Where did Cain's wife come from?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What sister? I thought there was only C&A, then later, sister I guess. Either he waited ten or twenty years and porked his own sister (NOW I undersand why the human race is so screwed up) or there were people around who were not made by god. Or something.

That only applies to creationists though - the rest of us are "descended from monkeys". I guess it explains why creationists are all a bit retarded though.

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't know.

But it took 900 some years for Adam to wear down and die along with many others of that generation. I assume from this that the condition of the first humans was very healthy. I assume that we probably would consider Adam today as some kind of perfect specimen.

The gradual (rather than sudden) decline of health in the human race after the fall of man may have something to do with it.

But I thought a year for God was 1000 years for man, so did he actually live 900,000 years or 9 years? I am getting very confused about this.

Of course when we are talking about inbreeding issues etc not only would it apply to Noah as well as Adam and Eve but far more importantly, inbreeding is only really a problem because of the prevalence of not so desirable recessive genes. Once we realize that the enormous amount of gene variety found in the human species today could not possibly have all come from two human beings we have to accept that we cant really make any deductions about what genes they actually had. We must also accept that evolutionary theory is at least partially correct in terms of the ability of a species to develop new working genes or we must assume that God tinkers around with the genes in which case and inbreeding issues could have been dealt with by him.

Originally posted by jaywill
Same holds for writings about a great flood which predate the writing of Genesis. How do you know they were not embellishments of an oral tradition which found its written form in Genesis? When things were first written down is not the only criteria for judging their veracity.

Sure, so how do you know which one is right, or that either are correct, or that we are even reading them correctly, given the temporal gulf between us and the writers, not to mention the complete loss of the oral tradition.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sure, so how do you know which one is right, or that either are correct, or that we are even reading them correctly, given the temporal gulf between us and the writers, not to mention the complete loss of the oral tradition.

Simple. Somewhere in the Bible it says that all scripture is inspired by God. So if the story is scripture then it must be inspired by God and therefore the correct version!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Simple. Somewhere in the Bible it says that all scripture is inspired by God. So if the story is scripture then it must be inspired by God and therefore the correct version!

It's in Timothy, I think. Yes, that is what it seems to boil down to: our book is the right one because it says so inside it!

Sure, so how do you know which one is right, or that either are correct, or that we are even reading them correctly, given the temporal gulf between us and the writers, not to mention the complete loss of the oral tradition.

How do I know for sure? I don't. I have a faith. I have faith that God is smart enough to preserve that which is of vital truth for people on the earth.

He is the Creator who took great care to design even the wing of a fly. Why should He be sloppy or incompatent with His divine oracles for man's salvation?

So I have what I would comsider adaquate evidence of the veracity of the Bible (if not totally fool proof) and I have faith.

You see I believe that God thinks that some things are worth protecting and preserving.

Originally posted by jaywill
How do I know for sure? I don't. I have a faith. I have faith that God is smart enough to preserve that which is of vital truth for people on the earth.

He is the Creator who took great care to design even the wing of a fly. Why should He be sloppy or incompatent with His divine oracles for man's salvation?

So I have what I would comsi ...[text shortened]...
You see I believe that God thinks that some things are worth protecting and preserving.

You missed the point by a mile.

The question was how do you know that the Bible is "His divine oracle" and not the ancient Sumerian writings. Both have been preserved so that test wont work.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You missed the point by a mile.

The question was how do you know that the Bible is "His divine oracle" and not the ancient Sumerian writings. Both have been preserved so that test wont work.

I'll begin to consider it if you can show me someone in the Sumerian writings who compares to Jesus Christ.

There are many ancient writings. That is true. But the 66 books forming the library of the Bible are a unique chain of writings which form a composite message unlike the scattered fragments here and there from other ancient writings.

The composition of the library of the Bible convinces me that one divine mind was in oversight of the project. One scheme of unbroken revelation has convinced me of a divine orchestration over the 1600 years of its composition. The only other book composed in such a way that I know of is not Sumerian but Indian.

Then also the character of the Bible's central figure Jesus Christ, is in a class all His own. I don't think the Sumerian writings contain such a splendid figure and His teachings as Jesus.

Having said all that, I do believe that such Sumerian writings must be interesting for sure, just not God's revelation to man.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought A&E were the only people, having C&A, C kills A but C gets married somehow. What's wrong with this picture?

Adam live to be about 930 years old.

They lived that long back then probably to populate the earth.

just because Moses only put the three sons(Cain, Abal, and Seth) in the Bible doesn't mean that is all they have.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Adam live to be about 930 years old.

They lived that long back then probably to populate the earth.

just because Moses only put the three sons(Cain, Abal, and Seth) in the Bible doesn't mean that is all they have.

They must have had a lot of idiot children then, it is well known what happens when brothers and sisters have children by each other. It's not just a religious taboo against incest, it's genetic common sense.
I saw the results of that in the amish community, a lot of inbreeding there with tragic results.

They must have had a lot of idiot children then, it is well known what happens when brothers and sisters have children by each other. It's not just a religious taboo against incest, it's genetic common sense.
I saw the results of that in the amish community, a lot of inbreeding there with tragic results.

I thought that I explained to you that the stock of humans they had to deal with were relatively more healthy.

Perhaps many of the children were defective. But Adam was created "very good" according to Genesis 1. So the relative "defects" of his first few generations of inbreeding may have been comparatively less defective to the effects of contemporary inbreeding.

At any rate it should be obvious that if they were the first human beings there was no one else around for them to marry. Why can't we understand a gradual shift away from the practice of inbreeding as more and more humans were born?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That only applies to creationists though - the rest of us are "descended from monkeys". I guess it explains why creationists are all a bit retarded though.

Next you could figure out why so many second and third rate evolutionists are resorting to ad hominems these days.

Originally posted by jaywill
Next you could figure out why so many second and third rate evolutionists are resorting to ad hominems these days.

Who are the first rate evolutionists?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Who are the first rate evolutionists?

The ones who acknowledge problems with the evidence without falling back on religious zealotry or say they know for sure that it is a fact that macro evolution took place.

The ones who admit that this is a theory still. However, I don't think they get as much media coverage or folk popularity.

Originally posted by jaywill
The ones who acknowledge problems with the evidence without falling back on religious zealotry or say they know for sure that it is a fact that macro evolution took place.

The ones who admit that this is a theory still. However, I don't think they get as much media coverage or folk popularity.

Do you think there are any problems with Intelligent Design?