Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:I provided a link.

Yeah, the link doesn't really address those issues or the issues of "inbreeding" does it?
My question is HOW great are those issues in effecting this view?
Personally I have never done the number math before so this is rather interesting.

Philip wrote: If any humans were created and thus born independent of Adam and Eve, Scripture does not say so. Meaning, such musings are is pure speculation.
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to ALL men ..."
So if all men did not come from Adam and Eve, then how did death spread to all? Was there a forbidden smoothie bar, and others "fell" for it's reputation for excellent servings?

All of mankind came from A&E.
Now place the smoothie bar on the ground and backup 100 paces.... Pay no attention to serving quality....

Philip wrote:The entire issue of inherited sin nature has to do with our fleshly relationship to Adam and Eve.

Well there of course is a fleshy relationship in that this particular formation of DNA is the only host we know of that will house the type of living being that we are. But I would say the passing on of a sinful nature because of it being part of the fleshy form I would not initially agree with. My rationale would be that just as there were angels who fell away and caused others of their brethren to fall away that this would be the implied concept of how it spreads.
If you look at it closely we can see the first recorded instance of sin occuring when satan is tempting eve;
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die...
This was the first recorded sin and it came from another living being who was not in a human genetic form. Keep in mind that eve has not yet sinned so she is currently pure.... and then satan goes on and states a truth to mix with his lie....
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat....

and boom... we see the transfer of the sinful nature from one being to another followed shortly thereafter by;

.....and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

another transfer of the sinful nature from one being to another who just happened to be the one her fleshly body was made from. But in both cases of the transfers of the sinful nature it is not passed on by genetics it is a social disease that can be passed on by associating with someone who already has it and since all mankind would come from adam and eve then all the decendants were certainly at a disadvantage to avoid it.

The good news tho is that God saw the disease as a possibility and had a plan that he would initiate to cure the problem. He is culturing mankind and drawing out those offspring that have a resistence to the disease and then eliminating the ones who don't. The earth is Gods petrie dish of social disease that has been segregated so that all the beings in heaven (who are also resistant) get to observe how it plays out.

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:I provided a link.

Yeah, the link doesn't really address those issues or the issues of "inbreeding" does it?
My question is HOW great are those issues in effecting this view?
Personally I have never done the number math before so this is rather interesting.

Inbreeding? Not sure what you are driving at. You asked about war, death, famine. Growth rates account for all of those. The growth rate today is 1.7 and you only need a growth rate of .5 to get from Noah to today's population in 4,500 years.

The growth rate used is extremely conservative. And all we need to show is it's possible. 6 billions sounds like a lot. But the growth rate from 3 billion to 6 billion is exactly the same as from 16 to 32.

It's like the old formula, if you started with a penny and doubled it every day for 30 days would end up with $5,368,709.12.
Beleive it or not, I've done the math and it's absolutely true.

Inbreeding? Not sure what you are driving at.

The issue of deformations and such in too small a gene pool.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Inbreeding? Not sure what you are driving at.

The issue of deformations and such in too small a gene pool.

You are making assumptions about the gene pool that existed at that time. Wouldn't you think that God's providence accounted for the right gene pool to be n place to repopulate the earth?

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat....

and boom... we see the transfer of the sinful nature from one being to another followed shortly thereafter by;

Er, no. What we see is a presentation of temptation in favor of acting upon it.

King David said: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." This indicates an inherited sin, how else? We inherit our the sin NATURE from our fathers and mothers. And Jesus did not have a sin nature because His Father was God the Father.

jlay wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Inbreeding? Not sure what you are driving at.

The issue of deformations and such in too small a gene pool.

You are making assumptions about the gene pool that existed at that time. Wouldn't you think that God's providence accounted for the right gene pool to be n place to repopulate the earth?

If that is the case, why change that? why do we NOW have issues in "too small" a gene pool?

Why change what? I'm not following your question.

Children born to 1st cousins have very few risks. Google it and check out for yourself.
The question was, would it have been possible to repopulate the earth to where we are today, with just Noah and his sons, and the answer is yes. It seems like you are resisting the answer and looking for reasons not to trust these facts. Any reason?

jlay wrote:Why change what? I'm not following your question.

Children born to 1st cousins have very few risks. Google it and check out for yourself.
The question was, would it have been possible to repopulate the earth to where we are today, with just Noah and his sons, and the answer is yes. It seems like you are resisting the answer and looking for reasons not to trust these facts. Any reason?

Resisting? No.
I just have no experience whatsoever in anthropology.
When my wife and I decided to have a baby, because we are both Portuguese, we have to do a blood test to make sure were didn't have any genetic issues that could cause complication with out baby.
In regards to genetic disorders:
Genetic disorders

Autosomal recessive disorders occur in individuals who have two copies of the gene for a particular recessive genetic mutation.[29] Except in certain rare circumstances, such as new mutations or uniparental disomy, both parents of an individual with such a disorder will be carriers of the gene. These carriers do not display any signs of the mutation and may be unaware that they carry the mutated gene. Since relatives share a higher proportion of their genes than do unrelated people, it is more likely that related parents will both be carriers of the same recessive gene, and therefore their children are at a higher risk of a genetic disorder. The extent to which the risk increases depends on the degree of genetic relationship between the parents: The risk is greatest when the parents are close relatives and lower for relationships between more distant relatives, such as second cousins, though still greater than for the general population.[30]

Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. [31]

Of course we also have this:
Some inbreeding may enhance fertility rate

A recent study in Iceland by the deCODE genetics company, published by the journal Science, found that third cousins produced more children and grandchildren, suggesting that "in spite of the fact that bringing together two alleles of a recessive trait may be bad, there is clearly some biological wisdom in the union of relatively closely related people".[40] For hundreds of years, inbreeding was historically unavoidable in Iceland due to its then tiny and isolated population.[41]

To me, since I never really gave any of this much thought and don't know anything about this stuff, all I have are questions.
Don't view it as resisting, I am just testing your hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_population_size

The above doesn't cite source material so...