We are the direct genetic offspring of God.

[McCulloch]

I think I can provide both physical and scriptural evidence that we are the direct (genetic) offspring of God, and I think I can also prove with physical and scriptural evidence that we're all sinners.

Question for debate: Is there any physical evidence that we are the direct genetic offspring of God?

Bonus Points: Is there any physical evidence that we are all sinners?

[McCulloch]

Now before anyone gets the mistaken idea that I am arguing the affirmative here, let me state unequivocally that I completely reject that there is any physical evidence that we are the direct genetic offspring of God. But let the one who is making this claim bring such evidence forward. Please.

Let's have a look at God's DNA for comparison.

[Divine Insight]

Well to begin with it would be extremely easy to prove that all humans are "sinners" according to the Bible. The Bible has made it impossible for humans not to be "sinners". Even if a person could somehow get out from under the accusations that they have actually committed any sinful acts, they would still be "sinners" by original sin.

In fact, the churches had people bringing in their babies to be baptized precisely because it was claimed that we are born with original sin.

It's a major goal of this religion to demand that everyone is a sinner. So it wouldn't be the slightest bit surprising that based upon the Bible's definition of sin, all men are sinners. This is the way the cult was designed to be in the first place.

No one escapes condemnation, not even newly born babies.

As far as God having DNA goes, that would violate the idea that God is "spiritual" and not material. If God has DNA then God must also have need of proteins biology and the whole biological shebang.

So claiming that we have God's DNA is utterly absurd.

That would require that God is PHYSICAL and BIOLOGICAL just like us.

~~~~~~


Moreover, I can prove just the opposite: From the Biblical Stories.

In Genesis it is said that God created for Adam a helpmate named Eve. But Eve turned out to be an immoral woman who disobeyed God and brought down the whole of the human race with her fall from grace.

However, God could have just as easily created for Adam a helpmate like Mother Mary. And then there would have never been any fall from grace.

Therefore if DNA determines the person, and God created for Adam an immoral bimbo that would be entirely God's fault, and not the fault of humanity.

So this violates the "fall from grace" as being anything short of God's own design.

And that would be an extremely untrustworthy and immoral God.

~~~~

The whole picture fails and cannot be made to work no matter what.

The only obvious truth is that these ancient superstitious rumors are just that. Superstitious rumors. Made up by not-so-intelligent men. Immoral male-chauvinistic men to boot.

There is nothing moral about this religious picture. Even if true, the Biblical God would be as immoral as the Satan character in this religion. He would be totally untrustworthy and devious.

[DanieltheDragon]

That is an impossible claim one would have to know the physical aspects of god. Which as far as I can tell there is none. I would be really curious to Me's theology on how scripture supports this as far as I can tell god created adam out of dirt and eve out of adam NOT out of god so I am really curious to understand this herasy lol.

[Haven]

Question for debate: Is there any physical evidence that we are the direct genetic offspring of God?

This question is meaningless without information about God's genetic makeup (which, if any existed, would prove "God" was not, in fact, a god, but simply an advanced alien being, destroying theism). If no such evidence exists, then this claim is spurious at best, and if such evidence does exist, then we can conclude that theism is false. Either way, the Christian loses.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Somebody else beat you to it.

My response (with three bonus answers) was already given, so I'll copy it here. My point #1 is the framework for this thread.

From Post 26 here:

...
I think I can provide both physical and scriptural evidence that we are the direct (genetic) offspring of God, and I think I can also prove with physical and scriptural evidence that we're all sinners.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the following:

1- Physical evidence shows we're the offspring of God.
2- I figure for "scriptural evidence" we're gonna get, "See, it says it right here", but do try to offer some means to confirm this data is an accurate reflection of God's opinion on the matter.
3- Physical evidnece shows we're all "sinners".
4- I figure for "scriptural evidence" we're gonna get, "See, it says it right here", but do try to offer some means to confirm this data is an accurate reflection of God's opinion on the matter.

1. There is only one species on the planet with the ability to abstract three times removed or more, and all of our supposed hominid ancestors exhibited the same ability. This serves as evidence that nothing in nature can stand as our ancestor from whom we inherited that trait. We therefore have a non-natural progenitor.
2. Yes, that's what you're going to get. I claimed that there is scriptural evidence, not supporting data. I don't acknowledge or respond to moved goal posts.
3. "Sin" is a very broad term that covers every conceivable personality flaw under the sun. (My physical evidence will begin with a dictionary definition. You're welcome to offer something from anywhere in nature that is both human and sinless based on this point of view.)
4. Yes, you'll get a passage form the Bible such as from Romans or Psalms or Isaiah, since, after all, that was my claim. I have no need to offer data where I promised none.

It has not escaped my notice that we are all playing on a grossly uneven playing field.

Christians are required to back up their claims; claims against the Bible are simply assumed to be correct; very few of them are ever adequately supported.

I take this to be one of the greatest compliments society can offer. My beliefs stand up to scrutiny and survive, while other beliefs (such as evolution) are not subjected to scrutiny and consequently remain weak.

[Nilloc James]

It only looks like that if youve assumed the bible to be true from the outset.

[The Me's]

It only looks like that if youve assumed the bible to be true from the outset.

I'm not sure where you get this claim, but it was never posted by me, and it doesn't reflect my thought processes.

I've verified the Bible to be factually accurate in probably hundreds of specific places.
I have also found that the Bible cannot be shown inaccurate anywhere. All attempts to do so are invariably built upon dishonest arguments or unreasonable assumptions.

I therefore assume (based on this evidence) that the Bible is accurate and written in good faith.

I find it irrational to assume otherwise in light of the evidence.

You're welcome to demonstrate otherwise before you "assume" the Bible to be wrong until proven otherwise.

**************
Point of order:

Your response would better serve the thread if you were to offer physical, biological or otherwise scientific evidence that my point #1 above is not accurate.

Snide and baseless remarks don't serve anything.

[McCulloch]

It has not escaped my notice that we are all playing on a grossly uneven playing field.

Christians are required to back up their claims; claims against the Bible are simply assumed to be correct; very few of them are ever adequately supported.

I take this to be one of the greatest compliments society can offer. My beliefs stand up to scrutiny and survive, while other beliefs (such as evolution) are not subjected to scrutiny and consequently remain weak.

This is untrue. Anyone here who makes a positive claim can and should be challenged to support that claim. We have numerous debate threads where evolution has been challenged and support for it has been provided.

[The Me's]

It has not escaped my notice that we are all playing on a grossly uneven playing field.

Christians are required to back up their claims; claims against the Bible are simply assumed to be correct; very few of them are ever adequately supported.

I take this to be one of the greatest compliments society can offer. My beliefs stand up to scrutiny and survive, while other beliefs (such as evolution) are not subjected to scrutiny and consequently remain weak.

This is untrue. Anyone here who makes a positive claim can and should be challenged to support that claim. We have numerous debate threads where evolution has been challenged and support for it has been provided.

"Can and should" doesn't accurately portray common practice.

There's a very big difference between what "should" be done and what "is" done.

I'm hit all the time with unsupported claims, and with almost all of them, I don't just ask for support (and don't get it), I'm faced with a demand that I disprove their claim.

Don't get me wrong. I quite enjoy the reality that Christians are depended upon to provide the supporting evidence for our claims, and the contrary evidence for all counterclaims. It relies on the implication that Christians are the only people with real education and resources to respond.

I take that humbly and thankfully as a great compliment from society at large (even if the underlying premise is a bit distorted).