??
That was not sarcasm.
That was an honest question.
Ok you weren't being sarky, but I did know it was an honest question. I merely answered with a similar (mocking) undertone.
You keep assigning motive to me. And then using that fabrication to justify your own bad behavior.
Is this the “eye for an eye” part of your religion, or the “turn the other cheek” part of your religion?
But in reality, you keep assigning me a motive that is not true. If you want to be snarky and mocking, do it on your own, don’t be like Adam with the apple, “she made me! Punish her with labor pains for eternity! It’s her fault! She made me!” Or like the wife beater, “I wouldn’t have hit her if she didn’t behave badly.”
It’s not a good look.
You say that the DNA was going to start mutating causing birth defects among closely related parents, and that your god knew it, and he still created a flood that would cause his people to have incest for many generations. And I ask, “what was his point?”
"After the flood, incest for many generations" is a false notion for intenttion, a misleading representation.
Can you explain how 3 sets of parents, each of whom was responsible for independent diasporas did
not employ incest to procreate? I’d be interested in your math.
The sons of Ham… they became a “race,” right? Did they do this by interbreeding with their first cousins (which is incest) and therefore not become their own race, but rather all three brothers’ lines were indistinguishable? Or did they do it by separating and Ham’s kids mating with Ham’s kids (which is incest) to create a distinct race of Ham?
Either there’s no difference in any of the lineages because they
did not split at the brothers and the incest was never closer than first cousins (which is incest) OR the three branches did maintain distinction - by sibling incest.
Which was it?
It is not possible to have three sibling parents populate a world without incest, though, and for many generations.
Try drawing a chart and see how you can get great-grandchildren without incest happening. (Try this same chart with Adam and Eve, by the way)
Anyway our friend 'excreationist' has given a good explanation, mutation before and after the flood, which I'll borrow as the response here. To which I must mention, excreationist, as the name suggests, is not a YEC or theist, and he doesn't agree with the theology, which most of us know by now. But he is honest with his fair analysis, to sujects of relating texts and other relating aspect in their context, highlighting the easy to understand concept of mutations and it's implications.
He has not given a good explanation.
Though if you insist on saying that your god introduced damage to his creation to cut their lifespans by 50% in a single generation, we can talk about the psychosis that would be needed to harm people so severely and permanently on a whim.
I don’t need to assign your god that level of antipathy, because I don’t find your story that anyone ever lived to be 950 years old to be the least bit compelling. But if you insist, then, yes, I see how you accuse your god of creating genetic damage to his creation to punish them for what their forebears had done. What a guy.
That was not sarcasm. I am genuinely confused about this claim that your god made DNA start to create mutations. For some reason.
Like the above: I thought I detected a
mocking undertone but I still took this to be a serious question.
You thought wrong. But you couldn’t hold yourself back from judging and accusing in public and in writing. And then blaming it on me. If you want to be snarky, just own it and say, “I wanted to be snarky.” Don’t pretend I made you do it. You did it because you wanted to.
And so, I'm wondering. Were you confused because you thought I was making some claim, as if, word for word
verbatim I got the explanation for DNA because it's written in the bible? Please tell me that's not so - not you too?
I got the idea for 'DNA doesn't get better' from people like scientist Dr. James Tour! I mentioned him a few times already.
Does every change in the universe come from your god, or not? I thought you were saying that your god introduced DNA mutation because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, having been utterly naive and also left alone in the room with this terrible device unsupervised and in the company of a known felon.
You may have gotten the idea for 'DNA doesn't get better' from people like scientist Dr. James Tour! but you were presenting a creation story where your god is the designer of everything, and that mutations did not exist until he got angry. You then correlate genetic mutations (created by your god) with the exacerbating influence of incest (the need for which is created by your god). And then you said that entropy in the universe (created by who, now?) causes everything to degrade, and I wondered, on top of all the above whether you were making the claim that your god was degrading as well.
And now I also wonder, is there entropy in your heaven?
