At last something decent on the BBC

[Phoenix]

I guess if they were all closely inter-related, they would soon look like a bunch of Kentucky hillbillies !

Or the Welsh?

[oraclesmith]

As in "Iesu, mae o'n rel coc oen"

[thunderlizard]

OK, we've heard enough accusations of incest about the creationists.

In the interests of balance, let's not forget that Charles Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgewood, and Emma's brother married CD's sister.

[Crown Royal]

[TheMonkey]

[sasguru]

With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.

From www.getanswers.org

[Emperor Dalek]

How many children did Adam and Eve have? The Bible does not give us a specific number. Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). With likely hundreds of years of child-bearing capability, Adam and Eve likely had 50+ children in their lifetime.

From www.getanswers.org

[TwinGoldDaleks]

How are you doing, Emp?

[Emperor Dalek]

How are you doing, Emp?

Not bad, Twin. How many humans have you robotised today?

[oraclesmith]

OK, we've heard enough accusations of incest about the creationists.

In the interests of balance, let's not forget that Charles Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgewood, and Emma's brother married CD's sister.

So what ? At least he wasn't a hypocrite. It is not possible, even in theory, for Adam and Eve's children to have procreated with anything other than their parents or brothers and sisters. Even theologians accept this. The point is, incest was banned at a later stage of the Old Testament (Lev.) when it was realised that it causes health problems. So without any documented explanation in the Old Testament about why God allowed it at first and not later, it could be reasoned that God (or more likely the authors of the Adam and Eve story) made a mistake. There is exactly the same issue with Noah and his wife.

Here is a link to a Christian think-tank attempting to explain the incest in Genesis :-

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qincest.html

Note the mention of 'radiation' pouring through the 'water canopy' after the Flood (ie. after Adam and Eve) being the reason to prohibit incest. Yeaah ! They should stop trying to come up with silly excuses and just see the Old Testament for what it really is, which is a historical collection of genuinely thought-provoking but allegorical tales and folklore.

As for Darwin, it's not just a matter of proving Darwin's original theories or his 19th century writings were completely wrong or completely right. He lived a long time ago and it's not likely he was 100% correct given the level of scientific knowledge of the time. We have come a long way since then and there is a much greater body of knowledge and scientific evidence around nowadays to improve on and modify his original theories.

As for the creationists ; maybe a big flood etc actually happened somewhere in the Middle East at some time in the past, but it doesn't also mean the dinosaurs or early humans didn't exist - and I don't remember them being mentioned in the Old Testament. The hard-line creationists can't logically explain away the human history that isn't in the Old Testament. Maybe some of the OT is based in historical truth but not every word, every sentence, every nuance. Maybe the reason given for these unexplained items is that they are just God's traps for the unworthy ? But then again, maybe reason just not in the creationists skillset because they are starting off from the premise that the Old Testament is historical truth and trying to prove it so, rather than examining the known facts with an open mind.

If they accepted that the Old Testament is a Middle Eastern Jewish folk story told to explain why their people are on this Earth, much like the creation stories of Australian aborigines, then they would be able to better reconcile the scientific evidence with their deeply held beliefs.

Ok, rant over. I'm off to bed. 'night.