Cain's Wives

[MarvelousMarvin]

Tlaloc said:

It's just called sexual reproduction, asexual means without sex, and sexual means with sex (I.E. separate gametes).

OK, my terminology stands corrected. I spent most of my adult life as a technician, not a scientist, and my education prior to studying theology was in high tech stuff, not science. Obviously, I'm not a biologist.

But I still am waiting to hear someone explain how the female line can be "far older" than the male, whether for humans or any other kind of sexually reproducing organism. Isabella totally ignored my question, telling me to stick to discussing what I know. Obviously, she doesn't know, either. Explaining that genetics shows it to be true doesn't explain how the females got pregnant if there were no males around. And if there were males around, then the male line is as old as the female, meaning something is wrong with the way relative ages were determined.

I would also like someone who believes in the evolution fairy tale to explain how information arose from non-information. A laboratory demo of that happening (by chance random processes, not by something the experimenter programs into the experiment) might help with the explanation. A whole lot of my technical education was in computer programming, and I have yet to see a computer assemble itself, or to do something useful without being programmed by a higher intelligence to do it. One analogy I heard was that evolution is less likely than a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747.

I've got a collection of old computer parts. Maybe if I throw a stick of dynamite into the middle of it all, I'll get a new 4.2 GHz quad-core computer with a 32" wide-screen monitor as the result of the explosion. :lol:

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Tlaloc said:

To start making up wild statements that Adam did or did not marry his daughters without reason, for either one over the other is in my opinion very dangerous.

I just tossed that out as a possibility. Obviously, since the Biblical record is silent on that, all we can do is speculate.

One reason I think it possible is because in 130 years of marriage, Adam and Eve had only three sons. (As far as the Biblical record states.) It is not likely that they had only those three children. And if there had been a son before Seth (other than Cain and Abel), he likely would have been named. So IMHO, they had quite a few daughters mixed in with the three named sons. Adam would not think it wrong to marry his daughters since the law prohibiting that was still a few thousand years in the future. That would certainly be in keeping with the command to "be fruitful, and multiply."

It's just one possibility, not something to build a doctrine on.

jsw said:

But why would incest be a sin? Or at least during the time of Cain. Who else was he going to marry? Maybe I miss-read the topic, but that is what I have to say about it.

It was not a sin until the law was given to Moses, about 1491 BC. (Some say as late as 1460 BC.) Genetic defects, the result of sin and the curse in Genesis chapter 3, had accumulated to the point that it was likely to result in birth defects in the offspring if close relatives married. God's unchanging law for mankind is two-fold: 1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. All other laws are based on those two, according to Jesus. (Matthew 22:36-40) That second one is why He instituted laws against incest when He gave the law to Moses. He had not changed, mankind had. Doing something that is likely to result in your children having birth defects is not loving your neighbor.

And as you correctly observed, Cain (and Seth, and Abel if he married before being murdered) had to marry their own sisters. Or maybe Seth married Cain's daughter(s) as well. There was no one else around except for descendants of Adam and Eve. Even if, as I think possible (not sure how likely, it's only speculation), Adam married one or more of his own daughters as additional wives - they were still descendants of him and Eve.

 

[Tlaloc]

OK, my terminology stands corrected. I spent most of my adult life as a technician, not a scientist, and my education prior to studying theology was in high tech stuff, not science. Obviously, I'm not a biologist.

Criticizing someone over mistakes in terminology is a non argument anyway. Mind, telling someone they are using a word to mean something it doesn't mean is right, but when someones meaning is clear like you're was its just sidestepping to say someone is wrong because they said the wrong word.

I strongly disagree with this statement! Theology is, and always will be, the Queen of the Sciences.

A programmer eh? No wonder I like how you think quite often.

Tlaloc said: To start making up wild statements that Adam did or did not marry his daughters without reason, for either one over the other is in my opinion very dangerous.

Just to be clear. I did not say this, I actually agree that he may have and probably did married his daughters. I expect you meant to reply to someone else though.

I agree with you on this thread, and hope that it will be clear to talk about you're topic in the near future.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

OK, my terminology stands corrected. I spent most of my adult life as a technician, not a scientist, and my education prior to studying theology was in high tech stuff, not science. Obviously, I'm not a biologist.

Criticizing someone over mistakes in terminology is a non argument anyway. Mind, telling someone they are using a word to mean something it doesn't mean is right, but when someones meaning is clear like you're was its just sidestepping to say someone is wrong because they said the wrong word.

I strongly disagree with this statement! Theology is, and always will be, the Queen of the Sciences.

A programmer eh? No wonder I like how you think quite often.

Tlaloc said: To start making up wild statements that Adam did or did not marry his daughters without reason, for either one over the other is in my opinion very dangerous.

Just to be clear. I did not say this, I actually agree that he may have and probably did married his daughters. I expect you meant to reply to someone else though.

I agree with you on this thread, and hope that it will be clear to talk about you're topic in the near future.

I said something similar to, "To start making up wild statements that Adam did or did not marry his daughters without reason, for either one over the other is in my opinion very dangerous." not Thaloc

Why not start talking about the second wife of Abraham Lincoln. After all are there any documents to show that Abraham Lincoln was not married to two wives, furthermore if he was married to two wives, one could use it to make people be more likely to be emotionally supportive of polygyny, so why investigate it let's just assume it is true because it supports our goals. :roll: Warning rolling eyes emoticon may indicate that previous statements were sarcastic. :|

Now why not say that we know for certain that Thomas Jefferson had exactly one wife and no more if we are of the monogamy only position? :roll:

 

[Isabella]

I did not duck any question, I just answered it all with the Noah thread and I couldn't be bothered to repeat myself.

B

 

[Isabella]

Tlaloc said:

It's just called sexual reproduction, asexual means without sex, and sexual means with sex (I.E. separate gametes).

OK, my terminology stands corrected. I spent most of my adult life as a technician, not a scientist,

Well STONE me, I could hardly guess.....

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Anti-polygynists generally use the "Adam had only one wife" argument to "prove" their position. So I am saying to them, "Prove it. And here's why he might have had more than one." There is no substantive Biblical evidence either way.

Didn't Victor appeal to Lincoln in his non-argument? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[lutherangirl]

Genetics...please don't use genetics. Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.
Debate incest is you will but with genetics, you are pretty much wrong from the start.

b

God made Adam out of dust and breathed into him, so God gave Adam DNA. Does that mean that God is male and female, and that accounts for female line being older?

Also, in regards to incest and genetics, when dogs are bred over and over with the same mother doesn't the dogs down the line get dumber with more side effects? And, is it true that DNA/genes don't improve mixing again and again, so why do people believe we went from monkeys to man? Wouldn't we degress instead of progress? If you mate two dogs together you can't make a chicken, so how is evolution even possible?

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Isabella said:

I did not duck any question, I just answered it all with the Noah thread and I couldn't be bothered to repeat myself.

Where did you ever answer this question:

• If the female line is far older than the male line, how did the females in that "far older line" get pregnant?

That question has been asked several times in different ways on this thread by several people, not just me.

Maybe I have "volatile RAM," but all I recall you ever saying, both in the Noah thread and this one, was (in so many words) that genetic research somehow proves the Bible to be wrong.

 

[Tlaloc]

The worst part is that the data she's referring too isn't dated by genetics at all. It comes from the fact that human fossils found in lower geologic strata where all female. 'Lucy' was a case of this, and part of why there was so much buzz around that skeleton.

Genetics read the genome, but historical (evolutionary) geology dated the bodies they came from. It's not even a genetics argument...

Hence my original assertation that she was way off topic.


ANYWAY, Back on track,

Victor did appeal to my dear uncle in his non argument, Lincoln said that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself. I agree with Lincoln, but it was a non-argument in that our wives arn't anti polygamy.

Why not start talking about the second wife of Abraham Lincoln. After all are there any documents to show that Abraham Lincoln was not married to two wives, furthermore if he was married to two wives, one could use it to make people be more likely to be emotionally supportive of polygyny, so why investigate it let's just assume it is true because it supports our goals.

I see what you're saying, but we have mountains more of information on Lincoln than we do on Adam. There are many detailed biographies based on scads of firsthand information on his life. Adam on the other hand obviously did a lot more than we know about. There is kind of an asymmetry in the comparison between Lincoln and Adam.

Still, I think what Marvin and I are talking about is theory centered around already believing in polygamy (just like the female line thing is theory centered around already beleiving Hist Geo) . I agree it is not evidence for polygamy, and should never be used as such. I would submit that our view on this topic ought to be kept to the poly crowd (I've only heard it in the poly crowd anyway, and even then only one person besides me and Marvin have said it)

 

[Isabella]

Genetics...please don't use genetics. Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.
Debate incest is you will but with genetics, you are pretty much wrong from the start.

b

God made Adam out of dust and breathed into him, so God gave Adam DNA. Does that mean that God is male and female, and that accounts for female line being older?

hi Lutherangirl,

Scientifically that couldn't possibly be answered, but if you see God as being a Mother to Adam, than yes, that would work.

Also, in regards to incest and genetics, when dogs are bred over and over with the same mother doesn't the dogs down the line get dumber with more side effects? And, is it true that DNA/genes don't improve mixing again and again, so why do people believe we went from monkeys to man? Wouldn't we degress instead of progress? If you mate two dogs together you can't make a chicken, so how is evolution even possible?

That is not how evolution works, if you are interested I can suggest a few authors to read if you are really interested.



B

 

[Isabella]

Isabella said:

I did not duck any question, I just answered it all with the Noah thread and I couldn't be bothered to repeat myself.

Where did you ever answer this question:

• If the female line is far older than the male line, how did the females in that "far older line" get pregnant?

That question has been asked several times in different ways on this thread by several people, not just me.

Maybe I have "volatile RAM," but all I recall you ever saying, both in the Noah thread and this one, was (in so many words) that genetic research somehow proves the Bible to be wrong.

They got pregnant in the normal way by men who did not pass their genes down, THAT is what makes it incompatible with the Bible which says Noah was a patrilineal descendant from Adam.

I don't know how much more simple I can state this

And no, Tlaloc, this is not about Lucy (I studied Palaeoanthropology also, so I know the difference between the dating of a fossil and DNA research thank you very much) this is about DNA.

Why even bother to reply if you have not studied the actual research????

As I said to our dear departed Victor, just saying something emphatically doesn't make you right, you either know, or don't know but THINK. There IS a difference.

B

 

[lutherangirl]

hi Lutherangirl,

Scientifically that couldn't possibly be answered, but if you see God as being a Mother to Adam, than yes, that would work.


That is not how evolution works, if you are interested I can suggest a few authors to read if you are really interested.



B

You said "Scientifically" it couldn't be answered, so Science doesn't/can't answer everything? That is were I feel faith in God could only be the answer, especially when Science fails. This should prove that there is a Creator that is much greater than Science.

Thank you for suggesting some authors to read about evolution, but I would really like your explanation about what I said about genetics of inbreeding and two dogs can't make a chicken. You said that you know DNA/genetics, so I believe you could give me an explanation keeping it in lay terms as much as possible. As you can tell from my posts I'm more of a parable type of gal. All the medical words and phrases won't compute in my brain. :lol:

 

[lutherangirl]

The references I tried to explain I learned (although I'm not given them justice in my lack of poor wording) from a seminary I attended taught by Dr. Grady McMurtry, PhD, who once was evolutionist now creationist. Visit his site www.creationworldview.org

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Isabella said:

They got pregnant in the normal way by men who did not pass their genes down, THAT is what makes it incompatible with the Bible which says Noah was a patrilineal descendant from Adam.

Thank you for finally answering the question.

"men who did not pass their genes down": Has anything like that been observed in the present, or is it theory in an attempt to explain something otherwise unexplainable? In humans, women do not have any male chromosomes, so if the men did not pass their genes down, there would be no men in the next generation. Unless I totally misunderstand the x- and y- chromosome thing...

From the Wikipedia article on y-chromosomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome):

The Y chromosome is one of the two sex-determining chromosomes in most mammals, including humans. In mammals, it contains the gene SRY, which triggers testis development if present. The human Y chromosome is composed of about 60 million base pairs. DNA in the Y chromosome is passed from father to son, and Y-DNA analysis may thus be used in genealogy research.

and:

Most mammals have one pair of sex chromosomes in each cell. Males have one Y chromosome and one X chromosome, while females have two X chromosomes. In mammals, the Y chromosome contains a gene, SRY, which triggers embryonic development as a male. The Y chromosomes of humans and other mammals also contain other genes needed for normal sperm production.

Looks like no male genes, no male births in most mammals, including humans.

(And yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a primary source.)

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

[quote=" "

They got pregnant in the normal way by men who did not pass their genes down

What ? :?

It is normal for men not to pass their genes down ? :?

 

[Isabella]

hi Lutherangirl,

Scientifically that couldn't possibly be answered, but if you see God as being a Mother to Adam, than yes, that would work.


That is not how evolution works, if you are interested I can suggest a few authors to read if you are really interested.



B

You said "Scientifically" it couldn't be answered, so Science doesn't/can't answer everything? That is were I feel faith in God could only be the answer, especially when Science fails. This should prove that there is a Creator that is much greater than Science.

*sigh*

It can't be scientifically answered because your question presumes there is a God who created a human. It is the presumption which makes the question unanswerable, not that science doesn't have an answer theoretically, which, in case you may have missed it, I actually did answer.

Thank you for suggesting some authors to read about evolution, but I would really like your explanation about what I said about genetics of inbreeding and two dogs can't make a chicken. You said that you know DNA/genetics, so I believe you could give me an explanation keeping it in lay terms as much as possible. As you can tell from my posts I'm more of a parable type of gal. All the medical words and phrases won't compute in my brain. :lol:

I am sure you underestimate your ability to understand, no, dogs can't create chicken, but I am rather shocked and surprised that your scientific education at school was so lacking that no one pointed out to you that evolution does not actually SAY that humans descended from apes, it says that Apes and humans share a distant ancestor waaaaaaaaaay back in the sort of pre-history that the Bible says doesn't exist and so, if you are disinclined to believe it anyway due to erring on the side of your faith (understandable I suppose) than nothing any scientist can say would convince you.

kind regards,

B

 

[Isabella]

Thank you for finally answering the question.

"men who did not pass their genes down": Has anything like that been observed in the present, or is it theory in an attempt to explain something otherwise unexplainable? In humans, women do not have any male chromosomes, so if the men did not pass their genes down, there would be no men in the next generation. Unless I totally misunderstand the x- and y- chromosome thing...
(And yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a primary source.)

I could possibly write LOADS about this post BUT I don't wish to be rude, but I sort of feel like my brains exploded again.

Sorry but this is practically a word by word repeat of the Noah thread, just read it again for petes sake.

B

 

[Isabella]

[quote=" "

They got pregnant in the normal way by men who did not pass their genes down

What ? :?

It is normal for men not to pass their genes down ? :?

Not to any other men they didn't......which is why I said 'patrilineal descent'.

B

 

[lutherangirl]

*sigh*

It can't be scientifically answered because your question presumes there is a God who created a human. It is the presumption which makes the question unanswerable, not that science doesn't have an answer theoretically, which, in case you may have missed it, I actually did answer.

I am sure you underestimate your ability to understand, no, dogs can't create chicken, but I am rather shocked and surprised that your scientific education at school was so lacking that no one pointed out to you that evolution does not actually SAY that humans descended from apes, it says that Apes and humans share a distant ancestor waaaaaaaaaay back in the sort of pre-history that the Bible says doesn't exist and so, if you are disinclined to believe it anyway due to erring on the side of your faith (understandable I suppose) than nothing any scientist can say would convince you.

kind regards,

B

B,

Thanks for the back and forth. You really are a very smart cookie. I might not agree with you on all the debates, but I sure do love a good debate. As much as I appreciate Science and know it has is place and purpose (although this was my weak area in school), I still feel science doesn't explain everything and can't give me eternal life. I feel the love and faith I have in our Heavenly Father gives me everything I need, and I never want for more.

I hope you have that peace and freedom that I'm talking about. Maybe for you Science gives this too you. Thanks again, for the thought provoking posts.

Michelle