Genetics and Cain's Wife; Chad Arment; Amazing Design of Squirrels Despite Being Degraded Mutants?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- This week in Creationism Episode 65. Let's talk about Ken Ham's genetic argument for why it was ok for Cain to be fruitful and multiple with his sister. Ken Ham is also talking about evolution being stopped in Gar fish. What is that about? Squirrels are said to be incredibly designed for being able to remember were they put 3000 acorns in order for them to survive harsh winters. But how were they created to do so if their ancestors had perfect genomes for living in a "perfect paradise?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Duff (aka Dr. Duff or The Natural Historian) resources:
Blog: thenaturalhist...
Twitter: / naturalhistoria
Facebook: / thenaturalhi. .
Photography "Portraits of Creation:" www.beechnutph...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was growing up, flying squirrels and giraffes were proof of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Now they are the result of molecular degeneration. I agree...now they are trying to have it both ways!
All the "amazing irreducible design" arguments for species are undermined by the idea of "kinds" as families (it seems like the original idea was "kinds" as species).
Same for me
I like how you described what a real flood would leave behind. I've been thinking the same thing that there would be no foot prints because everything would sink into the mud. You need firm ground underneath mud to have an actual footprint.
And what about the astonishing mimetic abilities of cephalopods? If the primordial world was vegetarian, a lot of information had to be added to the genome to enable this trick to evade predators. There is no a priori reason to think that the original creation was "perfect", whatever that means.
15:17 "Siblings could marry under those circumstances, provided it was one man for one woman" aka "I can excuse incest, but I draw the line at gay people"
@23:00 Zoo Creation was at least around in 2008 (I have a piece in my TIP data field accessed then, though not necessarily retaining earlier postings, as it was gone by 2017).
KH has a weird hatred for poodles. I have seen him, on several occasions, single them out specifically for demonization. It’s very odd. Perhaps he was bitten as a child or something?🤔
Ken imports Man's Word about genetics to interpret the text. Worse than that, his view implies that in cest was part of God's original plan for the very good creation, but the activity is later called an abomination in Leviticus 18. AiG does not discuss any of the context or detail of Leviticus 18 in any of it's many articles on Cain's wife, only that it was motivated by genetic or health reasons not mentioned in the text. Their readers simply trust Ken's word on it.
Keen to hear about the mud problem!
Except the siblings couldn't have coupled. I've read the section in Leviticus, Numbers, and Duetero. They are exceedingly complete in saying what you can't marry or bed, anything but the opposite sex, and not a relative. Since Genesis was written approx in 1000 BCE (and traditionally attributed to Moses). An author would not have written anything against the entire of God's Law.
But Abraham married his half-sister - not allowed in the law either.
@@Prometheus_Bound I hope you're ready to go deep on this, so strap in. According to Rabbinic Law as it relates to the Laws of Moses, you have several things that act as modifiers, either positively, or negatively, as to whether or not an "action" is part of the Torat Moshe or תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה. "Preventable" actions, "Non-Preventable" actions. Or actions that because of a "special case", allow for a different outcome. Which is the one that applies here. G-d blessed the marriage, because Sarai, now Sarah, was to be the Woman, from whom the entire Nation of Isreal sprang.
@@kennethswenson6214 Okay, but I remember reading somewhere, "An author would not have written anything against God's entire law." 😉
@Prometheus_Bound ah, but you see, because G-d allowed it. It wasn't "against" The Law. I had a Rabbi as one of my teachers. I know it gets hard to comprehend sometimes.
@@kennethswenson6214 Exactly, but the early days of Genesis were just such an exception according to my tradition. 🙂
Errrrr....... But wait, if Adam and Eve were created "perfect" we know gods definition of "perfect" is doesn't sin (and as Jesus proves that means even with free will). Clearly god didn't create Adam and Eve perfect because they sinned. And in order to prove god can create someone who is imperfect, they had to sin. Oooooops.
This is what happens when someone attempts to shoehorn in a concept that wasn't in the older stories, to try and make it seem connected to later ones..
People end up trying to argue for a god of unlimited scope and capacity, completely free to realize literally anything, which is created completely perfect, as intended, no restriction...
But also, arguing about all the ways of human crappiness, that overpowered or somehow managed to thwart this unstoppable god from creating and sustaining something exactly how he intended it to be.
It's really silly.
I understand the Hebrew means something like abundantly good, but not perfect. Certainly nothing about genes!