01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusThe Bible claims Adam and Eve were created ~50,000-100,000 years ago,
Thank you, this is "straight from the horse's mouth":
[b]The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed. According to the first, the distribution of anatomical traits in mode ...[text shortened]... at later a single man contributed to the gene pool.
...
[/b]
Where does it claim this?
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThe chimps live in a completely different habitat than Homo Erectus, and archaic Homo Sapiens, and to compare them therefor does not make any sense.
The chimps outlived Homo erectus, Homo sapien archaic and Neanderthals...seems like superior intelligence means squat.
On another note, it is likely (allthough I don't know) that the chimp has had forefathers similar to ours Homo Erectus, that became extinct aswell.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusLet me see if I understand this correct.
No, but it is implied. And incest was not as negative an event back then, due to exponentially superior genes.
Let me elaborate. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve perfect. Infinitely small negative mutation would have occurred in them before they procreated, and their child would have been slightly less perfect. When two of their children m ...[text shortened]... more to what we have now (two distant cousins from Adam and Eve's line create a healthy baby).
Is this the teological explenation to why there are so many flawes in the construction of the human body.
Our weak spinal column, the blood vessels in front of the optic cells in our eyes, the appendics, the pain women experience when giving birth. All those (and the many more I haven't listed here) can be explained by mutations because of incest?
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusJust because you can't see the logical advantage, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Herds outrun lions all the time. I see no logical advantage for intelligence at its conception in evolutionary theory. For instance a slightly smarter ape would still be eaten over it's slighty dumber--but faster--brother.
You'd need to allow for tremendous amounts of time where intelligence was given free reign to grow.
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe Bible does not give exact dates for the origin of modern humans. However, we can get an idea about the approximate date through the meanings of the original Hebrew language.
[b]The Bible claims Adam and Eve were created ~50,000-100,000 years ago,
Where does it claim this?[/b]
In the 16th century, Archbishop Ussher dated Earth’s origin at Saturday, October 9, 4004 B.C. by adding up all the genealogies presented in the Bible. These calculations were soon incorporated into the notes of virtually every English Bible - soon becoming equivalent to what "the Bible claimed" about the creation date of the earth. However, there are problems with this interpretation. There are provable gaps in at least some of the Old and New Testament genealogies. However, Matthew intentionally listed the generations in groups of 14 and left out less important individuals.
1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias Matthew
3:10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 3:11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 3:12 Amaziah his son, Azariah [Ozias] his son 1st Chronicles
In contrast to Matthew, Luke's account of the biblical genealogies leading to Jesus Christ includes a generation not found in the Genesis account (Cainan). For this reason, we know that neither the Old Testament nor New Testament genealogies represent a complete record of all human generations.
5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 5:29 And he called his name Noah
5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem
10:22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram
10:24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; Genesis
3:35 Which was the son of Saruch , which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec [Peleg], which was the son of Heber [Eber], which was the son of Sala [Salah], 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan [missing generation], which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem [Shem], which was the son of Noe [Noah], which was the son of Lamech Luke
The Hebrew word ben, besides the meaning of "son," can refer to a grandson, great-grandson, etc., since there is no other Hebrew equivalent. Likewise, the Hebrew word ab, besides the meaning of "father," can refer to a grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. For this reason, the biblical genealogies could represent highlights of the complete genealogy, with only the most noteworthy generations represented.
The flexible, literal meanings of the Hebrew words ben and ab allow for many more generations than are listed in the biblical genealogical records. Therefore, instead of referring to a direct son, the genealogy could be referring to a family line that culminated in the next named "son."
And Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan. (Genesis 5:9) NASB
And Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of the family line that culminated with Kenan. (Genesis 5:9) Alternate Translation
The Bible does give an idea of how many generations have lived under God's commandments. At least three verses in the Old Testament indicate that humans have been around for at least 1000 generations. Since a biblical generation is usually listed at 40 years, this would suggest that modern humans have existed for at least 40,000 years.
He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (Psalms 105:8)
Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (1 Chronicles 16:15)
"Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; (Deuteronomy 7:9)
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originman.html
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by RagnorakDarfius, is it standard practice for you to ignore posts which show that what you're saying is complete BS?
Ahem, see that really long post on page [EDIT] 3 [/EDIT] that I posted, and that you chose to completely ignore? Some nice juicy facts there for you to get your head around.
D
D
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusGenesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in hisown likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
The Bible does not give exact dates for the origin of modern humans. However, we can get an idea about the approximate date through the meanings of the original Hebrew language.
In the 16th century, Archbishop Ussher dated Earth’s origin at Saturday, October 9, 4004 B.C. by adding up all the genealogies presented in the Bible. These calculations were soo ...[text shortened]... ents; (Deuteronomy 7:9)
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originman.html
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan ****
5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel
5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared
5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat
Enoch:
5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah
5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech
5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a
son: 5:29 And he called his name Noah
5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years
old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood
11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah
11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber
11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg
11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug
11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah
11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram
count em up and date Abraham
btw none of these guys were Hebrews
21:5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
**** Luke simply is a a confusion of the name of the son of Arphaxad,,, it was Salah not Cainan who was much earlier.
Pretty sloppy research you quote there
02 Apr 05
1 edit
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in hisown likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan ****
5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel
5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared
5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat
Enoch:
5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah
5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech
5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a
son: 5:29 And he called his name Noah
5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years
old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood
11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah
11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber
11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg
11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug
11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah
11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram
count em up and date Abraham
btw none of these guys were Hebrews
I explained this in my post. Did you read it? The word begat means "to show lineage". Look at the alternate translation in my previous post. i.e.:
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram.
or
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat the line that culminated in Abram. (possibly had Abram's father, and Abram's father had Abram).
21:5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
**** Luke simply is a a confusion of the name of the son of Arphaxad,,, it was Salah not Cainan who was much earlier.
Pretty sloppy research you quote there
Actually, it's your research that is less than par. Are you saying Luke confused a later Cainan for the one who had lived centuries earlier?
That's a joke, and an attempt to wiggle out of the fact that there were missing generations.
By the way, look at when Isaac was born. Notice instead of saying Abram begat Isaac it says and when Abram was [this age], Isaac was born unto him, making it CLEAR Abram was Isaac's birth father, rather than grandfather, or great-grandfather, etc.
02 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI think that Darfius is correct on this point.
I explained this in my post. Did you read it? The word begat means "to show lineage". Look at the alternate translation in my previous post. i.e.:
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram.
or
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat the line that culminated in Abram.
BTW his defense of a much older earth than young earth Creationists are willing to admit is an element of Intelligent Design doctrine that makes it 100% better than the drivel the Institute for Creation Research spews out, although it still remains a long way from science. Indeed, some elements of ID doctrine are not inconsistent with the views expressed more than 20 years ago by one of my relatives in his MA thesis in theology at a Catholic seminary; as I recall time-gaps in the first few verses of Genesis, based on study of Hebrew, were important elements in his argument.
07 Apr 05
Originally posted by RagnorakSeeing as you continue to use your tactic of ignoring posts which show you clearly to be misinformed, I will be delighted to point out another falsism in one of your posts...
Darfius, is it standard practice for you to ignore posts which show that what you're saying is complete BS?
D
Darfius:
We share over 50% of DNA with certain vegetables
This is complete BS. What you may have read/heard is that humans share 50% of DNA with fruit flies, and then confused fruit flies with fruit, and then further confused fruit with vegetables.
Care to comment, or provide a source for your "fact"?
D
07 Apr 05
Originally posted by RagnorakI was misinformed.
Seeing as you continue to use your tactic of ignoring posts which show you clearly to be misinformed, I will be delighted to point out another falsism in one of your posts...
Darfius:
[b]We share over 50% of DNA with certain vegetables
This is complete BS. What you may have read/heard is that humans share 50% of DNA with fruit flies, and ...[text shortened]... confused fruit with vegetables.
Care to comment, or provide a source for your "fact"?
D[/b]
Tell me, are you always this militant? It's almost as if you don't want evidence for God...