Age and Down Syndrome?

Modern medical science is a Western achievement.

If he'd mentioned anything about penicillin or an outline plan for a water treatment plant you might have a point, sadly we only got to stuff like that a few thousand years after your bloke shuffled off his mortal coil leaving us with zip except a few kind words.

Yeah, and I meant to emphasize how little that mattered in this conversation. And when you say degeneration, do you losing genetic information, having the current info damaged, or what?I also like how you contradict yourself by saying "it's not about the health of the mother". Well then why'd you bring that up!By your logic, DS isn't even a genetic problem, but God punishing us? What, like how AIDS was God's way to get rid of homosexuals?

Lets work our way back to the topic and keep in mind that the Forum Guidelines need to be respected. Keep the arguments on the issues and not on the individuals who hold these beliefs. Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

The Bible has relatively little to say about women having children. In some cases it is explicitly stated that men had their children with more than one wife; it's probably implicit in many other cases too. It wouldn't be a problem for anybody who was determined to avoid it.

Built-in healthy genetic info damaged by mutation. I didn't, you misread me. The only thing I can find that you must have taken that way is in Message 5: "They were simply a lot more healthy than we are, so their babies were also healthier." I wasn't specifically talking about the mothers of the babies, I was talking about the whole population in general and ALL their babies in general, a general statement about the general inheritance of genetic factors, which in their time I believe were healthier than ours. No, I said it is a genetic problem we've inherited due to the Fall. Diseases and death itself are our inheritance from the Fall.

You could make a whole pitcher of dry martinis with that recipe.

West of what?

By our standards, Jesus was an Easterner. What is your point?

There is no damage done by mutation, only change. And by no means were they healthier a long time ago! What? That is the biggest piece of BS I've heard in a long time. I mean, you can't even prove the fall, so how are you just assuming that it is true? I mean, if we inherited it from the fall, along with all other diseases, why do animals have many of our diseases (AIDS, etc.)?

This is just as far from the truth as Faith's position. Of course mutation can result in damage. Not all mutations are beneficial. Some are detrimental with respect to their effect on an organism's survival to produce and raise offspring.

No, no, you misread me (or I mispoke). There can definitely be damage done to the ANIMAL by means of a negative mutation, but I thought that Faith was talking about what physical damage to the genes themselves.

Altering a gene so that it produces a harmful consequence to an organism is physical damage.

Not neccesarily. Sometimes, yes, but that can also be indirectly harming the animal physically. That isn't damage, that is change that is not good. I'm confused what you mean. It could also not even qualify as damage, because in some cases (e.g. a peacock's tail feather length), it isn't damaging the organism, simply reducing how likely it is to reproduce. This is a pointless argument, as it is not the subject at hand