[refridgerator]

Adam and Eva had lots of sons and daughters who reproduced themselves, between brothers and sisters. Modern science teaches us that people like that is born retarded.

[Dana723]

Well, I can certainly point to one person who is the personification of that...

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by refridgerator

Adam and Eva had lots of sons and daughters who reproduced themselves, between brothers and sisters. Modern science teaches us that people like that is born retarded.

'Science' is not in the Bible, friend. Tell us what God says in Genesis.


By the way, who is 'Eva', some kraut friend of yours?

[refridgerator]

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

'Science' is not in the Bible, friend. Tell us what God says in Genesis.


By the way, who is 'Eva', some kraut friend of yours?

I mean Eve.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by refridgerator

Adam and Eva had lots of sons and daughters who reproduced themselves, between brothers and sisters. Modern science teaches us that people like that is born retarded.

What does science know? Before the flood things were different.

• Adam lived to be over 900,
• snakes spoke and had legs,
• women were made from bits of men,
• there were Cherubs with flaming swords about the place,
• giants stalked the earth, (Ge:6:4)
• No rain fell (Genesis 2:5 - 6), etc.

Do we descent descend from retarded people?

However, if you can't tell the difference between a noun and a verb, you probably are descended from retards.

[BrotherLarry]

Because of my innate intelligence, I do not trust science (other than Creation Science) because of its intent to make people believe nonsense like a round earth, no firmament in the sky, the impossibility of more than one thing occupying the same space at the same time (proof of falsity: The Glorious Triune God).


Give me instead the Holy Bible, where retardation and sickness are stared in the face and given their true cause: Sin against a pure and holy Almighty Creator, Who did not intend for men to wallow in evilness, but rather to constantly - CONSTANTLY - worship His Amazingness.


Think: We have fingernails because GOD knew we would need them. Does that not prove the overwhelming omniscience of The Great I Am? Oh, LORD GOD, thank You for fingernails.


I descended from the omniscience of the Lord of Lords, thank you very much. All else is nonsense.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Originally Posted by refridgerator

Adam and Eva had lots of sons and daughters who reproduced themselves, between brothers and sisters. Modern science teaches us that people like that is born retarded.

Hello, Refridgerator.

The actual science is a bit more complicated then this. Inbreeding itself does not cause retardation. However, repeated inbreeding among a very small population can cause higher than normal frequencies of rare/recessive genetic diseases - simply because individuals who carry the same recessive allele marry each other, thus creating a higher chance of a child that inherits two copies of the same allele. Such is the case of hemophilia among European royalty, which was a classic case of inbreeding, and similar is the common occurrence of Tay-Sachs disease among people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. The latter is a case of progressive deterioration of mental and physical abilities - what you could call retardation - but individuals who carry two copies of the allele, and therefore have the disease, tend to die long before reproducing age - hence, leave no descendants.

Hence, inbreeding itself does not cause retardation but it does cause more frequent rare genetic diseases if the family which does the inbreeding carries some disease-causing genetic mutations.


For the sake of the argument, if we were all descending from Adam and Eve, I doubt God would have created the first couple already carrying genetic diseases. Hence, their family could have been inbreeding without any negative repercussions among their descendants.

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by Dolores de Barriga

Hello, Refridgerator.

The actual science is a bit more complicated then this. Inbreeding itself does not cause retardation. However, repeated inbreeding among a very small population can cause higher than normal frequencies of rare/recessive genetic diseases - simply because individuals who carry the same recessive allele marry each other, thus creating a higher chance of a child that inherits two copies of the same allele. Such is the case of hemophilia among European royalty, which was a classic case of inbreeding, and similar is the common occurrence of Tay-Sachs disease among people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. The latter is a case of progressive deterioration of mental and physical abilities - what you could call retardation - but individuals who carry two copies of the allele, and therefore have the disease, tend to die long before reproducing age - hence, leave no descendants.

Hence, inbreeding itself does not cause retardation but it does cause more frequent rare genetic diseases if the family which does the inbreeding carries some disease-causing genetic mutations.


For the sake of the argument, if we were all descending from Adam and Eve, I doubt God would have created the first couple already carrying genetic diseases. Hence, their family could have been inbreeding without any negative repercussions among their descendants.

If any of that were true (which of course, it cannot possibly be) it would explain the lesser races such as the joos and nigras I suppose your thought is the Perfect Purity of the White Man™ prevents 'genetic mutation'.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

If any of that were true (which of course, it cannot possibly be) it would explain the lesser races such as the joos and nigras I suppose your thought is the Perfect Purity of the White Man™ prevents 'genetic mutation'.

That was exactly the thought guiding the American Eugenics movement, Mr. Hutchins.

Eugenics” comes from the Greek roots for “good” and “origin,” or “good birth” and involves applying principles of genetics and heredity for the purpose of improving the human race. The term eugenics was first coined by Francis Galton in the late 1800’s (Norrgard 2008). Galton (1822-1911) was an English intellectual whose body of work spanned many fields, including statistics, psychology, meteorology and genetics. Incidentally, he was also a half-cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton’s first academic foray into eugenics analyzed the characteristics, such as superior intelligence, of England’s upper classes and concluded they were hereditary; therefore, desirable traits could be passed down through generations (Norrgard 2008). Galton advocated a selective breeding program for humans in his bookHereditary Genius (1869): “Consequently, as it is easy, ….. to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.”

The eugenics movement took root in the United States in the early 1900‘s, led by Charles Davenport (1866-1944), a prominent biologist, and Harry Laughlin, a former teacher and principal interested in breeding. In 1910, Davenport founded the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island “to improve the natural, physical, mental, and temperamental qualities of the human family” (Norrgard 2008). Laughlin was the first director. Field workers for the ERO collected many different forms of “data”, including family pedigrees depicting the inheritance of physical, mental, and moral traits. They were particularly interested in the inheritance of “undesirable” traits, such as pauperism, mental disability, dwarfism, promiscuity, and criminality. The ERO remained active for three decades.

Eugenics was not only the purview of academics, and it became a popular social movement that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. During this period, the American Eugenics Society was founded, in addition to many local societies and groups around the country (PBS 1998). Members competed in “fitter family” and “better baby” competitions at fairs and exhibitions (Remsberg 2011). Movies and books promoting eugenic principles were popular.A film called The Black Stork (1917), based on a true story, depicted as heroic a doctor that allowed a syphilitic infant to die after convincing the child’s parents that it was better to spare society one more outcast.

The English eugenics movement, championed by Galton, promoted eugenics through selective breeding for positive traits. In contrast, the eugenics movement in the US quickly focused on eliminating negative traits. Not surprisingly, “undesirable” traits were concentrated in poor, uneducated, and minority populations. In an attempt to prevent these groups from propagating, eugenicists helped drive legislation for their forced sterilization (Norrgard 2008). The first state to enact a sterilization law was Indiana in 1907, quickly followed by California and 28 other states by 1931 (Lombardo n.d.). These laws resulted in the forced sterilization of over 64,000 people in the United States (Lombardo n.d.). At first, sterilization efforts focused on the disabled but later grew to include people whose only “crime” was poverty. These sterilization programs found legal support in the Supreme Court. In Buck v. Bell (1927), the state of Virginia sought to sterilize Carrie Buck for promiscuity as evidenced by her giving birth to a baby out of wedlock (some suggest she was raped). In ruling against Buck, Supreme Court Justice Wendell Holmes opined, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles is enough” (Black 2003). This decision legitimized the various sterilization laws in the United States. In particular, California’s program was so robust that the Nazi’s turned to California for advice in perfecting their own efforts. Hitler proudly admitted to following the laws of several American states that allowed for the prevention of reproduction of the “unfit” (Black 2003).

https://www.nature.com/scitable/foru...ment-123919444

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by Dolores de Barriga

That was exactly the thought guiding the American Eugenics movement, Mr. Hutchins.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/foru...ment-123919444

I am always impressed by science when they finally 'get it' what God says in the Bible. My response is always a 'Now.. was that so hard?'
I would make so much more sense to me if these science people would just build proofs that confirm the Bible instead of wasting all this time trying to come up with outlandish concepts that go directly against God and the Bible.

Imagine a person filling the radiator of the car with gasoline and put water in the fuel tank. Why would they be surprised if the car ran poorly? Why not just read the owners manual (KJV Holy Bible) and do things as it instructs. Obviously, electric cars go against everything and are just plain wrong.


Jesus for the win!

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

I don't understand scientists. They seem a bit dumb.

The English eugenics movement, championed by Galton, promoted eugenics through selective breeding for positive traits. In contrast, the eugenics movement in the US quickly focused on eliminating negative traits.

It seems perfectly obvious to me that what is required here is not to select for positive traits or eliminate negative ones, but both.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

What does science know? Before the flood things were different.

• Adam lived to be over 900,
• snakes spoke and had legs,
• women were made from bits of men,
• there were Cherubs with flaming swords about the place,
• giants stalked the earth, (Ge:6:4)
• No rain fell (Genesis 2:5 - 6), etc.

Pastor Bathfire, the last verses you mentioned got me thinking.

Genesis 2:5-6
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Does that mean, that God had some sort of sprinkler system installed all over the place? Did the sprinkler system break, which is why it doesn't work? Why aren't geologists or archaeologists, or whoever likes to dig in the ground, studying this??? There must be some remains, and maybe we could get it to work again!