[Jonl1408]

The Bible tells of Cain and Abel being born to Adam and Eve, it doesn’t say that those were their only children though.
Back then the blood lines would have been purer than they have ever been, and it would not have been harmful to their children. Therefore they could have gone for hundreds of years without having problems, but eventually the Lord let them know when it was time to spread out among the nations.

[Jonl1408]

@ Canalon I would like to reply to your comment in The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox, I am not just posting these comments on the hope that the original person will actually read them (it is nice when they do), but on the hope that others will see them and actually think. Also I do not agree with Gamila, on every subject, but on this one he definitely hit the nail on the head. Also it sounds more professional, when you do not insult someone. When you insult people, it makes you sound very unintelligent.

[Jonl1408]

Also Canalon, Gamila was right with that paradox, who did they mate with. Evolution would have had to have evolved in pairs, which would have made it almost impossible for evolution to occur, man has never found one single instance, where one species mated with another species. How can you explain this?
I would really like to hear your answer on this one.
Thanks,
God Bless

[Jonl1408]

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." King James Version, Genesis 1:28
How did God expect them to be fruitful and multiply, if they only had two children? As to why Cain’s wife was not mentioned in the Bible, very few women were mentioned in the genealogies in the Bible, like Noah’s wife for instance, it never gives Noah’s wife’s name in the Bible. Having two children does not sound like being fruitful and multiplying. Maybe the reason that the Bible told the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible, is to mark the first murder ever.

[Jonl1408]

I made a mistake, I stated that the Bible doesn’t say that Adam and Eve, had more children.The Bible states that they did. "The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters." – Genesis 5:4

[JackBean]

because never only one individual evolves into new species, but whole population

[Gavin]

Sshh! I think Jonl1408 went away, and please do not risk a return of gamila. My head still hurts.

[Jonl1408]

quote JackBean:

because never only one individual evolves into new species, but whole population

what???? How do you get a whole population in the first place? I thought that Evolutionists claim it is by evolution…
…and Gavin sometimes it is good for your head to hurt, it means it is working correctly…

[Darby]

Copying reproduction (asexual) would have preceded sexual, which would have preceded gendered. That first step gives you a population for evolution.

[Jonl1408]

interesting theory, but why isn’t there evidence that would support it?

[jumma]

quote :

That first step gives you a population for evolution

a population of what?
1) a population of a proceeding species A
2) a population of new species B

if 1 we have the colin leslie dean paradox

quote :

who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with

an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species

if 2 we have the colin leslie dean paradox

quote :

we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

either way we still have the colin leslie dean an paradox

[jumma]

quote :

Copying reproduction (asexual) would have preceded sexual

1) did this copying happen in an individual/one species A

2) or many species A at the same time

if so we have the colin leslie dean paradox

quote :

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A Copying reproduction (asexual) at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

quote :

Copying reproduction (asexual) would have preceded sexual, which would have preceded gendered. That first step gives you a population for evolution.

but there then again there would have had to be a first gendered bird species B

then the colin leslie dean paradox
what did the first gendered bird mate with

or are you saying that whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new gendered birds/ species B at the same time

then the colin leslie dean paradox

quote :

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

[Author]

Posts