to Moses from god and all kind of other baseless arguments and assume them to be true. You have also used numerous logical fallacies. I have not contradicted myself once and ignorance of science? Get real. The only ignorance of science going on here is being perpetuated by you, like your interbreeding argument against inbreeding claim. If you don't like the way I argue, then offer counterpoints based on facts and prove that I am wrong. You haven't done this yet.

Stop arguing with the mentality that you are absolutely right and everyone else is wrong. That's the first step. The second step is to present a logical argument without being condescending or insulting people's intelligence. You haven't called out any ignorance. My argument about incest was dead on the money and you pretended like the Neanderthal interbreeding study conflicted with it. It did not, and that makes your argument a complete red herring.

a reply to: Barcs

Your argument was not dead on the money. I linked you an article about incest among hominids. To think that a civilization could not be born from a single group of humans is ridiculous and not grounded in scientific reasoning. If the inbreeding stops after the first couple generations you have effectively stopped genetic suicide. Again, for humans to have evolved to where we are now, interbreeding and inbreeding, as pointed out in the SCIENTIFIC PAPER I LINKED, were necessary for evolution.

Again, you are ignorant of certain scientific facts and principles, that does not mean you are not intelligent. Stop using that logical fallacy to try and gain ground.

a reply to: raymundoko

The research paper did not address my argument, and the accusations of ignorance are getting quite old. Why would you even include such statements in every single post you make in this topic, especially when they are wrong?

I didn't claim that inbreeding never took place. I said that it would be impossible for a single reproducing couple to lead to all humans we have today. Do you have an argument against this that is based on fact and not just you saying so? What about the fact that it contradicts evolution?

To think that a civilization could not be born from a single group of humans is ridiculous and not grounded in scientific reasoning.

You need to seriously stop changing my points and putting words in my mouth. I didn't say a single group. I referred to 2 individuals as described in the bible. Yes, humans today do trace back to a single group, but it was a group of 1000+ reproducing people and that was the biggest bottleneck in our known genetic history. This event is commonly linked to what scientists refer to as mitochondrial eve. It was never 2 individuals, it was thousands. Before that bottleneck there were easily tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of homo sapiens and Neanderthals living on earth and evolving. Evolution works in populations or groups, not individuals. Claiming that all homo sapiens came from a single couple blatantly goes against science. But I am the one who is ignorant somehow?

If the inbreeding stops after the first couple generations you have effectively stopped genetic suicide.

Can you back this up for me with relevant data? If you start with 2 individuals, the inbreeding doesn't really stop until you reach 4-5 generations, and it's quite unlikely they last that long because inbreeding drastically increases your chance of genetic disease and leads to weaker immune systems. After 3 generations the least related possibility to breed is your cousin, but they are actually more related to you than your cousin because their parents are all brother and sister. The inbreeding doesn't magically stop after a few generations unless you bring outsiders into the equation. Your explanation defies logic. Evolution relies on genetic diversity and inbreeding offers none aside from very slight genetic drift. Remember, I'm not referencing what might have happened, as you have done multiple times. I am referencing what DID happen based on the scientific field of genetics and the evolutionary history of homo sapiens.

Again, you are ignorant of certain scientific facts and principles, that does not mean you are not intelligent. Stop using that logical fallacy to try and gain ground.

Again, you are ignorant of certain scientific facts and principles and blatantly misuse the information within to dishonestly argue your case. Stop using logical fallacies and I won't accuse you of that. I have not used a single fallacy in my arguments and virtually everything I have said has been factually accurate. If you think that Neanderthal interbreeding study proves me wrong, then you really need to step back and not just skim, but thoroughly read the study. Like I said, if you need me to back anything up, just let me know. I can quote you dozens of studies on how inbreeding leads to numerous diseases and overall weaker immune system, which is not conducive to long term survival.

a reply to: Barcs

Considering the study is behind a pay-wall I have access to and you don't I can firmly state that I have closely read the entire study, you read the abstract.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

Your argument was not dead on the money. I linked you an article about incest among hominids. To think that a civilization could not be born from a single group of humans is ridiculous and not grounded in scientific reasoning. If the inbreeding stops after the first couple generations you have effectively stopped genetic suicide. Again, for humans to have evolved to where we are now, interbreeding and inbreeding, as pointed out in the SCIENTIFIC PAPER I LINKED, were necessary for evolution.

Again, you are ignorant of certain scientific facts and principles, that does not mean you are not intelligent. Stop using that logical fallacy to try and gain ground.

Question. If the entire race of a species is started by inbreeding, how exactly does the species stop inbreeding after so many generations?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

Considering the study is behind a pay-wall I have access to and you don't I can firmly state that I have closely read the entire study, you read the abstract.

After everything I just explained, THAT is your only argument? Really? Is it possible for you to even make a logical argument, or does everything have to be condescending assumptions irrelevant to the argument? I have read that study numerous times, and your source is not the only place to find it. I remember how exciting it was when we first found out that homo sapiens and neanderthal bred together. Don't make accusations based on assumptions.

The study does NOT support the idea that 2 homo sapiens could populate the entire earth in the least. I challenge you to show me where the research paper makes that conclusion. If you wish to say my argument is wrong or (insert baseless condescending one liner about not reading or reading comprehension here) then demonstrate this to me with evidence. It's that simple. I'm still waiting. Science absolutely conflicts with the idea of adam and eve. To deny this you must deny the entire field of genetics along with biology.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Question. If the entire race of a species is started by inbreeding, how exactly does the species stop inbreeding after so many generations?

OMG you totally have no reading comprehension and you completely lack scientific knowledge on eartly humans!

Didn't you read Ray's other posts that didn't explain this?

a reply to: raymundoko

Question 2: Why is that study ok to use as a valid source, but this scientific concept isn't?

Minimum viable population size

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let me ask you this, what exactly do you think that study is saying?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't seriously be asking that question? Are you suggesting that once inbreeding has occurred that all subsequent pairings below that split are also inbreeding?

Two people have kids, those kids breed, those kids kids breed with their cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins. By the time you get to 2nd cousins chances of genetic mutation are slim, by the 3rd cousins you have corrected the line. This happens with animal breeding all the time.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let me ask you this, what exactly do you think that study is saying?

Don't answer my question with a question. Just answer the question. Why do you think that minimum viable population isn't a valid scientific concept?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can't seriously be asking that question? Are you suggesting that once inbreeding has occurred that all subsequent pairings below that split are also inbreeding?

Yes, that's exactly how it works. If the family tree never branches then there will ALWAYS be inbreeding.

Two people have kids, those kids breed, those kids kids breed with their cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins. By the time you get to 2nd cousins chances of genetic mutation are slim, by the 3rd cousins you have corrected the line. This happens with animal breeding all the time.

Lol it doesn't work that way. Two people have kids. Those kids have to breed with each other, HOPEFULLY breeding more than 2 children. If we have two families, they could breed together again (but they are first cousins, so not much different). If not then the second generation has to also breed between its children. Even IF you can manage to breed enough to get to 3rd or 4th removed cousins, as soon as they breed together, the families are linked again and the inbreeding starts over.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I concur. *Strokes whimsical victorian moustache, swills brandy and taps solid Oak table in a Gentlemen's members only club library*

What the?! This thread is still going? Ah! Krazysh0t and Barcs... Representin' reason and logic! Keep up the good fight, fellas. I don't have the same amount of endurance to keep up with these threads, as you guys do. And while I feel I can make some excellent posts from time to time, I think you guys do it much better.

Thanks for the Victorian mustache stroke though, MrsNonSpecific ma'am!

Wait...

How does a Mrs have a fancy mustache to stroke... ?!

A bigger mystery than Genesis, I'd wager all my Dickens novels on it!

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Heh. I just kind of popped in on this page, saw the ridiculous claim that a family tree can somehow breed to the point that inbreeding stops and just had to question that rationale. I notice I got the runaround instead. Typical.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let me ask you this, what exactly do you think that study is saying?

What exactly do you think the Neanderthal study is saying? Look, I admire your tenacity, you obviously have strong convictions on this subject, but you have to understand that taking the stories as they were written makes them scientifically impossible. That is why many folks look at it like a metaphor. The message is still there, whether the story is true or false, and that is the only thing that matters. Genesis was about obeying god, it wasn't an actual literal creation.

Two people have kids, those kids breed, those kids kids breed with their cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins. By the time you get to 2nd cousins chances of genetic mutation are slim, by the 3rd cousins you have corrected the line. This happens with animal breeding all the time.

You obviously have a "completely lack of scientific knowledge" on inbreeding and genetic mutations. 2nd cousins are not blood related, so that is impossible in your scenario. You never really get beyond 1st cousins if the whole family is inbreeding together, recycling the same genes. This simply cannot happen. Have you seen what inbreeding does to people? Funny how the only scientific study that you have cited in this entire thread had nothing to do with your claims. Do you have evidence of what you claimed above? Or in the previous posts? Still waiting for something more than assumptions.