Simple Question to Creationists

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Abeer's picture
Simple Question to Creationists

Hi i have not seen this being discussed before so i am making a new topic

Creationist usually believe that all humans are the descendants of Adam and Eve. But do not think of two basic questions that arise right after this claim.

If the first children were born from Adam and Eve who did they consummated with for human reproduction. They must have had sex with their brothers and sisters. Was that moral for God then. if it was No wonder morality evolves with time and makes God's standards imperfect.
If not than someone else was also there other than adam and eve to bring wives for abel and cain. who has never been mentioned. and certainly then makes adam and eve not the only forefathers and further it only gets complicated..... =S

Secondly a much more serious question

When we look around at other humans today dont we see all these arab,asian, european and african etc races as a proof of human evolution If for the sake of the argument Adam and Eve were the first humans how have we all changed so much that we totally look different now and even have different traits and characteristics, we still call all humans because all have a similar ancestor.

but just as other apes (chimps etc) are included in this decsendancy Creationists go nuts......and totally reject evolution. Although there are some religious scientists who know evolution cannot be rejected and try to fit in evolution within the religion.

When i was religious(dark ages) i never bothered to look into evolution. Just took any word against it as the truth because otherwise that would have challenged the very basics of my Adam and Eve love story.( holy family fuck story to be honest)

When i got Enlightened and common sense and thinking was revealed to me only then i started to look into the evolution story.
( well not revealed but when i actually started using them more) =P
and realized that I have never heard people talking about this as a proof of evolution ( I wonder why what else can be a better living proof than us different Human races)

Creationists always say proof proof gimme proof its just a theory it can't be observed etc etc.....well i think the Bitch just got served

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Ilovequestions's picture
1) On the surface, there is

1) On the surface, there is nothing wrong with incest (if the brother and sister got married). The reason why it isn't good now is because of our genes and how high the odds are that the offspring will be messed up.

God did not ban incest until Moses. Before then, incest was fine.

Our genes used to be perfect (or close to it), therefore incest was fine and wasn't harmful. But as the generations went on, more and more mutations entered our genes to the point where incest was going to be harmful. God then banned it.

2) The answer to this is genetic variation. Dogs are a great example of this. New breeds of dogs can be created from existing breeds of dogs within a few generations.

And yet they are both still dogs.

That's how it was with Adam and Eve. There was enough genetic variation within their genes to where their offspring could have a lot of variety.

Another example is when a black person and a white person have children... and the children have completely different skin tones and features than both/either parents!

Ask geneticists. Our DNA has such an astounding amount of variation potential in them :)

CyberLN's picture
So, it appears that your

So, it appears that your entire post about incest hinges on DNA. Your arguements in that arena are so flawed they would be laughable if not so sad.

You also actually think that the reason it "isn't good now" is "messed up" offspring?

(Walking away just shaking my head.)

Ilovequestions's picture
Haha, I knew I shouldn't have

Haha, I knew I shouldn't have responded to this post :) Why is incest wrong to you? For me, it's cuz children are born messed up.

CyberLN's picture
"God did not ban incest until

"God did not ban incest until Moses. Before then, incest was fine."

Hmmm.....but Lot's daughters had to get him drunk...

Ilovequestions's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

Haha, the thing I love about the Bible is that it has a lot of details about humans screwing up! David messed up, Peter messed up, etc.

The Bible doesn't shy away from being honest about humans and what we do.

(Side note... two things:

1) Lot was before Moses

2) I did say that incest before Moses was only acceptable if the two people got married

This example fails both)

Sculpin's picture
So if God can change his mind

So if God can change his mind about what is sin or not then God's law is not immutable. So God makes bad things a sin.That implies that good and bad are seperate from God and thus inherently eternal and an entities unto themselves

Travis Hedglin's picture
Oh, wow, the level of

Oh, wow, the level of cognitive dissonance is disturbing...

Mitch's picture
So you describe gene theory,

So you describe gene theory, then account for genetic diversity through the evolutionary process. I agree with you on every account but one: the unnecessary addition of god. The model works fine without him.

Side not: Incest is a harmful behavior.

Apostate Vivienne's picture
These are a lot of vague

These are a lot of vague statements with no corroborating evidence. Genetics researchers can study the mitochondrial DNA of people all over the world now, and they can learn a lot about our past from genetic markers left over from thousands of years ago. I have yet to see any of them claim that, 6000 years in the past, everyone came from two people, and that the human species once thrived on parents screwing their own children, or that humans were once "genetically perfect". So where, exactly, are you deriving such conclusions? What do you mean by "perfect," anyway? Please define the word as it applies to DNA. Perfection is an idea that is purely subjective, and has no place in a discussion about genetics or evolution.

Greensnake's picture
Ilovequestions, I'm glad that

Ilovequestions, I'm glad that you do! Unfortunately, genetic variety is a population thing. Genetic variation is stored in the population--not the individual. If you remember Biology 1A, only two alleles can occupy a particular site in a particular chromosome, one being from each parent. You can think of an allele as a variation of a particular gene. Hence, Adam and Eve could bequeath no more than 4 alleles for each of the many thousands of sites on the chromosomes. Some complications could be discussed, such as jumping genes, but to put it plainly Adam and Eve would be scraping the bottom of the barrel in regards to diversity!

Dog varieties can be bred relatively quickly because breeders have populations to work with. If you only started with two dogs you would be out of luck! Moreover, artificial selection is much more direct and efficient than natural selection. So, we are back to the question of where the races came from.

Doc Science's picture
I'm soory to shatter your

I'm soory to shatter your beliefs, but simple population bottleneck studies (based on DNA sequencing) show Adam & Eve never existed. The human population was NEVER 2. Here are a few of these studies:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.full
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-big-was-the-human...
http://io9.com/5501565/extinction-events-that-almost-wiped-out-humans
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml
http://anthropology.net/2009/10/08/evidence-that-two-main-bottleneck-eve...
https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing-technology/new-demographic-history-...

As for our genes being "perfect" in the past- that's just more nonsense you are parroting. You might want to look up the studies on Ottzi- the 5,300 year old man recovered in the Alps a few years back. We've sequenced his DNA and compared it to modern mans. Guess what? His DNA wasn't "better" than ours, he had a shorter lifespan than we do, and lacks many of the beneficial mutation we have. No ice cream for Otzi!

http://www.nature.com/news/iceman-s-dna-reveals-health-risks-and-relatio...

Instead of parroting nonsense you heard at church, read a book.

ScepDan's picture
If there is only two people

If there is only two people who are ancestors to all humans, there would be only four possible variations for every gene.
That would allow for only an extremely narrow amount of variety.

And it's also demonstrably wrong.

HbHeathen's picture
Wouldn't, from your

Wouldn't, from your perspective, DNA have been corrupted by the fall though? That's why we see things like autism and cleft palette. Becausr the original sin corrupted the DNA. So did incest become a sin only after the fall? Or was it already against god's nature? Because the Bible of clearly against incest. So at what point did god say "mmm, that's enough humans, no more incest."

xenoview's picture
Wow! Adam and Eve had

Wow! Adam and Eve had children. Who did they have sex with, their brothers and sisters that's who. The incest happened with after the flood. So the bible is full of incest being committed.

Abeer's picture
WoW we have a winner!!!

WoW we have a winner!!!

1) So morality has changed with time......so we definitely need another revelation to clearly forbid slavery and killing/discriminating gays and some other problems too.

2) Your answer only describes race mixing within the same species..... No wonder there is an idea that in future(some centuries) there is only one race (mixed) of humans because of globalization..........

but you have missed the real question.........does not dodge the fact that racial difference is a proof of human evolution

Ilovequestions's picture
I've always wanted to win

I've always wanted to win something before! Thanks :)

1) Umm, no morality does not change with time. It's always been wrong to murder and rape (etc.)

However, as you know, not all areas of morality are the same. Some are case-by-case.

For instance, you should give back what you borrow, right? Well, let's say you borrowed someone's knife. While you have it, the man goes psycho and wants to start killing people with a knife. He asks for his knife back.

What should you do? If you give him back what is his, he'll go around killing people. If you don't... you've stolen something that isn't yours.

There are TONS of hypotheticals like this that demonstrate my point.

Morality sometimes isn't black and white :) This is coming from someone who believes in absolute morality.

2) I don't know about you, but homo sapiens is one species (I think), so my answer (race mixing) does apply to humans and why we see such a variety.

3) I simply do not believe all the different races of humans is proof for evolution. Eskimos, Aborigines, and Italians are all still humans :) Just like Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are both still dogs :)

Abeer's picture
Do you even read what you

Do you even read what you write

Umm, no morality does not change with time...........However, as you know, not all areas of morality are the same.

LOL
btw there is a slight difference in change and evolve

Ilovequestions's picture
@Aber

@Aber

Forgive me for not always using the correct verbs 100% of the time. You may just find you aren't perfect with how you word things either. I just hope people get the point of what I say

Nyarlathotep's picture
Right, if you look out the

Right, if you look out the left window, you can see your objective morality fading into the distance. Everyone wave goodbye!

Miami Wolf's picture
You give back the knife. It

You give back the knife. It is not yours. You promised to do so. You have no ability to affect its use and it is not a moral question to you as to how some other person might act. Should you intercede you may well cause more damage in that without the knife that person might choose a weapon of higher potential.

The Pragmatic's picture
(Technically, according to

(Technically, according to the bible, we all come from Noah and his children.)

"God did not ban incest until Moses. Before then, incest was fine."

I'm at loss of words. Wilful ignorance, thy name is Ilovequestions.

"Our genes used to be perfect"

Really? Where are you getting this information? From the bible? From science? Or perhaps from your need to make the questions fit the answer you want?

"But as the generations went on, more and more mutations entered our genes to the point where incest was going to be harmful. God then banned it."

I must have missed this part. Can you provide a reference to where in the Bible it is described that more and more mutations entered our genes, and that that's why god banned incest?

What version of the bible are you reading? I don't remember any of the parts where perfect genes and mutations are mentioned.

Ilovequestions's picture
"I'm at loss of words. Wilful

"I'm at loss of words. Wilful ignorance, thy name is Ilovequestions."

I'm sorry for disappointing you. I am a silly Christian, after all :)

1) "Really? Where are you getting this information?"

Simple deduction from my premises, really. I believe the world used to be perfect. This includes genes. However, once we rebelled and God allowed the world to get worse, our genes started mutating. It got to the point where incest would lease to disastrous results... so God banned it.

2) "Can you provide a reference to where in the Bible it is described that more and more mutations entered our genes, and that that's why god banned incest?"

When the Bible was written, people had no clue about genes :) The science was so basic that there would be NO reason for God to explain why... His audience would've been instantly lost. It was sufficient to just say "Don't do it."

Look at Leviticus 15:13. The Israelites had NO clue about germs... yet God wanted them to wash themselves. He didn't give them a lecture about those little nasty viruses... it was sufficient at the time to simply say, "Do this."

Also, God banned certain foods because, without going through certain culinary processes, those foods are harmful. Again, no explanation. "Don't eat this" was sufficient.

Abeer's picture
You are absolutely not

You are absolutely not getting the second question......please read again and again i dont know when i asked you to explain mix breeding within same species.......suddenly you started proving that eskimos and italians are humans too like the evolution or I claimed that they are not......dahh

by the way inresponse to you last reply

1) We got mutated like what how??????

2) well god certainly is losing audience now generation by gernation......as science is evolving :P

Ilovequestions's picture
1) Umm, mutations occur when

1) Umm, mutations occur when genes are not copied correctly. Or something like that. You can look this up yourself.

2) Actually, the world is getting more religious :) Christianity is still growing (even if Islam is growing slightly fast :/ )

The Pragmatic's picture
Oh, you finally got that? :)

Oh, you finally got that? :)

Abeer's picture
Bolognese!!!!!....world

Bolognese!!!!!....world getting religious hah!!

Abeer's picture
Bolognese!!!!!....world

Bolognese!!!!!....world getting religious hah!!

ImFree's picture
"Also, God banned certain

"Also, God banned certain foods because, without going through certain culinary processes, those foods are harmful. Again, no explanation. "Don't eat this" was sufficient."

Ezekiel 4:12-13
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."

2 Kings 18:27 says:
"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

Ilovequestions's picture
@Imfree

@Imfree

The Ezekiel passage had nothing to do with banned/allowable foods. It's talking about how God is going to punish Israel for their disobedience.

The 2 Kings passage, likewise, had nothing to do with God banning/allowing foods. Rabshakeh was not a Jew; he was trying to insult them by saying they ate their poop and drank their pee.

Context, my friend. I do the same thing! In my rush to support a particular position of mine, I'll grab whatever verse seems applicable (on the surface)... when often it isn't. And I'm a Christian!

ImFree's picture
I couldn't resist sneaking

I couldn't resist sneaking those two in : )

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.