 |
|
05-11-2017, 09:00 PM
|
#1561
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
And then there is the problem of what came after Adam and Eve...did their sons and girls have sex with each other or just with mom and dad...? How else could the race move forward...?
I guess god had more ribs after Eve....
|
What is the problem? More than likely, the siblings procreated, while Adam procreated with Eve.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 09:23 PM
|
#1562
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
What is the problem? More than likely, the siblings procreated, while Adam procreated with Eve.
|
You don't have an issue with having sex and a baby with your sister...?
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 09:24 PM
|
#1563
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
You don't have an issue with having sex and a baby with your sister...?
|
Different eras.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 09:53 PM
|
#1564
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Different eras.
|
Then I guess it OK to use the old one as the godly model...?
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 09:58 PM
|
#1565
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
My posts are clear ...
|
No, they are not. Seriously, they are not. 
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 10:10 PM
|
#1566
|
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
How does all this fit with commentary on the concurrent existence (including possible interbreeding) between the Neanderthals and the current version of the naked ape? Were the Neanderthals here when Adam and Eve were dropped in (or however that all came about, if it did)? It has been awhile, but I seem to recall biblical references to others being here (in addition to the lineage supposedly originating with Adam and Eve).
Not a snarky question, not rhetorical, and not intended to be argumentative. I don't have the time for extensive research on the topic, and it is one that has been an item of curiosity (my own and others) over the years. Were other ("human like") species here first?
|
What you're referring to is the "Nephilim". The Bible has little to say about these giants of the land. However, if you go to the The Book of Enoch from The Apocrypha, you might find it an interesting read....
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 10:51 PM
|
#1567
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
No, they are not. Seriously, they are not. |
Seriously they are. My post 1518 clearly defined the word "inalienable".
You are conflating two different definitions.  Inalienable by itself means basically irrevocable, cannot be taken away. The second definition relates to the term inalienable rights, this definition takes into the account of natural law and not laws or customs of man.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
Last edited by Show Me the Wire; 05-11-2017 at 10:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:20 PM
|
#1568
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Darwin built upon Mendel's work.
|
Gregor Mendel's work on genetics was published in the the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in 1866. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, six years before Mendel's work came out.
Darwin made his voyage on the Beagle from 1831 to 1836. Mendel was born in 1822. He was 14 when Darwin came back with his ideas on natural selection.
Darwin did do experiments similar to Mendel, but his experiments were essentially a failure, although much of that could have been a design flaw. It is probably more accurate to say Mendel took off from the point Darwin stopped.
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:24 PM
|
#1569
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Seriously they are. My post 1518 clearly defined the word "inalienable".
You are conflating two different definitions. Inalienable by itself means basically irrevocable, cannot be taken away. The second definition relates to the term inalienable rights, this definition takes into the account of natural law and not laws or customs of man. |
Now you are saying that there are two different definitions. Since when?
Also, define natural law. Is that different from God's law?
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:26 PM
|
#1570
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Indeed the Bible does in fact mention other people being present. When Cain, the first offspring of Adam and Eve, was banished for killing his brother, he was afraid of the other beings. God gave him a mark, (tattoo?) to protect him and then Cain married one the other beings and became a builder of their cities.
So it would seem according to the Bible there was some sort of evolution and inter-breeding. However, the Bible makes it clear Adam's, and his line still is separate and distinct from the other beings lineage, through Adam's son Seth.
That is about all I can say.
BTW I am still waiting for boxcar to enlighten us about who these other beings were.
|
Thanks, that is one of the areas I remember. Unusual that more is not made of this (other than conjecture, some of it more than a little wild). I think more than a few are also curious how all that ancestry stuff came about, given the rather slim pickings in breeding stock early on. That is, how--exactly--did the A-E lineage progress without interbreeding with the (supposedly more primitive genetically) locals of the time?
I remember there was some sort of convoluted rationalization of how it all came about, but as I said, it has been awhile since I studied it, and I am a bit foggy on the exact details/explanation of how the A-E lineage progressed (apparently without additional genetic material).
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:27 PM
|
#1571
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
Gregor Mendel's work on genetics was published in the the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in 1866. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, six years before Mendel's work came out.
Darwin made his voyage on the Beagle from 1831 to 1836. Mendel was born in 1822. He was 14 when Darwin came back with his ideas on natural selection.
Darwin did do experiments similar to Mendel, but his experiments were essentially a failure, although much of that could have been a design flaw. It is probably more accurate to say Mendel took off from the point Darwin stopped.
|
Excellent post! 
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:30 PM
|
#1572
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall
What you're referring to is the "Nephilim". The Bible has little to say about these giants of the land. However, if you go to the The Book of Enoch from The Apocrypha, you might find it an interesting read....
|
Thanks, I will. I remember the term "giants" was used in connection with (at least some of) the others. I will read up on it as soon as I have a bit more time.
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:31 PM
|
#1573
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey
You don't have an issue with having sex and a baby with your sister...?
|
I think if you dig a bit you will find that most of the mandates forbidding such originated to avoid families consolidating power/holdings rather than some morality issue.
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:34 PM
|
#1574
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2017, 11:41 PM
|
#1575
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Now you are saying that there are two different definitions. Since when?
Also, define natural law. Is that different from God's law?
|
Are you serious? I spelled it out. Like you say I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. 
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
Last edited by Show Me the Wire; 05-11-2017 at 11:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
