Log in

View Full Version : The question Christians avoid


chadtudor
January 23rd, 2009, 07:52 AM
The question theists avoid
I have went on many forums, and asked Christians at a church, as well as friends of mine that are Christian. When asked this question, they change the topic, avoid it, et cetera.

So here it is. I want an answer this time.

We all know that if one white female, and one white male reproduce, the baby would be white. Correct? So, how is it possible then that every person in the world came from two select people? Adam and Eve. It's like saying a white couple reproduced, and gave birth to a Asian baby. This makes no sense to me.

But it doesn't stop there. If Adam and Eve had different hair colors, types, how do two different hair colors/types create black hair, blond hair, brown hair, red hair, and every color between hair. Not to mention the textures of all of those hair colors- wavy, curly, straight!

And not even there... what about immunity to diseases? If all of us were created using the same genes, we'd all be wiped out by the same diseases. The human species could not survive.

What about dominant genes like.. having 11 fingers, or widows peak, murderers thumb (where your thumb bends back)? Did Adam and Eve have all of these genes?

You could always say genetic mutation is the answer to this. Which I suppose would be common in a world of inbreds.

6,602,224,175 X 8 months = 52,817,793,400 months of labor, back after back. Eve must be pretty tired. http://x.myspace.com/images/blog/smileys/thoughtful.gif
(about 4,401,482,783 years)

Perna de Pau
January 23rd, 2009, 09:38 AM
This is a very easy question to answer and the sort of christians that you have been asking must be either very special or very stupid for not answering it.

Today most christians accept evolution and the fact that the story of Adam and Eve is just poetry. So the answer is no, humanity does not descend from a single couple (and by the way who told you they were white?)

On the other hand genetics are a bit more complex than what you say and indeed a white man and a white woman can give birth to an asian or african child (search for Mendel)

Kabel
January 23rd, 2009, 01:12 PM
My Christian buddy has explained me that most of the stories in the bible are just stories with great life-lessons.

tagnostic
January 23rd, 2009, 01:14 PM
My Christian buddy has explained me that most of the stories in the bible are just stories with great life-lessons.

sesame street has better lessons
and is less violent
cookie monster
is cool too

Dementis
January 23rd, 2009, 01:53 PM
The cookie monster demonstrates how to be a dedicated addict. Great lesson to teach the little ones :D .

tagnostic
January 23rd, 2009, 01:59 PM
yes, but they were low fat,
gluten free,
vegetarian cookies
he's doing his
community service
and he's in a
12 step program
for healthy baked good kleptomaniacs
his come back should be epic

note,
Oscar has been doing well
since that episode with Dr. Phil,
although Bert & Ernie coming out
was a bit disturbing.

Dementis
January 23rd, 2009, 02:00 PM
Gluten free, vegan cookies? Is he teaching our children how to become malnurished also?

tagnostic
January 23rd, 2009, 02:22 PM
well, of course,
it makes us =
all the starving
countries, the
only difference
is we get alot
more, duh!:icon_razz:

Rothis
January 23rd, 2009, 02:40 PM
No, not all Christians accept the historical theory of Evolution. Well, sort of. That is to say: most christians believe in De-evolution (but not Humans to Fish, mind you). One of the central ideas around which the bible (and the christian method of salvation) is sin, and its destructive effects of man, from which Jesus will save them.

Now, in regards to the original post:
The jewish laws concerning Sexuality in the Old Testament were not laid down until quite some time after the flood. Adam and Eve (who were originally designed to live forever) had such genetic diversity within them that what we brand as incest would not have the same effects then as it would now. Eve was created from Adam's body using his rib (which surely had his DNA in it) and from that pair all of the human race was born.

The term "Inbred" is used to describe people who suffer genetic defects from incest, because the genetic diversity of humans today (degredation in genetic structure) are not diverse enough to escape physically debilitating mutations during the DNA exchange in cell division. After the jewish laws forbade incest, God had determined that at this point, his people would suffer the effects of it. Genetic diversity is also why people must (in the US) marry beyond their second cousin. With each generation of separation comes more diversity, and the likelyhood of incestuous mutations decreases to negligibility.

And after the flood Noah's sons were responsible for all the different kinds of people on the earth. From Genesis 9:19 "These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth."
Considering how long each of them lived (Noah himself lived 950 Ceasarian years) how long would each of his sons, their wives, their sons and daughters, and so on and so forth, live? They'd have plenty of time to pump out child after child. With the genetic diversity that allowed them to live that long, they were able to produce everyone you see alive today.

Dementis
January 23rd, 2009, 02:48 PM
So if I'm understanding this correctly, Adam and Eve had all sorts of DNA, not just that of white male and white female, and this lead to the creation of all races? INTERESTING!

tagnostic
January 23rd, 2009, 02:54 PM
it can only
go downhill
from here
:icon_surprised:

Perna de Pau
January 23rd, 2009, 03:44 PM
So if I'm understanding this correctly, Adam and Eve had all sorts of DNA, not just that of white male and white female, and this lead to the creation of all races? INTERESTING!

If you believe in the story of Adam and Eve you may very well believe in that too.

And by the way Adam and Eve were not white.

Kabel
January 23rd, 2009, 04:47 PM
And by the way Adam and Eve were not white.

Prove it.

And I completely forgot about the flooding, guess it all makes sense now...

Perna de Pau
January 23rd, 2009, 06:19 PM
Prove it.



People who did not exist could not possible have been white (or any other colour for that matter)

rmw
January 23rd, 2009, 06:55 PM
Actually the question of Adam's and Eve's supposed race brings up a related question: given that Jesus lived in the Middle East, why is he portrayed as being caucasian? This was pointed in Dogma, where Chris Rock's Rufus points out (and I'm paraphrasing here), you can get all of the love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc. etc., but it's acceptable only coming from a white man.

rzm61
January 23rd, 2009, 07:42 PM
And to quote Chris Rock.

'It's alright, cause it's all white.'

Kabel
January 23rd, 2009, 09:47 PM
People who did not exist could not possible have been white (or any other colour for that matter)
Touché.

winwun
January 24th, 2009, 12:07 AM
And Cain hated his brother as long as he was Abel . . .:icon_cool:

Tsar Phalanxia
January 24th, 2009, 12:18 AM
Actually the question of Adam's and Eve's supposed race brings up a related question: given that Jesus lived in the Middle East, why is he portrayed as being caucasian? This was pointed in Dogma, where Chris Rock's Rufus points out (and I'm paraphrasing here), you can get all of the love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc. etc., but it's acceptable only coming from a white man.

It relates to the ethnicity of the Xians involved. In America, Jesus is white. In Africa, he's black. In Japan, he's Japanese (Rather amusingly). Also it's weird, but a bearded Palestinian claiming he's gonna rule the world, would get labelled a terrorist today.

rmw
January 25th, 2009, 01:03 AM
It relates to the ethnicity of the Xians involved. In America, Jesus is white. In Africa, he's black. In Japan, he's Japanese (Rather amusingly). Also it's weird, but a bearded Palestinian claiming he's gonna rule the world, would get labelled a terrorist today.

Jesus as a terrorist...:icon_lol:

tagnostic
January 25th, 2009, 03:02 AM
Ethni City?
is that in
Lousiana?

fosley
January 25th, 2009, 08:48 AM
As one person has pointed out, Adam and Eve are irrelevant to the gene pool, as it was merely a dozen or so people who survived the flood who have re-populated the planet over 4,000 years.

The answer I've heard has also been that the older people who lived hundreds of years had more genetic diversity somehow. Another answer I've heard is that when God smote the people at the tower of Babel, in addition to creating many languages he created many races. The whole "days of Peleg when God tore the continents apart" thing has something to do with it too.

Iunno. I've heard so many really detailed "this is what happened" stories concerning parts of the bible that span about 3 sentences that I've quit even trying to figure out how people come up with this stuff.

sudikics
January 25th, 2009, 12:57 PM
Actualy, it's highly likely that we're all the result of Adam-and-Eve-level inbreeding. It's really the only way the 23-chromosome traits could have stuck with humans. >_>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUu5hBp1AU8

rmw
January 25th, 2009, 07:55 PM
If you really want to get xians with an Adam and Eve question, ask why they are depicted with navels. ;)

tagnostic
January 25th, 2009, 08:05 PM
If you really want to get xians with an Adam and Eve question, ask why they are depicted with navels. ;)

cuz god
made em
from
oranges?

rmw
January 25th, 2009, 08:20 PM
cuz god
made em
from
oranges?

Either that, or the navy.

fosley
January 25th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Well, God obviously created everything to look older than it really is, so why wouldn't Adam and Eve have navels?

rmw
January 25th, 2009, 08:29 PM
Well, God obviously created everything to look older than it really is, so why wouldn't Adam and Eve have navels?

Does that fall under the category of "He works in mysterious ways."?

fosley
January 25th, 2009, 08:33 PM
Yeah, probably. Besides, if Jesus is depicted as white, why can't we depict Adam and Eve with navels? Just easier that way. Also, we'd have to depict Adam with a missing rib.

tagnostic
January 25th, 2009, 08:46 PM
can you imagine the furor
if you depicted Mohammed
as a black man?

Tsar Phalanxia
January 25th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Well, we know for certain that Mohamad was an Arab. That's the difference. Jesus, on the other hand was a Jew/Palestinian/Aramaic. So obviously, he's as white as the Pope.

Perna de Pau
January 26th, 2009, 10:03 AM
can you imagine the furor
if you depicted Mohammed
as a black man?

We are not allowed to depict him at all (remember the Danish cartoons?)

tagnostic
January 26th, 2009, 03:52 PM
yep, why can you portray one diety anyway you want
but another it's totally forbidden,

religons are pretty far out there
link (http://www.update.uu.se/%7Efbendz/library/ae_free.htm)

Rothis
February 7th, 2009, 01:23 AM
Wow. I'm gone for a week, and look at this mess.


Originally created perfect, it is not unreasonable (with, of course, certain assumptions like an omnipotent, benevolent creator, first cause, etc. please don't derail this thread even more; there are other topics for those subjects) that Adam and Eve had all the racial traits and genetic diversity required to create a world of people.

After the Flood, it was up to Noah's sons to repopulate the earth, which they did (each of those families living centuries).

Jesus was a Jew (as Mary, his mother, was). Get over it already. Stop nit-picking and whining about who depicts jesus as what! Uncle Ruckus says jesus was white, the Freemans say he was black, blah blah blah blah. We don't have a picture of him, we don't know for sure what he looks like. We *do* know however that he:
had 2 arms
had 2 legs
had 2 eyes
had appropriate ends on those limbs
wasn't deformed in any way (unless you count circumcision, but that's another thread)
Now, if you can provide a picture of Jesus and stop being as Lilliputian as the Catholic Church, we can return to the original topic of this thread.

fosley
February 7th, 2009, 02:48 AM
I'm not sure what "Lilliputian" means, but here's a picture of Jesus, so we can now return to the topic of this thread:
http://nynerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/can%20you%20see%20jesus.jpg

Perna de Pau
February 9th, 2009, 10:29 AM
Jesus was a Jew (as Mary, his mother, was). We don't have a picture of him, we don't know for sure what he looks like. We *do* know however that he:
had 2 arms
had 2 legs
had 2 eyes
had appropriate ends on those limbs
wasn't deformed in any way (unless you count circumcision, but that's another thread)
Now, if you can provide a picture of Jesus and stop being as Lilliputian as the Catholic Church, we can return to the original topic of this thread.

We do not know any of that as we do not know whether Jesus ever existed.

Not one single historian of all those who wrote about that area in that time ever mentioned him.

Most probably he was invented later on the basis of several persons who did exist.

infinity
February 14th, 2009, 06:49 PM
offspring could have migrated to different locations in the world and adapted to their enviorment, i.e. evolved

winwun
February 14th, 2009, 10:50 PM
Would it be possible to take a blood sample from the shroud of Turin and clone a new jesus ?

rmw
February 14th, 2009, 11:40 PM
Would it be possible to take a blood sample from the shroud of Turin and clone a new jesus ?

If you could, would that be considered the second coming?

sudikics
February 15th, 2009, 12:07 AM
Would it be possible to take a blood sample from the shroud of Turin and clone a new jesus ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud

The shroud of Turin is a fake.

tagnostic
February 15th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Would it be possible to take a blood sample from the shroud of Turin and clone a new jesus ?

why?
look how much trouble
the first one caused.

winwun
February 15th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Point, Tag . . .

Still, if we could get another one, I'd like to be his agent . . .

Rothis
February 16th, 2009, 07:22 AM
We do not know any of that as we do not know whether Jesus ever existed.

Not one single historian of all those who wrote about that area in that time ever mentioned him.

Most probably he was invented later on the basis of several persons who did exist.

Oh look! Another staw-man!

NO U (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm)

Perna de Pau
February 16th, 2009, 10:59 AM
But don't you know that it has been proven beyond any doubt that that reference in Flavius Josephus (paragraph 3 in chapter 3) was a fake. :icon_rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

Tsar Phalanxia
February 16th, 2009, 02:11 PM
OH SNAP

Rothis
March 2nd, 2009, 03:18 PM
But don't you know that it has been proven beyond any doubt that that reference in Flavius Josephus (paragraph 3 in chapter 3) was a fake. :icon_rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/5c/Wikipedia_cat.jpg

NO U

Tsar Phalanxia
March 2nd, 2009, 03:26 PM
Obviously, you do not know how to use Wikipedia. You go to the article, follow the citations, and read them HURR DURR

Perna de Pau
March 2nd, 2009, 03:27 PM
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/5c/Wikipedia_cat.jpg

NO U

I linked to the Wikipedia article (which I did not edit) for the list of sources but I have checked those sources :icon_rolleyes:

tagnostic
March 2nd, 2009, 03:42 PM
I think the best questions to ask anyone are the ones that don't require sources or citations,

ie: free will or predestination?,
what is the pupose of postulating an unproveable entity/theory?
what can you prove about your belief system using the Turing Test, ie: can you using only the symbolic logic of language through the medium of the keyboard and monitor convince/defend your position to another sentient being..

(i get grumpy when magic wakes me up:icon_confused:)

Perna de Pau
March 2nd, 2009, 04:00 PM
I think the best questions to ask anyone are the ones that don't require sources or citations,


But we can no longer know everything in order to decide what to believe. We decide through the trust (or lack of it) which we put in those who look into the matters.

If Wikipedia states A, I have no reason to believe that A is true. But if A is accepted by several historians "of good reputation" and not disputed by other historians of the same reputation, then I will think that very probably A is true, even without studying their arguments.

It also works with biology, astromomy, etc.

tagnostic
March 2nd, 2009, 04:06 PM
hehehe
I'm kind of Cartesian, while I do not agree with most of his conclusions, I do like the method of a chain of logic beginning with what you can prove to yourself in a sensory deprivation tank. (not something i would do, just an allegory) if you can't prove it to yourself this way you have no business attempting to convince someone else of it's reality.

ps, Good Morning Perna