Theory about Humans

[Testbug]

Originally Posted by Cobain

Earlier the thread starter stated that IQ or such should drop over continous inbreeding based upon the Bibles determination of the beginning of life and how we family treed off of that. Albert Einstein was a quick example that obviously thousands of years later we still have supra-geniuses within the fold, and that genetics or inbreeding isn't affecting as much as people think.

I want to clarify this again. Thread was about peoples future. Are our childrens going to be dumper than we? There are exceptions in our history like Einstein and other peoples. But my theory is based only to Bible. Adam and Eve was first peoples in the world and yes Bible doesn't tell did God created other peoples but if He didn't we all are relatives.

But if God really created Adam and Eve to perfect peoples we shouldn't have any diseases but we have so that God couldn't make perfect peoples. And scienticts are creating new from the old ones.

I don't know Bible well because I have never been religion classes so I haven't heard about Abel and Cain. Noah have arc that I have heard but there was only one man and one woman and lot of animals plus Noah himself.
But that doesn't change my theory. We are still relatives because we wouldn't be alive IF that man and women wouldn't have sex.

So be nice my (very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very ) distants relatives and stick to the topic. Please...

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Cobain

Earlier the thread starter stated that IQ or such should drop over continous inbreeding based upon the Bibles determination of the beginning of life and how we family treed off of that. Albert Einstein was a quick example that obviously thousands of years later we still have supra-geniuses within the fold, and that genetics or inbreeding isn't affecting as much as people think.

The threat starter came up with that idea because it's well-known that inbreeding has a higher chance of producing offspring with genetic defects. (Just because I'm not going to spend time looking for a study that suits your qualifications doesn't mean it's not true, just look through Wikipedia, or read what I posted last, or look into it yourself.) That's also under the assumption that Adam and Eve were not perfect beings and that the inbreeding of their children would have produced generation upon generation of offspring with more and more likelyhood of genetic defect -- after hundreds and hundreds of generations, genetic defects would be multiplied and "good" traits would either be multiplied as well or severely decreased. The idea would make sense, if Adam and Eve weren't perfect humans -- each generation would have less and less of some genes, possibly including the genes for higher intelligence -- and after six thousand years, genetic defects would be multiplied and almost commonplace. But it doesn't work, because Adam and Eve were created as perfect, and they had no harmful genes to pass on.

Yet my question or asking for contrast is still not resolved, compare those who have inbred vs. those deep within the family tree of life and see if the defects are even or not.

Yes, you could "beat the percentages" in any chance, sure. But the fact remains that the percentages you would have to beat are much higher for physical and mental defects in offspring when inbreeding occurs. Any quick search will find buku pages with evidence and studies of inbreeding.

Originally Posted by testbug

I want to clarify this again. Thread was about peoples future. Are our childrens going to be dumper than we?

I sure as hell hope not. I thought we were screwed now, can't imagine a populace too much stupider.

But if God really created Adam and Eve to perfect peoples we shouldn't have any diseases but we have so that God couldn't make perfect peoples.

Disease and death were part of the Curse -- they weren't in the Garden of Eden. And like I explained earlier, genetic defects took a long time to mutate into what they are now.

I don't know Bible well because I have never been religion classes so I haven't heard about Abel and Cain. Noah have arc that I have heard but there was only one man and one woman and lot of animals plus Noah himself.

You haven't heard of Cain and Abel? Alright, quick lesson. Cain and Abel, brothers, first sons of Adam and Eve. Cain worked the land (farmer), Abel with animals (shepherd). Both gave a portion of what they raised to God. One time, God accepted Abel's, but rejected Cain's, because it wasn't the best of Cain's stuff. Cain got pissed, confronted Abel, killed him. God said "Hey Cain, where's your bro?" Cain said "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Meaning, "It ain't my job to look after him, how should I know?") God said "Cain, you done a bad, bad thing." God cursed Cain. As for Noah, he built the Ark, but took along his wife and three sons and their wives.

[Sevion]

well from the first post the theory that we will get stupider and stupider is impossible because cave men were a hell of a lot dumber then we are but if your theory is right then they would have been really smart also i dont beleave they whole adam and eve thing because we have races like chiniese american hispanic blah blah blah so yes adam and eve could have been real but not the only two people to get busy and have the first children (only children) and then so on oh and incest is soooo wrong

[Euclissence]

Originally Posted by Sevion

well from the first post the theory that we will get stupider and stupider is impossible because cave men were a hell of a lot dumber then we are but if your theory is right then they would have been really smart also i dont beleave they whole adam and eve thing because we have races like chiniese american hispanic blah blah blah so yes adam and eve could have been real but not the only two people to get busy and have the first children (only children) and then so on oh and incest is soooo wrong

Cavemen could be not human at all, and us humans descending from Adam and Even while they form another branach altogether.

Also, the reason why we have races was because when humans tried to build a tower to reach the Heavens, God cursed the humans to be segregated into races...

[Sevion]

oh well are completely sure about any of what the bible said it said the world would end multiple times but it never has also if everything in the bible was true then that would mean our emotions were sin i mean you cant envy what the **** is with that...

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Sevion

oh well are completely sure about any of what the bible said it said the world would end multiple times but it never has also if everything in the bible was true then that would mean our emotions were sin i mean you cant envy what the **** is with that...

Tell me -- what good has come from envy? What good has come from gluttony, greed, wrath, lust? Yes, these feelings are "natural". No, they should not be encouraged, they should be shunned. And where are you getting that the would would have "ended multiple times" if the Bible were true? From what I've read, the world only "ends" once in the Bible, and just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

[Euclissence]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Tell me -- what good has come from envy? What good has come from gluttony, greed, wrath, lust? Yes, these feelings are "natural". No, they should not be encouraged, they should be shunned. And where are you getting that the would would have "ended multiple times" if the Bible were true? From what I've read, the world only "ends" once in the Bible, and just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

I think this person is just naturally anti-christian.

I myself, while anthiest/agnoist, keep an open mind. I read the bible sometimes just for fun =P

[Secret Azn Man]

This "theory" is flawed in that you are taking a literal interpretation of the Bible (Adam & Eve as first two human beings) and applying modern genetics and evolution to it.

You're taking two incompatable views with totally different rulesets and try to explain one another with the other's rules.

I'm not saying the Bible and genetic/evolution are mutually excusive. But if you are taking the literal interpretations of the bible, it just won't mesh well with modern science.

If you interpret Adam & Eve as two unrelated beings or two groups, or feel that Adam and Eve are one of the first human ion Earth but selected by God to reside in Eden, then things might work. But that's a pretty liberal interpretation.

I do admit that Sasquatch's explaination of Adam & Eve being perfect clones with no genetic defects sounds reasonable. Except, God made a full grown woman out of Adam, entirely skipping gestation, (who/what was the incubator?) birth, and child growth. That's more hocus pocus than science can explain.

You can't attempt to apply science to one literal interpretation of Genesis without having to apply scientific explanation to other parts of the story. How can you scientifically explain Adam coming into existance? He had no earthly mother. No ancestor to evolve from. He was willed into existance by God from what I can guess. Science has no place in the literal interpretation of the Bible and vice-versa. So, why attempt to mash the two together?

[Euclissence]

A strange random, top-of-head thought:

Adam and Eve, perhaps, were not the first 'humans' but the first organisms..simple, multi-celled perfect life forms...Eve split/mutated/parted from Adam during cellular splitting, and formed another life form, slowl mutating to another perfect form.

The two, over long years, began to be able to crossbreed, creating ancient humans.

O_O

[hellbred]

Originally Posted by Euclissence

A strange random, top-of-head thought:

Adam and Eve, perhaps, were not the first 'humans' but the first organisms..simple, multi-celled perfect life forms...Eve split/mutated/parted from Adam during cellular splitting, and formed another life form, slowl mutating to another perfect form.

The two, over long years, began to be able to crossbreed, creating ancient humans.

O_O

I would imagine if you believe in Adam & Eve, believing they were the first human beings comes hand in hand.

[Secret Azn Man]

Not necessarily. For example, many Christian scientist believe in Genesis version of creation. That is God created Earth in 7 days but interpret the story symbolically. Seven days wasn't literally seven 24 hour period of Earth revolving around the Sun, but perhaps seven eras of a set amount of time much longer than 24 hours. Maybe a billion years per "day." And some also interpret Adam & Eve as a symbological representative of the human origin. Could be first group of Homo Sapiens, first founders of civilization, or as Euclissense puts it, perhaps the first lifeform on Earth.

Many mythologies are simply best viewed symbolically as things were harder to explain literally or more concretely in the ancient past. For examp[le, the Norse creation myth talks of Ginungagapp, a vast emptiness between the realm of fire and ice before the world as we know it existed. Literally, it sounds silly that such a thing existed. But if you took some liberty in interpreting it more loosely, you could see Ginungagapp as space. The vast emptiness between fire (stars) and ice (the cold frigid vacuum of space). Or if you take into account the current scientific theory of Earth's creation, Earth's early period was when it was simply a giant ball of molten metal with no atmosphere between it and the frigid space. The Norse creation myth said that giant, Ymir formed from the steam of the fire and ice interacting in Ginungagapp. We can interpret these steam as the early forming of Earth's atmosphere which made life possible on Earth. The myth also sai Odin then created the world as we know it from Ymir's various parts. Again, we can interpret that the Earth's geography was formed and reformed from recycling materials of molten rocks erupting and forming land, the ocean formed from the rain falling from the atmosphere, plants and animals and humans began from Earth's material and evolved from there. Afterall, Odin made the first man an woman from two logs.

It fascinates me that many creation myths describes our world was creatd from something else, usually a giant, or from a diety. This is very compatible with what modern science dictates that our planet was made from recycled "space stuff" or "star dusts", elements from other matters. Whereas the Christian myth seemed to imply that God simply willed the world into existence like the Big Bang. I mean who's to deny that when God said, "Let there be light." that it was simply a symbolical abstract description of the Big Bang?

Why must myths be so abstract? Again, the world was not as understood. Things had to be simplified. I mean if the Bible really was the result of divine inspiration, how could God explain such omnipotent seemingly infinite concepts of the origin of the universe to a mere puny human writers of the Bible so that their minds can comprehend it? When Allah contacted Mohammed, didn't Mohammed went insane, spouting gibberish for a bit? You ever try to fathom the vastness of the universe? Mind-blowing. Things had to be dumbed downed and spoonfed. And so that it can fit into one neat portable book of course.

That's why I feel if we want the truth out of these myths, we gotta look at them not at face value but deeper. I believe the many ancient mythologies of the world holds some secret truths to our origin and meanings. We just gotta find it and be prepared for the possibility that the truth isn't always what we expect or want. Adam & Eve could very well be a single-celled organism that split. and not humans after all. Maybe God did create humans but not by willing us into existance, but through evolution. Maybe Go isn't god at all but an advanced lifeform from a different brane and we were its science project.

Who knows?

[hellbred]

Yeah I forgot there were such people as Christian Scientists. Well if one Earth day is calculated by the amount of time it takes for the Earth to make one full rotation, wouldn't that time frame be similar, if not the same than it was at the time of creation. So 7 days, could be literal?

[Secret Azn Man]

Just because they used the term, "day" doesn't mean they mean "day" as in 24 hours. Besides, how could such concept defined by one complete revolution of Earth on its axis exist exist when God hadn't created Earth yet? "Day" is a human concept. "Day" is familar to us, easier to fathom than an eon or epoch that God is used to. If he's bound by time, that is. Why would God define himself and his actions in human terms?

Think of it this way: How can an infinite being explain the infinite to a finite being? Or, how can a frog describe life on land to her tadpoles in a way that they can relate and understand?

Let me try again. If you, a three dimensional being encountered a two dimensional being, how would you describe a sphere to it so that it can understand? The best you can do is say, "it's like a circle." because a 2-D being knows what a circle is. In fact, if you showed him a sphere, all he'll see is a flat circle like its shadow. But you and I know that a sphere is not really a circle. It's more than that. It's best described in 2-D term as an infinite amount of circles of various sizes in all directions to form a shape. But the 2-D being will never get what a sphere is so its best for us just to tell him it's like a circle.

Same for God and "day" We understand the concept of time measurement known as "day." But to God, the time or whatever it took for him to create rthe world was much more complicated than that. But since we'll never get it, he figured its best to use the simple term of "day."