Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
Yeah I can see where that might raise a snigger or two. But regarding Cain and his sister. How do you reconcile that with Leviticus 18 and its commands against incest?
early life the genes were more pure as proven by genetic testing done recently following lines of people back to what the researcher felt were trhe direct descendants of our earliest ancestors showing purer and purer lines- God gave the cammand against marrying close relatives because of the defects it could cause in offspring- once the line of genes started degrading somewhere alomg the line, then it was no longer feasible to marry close relatives-
God's recomendation against incest was out of love and not out of some strict rule against marrying close relatives- He didn't want the genes degrading further- a look at breedings results in animals will show you clearly that the more animals interbreed, the further degraded their geenes become and them ore problems arise.
People view the incest rule as though it were a sin avoidance rule, but it was really a gene degradation avoidance suggestion- Many of God's 'rules' were for the best for His people, not out of some ogre attempt to prevent people from enjoying thmeselves- like the rules against eating certain thigs like pork etc- because they contained trichanosis and often weren't cooked properly, rules against contaminations like mold etc- Leviticus has much to say abvout these 'rules' on mold and mildews- and were strictly adhered to- But today, we have very effective methods of avoiding serious problems created by such things.
RW quoted Harun Yaha quoting Pilbeam.
This conversation should really be focussing on what Pilbeam said, and why he might have said it- NOT on anythign else- as that would be nothing but a moot diversionary tactic to avoid discussing Pilbeam's opinion on the matter of evolution and or the lack of support for the belief of evolution
Absolutely. Therefore, we have to look as his text. Running Wolf gave an interesting example in his other post - although, he lacked naming his source, again.
P.S.: You can ping multiple recipients, so just add my name - separated by a semi-colon - when you discuss my posts.
I'm willing to accept your statement that you were interested in the quote from Pilbeam rather than the words of Harun Yaha.
However, that goes to my earlier note that your desire in mentioning Pilbeam's words is as a validation of your anti-evolution bias.
There are very few reasons to quote an authority in a debate and the most common is to create an link between the ideas of the quoted authority and the person presenting the quote. This only becomes a problem when the quote is presented without context such that it appears to agree with the quoter but if taken in context it is obvious that it does not.
If you presented Pilbeam's quote for some other reason I'd be interesting in hearing it.
"I said for the record I am not allied with any muslim fantacics. And since we are in a WOT against islamic based terrorism, I wish 'your side' would stop making that sort of inference about me as a person."
And I wish that your side would stop characterizing us as morally bankrupt, Nazi, communist, evil atheists bent on destroying the fabric of society. I suspect that isn't likely to happen.
The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.
Speaks volumes about the Darwinists."
Do you frequently over generalize?
Do you have any evidence of Darwinists physically attacking creationist museums, or creationists themselves?
Does a few violent Darwinists mean that all Darwinists are violent? Should we consider all Christians violent because one killed an abortion doctor?
[Do you have any evidence of Darwinists physically attacking creationist museums, or creationists themselves?]
Yes, evolving bacteria have been attacking both museums and creationists for a very long time now- heck I gots this rash as we speak.
[Should we consider all Christians violent because one killed an abortion doctor?]
You'd be surprised just how many people do just that- Christians are villified for the acts of Ungodly people abusing the name of the early Catholic Church some 2000 or so years ago during the crusades (not sure when it happened- never really interested me as they were not TRUE CHristians)
Not saying you do- just pointing it out- not even saying we're all vilifying all darwinists because of soem violent ones- just pointing out how afraid some darwinists must be of the opening of a creation museum.
Hahahaha! OK, the Catholic Church has thrown out Creationism! Oh, man. The Pope is an atheist. Guess we can throw out the old "is the Pope Catholic?" question now. I wonder if bears still sh** in the woods? You guys crack me up.
zylphed, you are a veritible font of information. This is fascinating. Thanks for the detailed explanations. I have a strong background in biology (as a registered Med Tech (MT-ASCP), and RN-BSN), but it's been many years since the classroom; I have to read some of your posts with my lips moving. :)
yeah cept much of what was said was based on conjecture and hope and faith. Here, bruch up on biology a bit: http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20the%20origin_of_plant.htm
while you're catching up on biology, I'll "Buch' (Brush) up on my spelling lol
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom, with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.
Also, no Darwinist is 'afraid' of the opening of a Creationist museum. Most of us are quietly amused while at most we are somewhat sad that foolish religious fundamentalism has grown so prevalent in this country.
that's ok- we're somewhat sad that a big lie has been foisted on this world-
Yep- I know that the crusades were and it does not matter that they said they were acting in the name of God- they were NOT- they were doing the work of Satan- As I stated- the people who did this had strayed from God severely and had counted power and influence as more important than listening to God- They were unsaved and exploited God's name a sin they will burn in hell for.
And sorry- but YES some darwinists are indeed afraid the museum is opening- irrational folks afraid of a counter argument and who will go to great lengths- criminal if necessary to try to stifle that message-
I can't tell whether you're joking or a moron.
EXCELLENT site, CottShop! Y'know, biology has really moved along, since the 1980's, but luckily some basics remain the same. I'm really fascinated at the depth of knowledge many of our fellow FReepers have at their fingertips. BTW, this is the first site I've been shown, though, that talks specifically about plant life. Very cool.
JTN, if you and CentralScrutinizer want to argue that the Catholic Church has thrown out the doctrine that the Earth, and all of it's creatures were created by God, then I'm not sure if you're a moron, or simply brainwashed. Cryin' out loud, why don't you argue that the sun rises in the west? There are certain a priori truths in this world, and among them is the fact that the Pope, and all faithful Catholics, believe that God created all people, animals, plants, and everything else. What are you trying to prove here; that Catholics don't believe in God? And you have the chutzpah to call ME a crank?
Nope 49'th I just apply the test that God told us to apply- He said test the spirits and see if they be of God or not. It's pretty simple testing the spirits to see if they be of God or not- evil (which you will admit the murders of people 'in the name of religion' was indeed evil) is NOT of God- test complete. Verdict, guilty as charged. It doesn't take a theologin to know evil when you come up against it. It also doesn't take special insight to see the actions and consequent evil results of people's blackness of hearts.
Being without sin? Nope- not at all- I'm proficient at sinning actually- however the difference is that I don't foist a falseness upon people in the name of God as the early church did during the crusades. That was evil, plain and simple, and as such, they were not of God but rather going about the business of the evil one. Did every parish contribute or believe as they did? Nope, certainly not- Some stayed true to God's word and didn't sell their souls for power or influence , and should NOT be condemned because of the actions of those who betrayed people by claiming to be God's representatives when they clearly were not.
thanks Jim- yeah, that site delves quite deep into the mechanics of biology, and the basis has remained steady over the years.
See 2nd Peter 3:3
Why?
Is Peter an expert on radiocarbon dating?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.