Offers & Competitions8 mins ago
The family of Adam and Eve
119 Answers
The theory of the evolution of man is the product of science at its most ridiculous. Adam and Eve were two adult human beings created by God just after he created the universe. They were the first and only people on the planet, and they were the forebears of the whole human race.
So how do creationists account for the diverse physical appearances of the assortment of peoples inhabiting the earth today? It stands to reason that most of them do not bear a family resemblance.
So how do creationists account for the diverse physical appearances of the assortment of peoples inhabiting the earth today? It stands to reason that most of them do not bear a family resemblance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.//For jno and anyone else unaware that creationists deny evolution. It's an interview between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Rather lengthy, but if you're interested, worth watching.//
So in essence, what Wendy Wright is saying is, 'I don't buy into evolution because our loving god intentionally creates some of us to be idiots'.
How's that for unassailable creationist 'logic'?
So in essence, what Wendy Wright is saying is, 'I don't buy into evolution because our loving god intentionally creates some of us to be idiots'.
How's that for unassailable creationist 'logic'?
Keyplus - “... Incest sex still happens and unfortunately it happens in so called civilised countries. But not wilfully and under the influence of alcohol...”
I would like to reiterate what “ummmm” posted. Please can you elaborate on your above statement? At the moment it looks like you're saying that incestuous sex in 'civilised countries' only ever happens when at least one person is intoxicated.
I would like to reiterate what “ummmm” posted. Please can you elaborate on your above statement? At the moment it looks like you're saying that incestuous sex in 'civilised countries' only ever happens when at least one person is intoxicated.
Wendy Wright is clearly good at debating (ie. talking complete twaddle) but a complete idiot of the highest order when it comes to anything of any substance.
When Dawkins asked her, “Do you understand what I was saying when I was explaining about natural selection requiring individual variation?”. She replied, “I do. But I also come back and I haven't heard you answer whether... you have a problem with this idea of God being involved in the creation of each individual human being...”
It was quite clear from her 'answer' that she didn't have a clue what Dawkins was talking about. She used the, “...I understand what you're saying but I would like to know...”, technique all the way through the interview – answering a question with another question. When the subject matter got vaguely technical, she simply said words to the effect of, “...yes I understand that but I would like to know...”, or, “... that's a very good question but what about...”.
Basically she dodged all and every question that was related to science (and sometimes even logic) by asking another question. It's a shame that Dawkins was so timid in this interview. Maybe he'd been warned that any hint of confrontational debate would have lead to the interview being terminated?
When Dawkins asked her, “Do you understand what I was saying when I was explaining about natural selection requiring individual variation?”. She replied, “I do. But I also come back and I haven't heard you answer whether... you have a problem with this idea of God being involved in the creation of each individual human being...”
It was quite clear from her 'answer' that she didn't have a clue what Dawkins was talking about. She used the, “...I understand what you're saying but I would like to know...”, technique all the way through the interview – answering a question with another question. When the subject matter got vaguely technical, she simply said words to the effect of, “...yes I understand that but I would like to know...”, or, “... that's a very good question but what about...”.
Basically she dodged all and every question that was related to science (and sometimes even logic) by asking another question. It's a shame that Dawkins was so timid in this interview. Maybe he'd been warned that any hint of confrontational debate would have lead to the interview being terminated?