Kansas finds sanity again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well I read that article. Fascinating stuff. However it didn't say where Cain got his missus from. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did Cains missus come from? Also who were going to smite him for killing his brother? His mum and dad?

:inquisitive:

---

Bear with me, please. His wife was his sister. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had other sons and other daughters. When God created man he said that it was very good. All of the other creations were only good. Through that one can infer that Adam also had a perfect gene pool. Therefore, he would have no problem marrying his sister and having perfectly fine children. And it didn't break God's law because not until the time of Moses was incest made illegal.

His brothers, like Seth and his family would have ample reason to want to kill Cain.

Here is another Link

Oh course, I have a few links.

Here is another Linksame link
see heresame link
For more info see heresame link
Can't you give a bit of variety for extra comedy value , how about throwing in some Hovind instead of just Ham , perhaps a bit of Ross for a really good laugh ?:no:

They ask for information about Cain's wife and I give information about Cain's wife. Same with the geologic column, mountains, writing, etc. I must have missed something Tribesman. Did I?

Why would I source Ross? He is a compromiser. And you guys 'discredited' Hovind in the thread about him. So I thought I would see if you guys had any new info to 'discredit' AIG and surprise, surprise you don't.

Like I say, the facts are the facts. The only difference is how you interpret them and me and you interpret them differently through different glasses. Me with my biblical glasses and you with your anti-God uniformitarian glasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Oh course, I have a few links.

See Here Sorry but you will have to scroll down to "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?"

Also a simple Google search with "chinese flood noah" will yield some interesting results.

---

Hmm, interesting only in that the search brings up the same old creation sites you keep quoting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Banquo, you have to understand the the term "catastrophe" is a good one here. Everything changes after God unleashed the Flood. That is why looking for the Garden of Eden is such an absurd thing.

I am not saying the India smashing into Asia was ever observed. It happened when there were only 8 people in the entire world and they were on the ark.

---

But how do you know? Earlier, you claimed that evolution was nonsense because no-one had ever observed it. Now you claim that the 8 people left didn't see anything.

Catastrophe, well certainly. Have you ever heard of displacement of water?

Now, did the mountains rise during (or near the end of, as you stated in one post) the Flood (in which case, why did Noah come to rest on Ararat (a fairly small mountain which wouldn't have popped up first) as opposed to one of the Himalayas (really high) or, was it after the Flood as you stated in an earlier post (in which case someone may have noticed)? Why did God re-arrange the continents (I'm assuming here that other mountains like the Rockies were created in the same way and at the same time) - did He get creation wrong the first time?

I guess most religious folk are blissfully unaware of the facts...

Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .

Quote:

---

Now, did the mountains rise during (or near the end of, as you stated in one post) the Flood (in which case, why did Noah come to rest on Ararat (a fairly small mountain which wouldn't have popped up first) as opposed to one of the Himalayas (really high) or, was it after the Flood as you stated in an earlier post (in which case someone may have noticed)?

---

That is like asking me about why a flipped coin come out heads. That is all random. The chances of it landing in ararat are pretty descent considering that the lone peak in Turkey may not be the landing place, because the Bible says it landed in the Mountains of Ararat. If anything, it was God's will. There, are you happy I said it.

How could the eight people see everything? Your argument in meaningless.

You guys keep complaining about my sources and not my arguments, now here is another source for you. Genesis 1-11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .

---

Multiply mistranslated? Wikipedia

The Bible is remarkably good at staying true to itself. Don't ask me how, I chalk it up to Divine Providence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .

---

Agreed. Maybe we can have a real debate when you actually start posting credible sources away from a single site. Everytime I actually read anthing that man wrote i feel dumber than before.

It also gets really old when I give a logical explanation and post links to hear you say "Well I just believe god did it". Did you ever think that quoting something that came up with the theory in the first place will give you favorable results?

Quote:

---

It also gets really old when I give a logical explanation and post links to hear you say "Well I just believe god did it". Did you ever think that quoting something that came up with the theory in the first place will give you favorable results?

---

Credible results, yes, when Jehovah God is involved.

If you want to talk about logic here you go, I will sumarize your point. Unkown Chemicals, in the primordial past, through unkown processes, that no longer exist, produced unknown life forms, that are not to be found but could, through unknown reproduction methods, spawn new life in an unknown oceanic soup complex at an unknown time and place. Logically, that doesn't make sense. "God said, 'Come now, let us reason together.'"Isaiah 1:18

Quote:

---

Agreed. Maybe we can have a real debate when you actually start posting credible sources away from a single site. Everytime I actually read anthing that man wrote i feel dumber than before.

---

Are you talking to Tribesman and about Darwin and TalkOrigins? Or are you talking to me, because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys got?

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Bear with me, please. His wife was his sister. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had other sons and other daughters. When God created man he said that it was very good. All of the other creations were only good. Through that one can infer that Adam also had a perfect gene pool. Therefore, he would have no problem marrying his sister and having perfectly fine children. And it didn't break God's law because not until the time of Moses was incest made illegal.

His brothers, like Seth and his family would have ample reason to want to kill Cain.

---

Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys got?

---

I also get that same feeling of dumbness every time I read a link from talk origins. ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Credible results, yes, when Jehovah God is involved.

If you want to talk about logic here you go, I will sumarize your point. Unkown Chemicals, in the primordial past, through unkown processes, that no longer exist, produced unknown life forms, that are not to be found but could, through unknown reproduction methods, spawn new life in an unknown oceanic soup complex at an unknown time and place. Logically, that doesn't make sense. "God said, 'Come now, let us reason together.'"Isaiah 1:18

---

My bad. I'm sorry I don't have the exact details as to what happened billions of years ago. I still think my definintion is better than "One day, god decided to snap his fingers and life came about!!! Then he proceeded to flood the Earth to which there is no real historical evidence that it ever happened." Oh yeah that's much better

Quote:

---

Are you talking to Tribesman and about Darwin and TalkOrigins? Or are you talking to me, because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys

---

I was talking to you, wolf. How are my sources dumb? They dispprove the simple minded creationism garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is the it the correct war? Eh? Hominem attacks? Maybe because I'm of sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

My response: Facts, backed by solid articles.

Your Response: God did it with an article from a rather dubious religious site.

Ice, what are you talking about there is no evidence of the Flood. There is evidence-o'plenty of the Flood.

Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:

Ice your responses are not really facts but rather merely what you believe to be facts.

If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:

Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God. ~:pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Ice, what are you talking about there is no evidence of the Flood. There is evidence-o'plenty of the Flood.

Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:

Ice your responses are not really facts but rather merely what you believe to be facts.

If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:

Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God. ~:pimp:

---

try this

Quote:

---

If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:

Creationist: God, who was invented by man, said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

---

Like I said, I consider most my evidence facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God.

---

That statement is the ultimate debate killer - if that is the reasoning I have to wonder on which basis this discussion is supposed to continue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

That statement is the ultimate debate killer - if that is the reasoning I have to wonder on which basis this discussion is supposed to continue...

---

You know, I was thinking the same thing exactly. Time to move on, for me, at least.

:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:

---

No

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark

Quote:

---

Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God.

---

That is so dumb my frontal lobe aches from reading it.

From a certain perspective it's actually the biblical creationists who are the blasphemers, since they take an ancient book full of disproven claims and of dubious authorship and attempt to ignore the priciples and the mechanics of the almightys creation. placing their faith in their own hubris. Rather than trying to uncover the pieces of the almighty's plan as the ancient Christian scholars did, they place their faith in willfull ignorance, ignoring what they don't like the look of, despite clearly being part of gods plan (if you believe in god).

Quote:

---

My bad. I'm sorry I don't have the exact details as to what happened billions of years ago. I still think my definintion is better than "One day, god decided to snap his fingers and life came about!!! Then he proceeded to flood the Earth to which there is no real historical evidence that it ever happened." Oh yeah that's much better

---

Is it really any better? Seems like the same amount of faith to me.
If the Flood had happened what would you expect to see as evidence. How about billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. And what do you find - billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. Plus all of the world wide Flood stories - I would say that evidence for the Flood is all around us.

Quote:

---

I was talking to you, wolf. How are my sources dumb? They dispprove the simple minded creationism garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is the it the correct war? Eh? Hominem attacks? Maybe because I'm of sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

My response: Facts, backed by solid articles.

---

Ice,
They are dumb because they try to prove the simple minded evolutionist garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is it the correct way?

I understand being sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

I repeat my question...

Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I repeat my question...

Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister?

---

Oh, Sorry,

I started writing a reply, but then I had to go, so, I just deleted it.
Anyways, You got me. Apache, you are much smarter than me.
The Bible does not say, Cain married his sister. But it does say that he had a wife and that Adam had other sons and daughters. It also does not say that there were other humans around. Like I said incest was not illegal until the time of Moses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Oh, Sorry,

I started writing a reply, but then I had to go, so, I just deleted it.
Anyways, You got me. Apache, you are much smarter than me.
The Bible does not say, Cain married his sister. But it does say that he had a wife and that Adam had other sons and daughters. It also does not say that there were other humans around. Like I said incest was not illegal until the time of Moses.

---

So where did you get the idea that Cain married his sister. If it wasn't in the 'good book'? How was that revealed to you?

Multiply mistranslated? Wikipedia

Exactly Wolf , now follow the link you provide and look up the text that version was taken from , or even read the link you provide about the contentiousness and questionable provenance of your selected text , like for example .....Because of the lack of recent linguistic work, the KJV is regarded as a poor representation of the original Scripture

so it seemsas far as......The Bible is remarkably good at staying true to itself. Don't ask me how, I chalk it up to Divine Providence......the divine providence is lacking , but as you know your scripture you should know that . It has been evident throughout history , is a major subject for biblical scholars worldwide and has caused many problems within and between the church(s).

You do know scripture don't you or are you just basing your position on a dubious website by Ham , who does a great job at linking to other documents , that are of known doubtfull provenance , discredited pseudo scientific papers , and even acknowledged frauds .

So a simple question for you Wolf , one that always fascinates me when it comes to the cretinist movement .
Why is your faith so weak ?

Quote:

---

]Is it really any better? Seems like the same amount of faith to me.
If the Flood had happened what would you expect to see as evidence. How about billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. And what do you find - billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth.

---

You find billions of dead things buried at almost the same layer.

Quote:

---

Plus all of the world wide Flood stories - I would say that evidence for the Flood is all around us.

---

Actually quite the opposite. All that means is that civilazations, like the Hebrews, borrowed stories from other civilizations and changed them to meet their criteria.

Quote:

---

Ice,
They are dumb because they try to prove the simple minded evolutionist garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is it the correct way?

I understand being sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

---

Good job repeating/rephrasing everything I just wrote. IF you must know, I was raised Roman Catholic. I use to be very religious until I actually started to think for myself. I did open my mind to new thing instead of keeping it shut like you currently do. It is the current way because history and evidence supports that conclusion. That's why. If you don't want to explain it again, don't. It was wrong the first time, it's going to be wrong every other time. This is my last post, I'm done fighting a battle that can't be won with people who refuse to think maybe a 3000 year old book could contain some myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

god.
god.
god.
ooh.. hmm... not sure, let me think.. oh, it was god.
god.
god.

anymore questions?

---

Was it good for you? ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Was it good for you? ~:smoking:

---

i think i'm going to start asking, "anymore questions?" after my romantic interludes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

I find these threads interesting and I somewhat enjoy them. To me, the creation-evolution debate allows me to throw in the occasional "good news" which is what the Bible is all about. The story is so important to good theology to be almost necessary. The creation and flood story shows that even though man had turned its back on God that the needed to be punished, he would give man an ark, which is a type. Only through the ark would people be saved. In the same way only through Jesus, will people be saved from the promised second global catastrophe, which will come, not by water, but from fire.

---

See it is necessary that it is part of the Bible to show that God gets angry with evil, that He promised not to be so crushing in his response (showed remorse for His temper). It showed that while God is very much about Justice that he has learned to temper his temper with Mercy. Forgiveness is a theme that grows in the bible. God gets angry with His people, does something rash in response, shows Mercy to those under his care.

The creation and flood storys are separate. Gensis is about showing who is ultimately responsible in the order of things, while others in the ancient world worshipped nature, Judaism trumped them by having a God that created everything. The difference between admiring a painting and having admiration for the painter. While the flood story is about Gods Wrath (what we would call in others a really nasty temper) beign outweighed by his Love and Mercy.

While they are necessary to the Bible and our understanding of God I don't think they are any more literal then Mark 4:13-20.

Many parables exist in the Bible, people get knotted up when they start taking them literally. They miss the heart of the idea that is meant to bear fruit, and end up focusing on trying to prove a parable as a fact rather then understand it as an allegory.

I can't help that but think that an actual believer would look at the world God made, rather than a book He allowed men to write, for his answers. And for his questions as well for that matter.

Slyspy,
2 Tim 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teahing, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Why would he lie to us.

Pape,
Actually, unlike English, the Hebrew language has a definitive word order that marks whether the writer is trying to state something in allegory or as narrative. SVO being allegory and VSO as narrative.
The opening sentence is Bereshit Bara Elohim... Which literally means "In the Beginning (prepositional phrase- doesn't count) created God..." This order stands throughout the verses of Genesis 1.
Any Hebrew expert will tell you that this is to be taken literally.

Quote:

---

Actually quite the opposite. All that means is that civilazations, like the Hebrews, borrowed stories from other civilizations and changed them to meet their criteria.

---

How does, it mean that? This is a good example of what I have been saying throughout. The facts are the same, but the interpretations are very different. That could also show that all civilization grew out of one region and when it spread it took the stories of its beginnings with it. Who's to say that one might be true and the others weren't changed to meet their criteria.

I am sorry to see you go, Ice, I really did enjoy this. I have a life to get going to myself. But, I have to ask you, how do you know that you are not the one with the closed mind? In an age of relativism, how can anything be for sure? The truth is that I also opened my mind. I can to college searching for the truth. We all at some point in our lives ask like Pontius Pilate "What is Truth". I know that I did, because all my life, I had been wondering how can anyone know truth, just like you, and most of us (I suspect). Well, I found that we were asking the wrong question. We should have been asking "Who is Truth?" The answers can only be found in John 14:6 were Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." That book also tells us in its opening verse, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." I realized that I cannot prove to you that Evolution is a problem and that moral relativism and secular humanism are disasterous offshoots of that problem, but what I can do is to provide an example and to stand on my convictions. The rest is in God's hands.

Peace