Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIBiologically that almost makes sense, if there are no deleterious alleles then it wouldn't be a problem, but cell division is not a perfect process and copying errors would creep in before the population was big enough for it not to be a problem. Having said that the ancient Egyptian Dynasties managed to last up to ten generations despite marrying their sisters almost every generation. It's fun to look at the family tree of the Ptolemaic dynasty - it's more of a family Ptotem pole!
Radio's "Bible Answer Man" Hank Hanegraaf says it about like this: Adam and Eve had perfect DNA. After the Fall, DNA remained pretty darned good for generations, and near-perfect DNA allows inbreeding of siblings without producing crummy offspring. DNA got worse from generation to generation, such that at some point the Lord outlawed incest.
Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom#Simplified_Ptolemaic_family_tree
2 edits
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIMy only issue with that explanation is that God called referred to sibling incest (along with other types of close relations) as "detestable". It would be one thing if God simply said incest can't continue for practical reasons; but the word "detestable" implies a deep rooted moral opposition to it.
Radio's "Bible Answer Man" Hank Hanegraaf says it about like this: Adam and Eve had perfect DNA. After the Fall, DNA remained pretty darned good for generations, and near-perfect DNA allows inbreeding of siblings without producing crummy offspring. DNA got worse from generation to generation, such that at some point the Lord outlawed incest.
Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger. 🙂
So Hanagraaf's expansion just seems like cleverly contrived BS., rather than something he really believes.
Originally posted by vivifyIf incest was detestable to God, the question that needs to be answered is when did it become detestable to God and why? Also if it was detestable from the beginning was procreation supposed to be carried out only by Adam and Eve and why did God wait so long to tell somebody? If it became detestable later, then what happened that made it detestable?
My only issue with that explanation is that God called referred to sibling incest (along with other types of close relations) as "detestable". It would be one thing if God simply said incest can't continue for practical reasons; but the word "detestable" implies a deep rooted moral opposition to it.
So Hanagraaf's expansion just seems like cleverly contrived BS., rather than something he really believes.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
5 edits
Originally posted by vivify"...the word "detestable" implies a deep rooted moral opposition to it."
My only issue with that explanation is that God called referred to sibling incest (along with other types of close relations) as "detestable". It would be one thing if God simply said incest can't continue for practical reasons; but the word "detestable" implies a deep rooted moral opposition to it.
So Hanagraaf's expansion just seems like cleverly contrived BS., rather than something he really believes.
Incest became seen as immoral to the degree that it damaged the tribe and to the degree it was realized that it damaged the tribe. This would happen in species capable of developing moral systems, since moral systems exist in part to enhance tribal integrity. In all species, unconscious mechanisms for limiting such damage could come about, by weeding out defective offspring that would otherwise be prone to incest, in favor of offspring that were prone to find less closely related mates.
Edit: This could fit into a creationist model as the way that God did it.
Originally posted by JS357But this argument wouldn't apply to an allegedly all-knowing god, would it?
"...the word "detestable" implies a deep rooted moral opposition to it."
Incest became seen as immoral to the degree that it damaged the tribe and to the degree it was realized that it damaged the tribe. This would happen in species capable of developing moral systems, since moral systems exist in part to enhance tribal integrity. In all speci ...[text shortened]... sely related mates.
Edit: This could fit into a creationist model as the way that God did it.
Q: Psalm 114 speaks of hills and mountains dancing and skipping like lambs. Are creation geologists working on a theory to explain how a mountain can dance? Or have they evolved the ability to recognize poetry when they see it?
A: Obviously this Psalm is not intended literally, nor are verses such as Luke 3:11, where we are instructed to give our stuff away.
Q: Is the formation of Eve from Adam's rib intended to be read literally?
A: Yes, obviously.
Originally posted by vivifyA. Genesis 3:16-17 "16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain [a]in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it; cursed is the ground because of you; In [b]toil you will eat of it All the days of your life." "Footnotes: a.Genesis 3:16 Lit and your pregnancy, conception; b.Genesis 3:17 Or sorrow." (NASB) Because of disobedience to one command.
Q: If God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, why did he make childbirth so difficult and painful, that many women and children have died from labor complications?
A: ........