In the debate about evolution verses creation, there are many childish games and ploys that the untruthful evolutionists use to try to confuse creationists. Not all evolutionists are dishonest. Some simply either don't know the truth or have not questioned evolution and have just assumed they were being told the truth by the teachers of evolution. On this page, I wish to discuss one very common ploy used by less-than-honest evolutionists as an example of how you need to think in dealing with such attempts to confuse you. One of the most fundamental principles which you must always keep in mind when considering this debate is that anything that can happen by accident can be made to happen by intelligent design. All that is required to make these things happen is to have enough intelligence, knowledge, and the technology or ability to make these things happen. Also, there are many things which cannot happen by accident and must be made by intelligent design. These are things which are extremely complex, organized, and structured to even be able to function such as a 747 airplane, a computer, or even the simplest living organism. Because of these principles, anything can be explained by intelligent design but not everything can be explained by accident. What you must learn to do is to understand which things cannot happen by accident and must, therefore, have been made to happen by intelligent design. Keep these things in mind and the untruthful people among the evolutionists cannot fool you.

The example here which I wish to use in order to make my point is the question often used by deceitful evolutionists to get you to focus on what may be a problem to you concerning creation. This particular question is,"Where did Cain get his wife?" Always remember that anything which may be a problem to you will always be an even bigger problem to the evolutionist because it is always more probable that a super brilliant being with the ability to do that something can do it than for that same thing to accidently occur. If you do keep this principle in mind, you realize that the cunning little questions these less than honest people dream up are not really quite as ingenious as they may first seem. Especially if you turn the question back around and apply it to evolution. I will show you how to do this.

The problem the evolutionist is trying to create with this particular question is that, having life on this planet begin with only two parents creates a biological problem for the second generation. By the time we finish, you will realize that their problem is only imagine for the creationist but is very real for the evolutionist or, you might say, accidentalist.

In this particular case, the problem the evolutionist is trying to create for the creationists is that the incestual relationships required by the second, third, and even fourth generations of Adam and Even would have a devastating effect on the genetic pool causing extreme problems with birth defects. You must realize that this problem requires the assumption that the starting gene pool for the creationist model is the same as the starting gene pool for the evolutionist model. This assumption is incorrect because with intelligent design, a very perfect, complete, and diversified gene pool is possible from the start and is not possible for evolution. Therefore, the creationist does not have to start with the same random set of genetic rules that an evolutionist must start with. The beginning for both does not have to be the same because the creator can cause anything He wants to happen while accidental occurrence requires a much less complex, organized, and structured original occurrence. With the accident, there can be no purpose for function, only coincidental occurrence. Don't forget this.

With the case about where Cain got his wife, it is important to understand that even with thousands of years of genetic deterioration the present rate of genetic mutation and deformities caused by reproduction from siblings (brothers and sisters) is only 50%. This means that only 50% of the children born from a brother/sister relationship are deformed and have genetic defects. The other 50% are perfectly normal. With cousins, the percentage of genetic defects would be much less. 5,000 years ago with almost perfect genes, it would have been almost nothing between cousins. 6,000 years ago with absolutely perfect genes, there would have been zero problems even for children produce by a brother/sister relationship. Biologically, it is perfectly feasible.

Biologically, this thing about Cain's wife being his sister or cousin presents absolutely no problem from a creationist perspective because God would have provided them with a perfect and rich genetic pool. The real problem comes from the evolutionists explaining where their Cain got his wife because there would not have been a perfect gene pool to draw from. You people have to stop being defensive and remember that the evolutionists have the same problem only it is tougher for them to answer. By their theory, when that first group or few humans evolved, one of two things had to happen. First, they would have had to reproduce with members of the tribe which did not have the "genetic defect" which caused the macro evolutionary event responsible for the evolution of man. This would have meant that at least half of their offspring would not have had the same genetic defect and only half would have had the defect.

This is true with such defects as dwarfism today. If a dwarf has children with a non dwarf, they only have a 50% probability of having a dwarf child. This means that, most likely the new genes causing the macro evolutionary event would have been bread out anyway.

Second, if other mutated offspring were produced at the same time, then they would have had to have mated in either a brother/sister relationship or a cousin relationship. The tribes would not have been big enough for any other possibility. Even with that, only 75% of their offspring would have had the genetic mutation causing the macro evolutionary event. We see this with genetic mutations such as dwarfism. If two dwarf's mate, 25% of their offspring will be perfectly normal humans without even the gene for dwarfism.

With the imperfect gene pool required by evolution, their incest would have doomed the species from the start. You must learn that the issue of Cain's wife presents a much greater problem for evolutionists than for creationists because with creation, we had a very powerful and brilliant being called God controlling everything and He could easily provided them with the perfect gene pool needed to survive an incestual situation which evolution could not have done. With evolution, our ancestors could not have survived the required incestual situation. It could have only happened with creation.

One of the tricks used in this case is for the evolutionist to attempt to include ethics and God's law as part of the problem for this particular case. When one realizes that law is always a response to something such as the activities of man, then that argument quickly disappears. It is very possible that the reason for God giving the laws against incestual relationships had nothing to do with His ethics but with the state of the genetic pool at that time. He may simply have known that the gene pool had become damaged by that time do to the activities of man and/or the results of the flood-altered environment and that continued incestual relationships would eventually and/or more quickly destroy the genetic pool to the extent that our species would begin to develop serious genetic and physical deformities and problems. He would have, therefore, given those particular laws to protect us from such harm. As stated before on my page about the "Law and Science", many of the laws were given for our physical benefit of health and have nothing to do with ethics. We ,ourselves, create laws for our physical benefit which have little, if any, regard for ethics. Shouldn't a much more intelligent being do the same?

You people need to quit defending creation and go on the attack against evolution because science is really on your side not theirs.