Cain

[HollywoodAFD 0]

The story of Cain tells us he was "marked" and sent out to walk the Earth? He "took his family in the city of Nod"?A) Who was his wife?B) How could there be a city of Nod? Wouldn't that indicate that there were other civilized people on Earth?C) What was this "mark" on Cain?Only serious, or funny, need reply. The haters room is down the hall.

[speedz99 145]

4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Does it have to be a city?

[Spademan 94]

Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction is Cain.

[longshottwelve 0]

If Heaven is infinite, why does it have gates?Why is Uwe Boll still allowed to make movies?What is the Dharma Initiative?Some things you may never know.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Does it have to be a city?

No... it doesn't. I just thought any area that was known by a name...must have been more than an ordinary track of land.Thoughts on who his wife was?

[Spademan 94]

If Heaven is infinite, why does it have gates?Why is Uwe Boll still allowed to make movies?What is the Dharma Initiative?Some things you may never know.

Well, the answer to all of those is obviously 12.

[longshottwelve 0]

Well, the answer to all of those is obviously 12.

Just like in my screen name! Coincidence? I think not.

[Balloon guy 158]

Cain probably did marry his sister.From a creationist standpoint, Adam and Eve were perfect genetically, and their children could reproduce without side effects. This could continue for quite some time, before the problem of inbreading would result in problems, as it does today. So genetically we are devolving.This fits much better than the belief that we were genetically lessors, and through obvious inbreeding for thousands of generations, we evolved forward, while our propensity for problems from inbreeding increased.

[longshottwelve 0]

From a creationist standpoint, Adam and Eve were perfect genetically, and their children could reproduce without side effects. This could continue for quite some time, before the problem of inbreading would result in problems, as it does today. So genetically we are devolving.

Out of curiosity, is this same reason why Noah is something like 600yrs old? In your opinion, is it because we are genetically inferior to our supposed predecessors from Genesis?

[crowTrobot 2]

Cain probably did marry his sister.

i heard his nieces were hotter, probably went with one of those.

This fits much better than the belief that we were genetically lessors, and through obvious inbreeding for thousands of generations, we evolved forward, while our propensity for problems from inbreeding increased.

nobody claims homo sapiens started out as a small isolated inbreeding population. that's silly.

[Balloon guy 158]

nobody claims homo sapiens started out as a small isolated inbreeding population. that's silly.

There was a story a few years back that pointed to our genetic makeup coming from a single source ie the evolusionist Adam and Eve.Or are you saying that we now know that there were multiple evolving groups of apes at the same time spread over a large area?

[Balloon guy 158]

Out of curiosity, is this same reason why Noah is something like 600yrs old? In your opinion, is it because we are genetically inferior to our supposed predecessors from Genesis?

Yes, if the genetic makeup was perfect, it would stand to reason that there would be a longer life span. Also The flood requires there to be a large volume of water in the air which would help reflect some of the sun's harmful rays, which is one of the greatest contributor to our aging. That and having kids. After the flood, the age of people in the Bible matches our own.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Cain probably did marry his sister.From a creationist standpoint, Adam and Eve were perfect genetically, and their children could reproduce without side effects. This could continue for quite some time, before the problem of inbreading would result in problems, as it does today. So genetically we are devolving.This fits much better than the belief that we were genetically lessors, and through obvious inbreeding for thousands of generations, we evolved forward, while our propensity for problems from inbreeding increased.

Yes, if the genetic makeup was perfect, it would stand to reason that there would be a longer life span. Also The flood requires there to be a large volume of water in the air which would help reflect some of the sun's harmful rays, which is one of the greatest contributor to our aging. That and having kids. After the flood, the age of people in the Bible matches our own.

lolz @ psuedo-science

• No matter how perfect your parents are, porking your sister is sick
• I like how evolution is ok when is supports your story
• Evolution is not directional - life forms don't devolve or 'evolve forward', they simply change. It is the environment post-change that dictates fitness
• Genetic makeup has very little input to the average individuals lifespan - bigger influences are diet, environment, access to medical care when T-rex bites your ass, physical fitness and disease (There are dozens if not hundreds of diseases like leprosy, ghonnorea and typhoid fever that can only exist in a human host - this menas Noah and his family must have carried them all.
• Gravity alone would ensure our skeleton and internal organs would be useless well before we made 200, not to mention 600
• The volume of water required to be floating in the air would make it permantly pitch black worldwide - ie If this flood water was floating around in the air, nothing would survive.
• Light and warmth would be blocked by the radiation but what would get through would be the ones you don't want like UV rays

[jmkiser 0]

sounds like a kent hovind theory

[KramitDaToad 0]

sounds like a kent hovind theory

Is that the one that states "All taxes are optional"He was wrong about that one too

[Balloon guy 158]

lolz @ psuedo-science

• No matter how perfect your parents are, porking your sister is sickAhh I forgot that the evolution of morality made this wrong
• I like how evolution is ok when is supports your storyI was showing how evolution would not work with the idea of having very few humans, but interbreading them, which is true for both our theories
• Evolution is not directional - life forms don't devolve or 'evolve forward', they simply change. It is the environment post-change that dictates fitnessEvolve:I don't think that word means what you think it means.
• Genetic makeup has very little input to the average individuals lifespan - bigger influences are diet, environment, access to medical care when T-rex bites your ass, physical fitness and disease (There are dozens if not hundreds of diseases like leprosy, ghonnorea and typhoid fever that can only exist in a human host - this menas Noah and his family must have carried them all.Well there you go, since we know the DNA make up of everyone that ever existed, we can prove that DNA will not help your chances of living longer.
• Gravity alone would ensure our skeleton and internal organs would be useless well before we made 200, not to mention 600Which luckily we have proven by looking at the organs of the last guy that lived to be 200
• The volume of water required to be floating in the air would make it permantly pitch black worldwide - ie If this flood water was floating around in the air, nothing would survive.Because we know exactly how much water was already on earth seeing as how there were fishes and plants
• Light and warmth would be blocked by the radiation but what would get through would be the ones you don't want like UV raysWater vapors would not block UV rays? Hmm someone forgot to tell the clouds.

[Balloon guy 158]

sounds like a kent hovind theory

Might be.Who's Kent Hovind?

[jmkiser 0]

Might be.Who's Kent Hovind?

He's the kook that spouted the "layer of water around the earth" theory. Even YEC's have distanced themselves from him. some wikipedia quotes for you

Hovind is currently serving a ten-year term in Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges.

Hovind acknowledges many contributors to his model, but says that if it is proven false then he will personally take the blame. The model includes the following explanation of the Biblical account of Noah: Noah's family and two of every "kind" of animal (including young dinosaurs)[31] safely boarded the Ark before a minus 300° F (~-184°C) ice meteor came flying toward the earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the north and south poles of the earth.The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up. Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. This made the earth "wobble around" and collapsed the vapor canopy that protected it.During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion — Hovind says that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time.[32] After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back retreating to their current size and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves. The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.Karen Bartlet, a chemist, commented that Hovind's "message appeals to those who are unaware that his "evidence" is without merit."[33] The majority of the scientific community rejects Young Earth Creationism.[34] Furthermore, the plausibility of the Hovind Theory has been criticized by both scientists and other young Earth creationists.[35][36][37]Hovind's ideas on evolution, and science in general, have been published in the controversial Chick Tracts, comic strips intended to convert people to Fundamentalist Christianity.

[jmkiser 0]

No offense, BG, but what you're proposing about age is old news I think there are some better YEC theories out there, but I, personally, would stay away from all them in the first place.Trying to put science to the story of the Bible just never seems to hold up for very long.

[BenSavage 0]

Cain probably did marry his sister.From a creationist standpoint, Adam and Eve were perfect genetically, and their children could reproduce without side effects. This could continue for quite some time, before the problem of inbreading would result in problems, as it does today. So genetically we are devolving.This fits much better than the belief that we were genetically lessors, and through obvious inbreeding for thousands of generations, we evolved forward, while our propensity for problems from inbreeding increased.

So meiosis didn't start until post-Eden? How were the gametes produced in Adam and Eve's bodies before then? This could not continue for some time because each time meiosis happens there is independent assortment and this is where genetic variability comes from. Without meiosis, we would all look the same and there would be none of those "mistakes" mutations that lead to new phenotypes that are thrown out into the world. Some of those phenotypes help organisms to live longer and thus those phenotypes get naturally selected. One example of this is sickle cell anemia, it has been around for a long time. Shouldn't it have died out with its victims? Why has it seemed to be naturally selected to continue? The interesting thing is that where sickle cell anemia is prevalent, malaria is the number 1 disease. And it just so happens that those with the sickle cell anemia recessive gene are curiously immune to malaria (the more fatal disease)."So genetically we are devolving"Biologically, that makes no sense. Evolution is simply change over time, you can't devolve. You either change (evolve) or you do not. And not evolving in some way is not possible if you reproduce.And we were genetic lessors in some ways, and better in others. See the bubonic plague, those that survived it many years ago were immune to it and thus they reproduced and their offspring were passed that BP immunity allele. That is one main reason you don't see many cases of those deadly bacteria infecting anyone.Every time a human is produced, many many things can go wrong genetically. More goes wrong when you inbreed with close relatives because the odds of two relatives sending two recessive genes is higher. This is because of the allele similarities among family members.

[phlegm 6]

So meiosis didn't start until post-Eden? How were the gametes produced in Adam and Eve's bodies before then? This could not continue for some time because each time meiosis happens there is independent assortment and this is where genetic variability comes from. Without meiosis, we would all look the same and there would be none of those "mistakes" mutations that lead to new phenotypes that are thrown out into the world. Some of those phenotypes help organisms to live longer and thus those phenotypes get naturally selected. One example of this is sickle cell anemia, it has been around for a long time. Shouldn't it have died out with its victims? Why has it seemed to be naturally selected to continue? The interesting thing is that where sickle cell anemia is prevalent, malaria is the number 1 disease. And it just so happens that those with the sickle cell anemia recessive gene are curiously immune to malaria (the more fatal disease)."So genetically we are devolving"Biologically, that makes no sense. Evolution is simply change over time, you can't devolve. You either change (evolve) or you do not. And not evolving in some way is not possible if you reproduce.And we were genetic lessors in some ways, and better in others. See the bubonic plague, those that survived it many years ago were immune to it and thus they reproduced and their offspring were passed that BP immunity allele. That is one main reason you don't see many cases of those deadly bacteria infecting anyone.Every time a human is produced, many many things can go wrong genetically. More goes wrong when you inbreed with close relatives because the odds of two relatives sending two recessive genes is higher. This is because of the allele similarities among family members.

BWAAHAAA If I dropped a buttered toast how likely is it to fall butter up??

[BenSavage 0]

BWAAHAAA If I dropped a buttered toast how likely is it to fall butter up??

Point out how I am wrong biologically. I don't know much about toast.

[phlegm 6]

Point out how I am wrong biologically. I don't know much about toast.

Didnt say u were wrong biologically. Only funny metaphorically. BWAAAHHAAAA

[KramitDaToad 0]

Well there you go, since we know the DNA make up of everyone that ever existed, we can prove that DNA will not help your chances of living longer.Which luckily we have proven by looking at the organs of the last guy that lived to be 200Because we know exactly how much water was already on earth seeing as how there were fishes and plantsWater vapors would not block UV rays? Hmm someone forgot to tell the clouds.

I'm beginning to suspect you are actually levelling here as your responses are getting almost childish, however there are some folks who think there is some merit in the Hovind-esque water canopy. Lets put it to bed shall we...Lets look at how much water our atmosphere could hold.The saturation point (100% humidity) of the atmosphere is roughly 10 gram of water per kilo of air (This is at about 10C - it holds less as air cools eg at higher altitudes)The atmosphere of earth is approx 5.14E+18 kg in weight. This means that it could hold 5.14 E+16 kg of water (actually a lot less because of the whole temperature thing, but lets ignore that)Thats 51,40,000,000,000,000 kg of water. Now water is nice in that in liquid form 1kg = 1 litre, therefore 1 cubic metre of water = 1000kg. That means the atmosphere could support 51,400,000,000,000 or 5.14E+13 cubic metres of water.Now the earth is approx 1.08E+21 cubic metres. If you take a sphere that size and increase it's volume by 5.14E+13 cubic metres, you get a radial increase of.... wait for it.... 10cmWhat's all that mumbo jumbo mean? It means that if the atmospere was holding as much water as it possibly could and it dumped it all at once we would get a global flood 10cm high. Run away!!!!So the whole water suspended in the air theory could only work if the water was in liquid or solid form. Now I don't know how you propose that we keep that much water or ice floating in the air, however as I pointed out before if you do it gets pitch black underneath it. In short you would never see the sun, stars or moon and life as we know it would not exist. We can cover the high spectrum (UV) light vs low spectrum light filtering question another time if you still think the water canopy has any merit.Now on to the DNA question.We don't need the DNA of everyone who ever existed to understand that DNA defects shorten the average lifespan by very little. Yes a person born with any number of defects will have a much shorter lifespan, however when you look at the 'cause of death' of millions of people (a more than significant sample set) 'DNA abnormality' deaths are extremely rare. Major factors like diet, fitness, accidents, and the rest I mentioned before effect lifespan phenominally more.Likewise we don't need a 200 year old person to work out the effects of degradation to their bodies. We take a look at people aged 0, 10, 20 ... 120 and can see fairly quickly that regardless of health parts of the body deterioate at a fairly constant rate. The rest is simple.

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm beginning to suspect you are actually levelling here as your responses are getting almost childish, however there are some folks who think there is some merit in the Hovind-esque water canopy. Lets put it to bed shall we...Lets look at how much water our atmosphere could hold.The saturation point (100% humidity) of the atmosphere is roughly 10 gram of water per kilo of air (This is at about 10C - it holds less as air cools eg at higher altitudes)The atmosphere of earth is approx 5.14E+18 kg in weight. This means that it could hold 5.14 E+16 kg of water (actually a lot less because of the whole temperature thing, but lets ignore that)Thats 51,40,000,000,000,000 kg of water. Now water is nice in that in liquid form 1kg = 1 litre, therefore 1 cubic metre of water = 1000kg. That means the atmosphere could support 51,400,000,000,000 or 5.14E+13 cubic metres of water.Now the earth is approx 1.08E+21 cubic metres. If you take a sphere that size and increase it's volume by 5.14E+13 cubic metres, you get a radial increase of.... wait for it.... 10cmWhat's all that mumbo jumbo mean? It means that if the atmospere was holding as much water as it possibly could and it dumped it all at once we would get a global flood 10cm high. Run away!!!!So the whole water suspended in the air theory could only work if the water was in liquid or solid form. Now I don't know how you propose that we keep that much water or ice floating in the air, however as I pointed out before if you do it gets pitch black underneath it. In short you would never see the sun, stars or moon and life as we know it would not exist. We can cover the high spectrum (UV) light vs low spectrum light filtering question another time if you still think the water canopy has any merit.Now on to the DNA question.We don't need the DNA of everyone who ever existed to understand that DNA defects shorten the average lifespan by very little. Yes a person born with any number of defects will have a much shorter lifespan, however when you look at the 'cause of death' of millions of people (a more than significant sample set) 'DNA abnormality' deaths are extremely rare. Major factors like diet, fitness, accidents, and the rest I mentioned before effect lifespan phenominally more.Likewise we don't need a 200 year old person to work out the effects of degradation to their bodies. We take a look at people aged 0, 10, 20 ... 120 and can see fairly quickly that regardless of health parts of the body deterioate at a fairly constant rate. The rest is simple.

Except for most people that have bad diets to the point where it kills them science would argue that it was encoded in there DNA to eat bad food- they couldn't help it. Many accidents happen that aren't accidents at all, in that some people are predisposed to danger. If I die playing poker for 36 hours straight because my heart gives out from exhaustion, my predisposition for gambling, killed me.(Or that could be argued to be so.)