The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Kowani]

So, why does the omnipotent being need to rest? Also, Adam and Eve? Really. We’re supposed to take that literally? I don’t like the metaphor defense, but it doesn’t promote pure falsehoods.Besides, it says streams came up from the earth, and that’s simply not true, but the entire story of the fallis naught but pure misogyny at any rate. Most other creation myths with a similar story are, so it’s just the times. Besides, according to this story, God is directly responsible for miscarriage. All of them. Plus, y’know. All sons and no daughters. Genetics in here are screwed.

You're acting incredulous that a YEC has no problems taking Adam and Eve literally?

That’s right, I forgot we can’t trust science anymore. I am genuinely curious, how do you reconcile your beliefs with geology, astrophysics, history, paleontology, and biology?

Plus, you know, that biblical passage about "and Adam had other sons and daughters".

After he lived 800 years.

[Diopolis]

You're acting incredulous that a YEC has no problems taking Adam and Eve literally?

That’s right, I forgot we can’t trust science anymore. I am genuinely curious, how do you reconcile your beliefs with geology, astrophysics, history, paleontology, and biology?

That's a very broad topic.
I'm a hydroplate theorist and a baraminologist. No particularly firm opinion on astrophysics other than a rejection of uniformitarianism. If you have specific questions, perhaps we can talk about those?

Plus, you know, that biblical passage about "and Adam had other sons and daughters".

After he lived 800 years.

[/quote]
Of all objections, the "but Adam had only sons" is the most self-refuting.

[Camelone]

Can anyone explain to me how Cryil of Alexandra became a saint when he did shit like getting a mob to kill Hypatia a brilliant scholar?

There is only one source that blames Saint Cyril of Alexandria and it comes from an incredibly biased source. The generally accepted historical account is that Hypatia was a victim of a mob who accused her of disrupting the friendship of Orestes and St. Cyril. Others also thought that Hypatia was preventing Orestes from reconciling with St. Cyril as well. Where did you read that it was St. Cyril that ordered the mob to kill here?

[Kowani]

That’s right, I forgot we can’t trust science anymore. I am genuinely curious, how do you reconcile your beliefs with geology, astrophysics, history, paleontology, and biology?

That's a very broad topic.
I'm a hydroplate theorist and a baraminologist.

So, bullshittery and pseudoscience.

No particularly firm opinion on astrophysics other than a rejection of uniformitarianism.

How does that work, exactly?

If you have specific questions, perhaps we can talk about those?

The fact that you have no scientific evidence to back up your belief doesn’t seem to cause you any doubt at all?

Plus, you know, that biblical passage about "and Adam had other sons and daughters".

After he lived 800 years.[/quote][/quote]
Of all objections, the "but Adam had only sons" is the most self-refuting.[/quote]
Is it now? And tell me, when all of those children share the same mother, what do you think happens to the gene pool? (Hint: It’s not good.)

[Diopolis]

That's a very broad topic.
I'm a hydroplate theorist and a baraminologist.

So, bullshittery and pseudoscience.

No particularly firm opinion on astrophysics other than a rejection of uniformitarianism.

How does that work, exactly?

Simple. Processes have not necessarily occurred at the same rate for all of history.

If you have specific questions, perhaps we can talk about those?

The fact that you have no scientific evidence to back up your belief doesn’t seem to cause you any doubt at all?

Arrogant snark is not a question.

Plus, you know, that biblical passage about "and Adam had other sons and daughters".

After he lived 800 years.

[/quote]
Of all objections, the "but Adam had only sons" is the most self-refuting.[/quote]
Is it now? And tell me, when all of those children share the same mother, what do you think happens to the gene pool? (Hint: It’s not good.)[/quote]
Technically, since Eve was made from Adam's rib(most likely his os penis, but that's besides the point), they were genetically quite close.
Anyways, since harmful genetic alleles did not exist prior to the fall, deleterious mutations could only have begun to accumulate afterwards- which means that the level of genetic fitness would have been far higher among the immediate descendants of Adam(or for that matter, Noe), despite the comparative lack of genetic diversity. As mutations accumulated beginning after the fall, the children of Adam and Eve would actually have far more genetic diversity than Adam and Eve themselves.

[Kowani]

So, bullshittery and pseudoscience.
How does that work, exactly?

Simple. Processes have not necessarily occurred at the same rate for all of history.

Ah. That’s not astrophysics, that’s geology.

The fact that you have no scientific evidence to back up your belief doesn’t seem to cause you any doubt at all?

Arrogant snark is not a question.

Doesn’t change the fact that all of your positions on the age of earth aren’t backed up by anything remotely scientific. That you don’t like how I phrased it is irrelevant.

After he lived 800 years.

Of all objections, the "but Adam had only sons" is the most self-refuting.

Is it now? And tell me, when all of those children share the same mother, what do you think happens to the gene pool? (Hint: It’s not good.)

Technically, since Eve was made from Adam's rib(most likely his os penis, but that's besides the point), they were genetically quite close.
Anyways, since harmful genetic alleles did not exist prior to the fall, deleterious mutations could only have begun to accumulate afterwards- which means that the level of genetic fitness would have been far higher among the immediate descendants of Adam(or for that matter, Noe), despite the comparative lack of genetic diversity. As mutations accumulated beginning after the fall, the children of Adam and Eve would actually have far more genetic diversity than Adam and Eve themselves.

Not true in the slightest. If Eve came from Adam’s rib, she should have the same genetic code as him. (The epigenome is another story.) Now, let’s apply Occam’s razor and say God switches the chromosomes, and put in the genes necessary to make a female human. Cain, Abel, and all of those other kids would be fucked. Their own genetic structure would be screwed, their children even more so, and humanity would not exist. Now, the lowest estimate I’ve seen for a stable population that doesn’t collapse to inbreeding is 80. (Source) Problem is, those 80 are genetically diverse individuals. Even if Adam has 80 kids, that wouldn’t matter because they’d all be working with the same basic template, even accounting for mutations. It’s not that Adam and Eve have bad genes, it’s that the pool is too closed to work. The children having children wouldn’t help, they’d just reduce the pool even more. We all saw what happened to Europe’s monarchs, and they had a considerably larger bank from which to withdraw. The Precursors (I’m calling them that now), don’t.

[Joohan]

7 days might not have been 7 days. A terrible obstacle when reading the books of the Bible is not knowing what is a metaphor, literal, or foreshadowing. God could very well have created the rest of the universe thousands of years prior to ever considering the Earth. But I don't know - though plenty of theologians do debate topics like this constantly.

As for the plants... I know the old testament is full of big and boring lists, but... that is a veeeeeeery big list of things not to eat. Moses ( BTW, Moses was given the story of Genesis by God on Mt. Sinai - which is how we know the story )and his people weren't leaving the desert any time soon, and they knew right and well would was okay to eat and what wasn't. Telling Moses not to eat nightshade, something which neither he nor any Israelite would ever come into contact with for where they lived, wouldn't have made much sense. Local people would know what local plants were good to eat and share said information, like what happened with globalization.

The rib metaphor is actually quite beautiful. It requires a bit of knowledge in Jewish theology. This was explained to me by a rabbi while I was at basic ( though I am having trouble finding it on the internet ): Each individual has only half a soul. When we marry, the second half of our soul is found and we become a whole soul again with our spouse. This is supposedly one of the meanings for the star of David. Adam giving Eve his rib, might have meant Adam giving Eve half of his soul.

Sooo, given that there are Anglicans, who can divorce and remarry, how does that work for them?

Easy - protestants are filthy heretics.

[Lord Dominator]

Easy - protestants are filthy heretics.

Hey, my bathing practices are usually quite excellent

[Luminesa]

Can anyone explain to me how Cryil of Alexandra became a saint when he did shit like getting a mob to kill Hypatia a brilliant scholar?

I don’t know about him getting a mob to kill anyone, but...Cyril of Alexandria was also a brilliant scholar.

[Luminesa]

To the best of my knowledge, the Orthodox churches are usually only thirteen days behind though

I wasn’t being literal. I meant they haven’t evolved with the times.

He’s making a joke.

[Hakons]

Now, let’s apply Occam’s razor

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." - William of Ockham, English Franciscan friar, logician, and theologian; known for Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

[Diopolis]

Simple. Processes have not necessarily occurred at the same rate for all of history.

Ah. That’s not astrophysics, that’s geology.

It's not like there's a particularly hard and fast line between the two.

Arrogant snark is not a question.

Doesn’t change the fact that all of your positions on the age of earth aren’t backed up by anything remotely scientific. That you don’t like how I phrased it is irrelevant.

Of all objections, the "but Adam had only sons" is the most self-refuting.

Not true in the slightest. If Eve came from Adam’s rib, she should have the same genetic code as him. (The epigenome is another story.) Now, let’s apply Occam’s razor and say God switches the chromosomes, and put in the genes necessary to make a female human. Cain, Abel, and all of those other kids would be fucked. Their own genetic structure would be screwed, their children even more so, and humanity would not exist. Now, the lowest estimate I’ve seen for a stable population that doesn’t collapse to inbreeding is 80. (Source) Problem is, those 80 are genetically diverse individuals. Even if Adam has 80 kids, that wouldn’t matter because they’d all be working with the same basic template, even accounting for mutations. It’s not that Adam and Eve have bad genes, it’s that the pool is too closed to work. The children having children wouldn’t help, they’d just reduce the pool even more. We all saw what happened to Europe’s monarchs, and they had a considerably larger bank from which to withdraw. The Precursors (I’m calling them that now), don’t.

Adam had no harmful genes. Neither did Eve, because barring the genetic differences required to make a female female, they're genetically identical. Therefore the genes for hemophilia, the hapsburg chin, etc cannot be passed onto their children because they don't exist. Such genes began accumulating in their children- baraminology supposes a far higher rate of genetic mutation in past generations than the present, so genetic diversity increases from a base of whatever the differences to distinguish male and female constitute. Adam and Eve were both, genetically speaking, 100% fit. Their 33 sons and daughters(a pious tradition not officially found in scripture or taught by the church, but let's go with that) slightly less so, but more genetically diverse. Harmful genes can only be passed on once they begin to accumulate.
This also applies to the immediate aftermath of the fall; far fewer harmful genes existed at the time.

[Northern Davincia]

Easy - protestants are filthy heretics.

Hey, my bathing practices are usually quite excellent

[Kowani]

Now, let’s apply Occam’s razor

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." - William of Ockham, English Franciscan friar, logician, and theologian; known for Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

That’s not Occam’s Razor, mate. The actual Razor goes like this: Plurality must never be posited without necessity, and although the more well known version is technically not his, although it goes like this: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. What does this mean? Make as few assumptions as necessary to come to one’s conclusion. While the quote is absolutely wonderful, it doesn’t actually prove anything. It is an unsupported assertion.

Ah. That’s not astrophysics, that’s geology.

It's not like there's a particularly hard and fast line between the two

Uhh...what? From Merriam-Webster.
Astrophysics-a branch of astronomy dealing especially with the behavior, physical properties, and dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena.
Geology-a science that deals with the history of the earth and its life especially as recorded in rocks
And although there is a second definition of geology that does have some overlap (a study of the solid matter of a celestial body), the only geology we can use on celestial bodies is the moon. The line is pretty easy to see, since astrophysics is far more than just the earth, and far more than the solid matter of anything. Additionally, uniformitarianism is an idea pretty specific to earth, what with empirical studies on everything else being somewhat difficult.

Doesn’t change the fact that all of your positions on the age of earth aren’t backed up by anything remotely scientific. That you don’t like how I phrased it is irrelevant.

Not true in the slightest. If Eve came from Adam’s rib, she should have the same genetic code as him. (The epigenome is another story.) Now, let’s apply Occam’s razor and say God switches the chromosomes, and put in the genes necessary to make a female human. Cain, Abel, and all of those other kids would be fucked. Their own genetic structure would be screwed, their children even more so, and humanity would not exist. Now, the lowest estimate I’ve seen for a stable population that doesn’t collapse to inbreeding is 80. (Source) Problem is, those 80 are genetically diverse individuals. Even if Adam has 80 kids, that wouldn’t matter because they’d all be working with the same basic template, even accounting for mutations. It’s not that Adam and Eve have bad genes, it’s that the pool is too closed to work. The children having children wouldn’t help, they’d just reduce the pool even more. We all saw what happened to Europe’s monarchs, and they had a considerably larger bank from which to withdraw. The Precursors (I’m calling them that now), don’t.

Adam had no harmful genes. Neither did Eve, because barring the genetic differences required to make a female female, they're genetically identical. Therefore the genes for hemophilia, the hapsburg chin, etc cannot be passed onto their children because they don't exist. Such genes began accumulating in their children- baraminology supposes a far higher rate of genetic mutation in past generations than the present, so genetic diversity increases from a base of whatever the differences to distinguish male and female constitute. Adam and Eve were both, genetically speaking, 100% fit. Their 33 sons and daughters(a pious tradition not officially found in scripture or taught by the church, but let's go with that) slightly less so, but more genetically diverse. Harmful genes can only be passed on once they begin to accumulate.
This also applies to the immediate aftermath of the fall; far fewer harmful genes existed at the time.

If they are genetically identical, then the children would suffer from genetic diseases all the same. It is not that they have harmful genes. (Speaking of which, your supposition about mutation rates in the past is something that we both know you can’t prove, so you really don’t get to hold it up as a cornerstone of your argument), it is that those 33 children will have more recessive genes than just about anything else. Heck, chimpanzees have more genetic diversity than all of humanity does today, because we hit a population bottleneck of 1,000 people. Now, a bottleneck of a single breeding pair is not catastrophic if the next generation experiences a giant population boost. Which we know from history, didn’t happen. From your own admission of 33 people, it didn’t happen. (Speaking of which, the Bible says that the garden is to the East, and well... the east of Israel does not get you to Africa, which is where we actually come from.) The thing is, if Adam and Eve work like humans, they must have had recessive genes by virtue of being humans. Eve being a genetic copy of Adam (sex differences aside), she would have those genes as well. Except recessive genes don’t code right. But if you have inbreeding, the closer the two genomes are, the chance of those recessive genes getting passed on skyrockets. In the equivalent of twins? It’s ridiculous. The 33 children would essentially be European monarchs, and their children even worse off, as their genes would not be any better.

[Diopolis]

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." - William of Ockham, English Franciscan friar, logician, and theologian; known for Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

That’s not Occam’s Razor, mate. The actual Razor goes like this: Plurality must never be posited without necessity, and although the more well known version is technically not his, although it goes like this: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. What does this mean? Make as few assumptions as necessary to come to one’s conclusion. While the quote is absolutely wonderful, it doesn’t actually prove anything. It is an unsupported assertion.

It's not like there's a particularly hard and fast line between the two

Uhh...what? From Merriam-Webster.
Astrophysics-a branch of astronomy dealing especially with the behavior, physical properties, and dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena.
Geology-a science that deals with the history of the earth and its life especially as recorded in rocks
And although there is a second definition of geology that does have some overlap (a study of the solid matter of a celestial body), the only geology we can use on celestial bodies is the moon. The line is pretty easy to see, since astrophysics is far more than just the earth, and far more than the solid matter of anything. Additionally, uniformitarianism is an idea pretty specific to earth, what with empirical studies on everything else being somewhat difficult.

Adam had no harmful genes. Neither did Eve, because barring the genetic differences required to make a female female, they're genetically identical. Therefore the genes for hemophilia, the hapsburg chin, etc cannot be passed onto their children because they don't exist. Such genes began accumulating in their children- baraminology supposes a far higher rate of genetic mutation in past generations than the present, so genetic diversity increases from a base of whatever the differences to distinguish male and female constitute. Adam and Eve were both, genetically speaking, 100% fit. Their 33 sons and daughters(a pious tradition not officially found in scripture or taught by the church, but let's go with that) slightly less so, but more genetically diverse. Harmful genes can only be passed on once they begin to accumulate.
This also applies to the immediate aftermath of the fall; far fewer harmful genes existed at the time.

If they are genetically identical, then the children would suffer from genetic diseases all the same. It is not that they have harmful genes. (Speaking of which, your supposition about mutation rates in the past is something that we both know you can’t prove, so you really don’t get to hold it up as a cornerstone of your argument), it is that those 33 children will have more recessive genes than just about anything else. Heck, chimpanzees have more genetic diversity than all of humanity does today, because we hit a population bottleneck of 1,000 people. Now, a bottleneck of a single breeding pair is not catastrophic if the next generation experiences a giant population boost. Which we know from history, didn’t happen. From your own admission of 33 people, it didn’t happen. (Speaking of which, the Bible says that the garden is to the East, and well... the east of Israel does not get you to Africa, which is where we actually come from.) The thing is, if Adam and Eve work like humans, they must have had recessive genes by virtue of being humans. Eve being a genetic copy of Adam (sex differences aside), she would have those genes as well. Except recessive genes don’t code right. But if you have inbreeding, the closer the two genomes are, the chance of those recessive genes getting passed on skyrockets. In the equivalent of twins? It’s ridiculous. The 33 children would essentially be European monarchs, and their children even worse off, as their genes would not be any better.

So the next generation would exhibit a high percentage of recessive traits. Lots of redheads isn't going to kill anyone, except possibly their spouses.
Sickle cell didn't exist yet. Hemophilia didn't exist yet. Recessive traits with harmful side effects did not exist.

[Kowani]

That’s not Occam’s Razor, mate. The actual Razor goes like this: Plurality must never be posited without necessity, and although the more well known version is technically not his, although it goes like this: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. What does this mean? Make as few assumptions as necessary to come to one’s conclusion. While the quote is absolutely wonderful, it doesn’t actually prove anything. It is an unsupported assertion.


Uhh...what? From Merriam-Webster.
Astrophysics-a branch of astronomy dealing especially with the behavior, physical properties, and dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena.
Geology-a science that deals with the history of the earth and its life especially as recorded in rocks
And although there is a second definition of geology that does have some overlap (a study of the solid matter of a celestial body), the only geology we can use on celestial bodies is the moon. The line is pretty easy to see, since astrophysics is far more than just the earth, and far more than the solid matter of anything. Additionally, uniformitarianism is an idea pretty specific to earth, what with empirical studies on everything else being somewhat difficult.
If they are genetically identical, then the children would suffer from genetic diseases all the same. It is not that they have harmful genes. (Speaking of which, your supposition about mutation rates in the past is something that we both know you can’t prove, so you really don’t get to hold it up as a cornerstone of your argument), it is that those 33 children will have more recessive genes than just about anything else. Heck, chimpanzees have more genetic diversity than all of humanity does today, because we hit a population bottleneck of 1,000 people. Now, a bottleneck of a single breeding pair is not catastrophic if the next generation experiences a giant population boost. Which we know from history, didn’t happen. From your own admission of 33 people, it didn’t happen. (Speaking of which, the Bible says that the garden is to the East, and well... the east of Israel does not get you to Africa, which is where we actually come from.) The thing is, if Adam and Eve work like humans, they must have had recessive genes by virtue of being humans. Eve being a genetic copy of Adam (sex differences aside), she would have those genes as well. Except recessive genes don’t code right. But if you have inbreeding, the closer the two genomes are, the chance of those recessive genes getting passed on skyrockets. In the equivalent of twins? It’s ridiculous. The 33 children would essentially be European monarchs, and their children even worse off, as their genes would not be any better.

So the next generation would exhibit a high percentage of recessive traits. Lots of redheads isn't going to kill anyone, except possibly their spouses.
Sickle cell didn't exist yet. Hemophilia didn't exist yet. Recessive traits with harmful side effects did not exist.

Ignoring the fact that we’d need sickle cell for malaria, what with the coming out of Africa and all, that’s not all recessive genes do. They don’t code for proteins. It’s not so much that they code for bad things (although they do that as well), but rather that the proteins or should have one doesn’t.

[Diopolis]

So the next generation would exhibit a high percentage of recessive traits. Lots of redheads isn't going to kill anyone, except possibly their spouses.
Sickle cell didn't exist yet. Hemophilia didn't exist yet. Recessive traits with harmful side effects did not exist.

Ignoring the fact that we’d need sickle cell for malaria, what with the coming out of Africa and all,

The bible says we came out of the east, near the tigris and euphrates. That is not Africa.

that’s not all recessive genes do. They don’t code for proteins. It’s not so much that they code for bad things (although they do that as well), but rather that the proteins or should have one doesn’t.

That is legitimately an interesting and important objection that I don't have an answer for at the moment. I'm going to try to get back to you with information once I can do some more research.

[Kowani]

Ignoring the fact that we’d need sickle cell for malaria, what with the coming out of Africa and all,

The bible says we came out of the east, near the tigris and euphrates. That is not Africa.

I don’t care enough to argue this point, so I’m just going to let it slide

that’s not all recessive genes do. They don’t code for proteins. It’s not so much that they code for bad things (although they do that as well), but rather that the proteins or should have one doesn’t.

That is legitimately an interesting and important objection that I don't have an answer for at the moment. I'm going to try to get back to you with information once I can do some more research.

All right! Take your time, mate.

[Camelone]

(Image)

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." - William of Ockham, English Franciscan friar, logician, and theologian; known for Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

That’s not Occam’s Razor, mate. The actual Razor goes like this: Plurality must never be posited without necessity, and although the more well known version is technically not his, although it goes like this: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. What does this mean? Make as few assumptions as necessary to come to one’s conclusion. While the quote is absolutely wonderful, it doesn’t actually prove anything. It is an unsupported assertion.

Hakons was not trying to quote the razor they were pointing out that the author of the razor, William of Occam, also believed that faith has a place in the human experience as well as logic, though logic may reinforce ones faith.

[Diopolis]

The bible says we came out of the east, near the tigris and euphrates. That is not Africa.

I don’t care enough to argue this point, so I’m just going to let it slide

That is legitimately an interesting and important objection that I don't have an answer for at the moment. I'm going to try to get back to you with information once I can do some more research.

All right! Take your time, mate.

Let's start with creation:
1)According to the creation story, Eve was made from Adam's rib. This means that, more than likely, there would be accumulated(non-harmful) mutations found in the stem cells found in Adam's bone marrow. There's no actual time frame given between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve; certain apocryphal books seem to imply lengthy spans of time. In other words, it appears that I substantially overestimated the degree of genetic similarity between Adam and Eve.
2)Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all humans predating a baraminological expansion of the genome. This means that, since they were created as genetically perfect, they would have had far fewer recessive genes- particularly since pre-fall, they would have been created genetically perfect. If we assume no change in genetic information immediately resultant to the fall(which seems likely based on the scriptures), then Adam and Eve would have had mostly or only dominant genes, with recessive variants coming mostly from mutations. Indeed, in the case of hair and eye color, science can often identify these mutations accurately, and point to the recessive variant as coming from mutations. In addition, most recessive alleles are rarer than dominant alleles; thus we can reason analogically that the bulk of recessive alleles occurred more recently than dominant alleles.
3)The presence of inbred strains of lab animals seems to indicate that in the absence of deleterious genes, inbreeding is far less harmful than in the general population. Although inbred lab mice show relatively low survival rates, Adam and Eve had according to one tradition 33 children, according to another 25 pairs of male-female twins, etc, etc- the point is that we're talking fertility rates more than high enough to substantially balance out the relatively lower survival rate, coupled with mitigating factors as to the survival rate and a high mutation rate leading to genetic diversity actually increasing over generations(and besides, the offspring of Seth and his sister were not married to each other; they married first cousins).

[Minachia]

Hey, my bathing practices are usually quite excellent

I know this is a joke, but I'm going to criticize you anyway:
Lutheran belief holds that we can never be saved by our good works because we can never, ever be good enough to merit salvation, and we will only be saved if we believe and have faith that the blood of Christ will rescue us, however, good works almost always (if not always, period) go hand-in-hand with faith, with our works being a sign that we do, indeed, believe in and accept Jesus Christ as our savior.
And, Martin Luther was not a loser, he was a chronically constipated monk that toppled Europe's most powerful political and religious institution.

[Menassa]

I know this is a joke, but I'm going to criticize you anyway:
Lutheran belief holds that we can never be saved by our good works because we can never, ever be good enough to merit salvation, and we will only be saved if we believe and have faith that the blood of Christ will rescue us, however, good works almost always (if not always, period) go hand-in-hand with faith, with our works being a sign that we do, indeed, believe in and accept Jesus Christ as our savior.
And, Martin Luther was not a loser, he was a chronically constipated monk that toppled Europe's most powerful political and religious institution.

For this, which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond your reach. It isn’t in the sky, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will go up into the sky for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ Likewise, it isn’t beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, ‘Who will cross the sea for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?’ On the contrary, the word is very close to you — in your mouth, even in your heart; therefore, you may do it!(Deuteronomy 30:11-14)

[Kowani]

I don’t care enough to argue this point, so I’m just going to let it slide

All right! Take your time, mate.

Let's start with creation:
1)According to the creation story, Eve was made from Adam's rib. This means that, more than likely, there would be accumulated(non-harmful) mutations found in the stem cells found in Adam's bone marrow. There's no actual time frame given between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve; certain apocryphal books seem to imply lengthy spans of time. In other words, it appears that I substantially overestimated the degree of genetic similarity between Adam and Eve.

Well. If we take the story literally, then humans were originally built with an extra rib. God removing the rib doesn’t remove the genetic instructions to have that extra rib. So, we should have one. And yet, we don’t. Problem 1. I’d have to see which books your talking about, because I don’t see anything implying a long timespan. And even if that was true, not only would those mutations still be God’s perfect creation changing itself and therefore being nonperfect, or improving itself and not having been perfect, we hit the problem of this being many unprovable assumptions.

2)Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all humans predating a baraminological expansion of the genome.

This being the thing we disagree on.

This means that, since they were created as genetically perfect,

There’s a thing in here about racism...

they would have had far fewer recessive genes- particularly since pre-fall, they would have been created genetically perfect.

Ah. No, that’s actually impossible. Humans have two copies of each allele, one dominant and one recessive. By being human, they cannot have substantially more dominant genes than recessive ones-and even if they did, that’d cause an entire new set of problems.

If we assume no change in genetic information immediately resultant to the fall(which seems likely based on the scriptures), then Adam and Eve would have had mostly or only dominant genes, with recessive variants coming mostly from mutations.

Back to the impossibility thing.

Indeed, in the case of hair and eye color, science can often identify these mutations accurately, and point to the recessive variant as coming from mutations.

In certain areas, fine. But the human genome does not work if there are no recessive alleles.

In addition, most recessive alleles are rarer than dominant alleles; thus we can reason analogically that the bulk of recessive alleles occurred more recently than dominant alleles.

Not really-we can point out that for most of human history, the gene pool was rather small and, due to the fact that the human race hasn’t died off yet, dominant alleles have been, well, dominant, passing on through generations. But, a single breeding pair does not have access to even that limited diversity, and so recessive alleles would spread much more.

3)The presence of inbred strains of lab animals seems to indicate that in the absence of deleterious genes, inbreeding is far less harmful than in the general population.

I’m going to need a source for that one, mate.

Although inbred lab mice show relatively low survival rates, Adam and Eve had according to one tradition 33 children, according to another 25 pairs of male-female twins, etc, etc- the point is that we're talking fertility rates more than high enough to substantially balance out the relatively lower survival rate,

Not true, but almost. Not only do the pairs of twins have even less genetic diversity, being twins born of “twins”, which would cut any possible genetic differences even lower than they already are, but 35 people is not enough to support a population. The lowest estimates require 50, and these ones are from different genetic trees.

coupled with mitigating factors as to the survival rate

Yes, the first humans were known for their long life expectancy. Oh, wait. Homo Habilis, Neanderthals, Australopithecus-none of these were known for long lives.

and a high mutation rate leading to genetic diversity

An unprovable assertion.

actually increasing over generations(and besides, the offspring of Seth and his sister were not married to each other; they married first cousins).

Yes, Seth who had children at 105. The only thing being first cousins can do is slow down the clock. If all the offspring marry with first cousins, then the recessive alleles are still getting spread around.

[Hakons]

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." - William of Ockham, English Franciscan friar, logician, and theologian; known for Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

That’s not Occam’s Razor, mate. The actual Razor goes like this: Plurality must never be posited without necessity, and although the more well known version is technically not his, although it goes like this: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. What does this mean? Make as few assumptions as necessary to come to one’s conclusion. While the quote is absolutely wonderful, it doesn’t actually prove anything. It is an unsupported assertion.

I was very, very obviously not quoting Occam's Razor. I was demonstrating that Ockham disagrees with you, and you're absurdly trying to use his logic (well, not using it correctly).

Let's use Occam's Razor against you now. Kowani is opposed to Christianity because of his upbringing, his secular society around him, and his own philosophy. Or, Kowani is opposed to Christianity because he is controlled by lizardmen. Using Occam's Razor, we can deduce that the prior theory is correct (one assumption) over the former theory (three assumptions). Therefor, using Kowani's enlightened logic and definitely appropriate use of Occam's Razor, it is clear Kowani is controlled by lizardmen.

In other words, Occam's Razor is for logical thought, not for proving or disproving enormous ideas, like God or evolution.

If that quote is so wrong to you, it's a bit funny you're using his logical principals, is it not?

[Kowani]

That’s not Occam’s Razor, mate. The actual Razor goes like this: Plurality must never be posited without necessity, and although the more well known version is technically not his, although it goes like this: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. What does this mean? Make as few assumptions as necessary to come to one’s conclusion. While the quote is absolutely wonderful, it doesn’t actually prove anything. It is an unsupported assertion.

I was very, very obviously not quoting Occam's Razor. I was demonstrating that Ockham disagrees with you, and you're absurdly trying to use his logic (well, not using it correctly).

Let's use Occam's Razor against you now. Kowani is opposed to Christianity because of his upbringing, his secular society around him, and his own philosophy. Or, Kowani is opposed to Christianity because he is controlled by lizardmen.

Is this where you pretend to know anything about me? Oh. Yep! It is. Particularly since all but one your “reasonable” assumptions were completely wrong.

Using Occam's Razor, we can deduce that the prior theory is correct (one assumption) over the former theory (three assumptions). Therefor, using Kowani's enlightened logic and definitely appropriate use of Occam's Razor, it is clear Kowani is controlled by lizardmen.

Sarcasm doesn’t work when you misread the context entirely, mate.

In other words, Occam's Razor is for logical thought, not for proving or disproving enormous ideas, like God or evolution.

If you had bothered reading beyond the words “Occam’s Razor”, you’d have realized that I was using it to say that assuming that God had gone into Adam’s genes and made a bunch of mutations to make Eve at a greater rate than what would naturally happen is a bad argument. Didn’t use it to prove anything. Didn’t use it to disprove anything. Just discarded the idea of divine intervention beyond that which is already stated in the Bible. But no, you go ahead, try to score some more points.

If that quote is so wrong to you, it's a bit funny you're using his logical principals, is it not?

I wasn’t aware that one had to agree with every single idea put out by a person in order to use some of their ideas. The Protestants on this thread probably don’t agree with Luther’s attacks on Jews. Einstein May have been wrong about the universal constant, but physics without his work would suck. I’m not sure why I get held to higher standards.