2 edits
Originally posted by NickstenWell let me get technical then. All life contains significant amounts of water. Water is a requirement for life.
Bla bla bla - you're getting a bit far too technical and have only critics to pass rather than your honest opinion.
So, if God made life out of dust (and not a muddy soup), then he first had to convert some of that dust into water (thus making a muddy soup). So, at the end of the day, God had to have used muddy soup regardless of what the Bible says.
If the Bible says dust, it is dust. Surely even in Hebrew, or even your mother language there is a understanding in the difference between dust and soup.
No, not necessarily.
I found at least on translation that says "slime of the earth":
http://drb.scripturetext.com/genesis/2.htm
Also, God later commands that snakes "will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."
Do you also believe snakes literally live on dust?
Again we have "For dust you are and to dust you will return" suggesting that when you die you become dust. Where does all that water go?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought you did not believe in the Holy Bible. Have you changed your mind?
Well let me get technical then. All life contains significant amounts of water. Water is a requirement for life.
So, if God made life out of dust (and not a muddy soup), then he first had to convert some of that dust into water (thus making a muddy soup). So, at the end of the day, God had to have used muddy soup regardless of what the Bible says.
[b] ...[text shortened]... u will return" suggesting that when you die you become dust. Where does all that water go?
Originally posted by karoly aczelI think you misunderstood me 🙂
You cant have it both ways. Are you now saying you dont believe the world wide flood of the bible with Noah,etc. ever happened?
- Yes I believe the flood did happen.
- Yes I believe the world is about 6000 years old - using calculations and clues in the Bible it comes to about 6000 years
- I also believe that the universe COULD be older than we think. To me this isn't really important if the universe is 6000 or a billion years old. To evolutionists this is very important.
Would it have made a difference ..... cause according to you the flood never happened right? So if the flood didn't happen, my argument stands strong.
(Standing in the shoes of a evolutionist) -> If the flood didn't happen, Neanderthals would have still existed today - no matter the odds!
Originally posted by SwissGambitI am sure that God did have some discussion to Adam, Moses, Abraham or someone else about that. If not, Genesis is a total speculation wouldn't you say?
Well, my point is that the story of Genesis covers time before man's existence, and yet the book was written by a man. How did Adam know what happened before he even existed? Did God sit down with him one day and tell him all that stuff? Are we to take Adam's word for what God told him?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem to have done some studying of the translation of the Holy Bible
No, what gave you that ridiculous idea.
to make your argument from the Holy Bible that the translation "dust of
the ground" did not exclude the elements "hydrogen and oxygen" when
God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life". It gave me the
impression you were now taking the Holy Bible seriously and not as a
fairy tale. However, I guess that was just wishful thinking on my part.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, it was wishful thinking on your part. I was merely pointing out that since we are mostly water, we cannot correctly be describes as being made up of 'dust' as opposed to 'soup'. Even if you claim that the 'dust' contained hydrogen and oxygen which were combined to form water when God 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life' then that would imply that water did go into the making of man.
You seem to have done some studying of the translation of the Holy Bible
to make your argument from the Holy Bible that the translation "dust of
the ground" did not exclude the elements "hydrogen and oxygen" when
God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life". It gave me the
impression you were now taking the Holy Bible seriously and not as a
fairy tale. However, I guess that was just wishful thinking on my part.
My point is that Nicksten seems convinced that the Bible says 'no water involved' and that abiogenesis says 'water required', yet in reality it is obvious that water is required for life and either the Bible is wrong or Nicksten has misinterpreted it. Of course his claim that soup is involved in evolution is just a strawman. I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and suggested it might be an error on his part if it wasn't for the fact that it has been pointed several times to him that abiogenesis is not evolution nor required for it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadObviously, we must use our common sense in evaluating the meaning,
Yes, it was wishful thinking on your part. I was merely pointing out that since we are mostly water, we cannot correctly be describes as being made up of 'dust' as opposed to 'soup'. Even if you claim that the 'dust' contained hydrogen and oxygen which were combined to form water when God 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life' then that would imp ...[text shortened]... pointed several times to him that abiogenesis is not evolution nor required for it.
especially when we do not know the language. It seems that the Holy
Bible has a way of giving clues to unclear meanings of one scripture by
other scripture when compared. For example Isaiah 64:8 NKJV reads:
But now, O Lord,
You are our Father;
We are the clay, and You our potter;
And all we are the work of Your hand.
I have read that the Hebrew that is translated Adam means "red man",
so perhaps the "dust" in Genesis is better described as "red clay" from
which God as the potter used water, as a potter does, to mold and shape
the red clay to make the "red man" Adam.
Originally posted by RJHindsLOL! for 'clues' see: inconsistencies. Surely you can detect the blatant use of allegory in that passage.
Obviously, we must use our common sense in evaluating the meaning,
especially when we do not know the language. It seems that the Holy
Bible has a way of giving clues to unclear meanings of one scripture by
other scripture when compared. For example Isaiah 64:8 NKJV reads:
But now, O Lord,
You are our Father;
We are the clay, and You our potter;
A ...[text shortened]... sed water, as a potter does, to mold and shape
the red clay to make the "red man" Adam.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell maybe you should be addressing that to Nicksten who assures me that it could not possibly be interpreted as anything other than 'dust' and that anything else would render the Bible wrong and he is thus duty bound to not accept it for religious reasons.
Obviously, we must use our common sense in evaluating the meaning,
especially when we do not know the language. It seems that the Holy
Bible has a way of giving clues to unclear meanings of one scripture by
other scripture when compared. For example Isaiah 64:8 NKJV reads:
Originally posted by Proper KnobI'm not sure there's much evidence supporting the 'smarter' position or indeed the competition for resources idea. I reckon the best bet is that we were just more fecund. I'd bet you're right about the violence though.
No one is completely sure why Neanderthals died out, but i wouldn't be surprised if we had something to do with it. We, as a species, have a huge propensity for violence. They couldn't compete with us for resources, we were too smart for them. I've read a suggestion that it was out ability to share which is what did for the Neanderthals.
Why will the ...[text shortened]... Pretty much all life on this planet as gone extinct at some point. Why are we any different?