How can you call something a "real ape" before there was such a species as "apes"? The result of a mating between an "ape" and a "pre-ape" would not be an ape, but a hybrid - the "missing link" problem. I have not seen any scientific explanation for this 'leap of faith'. Do you have any good reason to believe that apes left a trail of pre-apes and pre-pre-apes? Where would the 'ape'-ness end and the "mold" begin?
Christianity is incestous?
- Thread starter airavata
- Start date
Okay, imagine humans evolved from apes. Imagine we had fossils of every individual that existed from the earliest apes to the current human beings. Imagine for the sake of simplicity, the creatures at the start are called apes, the creatures at the end called humans, let's keep it simple.
Now, there will be a cut off point, where these creatures are no longer called apes, but humans. Maybe there's a particular brain size we're looking for or something, doesn't really matter.
Now, there will reach a point, where the first human individual is born. However, this human can breed with all the apes as they are pretty much identical. Let's say there is just a one gene difference...
Now, say this human has 10 children. Using the law of averages here (as I don't know the correct mechanism), he'll have 5 human children and 5 ape children. Of course, they look & act identical (after all, the only difference is one gene), it's just the humans are ever so slightly better adapted to the environment (in this case more intelligent) than their siblings.
These human children have a better chance of survival to their peers, hence their genes will spread more. Give it a few thousand years, you got loads of humans. Give it a few million years, they're all humans.
That's a simplified view of how I see it. There are plenty of other factors involved of course.
After all, the very first human individual would be near identical to his non-human mother. Just like saying 50.000001% is more than half, %49.9999999 is less than half. It's just words, and very different words can be used to describe near identical things.
While I agree in principle to the mechanism you describe, I have one or two problems with it. You describe a seamless process, where one "species" can't be distinguished from its ancestor. I guess this follows from physical characteristics (i.e. it's easier to say humans evolved from a common ancestor as apes, than saying we evolved from a common ancestor of fruit flies - but it does imply that, in effect), but your description does not claim much more than adaptation. I agree that from "ape-kind" many different species of ape could have evolved, and that different species of humankind might also be possible, but why haven't modern apes made the "evolutionary jump"? Genetic dominance has not been observed, only deduced - there are no living examples of any species "outperforming" its immediate ancestor (note: not "immediate competition", but its own "pre"-species).
Has an ape has ever been anything else than an ape? You could say that is because we would not call anything else an "ape", but we have not found evidence of any non-ape that could have evolved into our common ancestor. We can't picture it because it has only been hypothesized.
Has an ape has ever been anything else than an ape? You could say that is because we would not call anything else an "ape", but we have not found evidence of any non-ape that could have evolved into our common ancestor. We can't picture it because it has only been hypothesized.
Once again Atheists attack with no alternative solution to offer.
What Atheists seem to fail in seeing is that god is the universal law and rule that governs all beings and things. Religion is the manual to men and universe operation, yet it's not the bible, Quran, or Torah. These books are not the religion or the manual of creation, but the guidelines.
If we can understand that religion is a manual and thus can only be understood in full by the maker and only be prescribed and applied by the maker, then we have to admit that the maker knows which section of the manual to apply to which time and thus it is inconsistent to apply different sections of the manual to different times to different people, if only the maker have the right to judge, not you, me, the pastor, ect.....That basically mean we are free to roam until account is given at the time of death. We are free to believe or disbelieve, honor or mock the guidelines, ect.
Noone really knows how humanity started, and the religious guidelines are just but a series of metaphors and general ideas. Adam could have been an ape or a single cell organism and Eve could have been created from the cell, and some evolution could have happened. Or perhaps Adam was full human like you and me with perfect Gene pool designed by god to account for the variances in genes that we see today. Overtime, as the perfect gene bred, it weakened and resulted in us and that's why the next step in the manual was to stop inbreeding.
As far as the bible incouragin incest, that's ludlicrous. The bible never encouraged incest or said plain right commit incest. The bible simply gave an account of the past without dictating that the past is to be a guideline for the future, in the contrary, the bible shows how men moved on from the past without carrying much load to the future. Jesus releaved humanity from many misconceptions and traditions that was weighing humanity down and we need to follow on Jesus footsteps in freeing ourselves from the stereotypes and the traditions and enforcing the intent of the message instead of the word of the message.
What Atheists seem to fail in seeing is that god is the universal law and rule that governs all beings and things. Religion is the manual to men and universe operation, yet it's not the bible, Quran, or Torah. These books are not the religion or the manual of creation, but the guidelines.
If we can understand that religion is a manual and thus can only be understood in full by the maker and only be prescribed and applied by the maker, then we have to admit that the maker knows which section of the manual to apply to which time and thus it is inconsistent to apply different sections of the manual to different times to different people, if only the maker have the right to judge, not you, me, the pastor, ect.....That basically mean we are free to roam until account is given at the time of death. We are free to believe or disbelieve, honor or mock the guidelines, ect.
Noone really knows how humanity started, and the religious guidelines are just but a series of metaphors and general ideas. Adam could have been an ape or a single cell organism and Eve could have been created from the cell, and some evolution could have happened. Or perhaps Adam was full human like you and me with perfect Gene pool designed by god to account for the variances in genes that we see today. Overtime, as the perfect gene bred, it weakened and resulted in us and that's why the next step in the manual was to stop inbreeding.
As far as the bible incouragin incest, that's ludlicrous. The bible never encouraged incest or said plain right commit incest. The bible simply gave an account of the past without dictating that the past is to be a guideline for the future, in the contrary, the bible shows how men moved on from the past without carrying much load to the future. Jesus releaved humanity from many misconceptions and traditions that was weighing humanity down and we need to follow on Jesus footsteps in freeing ourselves from the stereotypes and the traditions and enforcing the intent of the message instead of the word of the message.
Flores
If we can understand that religion is a manual and thus can only be understood in full by the maker
What good is a ‘manual’ if no one but the manufacturer can understand it?
The bible simply gave an account of the past without dictating that the past is to be a guideline for the future, in the contrary, the bible shows how men moved on from the past without carrying much load to the future.
Contradict much, again? You just stated that the Bible was a manual to be used as guidelines.
If we can understand that religion is a manual and thus can only be understood in full by the maker
What good is a ‘manual’ if no one but the manufacturer can understand it?
The bible simply gave an account of the past without dictating that the past is to be a guideline for the future, in the contrary, the bible shows how men moved on from the past without carrying much load to the future.
Contradict much, again? You just stated that the Bible was a manual to be used as guidelines.
And you're comfortable with placing your future in the hands of an unknown entity? As Q said; what good is a manual if noone can understand it? And only the maker has the right to judge? Are we living our lives or aren't we? Are we bound to some figment of our own imagination? Nonetheless, coming back to the topic, it just seems very obvious to me that the religion is riddled with contradictions - this being but one of them.
Please be a bit logical in your discussion. Are you suggesting that future is a material thing that you place in somebodies hand or feet. You have no control over your future as well with a Buhdists religion or any other religion, and all the believers say is that our current life is under our control, but upon our death, our souls gives account of it's performace to it's maker that we don't know much about.
As good as your dusty car manual to the car.....The car is hardwired with all the rules of operation, yet the manual is a mere account of how it was wired, it's vulnerable to the interpretation. We don't actually hook up the car to the manual paper to operate....do we? And a toyota can't judge a honda cause both of them have not read the manual nor understood it yet they both live their life and operate efficiently.
You are the one burdened with contradiction in your limited thoughts and circular reasoning, the maker of all laws is flawless and beyond your furthest imagination. If you seek to mock a bunch of people who chose to make mockery out of themselves buy exposing their lifes and set believes to you as an open book to mock, then go ahead and mock all you want, but you are not making a bit of change to the fact that your maker and creator, call it nature, god, universe, whatever you want, sees your action as only destructive to your own self and will one day show you where did you go wrong and what you deserve for your performance.
to jenyar,
why should i bother explaining again what i have already explained?
however, just to spell it out. cousins AREN'T DIRECT RELATIVES, there is GENETIC VARIANCE BETWEEN COUSINS because they DON'T share the SAME PARENTS. don't you know anything about genetics?
there ARE negative side effects to inbreeding. they are INESCAPABLE. if parents have sex with their DIRECT off spring and their off spring with EACH OTHER, SERIOUS REPERCUTIONS OCCUR because there is not enough genetic difference. BIRTH DEFECTS AND ABNOMALITIES OCCUR BY ABOUT THE THIRD GENERATION, some so bad that the offspring can't survive- plus the frequency of miscarriges increases. MATING WITH YOUR DIRECT GENETIC RELATIVES IS MATING KNOWING FULL WELL THE CHILD YOU ARE PRODUCING WILL EITHER DIE OR BE DEFORMED. do you have no problems with that??? i do. its a twisted form of murder.
technically and genetically it wasn't interbreeding, morally it wasn't interbreeding, and legally it wasn't interbreeding. you know nothing of genetics then. and i was saying god is supposed to be infinite in knowledge, yet is infinitely inconsistent. if he had a problem with inbreeding he always had a problem with inbreeding, because it isn't written down somewhere that at that time god didn't have that particular problem that is bs. he is inconsistent and has huge double standards. he can't be god under the churches definition.
we don't see the side effects because GOD DIDN'T CREATE US. if he did he sure wouldn't be the dumb fuck he was by creating just adam and eve.
what i said in my previous post was that apes WOULDN'T SEEK A MATE IN THEIR BROTHERS OR SISTERS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH GENETIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. animals (humans or apes or whatever) instinctivly find mates that are genetically different. thats why cousins can be attractive- there is enough genetic difference there for instinctive attractions to occur. i was implying apes may have breed with their cousins NOT WITH THEIR BROTHERS OR SISTERS, but that is done today. there are NO ramaifications from breed with your cousins (generally), it's just not accpeted as a social norm.
and lastly. at least go READ A BOOK on evolution. you obviously know jack all about it. you deny it because your religion tells you to. go LEARN something, THEN have an opinion about it. i only have strong opinions on things i ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT. you should try it sometimes, it's fulfilling. you also don't look like a retard when when arguing against something while having no idea what your actually talking about.
:m:
you seem to not know either anything about genetics and are deliberately ignoring my underlying points or you're just stupid.
why should i bother explaining again what i have already explained?
however, just to spell it out. cousins AREN'T DIRECT RELATIVES, there is GENETIC VARIANCE BETWEEN COUSINS because they DON'T share the SAME PARENTS. don't you know anything about genetics?
there ARE negative side effects to inbreeding. they are INESCAPABLE. if parents have sex with their DIRECT off spring and their off spring with EACH OTHER, SERIOUS REPERCUTIONS OCCUR because there is not enough genetic difference. BIRTH DEFECTS AND ABNOMALITIES OCCUR BY ABOUT THE THIRD GENERATION, some so bad that the offspring can't survive- plus the frequency of miscarriges increases. MATING WITH YOUR DIRECT GENETIC RELATIVES IS MATING KNOWING FULL WELL THE CHILD YOU ARE PRODUCING WILL EITHER DIE OR BE DEFORMED. do you have no problems with that??? i do. its a twisted form of murder.
technically and genetically it wasn't interbreeding, morally it wasn't interbreeding, and legally it wasn't interbreeding. you know nothing of genetics then. and i was saying god is supposed to be infinite in knowledge, yet is infinitely inconsistent. if he had a problem with inbreeding he always had a problem with inbreeding, because it isn't written down somewhere that at that time god didn't have that particular problem that is bs. he is inconsistent and has huge double standards. he can't be god under the churches definition.
we don't see the side effects because GOD DIDN'T CREATE US. if he did he sure wouldn't be the dumb fuck he was by creating just adam and eve.
what i said in my previous post was that apes WOULDN'T SEEK A MATE IN THEIR BROTHERS OR SISTERS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH GENETIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. animals (humans or apes or whatever) instinctivly find mates that are genetically different. thats why cousins can be attractive- there is enough genetic difference there for instinctive attractions to occur. i was implying apes may have breed with their cousins NOT WITH THEIR BROTHERS OR SISTERS, but that is done today. there are NO ramaifications from breed with your cousins (generally), it's just not accpeted as a social norm.
and lastly. at least go READ A BOOK on evolution. you obviously know jack all about it. you deny it because your religion tells you to. go LEARN something, THEN have an opinion about it. i only have strong opinions on things i ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT. you should try it sometimes, it's fulfilling. you also don't look like a retard when when arguing against something while having no idea what your actually talking about.
:m:
atheroy
Thanks for noticing my lack of expertise about evolution, but I have the same right to an opinion as you. I'm reading up about it every chance I get - but it is a HUGE field containing multiple concepts, scientific fields, definitions and theories. You simply assume I have to discount everything because of a Christian bias. That just isn't true; the truth can't threaten me. What I do find hard to believe, is that some people use evolutionary mechanisms (which certainly do exist) and then go on to say that they lead to an increase of genetic information by "learning" from an information poor environment. Like crabs trying to climb out of a bucket. I have seen no evidence to support that these mechanisms are powerful enough to do that without external support. If you could provide some, please do (although it is off topic and there are better places in the forum to continue such a discussion).
The books of the Bible didn't all originate at the same time. Nobody thinks so. The laws in the Bible were necessary to expose sin and were for the protection of the race. As I tried to show with my two-seatbelt law: a law is not necessary until it becomes necessary, and just as there is no "contradiction" between no laws against speeding 300 years ago, vs. laws against speeding today, there aren't between Genesis and Leviticus.
"The Bible" does not promote or condone incest. If you believe it does so explicitly, be sure to provide quotes. Genesis implies that it happened - but so does certain evolutionary hypotheses. History does not always reflect a present we take for granted. Incest is negative because of accumulated genetic "defects". Today, you start to get problems by about the third generation, but considering the age of humanity, and that first generations would have been from a "pure" gene-pool, negative mutations wouldn't occur until after a few generations. After the third generation, people would have had enough cousins to choose from.
"At least two things can be said in response to this reproach. First, if the human race was propagated from a single pair, as we believe the evidence indicates, such closely related marriages were unavoidable. The demand for some other way of getting the race started is an unfair expectation.
In the second place, the notion of incest must be probed more closely. At first the sin of incest was connected with sexual relationships between parents and children. Only afterward was the notion of incest extended to sibling relationships. By Moses’ time there were laws governing all forms of incest (Lev 18:7–17; 20:11–12, 14, 17, 20–21; Deut 22:30; 27:20, 22, 23). These laws clearly state that sexual relations or marriage is forbidden with a mother, father, stepmother, sister, brother, half brother, half sister, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, aunt, uncle or brother’s wife. The Bible, in the meantime, notes that Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12).
Therefore, the phenomenon is not unknown in Scripture. Prior to Moses’ time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Ex 6:20). In Egypt, the routine marriage of brothers and sisters among the Pharaohs all the way up to the second century made the Mosaic law all the more a radical break with their Egyptian past. [HSOBX, at Gen 4.17] (from Adam, Eve and incest?)
Thanks for noticing my lack of expertise about evolution, but I have the same right to an opinion as you. I'm reading up about it every chance I get - but it is a HUGE field containing multiple concepts, scientific fields, definitions and theories. You simply assume I have to discount everything because of a Christian bias. That just isn't true; the truth can't threaten me. What I do find hard to believe, is that some people use evolutionary mechanisms (which certainly do exist) and then go on to say that they lead to an increase of genetic information by "learning" from an information poor environment. Like crabs trying to climb out of a bucket. I have seen no evidence to support that these mechanisms are powerful enough to do that without external support. If you could provide some, please do (although it is off topic and there are better places in the forum to continue such a discussion).
The books of the Bible didn't all originate at the same time. Nobody thinks so. The laws in the Bible were necessary to expose sin and were for the protection of the race. As I tried to show with my two-seatbelt law: a law is not necessary until it becomes necessary, and just as there is no "contradiction" between no laws against speeding 300 years ago, vs. laws against speeding today, there aren't between Genesis and Leviticus.
"The Bible" does not promote or condone incest. If you believe it does so explicitly, be sure to provide quotes. Genesis implies that it happened - but so does certain evolutionary hypotheses. History does not always reflect a present we take for granted. Incest is negative because of accumulated genetic "defects". Today, you start to get problems by about the third generation, but considering the age of humanity, and that first generations would have been from a "pure" gene-pool, negative mutations wouldn't occur until after a few generations. After the third generation, people would have had enough cousins to choose from.
"At least two things can be said in response to this reproach. First, if the human race was propagated from a single pair, as we believe the evidence indicates, such closely related marriages were unavoidable. The demand for some other way of getting the race started is an unfair expectation.
In the second place, the notion of incest must be probed more closely. At first the sin of incest was connected with sexual relationships between parents and children. Only afterward was the notion of incest extended to sibling relationships. By Moses’ time there were laws governing all forms of incest (Lev 18:7–17; 20:11–12, 14, 17, 20–21; Deut 22:30; 27:20, 22, 23). These laws clearly state that sexual relations or marriage is forbidden with a mother, father, stepmother, sister, brother, half brother, half sister, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, aunt, uncle or brother’s wife. The Bible, in the meantime, notes that Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12).
Therefore, the phenomenon is not unknown in Scripture. Prior to Moses’ time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Ex 6:20). In Egypt, the routine marriage of brothers and sisters among the Pharaohs all the way up to the second century made the Mosaic law all the more a radical break with their Egyptian past. [HSOBX, at Gen 4.17] (from Adam, Eve and incest?)
Last edited:
I made a statement with regards to the 'maker'. I was questioning the validity of the 'makers' existence. You, in your crusadorial mindset obviously construe this as blatant blasphemy. I question and do not accept blindly, and I'm the one who's cursed with a limited mindset? Circular reasoning? What would seem circular is the desperate reasoning of theists like you who invent legends and fantasies to support claims of the 'makers' existence. Pity for you Flores, ''the maker is flawless and beyond my furthest imagination''? Pathetic that like a grovelling worm so much of respect is given to something non existant. Pitiful that so much of time and effort is wasted on an unsubstantiated vehicle of bondage. As hard as it might be for one so right about everything, please leave me to my own damnation Flores.
No one stopping you from being an idiot or walking the footsteps of damnation as you sarcastically put it, unless you have a reality separation acute phsycosis syndrom and can't distinguish between vulnerable typed words on your screen and a physical chain and whip personally attacking you.
And yes, as long as you make a fool of yourself and mock a concept that I believe in out of ignorance, you'll find yourself hit by the 2 x 4 solid timber rod free of any circular reasoning.......and of course you'll say as usual, "YES MAM, MAY I HAVE SOME MORE".
Croper said "Now, there will reach a point, where the first human individual is born. However, this human can breed with all the apes as they are pretty much identical. Let's say there is just a one gene difference..."
Just a question, Today, what would happen if a human tried to mate with a monkey or gorilla. Aren't they supposed to be like cousins in evolution? If a human and a monkey procreated, what would be created? Would it work.. I would say it wouldn't but I don't know of any studies.
Just a question, Today, what would happen if a human tried to mate with a monkey or gorilla. Aren't they supposed to be like cousins in evolution? If a human and a monkey procreated, what would be created? Would it work.. I would say it wouldn't but I don't know of any studies.
Flores, from what the naturalists propose, we are all part of an evolutionary nature. I guess it only appears that humans have a moral code. I guess the thing is, when the humans were evolving and screwing apes, at what point did the realize how immoral it was. Why is it not accepted as moral today, yet from what Croper was saying, it was acceptable then. (P.S. If you remember, I do not support the evolution theory, but am making an observation as if it were correct) I still do not think that a human and a monkey would be able to procreate and have a baby and if so, I would love to see what it would look like.
Flores
As good as your dusty car manual to the car.....The car is hardwired with all the rules of operation, yet the manual is a mere account of how it was wired, it's vulnerable to the interpretation.
Complete nonsense. Car manuals are not ‘vulnerable to the interpretation’ – they are exacting in their context. A good ‘shop’ manual will tell you how to take a car apart and put it back together piece-by-piece, service the vehicle for optimum performance and endurance, caution the owner as to specifics that may cause damage or alter the performance of the vehicle. The manual will show you how to extend the life of the vehicle so as to last virtually forever.
We don't actually hook up the car to the manual paper to operate....do we?
What the heck is this supposed to mean? Do we hook up ourselves to a paper book (Bible) in order to operate? This is just silly.
And a toyota can't judge a honda cause both of them have not read the manual nor understood it yet they both live their life and operate efficiently.
Sorry, but my ‘gibberish-english’ translator can’t seem to figure out what your talking about here. But if this relates to the Bible, then yes, we can all live our lives and operate efficiently without it. Since the Bible (or any such scripture) is riddled with contradictions, fairy tale events and is open to a variety of interpretations, how is anyone to make any sense of it and use it as a guideline?
the maker of all laws is flawless and beyond your furthest imagination
He doesn’t appear to be beyond your imagination.
the fact that your maker and creator, call it nature, god, universe, whatever you want
You can’t lump these categories together. Nature and the universe have nothing to do with gods. Nature and the universe are in the physical realm therefore they do exist. Gods, on the other hand, have not been shown to exist and are most likely formed in the imaginations of men. There is a big difference in terminologies here that one should not convolute.
As good as your dusty car manual to the car.....The car is hardwired with all the rules of operation, yet the manual is a mere account of how it was wired, it's vulnerable to the interpretation.
Complete nonsense. Car manuals are not ‘vulnerable to the interpretation’ – they are exacting in their context. A good ‘shop’ manual will tell you how to take a car apart and put it back together piece-by-piece, service the vehicle for optimum performance and endurance, caution the owner as to specifics that may cause damage or alter the performance of the vehicle. The manual will show you how to extend the life of the vehicle so as to last virtually forever.
We don't actually hook up the car to the manual paper to operate....do we?
What the heck is this supposed to mean? Do we hook up ourselves to a paper book (Bible) in order to operate? This is just silly.
And a toyota can't judge a honda cause both of them have not read the manual nor understood it yet they both live their life and operate efficiently.
Sorry, but my ‘gibberish-english’ translator can’t seem to figure out what your talking about here. But if this relates to the Bible, then yes, we can all live our lives and operate efficiently without it. Since the Bible (or any such scripture) is riddled with contradictions, fairy tale events and is open to a variety of interpretations, how is anyone to make any sense of it and use it as a guideline?
the maker of all laws is flawless and beyond your furthest imagination
He doesn’t appear to be beyond your imagination.
the fact that your maker and creator, call it nature, god, universe, whatever you want
You can’t lump these categories together. Nature and the universe have nothing to do with gods. Nature and the universe are in the physical realm therefore they do exist. Gods, on the other hand, have not been shown to exist and are most likely formed in the imaginations of men. There is a big difference in terminologies here that one should not convolute.
And may I ask if a two year old, or a home maker are qualified to put the vehicle together and read the complicated manual. You are the one with the nonesense here. Interpretation and understanding is the key , and it's obvious that we are all different in our abilities to understand.
No it's not.....and yes we are hooking ourselves to the paper to operate. Just go and ask the late Khomeiny how he used to come up with his Fatwa.....He literally took out of context statements to use them as rules.
Then why the heck are you responding.....Do you also find yourself uncontrolobly responding to the dog barks and the donkeys in the street. Do you frequently meow to the cats and speak in tounges.... My stupid friend, I can see miles through your stupid brain....What a shame that god created us unequally.
perhaps you haven't gotten it through your fat head that I've been screaming that god to me is the universal law that I don't know much about.....You on the other hand is comfortable mocking the unknown...Making faces at shadows, .Be carefull, it might just boo you back one of those days and scare the pants off you.
GODS, I really pity you...Why don't you add a pair of blue eyes and a grey beird to them while you are at it.
Too bad, the universe can't see you back and so you don't exist to it.
So who is qualified to interpret the word of god? There are so many uncertainties regarding god, and no one can make any statement in connection with your 'maker' with absolute certainty. Why don't you tell us about someone who fully understands god and all his devices? No one does. Instead of rubbishing Q's point, why don't you think about it? It might free you from slavery.
Yes, Flores. You hit the nail bang on the head. Pity for us that evolution created us unequally. Is this statement meant to be funny or sarcastic? I thought the power of your 'maker' would imbue it with extra causticity . Instead of filling up the page with inconsequential babble such as this why don't you answer his question directly?
I'll hold your hand, Q
