1 edit
yOriginally posted by SwissGambityes hes generally credited with authoring the Book of Genesis, by inspiration.
Moses is usually credited as the author of Genesis, right? He wasn't there during the creation period; he was born hundreds of years after it. Even if the original story was true, it was passed down from Adam to Moses via oral tradition over hundreds of years. Oral tradition is hardly the most reliable way of preserving historical accuracy.
Edit: Ada eriod, either. He certainly could not have witnessed his own creation from a 'pile of dust'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirst we get this from you:
the clincher,
Can we trace any human traits back to Neanderthals?
Probably not.
Some researchers had hypothesised that some human genes, including one involved in
brain development, originated from interbreeding with Neanderthals, but Pääbo's team
found no evidence for this
hypothesised dear PK, what is this? empiric science or religion and magic?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd then later on we get this:
You might as well ask why there is any human traces of DNA in the human gnome, so called Neanderthals are human not simian and this is about as tenuous as it gets for the materialist, no empiric evidence other than speculative attempts to utilise why a branch of humanity has passed on its genetic make-up, isn't that what the genes supposed to do? Perhaps you might like to detail how extensive your empiric evidence is, are we talking whole skeletal structures or a couple of teeth and a lower jaw bone ?
So which is it? It appears that even you can't quite figure out which side of the fence you're on. Is this so either way you can claim you were right all along?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the clincher,
Can we trace any human traits back to Neanderthals?
Probably not.
Some researchers had hypothesised that some human genes, including one involved in
brain development, originated from interbreeding with Neanderthals, but Pääbo's team
found no evidence for this
hypothesised dear PK, what is this? empiric science or religion and magic?
Originally posted by NickstenI don't know ancient Hebrew, and I can't be sure that the translators got it right. It could be dust, it could be muddy soap. Interestingly evolution does not mention either - which suggests you are using a strawman - which suggests you know you are wrong.
Well, the logical thing to do in this case is to read the first 2 chapters of Genesis and it will tell you exactly how God created man. There is no assumption that you can make from reading those chapters that God did however use evolution to create man. He created man from dust, not from the muddy soap 😉
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo, he does not belong to a Church that is old enough to have much in the way of tradition. He believes it because his pastor told him to believe it. He doesn't realize that literal reading is largely a recent phenomenon and most Jews and Christians do not take it literally.
Edit: I bet the reason you hold to a literal interpretation is tradition - "we've always read it that way".
Originally posted by NickstenOr both can be right?
I know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution - but they are still related in my opinion.
I have to refer to the Bible. It is my proof. If i can't refer to the Bible, you can't refer to science, the playground needs to be fair and we need to compare apples with apples. Evolution is science, creation is religion. And if you think about it, one c ...[text shortened]... here is any scripture older than biblical scriptures, any evolutionist care to prove me wrong?
Originally posted by NickstenThe Vedic scriptures like the Upanishads are older
I know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution - but they are still related in my opinion.
I have to refer to the Bible. It is my proof. If i can't refer to the Bible, you can't refer to science, the playground needs to be fair and we need to compare apples with apples. Evolution is science, creation is religion. And if you think about it, one c ...[text shortened]... here is any scripture older than biblical scriptures, any evolutionist care to prove me wrong?
Originally posted by kevcvs57I maybe got you wrong and if so, sorry bout it.
Prove It Nicksten! don't just accuse people you know nothing about of being liars. What actual prove is there that they were men of god. What you have is FAITH and that is a precious thing but it don't constitute PROOF.
P.S I never said the universe was not created by god.
Well, if you look at the men who wrote the books of the Bible, how else could they not have been men of God? They surely were not atheists. This is the proof we have, those men wrote it all down. They wrote down what happened. Lets take Exodus 20 as a good example...
1Then God gave the people all these instructionsa:
2“I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.
3“You must not have any other god but me.
4“You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. 5You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me. 6But I lavish unfailing love for a thousand generations on thoseb who love me and obey my commands.
7“You must not misuse the name of the Lord your God. The Lord will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name.
8“Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9You have six days each week for your ordinary work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you. 11For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
12“Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13“You must not murder.
14“You must not commit adultery.
15“You must not steal.
16“You must not testify falsely against your neighbor.
17“You must not covet your neighbor’s house. You must not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.”
18When the people heard the thunder and the loud blast of the ram’s horn, and when they saw the flashes of lightning and the smoke billowing from the mountain, they stood at a distance, trembling with fear.
19And they said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen. But don’t let God speak directly to us, or we will die!”
20“Don’t be afraid,” Moses answered them, “for God has come in this way to test you, and so that your fear of him will keep you from sinning!”
21As the people stood in the distance, Moses approached the dark cloud where God was.
[WORD TOO LONG]
Moses surely did not thumb suck this. This is an actual event that was recorded on paper (or whatever they could have recorded it on in that time). This is the type of proof we have that the books of the Bible were written by men of God. How can we say this is not true if it was recorded thousands of years ago?
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes look I agree - but Adam lived 930 years and in that period, I would guess that they would have found something to write on to. My best guess is that they used stones to write on. The ten commandments were written on to stone.
Moses is usually credited as the author of Genesis, right? He wasn't there during the creation period; he was born hundreds of years after it. Even if the original story was true, it was passed down from Adam to Moses via oral tradition over hundreds of years. Oral tradition is hardly the most reliable way of preserving historical accuracy.
Edit: Adam ...[text shortened]... eriod, either. He certainly could not have witnessed his own creation from a 'pile of dust'.
Surely the created can not witness self creation.
Originally posted by NickstenI believe that humans and animals can not mate.
I believe that humans and animals can not mate. If we can't today, we never could. The DNA is distinct like you said, which makes it impossible. The only thing that i can think of is that the DNA is somehow related, but that is it.
They can mate, they won't be able to 'breed'. Neanderthals and us though shared 99% of our DNA, we had a relatively recent common ancestor so our genetic lines hadn't diverged that much. As a result we were still able breed.