You said: “Genesis clearly states that Cain’s wife was not a daughter of Adam and Eve.”

Please cite chapter and verse…

Cain was Adam’s son, but his wife was not Adam’s daughter. In fact, the Bible is abundantly clear in stating that she was not only unrelated, but that she was from a foreign land.

Only those who are very ignorant of what the Bible actually says would ever take the position that Adam’s sons committed incest.

“I haven’t even watched the video yet. Though as a Christian, I have examined some of the various explanations given about the Genesis/incest dilemma, which have varying degrees of plausibility and strength. However, one thing must be remembered. Any view of origins is problematic. But even so, none is moreso riddled with problems than the assumption of spontaneous generation of life. Scientifically, this is a “sterile” dead-end, as it has never been shown to happen observationally, even with highly manipulative efforts on the part of scientists. And even if the huge step of abiogenesis were granted, the developement of biological life through time from microscopic beginnings to a person, like yourself, who can reason and claim to know something about the origins of life, is a much more profound problem (scientifically speaking) than the question of incest in the first human beings. Yes, I’m aware that the Theory of Common Ancestry is taken as fact by many people. But on closer examination, it is usually determined as the only way it ever could have happened, based upon one’s philosophy of anti-supernaturalism, rather than empirical observation. David Berlinski is an agnostic who has written a book called “The Devil’s Delusion” where he underscores the philosophical commitment of Evolution, and the pretention that it is hard science. Most people don’t really care to consider those kinds of arguments. I have no problem with people bringing up difficulties of the Biblical account of reality. I do have a problem when people pretend that believing life arose of its own accord, and that Darwin’s soft-science is problem-free and a slam-dunk.”

I don’t think an evolutionary account of things is necessarily out of sorts with scripture, (It certainly doesn’t do away with the need of God as an explanation- as G.K. Chesterton once noted, a slow miracle is no less a miracle than a fast one), but it does create tensions. Still, my question for those who ridicule Genesis based upon the incest question is: So the development of non-life into rational human beings is less absurd? I think its infinitely more absurd and quite beyond the scope of science up to this point. Of course there is a faith-like commitment that we will know one day. But alas, that hope isn’t science, but more like religion.

Seriously though, the whole Adam&Eve story is hogwash, utter nonsense, like Noah’s Ark. Come on… Can’t take these religious people seriously.

Why ?