Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::AFDave's God Hypothesis

Posted: April 30 2006,23:51

No no, answer her. I want to see afdave and carol have an argument. It would be interesting...

Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,00:54

Quote

It is not Afdave and his ilk.

My goodness ... I've been called ILK again ... that's twice now! Carol, I hope we can become friends even if we never end up agreeing. I'm glad to find out that you are Jewish because I don't have many Jewish acquaintances here in Kansas City. I love hearing what Jewish people have to say though because I hold the Jewish nation and people in very high esteem.

Quote

During the sixth "era" (not day! the Bible tells us that God provided for the appearance of "humans" (Ha-adam, in Hebrew) not "Adams". When Adam appears, a sizeable population of human beings already existed. This also explains why Cain went about building a "city". There were enough folks around, just in his location, to populate a city!

Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day? In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day. My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.

Faid-- You raise some very good points. To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference. If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer. First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives. There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence. Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters. Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives. (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women! My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will. They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children. My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world. The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod. Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city. Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans. As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew') instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex." Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.' Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

Rilke's GD-- Thanks! And thanks also for your comments on my other thread. I have taken yours and other helpful comments I received and clarified the structure of my "Creator God Hypothesis." I want as many constructive comments on the structure and rules of my little debate as possible before moving ahead with additional points.

Midnight Voice and UnMark-- those are very easy examples to explain, but they are not my focus right now. If you want a quick answer, Google search "Christian Research Institute" with the 'Bible Answer Man', Hank Hannegraf.

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first? Animals or Man. No time now ... stay tuned!

hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her. Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.

Quote

I've met God! And She's black!!

And her name is Condi ...! Condi for president in '08!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,02:16

I said ...

Quote

ABDUCTIVE REASONING
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is God and His written message, the Bible)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is
true.

Correction: this should read ....

ABDUCTIVE REASONING
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is God)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is
true.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Carol Clouser

Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,02:42

Afdave,

We are friends and "ilk" is not a word that connotes otherwise.

As far as "yom" is concerned, you really need to read up on that and many other Hebrew-related issues. I think I have already recommended one great book to you (Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF) and there are others. I will not get into the whole analysis here. Suffice it to say that "yom" is used in three different ways in the Hebrew Bible, quite often in the sense of "a period of time characterized by some development or feature". This cannot be decided by vote, but by context. As an example of "yom" used as "era" even in the context of numerals consider Hosea 6:2 (I think, doing this from memory right now).

Hope this helps.

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,02:43

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)

Faid-- You raise some very good points. To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference. If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer. First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives. There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence. Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters. Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives. (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women! My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will. They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children. My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world. The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod. Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city. Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans. As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew' instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex." Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.' Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

It's only clear if you want to believe it is clear, dave. I have bolded every aspect of your explanation that is an unsupportable assumption (often to explain other assumptions), and also underlined the parts that seem unfounded compared to modern scientific knowledge -or even compared to the actual text. There's not much left, is it?

But like I said: That does not necessarily make them logically wrong. They can work as theological arguments, that help you defend a position of inerrancy of the bible. They CANNOT be used as scientific arguments to establish an "inerrant bible" hypothesis. I hope we agree on this.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Chris Hyland

Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,02:53

Quote

I cannot quite figure out why alot of people here gripe so much about the DI saying they don't want to talk about God -- I even had somebody warn me that if I blogged over there and mentioned God, they would send me away. Meyer talks plenty about God in this article. Can someone explain that one?

Simply because if they say it is supporting religion it violoates the establishment cause. The reason people get on at them about it is that they constantly claim that ID has nothing to do with religion, but also write articles like the one you posted.

Quote

Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.

William A. Dembski notes that you need to discount all possible natural explanations first, and I dont think we have done that. Remember the existance of a God does not disprove evolution.

Quote

What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.

Quote

Oh ... I teach them both sides alright ... guess which one they pick when they are given the whole truth about Evolution! (like ALL kids should be given)

Perhaps it would be useful if you could state your main problems with evolution, as I am not sure what they are (apologies if I missed them somewhere else). Also what is the truth about evolution you refer to, over on UD many of the things that they said evolutionists were hiding I was actually taught in school. Maybe if we understood what your specific problems were then we could help.

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,03:16

Just my 2 drachmas:

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&

)

Quote

Imagine if Newton had said:
-I observe that things fall down
-I propose that it's God's Omnipresent Hand that pushes them down
-I predict that, if God's Omnipresent Hand exists, it will push things down everywhere in the world
-I examine the world
-I see that things fall down
-I conclude that my testable predictions have been confirmed, and God's Omnipresent Hand exists. Do you really think that, in that case, anyone would think of him today as anything more than a crackpot?

Yes, I do think we would consider him a crackpot if he had reasoned this way. I am not reasoning this way. See discussion above.

The above discussion says nothing about testable predictions, and your flawed perception of them that I was explaining in that quote -and anyway, I think the term "abductive reasoning" is used here (inventing a hypothesis (B) that explains (A) = good reason to believe (B) is true = proof that (B) is true) is way over the line of logic and into the realm of logical fallacy.

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&

)

Quote

then how on earth does this "prediction" derive from your hypothesis? (other that trying to explain what you already see, of course...

"Trying to explain what I already see" IS THE ONLY THING I am trying to do ... I think I confused you by not being clear on the structure of my argument. See above.

Then, can you admit that all your examples were part of your hypothesis, NOT "testable predictions", so we can move along? You still have to cover 2), though.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

MidnightVoice

Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: May 01 2006,03:21

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 01 2006,07:53)

Maybe if we understood what your specific problems were then we could help.

AFD does not want help. He is absolutely convinced, and the facts of life will never change his mind. It is amusing to point out his mistakes and total lack of intellectual honesty, but his mind, unlike that of scientists, is fixed and unchanging.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

hehe

Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,03:41

Quote

hehe -- 'banging' ones sister apparently was fine with God in the beginning if you were married to her. Again, there was no prohibition against this that I know of until the time of Moses by which time accumulated mutations would have posed a problem to close marriages with close kin.

Thank you for accepting that "god" is a moral relativist. Why shouldn't we be? ;-)

improvius

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,03:43

Quote (MidnightVoice @ May 01 2006,08:21)

AFD does not want help. He is absolutely convinced, and the facts of life will never change his mind. It is amusing to point out his mistakes and total lack of intellectual honesty, but his mind, unlike that of scientists, is fixed and unchanging.

Agreed. He is not here to learn. He is here to prove to himself how right he is by rationalizing away any logical objections to his faith.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,03:44

Faid-- I am not sure which (2) you are talking about ... I have restated my hypothesis in a hopefully less confusing way. I admit I was not as clear as I could have been. See the discussion above. The updated version can be found here ...

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=1958

Chris-- I will do a post stating my main difficulties with ToE under the "AF Dave Wants you to prove Evolution" thread,

Thanks

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,03:53

hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid-- It's only unsupported HERE in this post. I can't take the time or space right now to support it all. But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

improvius

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,04:04

Quote

Really? Where did I assume that? I think all I did was make a prediction that IF my God persona exists, we would expect there to be claims of written messages from Him. Given the discussion above, we can modify this to say the we "see this SURPRISING FACT that there are many written messages claiming to be from 'God'"

So your argument could be accurately restated as:

-If there is a God, he MIGHT send written messages.
-People who claim they receive written messages from God MIGHT actually be receiving written messages from God.
-Since there are people who claim they receive written messages from God, there MIGHT actually be a God.

So you can either make this a logical argument built on ridiculous assumptions, or render it meaningless by accepting the above ambiguity. Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since IDers have already tried changing the meaning of "science".

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Renier

Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,04:14

afdave, Carol claims you are totally wrong in your interpretation. Why don't you and Carol battle it out a bit, so that the rest of us unholy heathens can have a chuc... eh.. learning experience?

So, who is right, you, or Carol? You cannot both be right, and both claim to be speaking for God. Who must we believe then?

Rilke's Granddaughter

Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

Posted: May 01 2006,04:39

Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2006,04:51)

No no, answer her. I want to see afdave and carol have an argument. It would be interesting...

Godzilla vs. Mothra?

Rilke's Granddaughter

Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

Posted: May 01 2006,04:42

And afDave goes for the jugular:

Quote

Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day? In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day. My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.

I'm impressed: he's already managed to nail Carol.

Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,05:11

Quote

Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk.

Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC: If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4) CONCLUSION: There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)

Now how is this "junk" logic?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,05:28

Dave, let me rephrase that the way it actually is:

1) I observe people say that they have been contacted by an entity

2) I propose there is an entity that wishes to contact people

3) I conclude that there is good reason that my theory is true.

Maybe this might help you finally understand.

Oh, about the previous post, my bad: I was referring to the "testable predictions" part of your hypothesis, of course.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Renier

Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,05:32

Quote

There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)

Afdave, so you have a "suspicion" that there is a god. I have a "suspicion" that you are wrong and that he/she does not exist.

As you admit, you base your suspicion on something for what there is not the slightest bit of proof.

I base my suspicion on that there is NO EVIDENCE/PROOF of any kind, for ANY god.

Not just that, but you say of people share your suspicion. Now, there are hindus, jews, muslims, pagans etc. What makes your suspicion better than theirs? And, I must point out, but if the Muslim suspicion is right, then you are doomed anyway, so you have to prove that your suspicion is better than anyone else's. Just to point something else out, but your suspicion/perception also differs from what a lot of Christians have. So, how do we know you are right in your "revelation" of God??? Can you prove it? No? Is there reason to regard your suspicion more highly than other people's suspicion? No?

Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,05:48

Renier--

I understand that you have the opposite suspicion, and I believe that you also could try to make Inferences to the Best Explanation for YOUR suspicion. And this is where I think my evidence ... "cosmic fine tuning, the anthropic principle, etc." as I will elaborate on soon lead to a Super-Intelligent 'god-like' character as a better explanation than other alternatives.

You are RIGHT ON about having to judge between different supposed 'revelations.' This is extremely important and will come after I present credible evidence that we should expect some Super-Intelligence to exist and that it is highly likely that He (or it) commmunicates like we do.

Would you all mind hopping over to my "Updated Hypothesis Thread" to add new posts?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Mr_Christopher

Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,06:03

Incest is all the rage in the bible. Nothing new here.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Renier

Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,06:11

Quote

after I present credible evidence that we should expect some Super-Intelligence to exist

You know you would be the first human being EVER to do that, don't you? I'm not holding my breath though...

hehe

Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,06:17

Dave, you did not address the point again. Is incest objectively immoral or not? (If it is forbidden for mere utilitarian reasons, it is not immoral.)

tacitus

Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

Posted: May 01 2006,06:23

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)

Faid-- It's only unsupported HERE in this post. I can't take the time or space right now to support it all. But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

That's cute -- one of Kem Ham's favourite attacks on evidence from deep time (fossils, geological record, etc) is the idiotic "Were you there? No, but God was." Sees to me that since you're such a fan of Ken Ham's work, you'd realise that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You have no earthly way of proving that the human race has appreciably more harmful genetic mutations today than 6,000 years ago. Were you there?

Claiming that harmful genetic mutations have increased to the point of reducing our lifespan to 10% of what it used to be 6,000 years ago is about as sensible as claiming the speed of light is a fraction of what it used to be (in an attempt to get over the embarrassing fact that we can see galaxies which are billions of light years away).

Scientists have catalogued many genetic mutations in the human genome. None of them has come close to being responsible for a dramatic reduction in lifespan (without being accompanied by some form of gross mental or physical abnormality). Embarassingly enough for you, though, is that we *do* share many of the same genetic mutations as our cousins the chimps and gorillas, and in such a way that all-but proves we share a common ancestry with our fellow great apes.

If you don't believe me, have a look at this post on endogenous retroviruses.

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,06:39

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)

hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid-- It's only unsupported HERE in this post. I can't take the time or space right now to support it all. But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

Besides his joking, hehe actually has a point. According to the eternal laws set by god from the beginning of time, if a man has a vasectomy, is it ok to marry his sister? I ask you in all seriousness- because that's what this theory for Cain's wife seems to imply.

As for not supporting your view here, then you haven't explained anything yet, right? Untill you do, however, think about this: If you weren't trying with all your heart to prove that the bible is inerrant, would you ever be so eager to assume that, in this paragraph:

Quote

[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

A hundred years have passed between the first and the second sentence? Why does it seem so plausible now, except that you want to believe it?

You may not wish to see it, but everything you do is reverse reasoning. You feel the bible has to be inerrant, so cain's wife must have been his sister. It must have been ok to marry his sister, so human beings must have had some kind of "genetic perfection" whatever that was. There must have been many people for him to build a city for, so that one space on a page, between "she bare Enoch" and "and he built a city" must have been 100 years long (making the book that explains the universe one of the most misleading documents ever).

Would you believe any of these wild assumptions if they were made about any other book than the bible? And yet, it is all your arguments that are like that in your hypothesis.

I only hope that some day you'll be bold enough to admit to yourself that your faith comes from your feelings, not your logic. It has nothing to do with logic.

That is not necessarily a bad thing; on the contrary. It's just that it does not help trying to use logic alone to defend it. Great philosophers have failed to do so in the past: Your faith is not science, and it cannot compete with science in its field. And it shouldn't have to.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,07:38

Quote

[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this? Babies don't build cities. Grown up men do. How much time elapsed? I cannot tell, but we are unjustified in saying categorically that this is definitely an example of error. Why can we not allow the writer some license to hit high points in a historical narrative? This is very common practice. Again, though, I am not saying anything yet about the Bible being proven to be true. At this point in the argument, that is an open question.

As for my supposed pre-committment to the Bible, I don't know how else to tell you that I am doing as best as any human can of NOT being biased. To tell you the truth, I didn't care a whit about the Bible growing up even though I was force fed it with a firehose. I cared about the normal things boys care about ... fast cars, fast girls, etc. But in college, I began to search for ultimate truth, and I tell you ... it could have gone either way. I was not exactly a compliant child (actually kind of a rebel), so I did not have any great love for my parents belief system. I do have an exercise that I want to propose on my other thread which I hope will at least allow us to agree on the ground rules for the debate.

hehe-- Your question has only become a question in modern times with the advent of vasectomies, but I would have to guess that God's opinion would be that your scenario would be OK with Him from one angle (absolute moral code), but not OK from another. I would guess that He would say not to do it because you would no doubt get into failed vasectomies, etc. with the resulting deformities.

I've never been asked that question! It's a funny one!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

stephenWells

Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,08:00

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)

Quote

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first? Animals or Man. No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

hehe

Posts: 59
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: May 01 2006,08:26

OK, Dave, so not every "god"'s commandment establishes a moral rule. Some are simply utilitarian.

Given that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament (unless you keep kosher and follow all 600+ rules of the OT, you will agree with me

), and NT has no rule against incest, incest is OK if precautions are taken

tacitus

Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005