AiG: Cain’s Dirty Little Secret

April 7, 2009 — DismantleFaith

Part 2 of a series critiquing Answers in Genesis:

One very interesting and seemingly ignored issue in the bible is who did Cain procreate with? This, after all, is a rather important issue for all of us because, according to the bible, we all came from two people, Adam and Eve, who had a few dozen sons and daughters (you get it on a lot when you live to be 930) This is all fine and dandy, until you start getting into some more interesting things their son, Cain, was up to, and according to AiG and the Bible, he was getting it on…with his sister.

But firstly, we must discuss one Question that has been plaguing christians since skeptics started punching holes in their theories. Where did cain, Adam and Eve’s fist son, get his wife? This was brought up during the Scopes Trial (which contested a law that made it illegal to teach evolution) and was put forth by ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow, who was questioning the prosecutor, William Jennings Brian, who responded by saying “let the agnostics hunt for her”. Well were not agnostics, but we did find her.

Why is this woman so important? Well, she was the woman that prevented us humans from going extinct after only two generations, without her, cain would be unable to further the human race, so needless to say she was rather critical to human survival, but she is not mentioned in the bible, and her origins are a complete mystery.

Where could this woman have come from? At this point in time there was exactly one group of people on this planet, Adam, Eve, and their children. So who was Cain’s baby’s momma? Some have said that she was part of another race, and not a descendent of Adam and Eve. There is a reason why this logic does not work from the christians perspective, only people who are descendants of adam can be “saved”. So that leaves only two other kinds of women for Cain to choose from, his mother, or one of his sisters.

Yes, Cain most likely procreated with his sister (he probably thought getting it on with his mom was a little too much) and Answers in Genesis eventually confirms this, after stepping around the issue (this is not taken out of context)

“Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece)”.

And since we all are allegedly related to these people, we all must look like the creepy banjo kid from the movie deliverance!

What is ignored in the article are the effects of incest, Which are usually cognitive, physical, and behavioral issues, as well as excessive banjo playing and an obsession with shooting anything that moves, but AiG fails to mention any of these actually happening, even though they could use the entire population of the states of Florida and Wyoming as valid evidence.

Well, one may ask, how the hell are they going to wiggle out of this uncomfortable issue? Incest is strictly forbidden by biblical law. But this is not the only time it happened in the bible, there was of course Lot, who impregnated both his daughters (Gen 19:33–36) and Abraham, who married his half sister (Gen 20:12) but they claim it wasn’t banned for several hundred years after Cain’s little sexcapade, stating that “This law forbidding close relatives marrying was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20)”. And they pretend as if anything that happened prior to this law didn’t have any negative genetic effects. Some irrational thinking appears to be afoot…

Here is a recap if you were to stoned to understand what were were talking about:
1)the bible says that all of us came from a bunch of inbreds
2)the bible was accurately able to predict the plot for the adult movie Taboo 2 by having Cain get it on with his sister or mother. (he has it all? oh yes he does!)
3)and the entire biblical story of human origins is bullsh*t

None of the events actually happened, so humans are not a result of inter-family relationships, you and I are just a result of random mutations leading to adaptations, that through natural selection allowed you to evolve to your current state. I find this explanation to be a little more comforting than “we all look like this…”:

Source:
Who was Cains Wife?

Source:
The Scopes Trial

Posted in Answers In Genesis. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

AiG-Antibiotic resistant Bacteria

February 24, 2009 — DeiNullus

Part 1 of a series critiquing Answers in Genesis

Creationists pick and choose their science (much like their scripture) to suit their own warped view on how the world should be, not on how it actually is. The framework of this argument focuses on the theory of evolution and in what ways the facts are manipulated by the religious in order to deceive the credulous and themselves (for, after all, the two are often one).

The first incongruous attack against the theory of evolution is the anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Anyone familiar with the background of evolution is aware that bacteria constantly mutating around various environmental ‘bottlenecks’ are a prime example of natural selection. When a new anti-biotic is introduced into the bacterium’s environment, many of the bacteria are killed. However, a select few are just different enough from the others to survive, and thus pass on those same mutated genes. This is natural selection, in its (arguably) purest and most observable form. And, of course, the fact that natural selection will, given enough time, lead to speciation and evolution, is were the problem for creationists comes in. “Oh no! More evidence that evolution exists! Quick, where’s the spin doctor team?!”

Apparently, if judging by the Answers in Genesis article ‘Myth 3: Antibiotic Resistance”, those quacks did their jobs. The argument presented goes as follows : 1) these mutations are not of the “information gaining type” and 2), these mutations hurt the organism. Let us examine these claims, and all the bad, twisted science that is used to construct them.

1) These mutations are not of the “information gaining type”.

The first crucial thing that must be mentioned is there is no definition of what the creationists mean by “information”. Indeed, the creationists cannot agree on even a comprehensible pseudo-definition to aid their own needs. Regardless, this is a blatant misstatement of the cold, hard facts. Mutations in genetic material can be either deletion or insertion mutations. The mere fact that SOME of the bacteria known to mutate in the presence of antibiotics do not add genetic material to their genome means absolutely nothing in the way of Darwinian natural selection or evolution. In fact, it bolsters the argument for evolution.

2) The next argument is truly shocking in its stupidity. To quote:

“ these mutations often come at a steep price to the organism—a price that doesn’t show up until the environmental pressure is removed—and it often means the inability to compete with non-mutant bacteria.”

Whoa. What they are describing here is an instance of natural selection. They are shocked when 1) they use the mutated bacterium that was naturally selected for in an environment, and then 2) change the environment to one in which IT WAS NEVER ADAPTED TO LIVE IN. They are using an example of natural selection in order to

‘disprove’ natural selection. Can some one shout “Circular reasoning!”?

So, as has been illustrated here, creationists twist ( pick and choose, destroy ) science and logic in order to fit these truths to some 2000 year old book.

Source:

Posted in Answers In Genesis. Leave a Comment »