Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Of course the human race died out for an inadequate gene pool of only two people.

Do you know why two people are considered to be inadequate now? Obviously not.

So your problem with breeding is that you have been inbreeding the pups of the original pair for generations without out the addition of new bloodlines. I think I have found your problem.

That’s not a problem if the original pair had perfect genomes free of mutations.

It is not permitted to make assumptions for the sole purpose of salvaging a story.

If this were an actual logical contradiction a person would not be able to even postulate an assumption that reconciled it, so by providing assumptions that do just that GC has disproven your claim that this is indeed a contradiction.

It is going to be amusing to see you produce the chapter and verse where it says exactly that. After you fumble with that one explain why not knowing good and evil is not a brain defect that you think a fruit can cure.

That’s very basic Christian doctrine: death, decay, and disease did not exist until after the fall, so therefore neither did genetic mutations. Without any genetic mutations there’d be zero chance of genetic defects. You’ve actually created a larger problem for yourself because even Darwinists believe the entire Human species is the result of incest (all Humans descend from one women), and so now how do you reconcile this problem?

So you are firmly against evolution with your young earth theories and all of the fossils be damned.

No, worldwide fossils are some of the best evidence we have to support the flood, so we are quite thankful that they exist.

So your position is that they stories are recountings of events which really happened. How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously?

What’s with the feint surprise? Why would you be surprised when you find out Christians believe what Christians believe? I would think you’d know a bit more about your opponent’s position before you tried debating them.

You mean satellite images have found Eden?

Nope, it was destroyed in Genesis 6.

The story says they went to Nod not to a land he named Nod. If it had a name people were already there to have named it.

Really? So there are people living on Neptune right now because it has a name? How about the star Polaris? I’d think it’d be too hot for people to be living there, but you are the expert!

One story says created at the same time. The other says at different times. She was either there or not there. If the former she was there with Adam. In that latter not there. Trust me. A guy would notice a hot chick.

It never says they were created at the same time, you’re making that up.

Knowing the two stories are about mythical people and events is hardly a red herring.

You’re right, it’s a straw-man argument; the stories are not about mythical people at all.

The Cane and Abel myth is separate from any additional mythological details added later in a different story.

It’s not a myth and details given later are certainly relevant.

Therefore all children were conceived after expulsion.

I thought that was obvious.

Some of them must have traveled off to a place they named Nod before the C&A myth supposedly occurs.

Not at all; it never says that in the text, nor does it even imply it.

In Nod there were nothing but degenerate inbred people from the same parents. So maybe the author didn't know anything about breeding animals which is always a possibility. However this was not described as a contradiction but rather a remark in passing.

I think it’s quite obvious that you do not know anything about genetics.

It always happens if one constantly inbreeds the offspring of the same to parents. It will take a few generations but they will all eventually die out.

Not if there are no mutations present silly boy. I find it quite amusing that you keep harping on this issue and yet you believe that all life on Earth is the result of an incestuous relationship, talk about contradicting your own position.

Lands do not get names until people go there and name them.

Neptune? Polaris?

Not only this, but the Greeks actually named Antarctica (Anti-Arkitos) nearly 2,000 years before it was first visited, you’re so full of beans.

He is first generation. Who else is the story suggesting might have been there to marry?

The story never suggests anyone else is there to marry, obviously he took his wife with him.

I could explain it to you but you can as easily google it. Look for minimum sizes of breeding populations.

Those apply today because of the known prevalence of genetic mutations, they would not have applied back then when there were no genetic mutations; you’re really not very good at this Mouse.

Perhaps you could suggest some URLs which support your apparent belief that a breeding population of two will lead to a stable population instead of dying out.

I do not need to, it’s basic logic. If you understood the reason why small breeding populations die out (the presence of multiple mutations on the same recessive alleles) you’d know that a breeding population devoid of nearly all genetic mutations (we know they would not have had nearly any mutations because we can empirically measure the rate at which mutations occur per generation and Cain was part of only the second generation) would not suffer from any birth defects. In fact, this just adds support to the Biblical account because incest was not considered to be harmful until the time of Moses when it was prohibited.

What gave birth to the first Human and what did the first Human mate with?

The evidence that given the right circumstances and the right chemicals, the building blocks of life can form from nonliving matter. That is all that is needed to dispute your claim that nonlife can in fact, produce nonlife.

Well I hope you meant “non-life can produce life”, perhaps the simple notion of that occurring is so absurd that your fingers didn’t even want to type it correctly. Nice little bait and switch there though; producing the building blocks of life in a lab does not give any support to the claim that those building blocks can randomly assembled and produce life. Once you demonstrated that they can self-assemble and produce life you must then prove that they in fact did. Couple this with the fact that nobody has actually produced the correct building blocks in the laboratory (produced racemic mixtures in the lab does not prove that the mono-chirality required to create life can be produced naturally) and you’ve got yourself quite the blind faith position. Since you claim to be such an expert in this field, I am sure you already were aware that you had a long way to go and you were simply overplaying your hand hoping I wouldn’t call your bluff. The fact that you would accept such an absurd position solely upon blind faith just goes to show that you were never interested in evidence or even the truth for that matter.

Any additional qualifier is merely an attempt to ignore that your argument is defeated. You ignore logic and reason in the face of evidence in order to desperately cling to your flimsy beliefs. I have no interest in continuing a debate with anyone that refuses to abide by the rules of logic and ignore evidence that cripples their claims. I would be happy to entertain any intelligent argument or a clear claim about God, but as of yet, you have not provided either.

So I am assuming the fact you are now running from the debate is proof that you couldn’t answer any of my questions? I accept your rather unexpected but nonetheless welcomed concession of defeat.

@ Statler Waldorf, sorry for spoiling your surprise, I just couldn't resist. Did you see his pathetic reply, this person really needs help, I feel sorry for him.

Yes, I was a bit surprised at the inadequacy of his response; I guess I should know better by now. Hypothetically, if you were given two rottweilers that you knew were genetically perfect (or even nearly perfect) would you even hesitate for a second to breed the pups from their litter with one another? I think I know the answer you’ll give