Evolution is stupid.

[Archer]

Hey, Olddavid, great to see you back. I hope you can go a little while without being banned. Perhaps your rare personal 'strine charm is something that the philistines here are just not able to appreciate. 

Hmm. Thanks, Max.

Not likely to go a little while without being banned. My tolerance for pretentious twits is used up.

Max, who are you referring to when you speak about philistines?

Olddavid, who are you calling pretentious twits?

[Oldavid]

Hey, Olddavid, great to see you back. I hope you can go a little while without being banned. Perhaps your rare personal 'strine charm is something that the philistines here are just not able to appreciate. 

Hmm. Thanks, Max.

Not likely to go a little while without being banned. My tolerance for pretentious twits is used up.

Max, who are you referring to when you speak about philistines?

Olddavid, who are you calling pretentious twits?

I think you have answered yourself, Mr Robin g'Hood.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Hey, Olddavid, great to see you back. I hope you can go a little while without being banned. Perhaps your rare personal 'strine charm is something that the philistines here are just not able to appreciate. 

Hmm. Thanks, Max.

Not likely to go a little while without being banned. My tolerance for pretentious twits is used up.

Max, who are you referring to when you speak about philistines?

Olddavid, who are you calling pretentious twits?

I think you have answered yourself, Mr Robin g'Hood.

whats next?....talking about peoples Mom?

[Kaesekopf]

Calling the administrator of a forum you frequent a "pretentious twit" is not wise.  Nor is insulting his moderation (who has far more theological 'experience' and training than you) with the same phrase wise. 

[Theophilus]

I do not necessarily support evolution, but the biblical narrative essentially illustrates that mankind committed mass incest to populate the Earth, which really is not an ideal and solid explanation also.

Maybe I am wrong and in error,  but I have never received a satisfactory answer to the difficult question of why incest was tolerated by God in his original directive to "go forth and multiply, " whereas it had been declared to be a heinous sin and crime with the compilation of the Old Testament thousands of years later.

*Disclaimer*  I don't know anything about this or how much truth there is to it.. It is just something I heard or read at some point and makes sense to me.

Adam and Eve were created perfectly so their genome had no errors so inbreeding was not a problem. The book "How Christ said the first Mass" says that they had 23 or 32 pairs of twins and they populated the earth.  By the time Moses came around there were enough errors in the genome that it was no longer healthy to inbreed and no longer necessary.

[Kaesekopf]

*Disclaimer*  I don't know anything about this or how much truth there is to it.. It is just something I heard or read at some point and makes sense to me.

Adam and Eve were created perfectly so their genome had no errors so inbreeding was not a problem. The book "How Christ said the first Mass" says that they had 23 or 32 pairs of twins and they populated the earth.  By the time Moses came around there were enough errors in the genome that it was no longer healthy to inbreed and no longer necessary.

I too am uneducated and dumb about this whole topic, but, if Adam and Eve were created perfectly, inbreeding wouldn't be a problem.  As the ages go on, though, and humanity becomes corrupted, it makes sense the genome would be corrupted as well, IMHO.

[GloriaPatri]

There is a big problem with that line of thought. If Adam and Eve are to be considered human then their genome could only differ by >0.1% from ours. No change in the genome that minute would have made incest ok back then when it is such an issue now.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Wrong...Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years as did Noah. Humans have devolved.

[GloriaPatri]

Longevity does not require a vast change in our genome. The degradation of the cell's replication process can be fixed by simply modifying the cell replication process such that errors do not occur, or that the telomere does not shorten with each cell replication. But to modify our genome such that incest would lend no bad side effects would mean Adam and Eve would no longer be human.

[Habitual_Ritual]

Longevity does not require a vast change in our genome. The degradation of the cell's replication process can be fixed by simply modifying the cell replication process such that errors do not occur, or that the telomere does not shorten with each cell replication. But to modify our genome such that incest would lend no bad side effects would mean Adam and Eve would no longer be human.

What is your Doctorate in?

[Archer]

Wrong...Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years as did Noah. Humans have devolved.

I always assumed it was because God wanted them to live that long - not because of anything that they did or didn't do here on earth which caused their natural longevity.  There are only a few examples in the bible of certain people living hundreds of years, it just doesn't seem realistic to claim that because we don't live hundreds of years we as a species have regressed over time.  I admit I could be completely wrong though. 

[GloriaPatri]

Longevity does not require a vast change in our genome. The degradation of the cell's replication process can be fixed by simply modifying the cell replication process such that errors do not occur, or that the telomere does not shorten with each cell replication. But to modify our genome such that incest would lend no bad side effects would mean Adam and Eve would no longer be human.

What is your Doctorate in?

A doctorate in biology is not needed to know the different theories that account for aging and the breakdown of the replication process of the cell. Nor is it necessary in order to know that a vast change in the human genome is unnecessary to increase longevity. But such a change is necessary if incest is to not lead to a multitude of health problems. In fact, the variations of the human genome seen today can not be adequately explained by a single original human couple, unless each of their children differed so drastically genetically that they were effectively not related to each other. A strange idea to be sure.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

The fact remains our first family's had to be incestuous. I have no problem with that...Gods ways are not our ways.

[Christknight104]

I do not necessarily support evolution, but the biblical narrative essentially illustrates that mankind committed mass incest to populate the Earth, which really is not an ideal and solid explanation also.

Maybe I am wrong and in error,  but I have never received a satisfactory answer to the difficult question of why incest was tolerated by God in his original directive to "go forth and multiply, " whereas it had been declared to be a heinous sin and crime with the compilation of the Old Testament thousands of years later.

*Disclaimer*  I don't know anything about this or how much truth there is to it.. It is just something I heard or read at some point and makes sense to me.

Adam and Eve were created perfectly so their genome had no errors so inbreeding was not a problem. The book "How Christ said the first Mass" says that they had 23 or 32 pairs of twins and they populated the earth.  By the time Moses came around there were enough errors in the genome that it was no longer healthy to inbreed and no longer necessary.

Does this mean then that God prohibited incest for the Israelites on the basis that incest causes a host of  genetic deformations? If genetic disorders did not result from incest today, would incest then be okay and fine? Are these genetic deformations addressed in Leviticus or any other part of Sacred Scripture for the matter? Or are these results just implied?

I know these are very difficult questions. It seems then that the only way to get the best solution  is to have the privilege of asking God Himself in heaven.

[Habitual_Ritual]

A doctorate in biology is not needed to know the different theories that account for aging and the breakdown of the replication process of the cell.

Er, what?

You spent several previous comments negating the work of some very clever and heavily credentialed folk because their PhDs are in the 'wrong' area and now you come out with this?

Sorry Bub, I have to use your own standards in addressing you. If you have no PhD in the areas under discussion than I need to kindly ask you to cease and desist. Your comments are worthless without appropriate credentials.

Move along now.