SkFan1983
02-09-2006, 06:07 PM
Because they must have been pretty Barbaric and Violent.

Heri Altariel
02-09-2006, 06:14 PM
I think Barney does too.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b87/FlutterFir3/barney.gif

amodman
02-09-2006, 06:27 PM
Your mom thinks that cavemen were wiped out during Noah's time...and I don't even believe in Jeebus!

petrameansrock
02-09-2006, 06:36 PM
Hmmm. Shouldnt this be one of the religion sections?

But, I don't think the Cavemen existed then. The timeline of everything is very confusing. If youre one of those people that takes everything the bible says as literal, then its hard to see where cavemen and dinosaurs would fit in. I personally think that dinosaurs were before Adam and Eve, and that the Earth wasnt created in a literal 6 days. As for cavemen, I dont know. Maybe there were no cavemen or dinosaurs. Maybe God just put bones there so we would have something to do when we reached the age of science. But oh well. Interesting theories abound.

amodman
02-09-2006, 07:03 PM
Hmmm. Shouldnt this be one of the religion sections?

But, I don't think the Cavemen existed then. The timeline of everything is very confusing. If youre one of those people that takes everything the bible says as literal, then its hard to see where cavemen and dinosaurs would fit in. I personally think that dinosaurs were before Adam and Eve, and that the Earth wasnt created in a literal 6 days. As for cavemen, I dont know. Maybe there were no cavemen or dinosaurs. Maybe God just put bones there so we would have something to do when we reached the age of science. But oh well. Interesting theories abound.

I assumed the thread-makes was joking, or at least hoped he was...but in any case, this post screamed for a reply!

Dinosaurs didn't exist? Dinosaurs didn't exist?! I pray you haven't discussed this with people to convince them of the validity of the Bible...there is absolutely no reason to believe Dinosaurs didn't exist, and every reason, uh, to. Most obviously, we have their bones, lol. We have numerous historical accounts of dinosaurs, and even the Bible makes reference to some or more of them. What wiped them out, and several species besides, was radical change to the enviroment and Earth in the Great Flood.

Before the Flood, things were drastically different. I won't get too technical right now, but the canopy of Ice mentioned in the Bible would have had numerous effects that would have resulted in a massivle different enviroment which caused incresed health, larger everything, extended life, lack of seasons w/ a standard climate, etc. etc. Unfortunately, not all species were able to survive in the newly changed world for very long, and died out. Ie. many of the dinosaurs.

As far as "cavemen" is concerned, they are completely an evolutionary myth. There is no evidence for their existence whatsoever, and are merely supposed to have existed so Radical Evolution makes sense.

skynes
02-10-2006, 01:20 AM
Dittoed - Cavemen are a myth dreamed up by evolutionists who needed a 'after monkey' 'before man'.

Yes simple stone tools were used.

Tell me this:

After Noah and his family got out of the ark. They didn't immediately set up camp in a nice new hut... There weren't any.
So why not live inside a cave for a while? While you're there, you can carve up some stone knives and basic tools to get some metal ore and to cut wood.

Once you get the wood cut then you can start with building houses and what not.
But until then (it would take 8 people a while) they lived in caves.
===============================

The water canopy has a bit of validity involving dinosaurs.
With the higher air pressure and oxygen levels breathing would have been easy. Dinosaurs didn't have very big noses... All the pictures show them with tiny noses. So what if they'd suffocated?

weebird20
02-10-2006, 03:55 AM
since this thread seems to have become more of a serious discussion...tho it may have started off as joke (i dunno) i think it needs to be moved over to Mars Hill...

but i think what Amodman said about the whole flood thing and what Scott said about Noah and his family living in caves after the flood...kina goes with the whole cavemen thing...makes sense...tho im sure they were not stupid...as some believe...

Reeper
02-10-2006, 04:22 AM
The water canopy has a bit of validity involving dinosaurs.
With the higher air pressure and oxygen levels breathing would have been easy. Dinosaurs didn't have very big noses... All the pictures show them with tiny noses. So what if they'd suffocated?

Correct. The average brachiosaurus had a nostril the size of a modern day horse. How in the world did he breathe in enough oxygen for himself if the atmosphere wasn't different? He would have had to suck so hard that the friction of the air would have lit he face on fire.

As far as cavemen go I wouldn't go so far as to say they didn't exist. The problem is the things they call cavemen are not cavemen at all. For instance Neanderthal. They claim that he is a caveman and that the reason his brow is so pronounced is cause he is a different species than us. They neglect to realize that as humans grow old one of the only bones that does not stop growing is the bone of the eye brow. So if someone lived to be say nine hundred years old his brow would be pretty darn pronounced. I could go on for a while here but I'll stop.

Peace

Aragornsgirl217
02-10-2006, 09:43 AM
Hmmm. Shouldnt this be one of the religion sections?

But, I don't think the Cavemen existed then. The timeline of everything is very confusing. If youre one of those people that takes everything the bible says as literal, then its hard to see where cavemen and dinosaurs would fit in. I personally think that dinosaurs were before Adam and Eve, and that the Earth wasnt created in a literal 6 days. As for cavemen, I dont know. Maybe there were no cavemen or dinosaurs. Maybe God just put bones there so we would have something to do when we reached the age of science. But oh well. Interesting theories abound.
But the Bible was literal about Jesus, so why shouldn't it be literal about everything else? If it says in the beginning there was nothing, there was nothing. If It says that God created everything, It means everything. It says that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh. God put the Bible in our lives for us to take literally. I think that cavemen were African tribes, and the Indians, and the Arabs.

God would not put bones here on Earth for our amusement!! God doesn't work like that!!! Dinosaur bones are here because God created them, and after the Flood they went extinct. As a result, we now have their bones.

Those are just my thoughts.

amodman
02-10-2006, 09:59 AM
The water canopy has a bit of validity involving dinosaurs.
With the higher air pressure and oxygen levels breathing would have been easy. Dinosaurs didn't have very big noses... All the pictures show them with tiny noses. So what if they'd suffocated?

Yes and no. A major part of why many of them died out, I'm sure, but we have evidence of them being around quite a long time after the Flood, too. Just smaller, and in lesser numbers. As I'm sure you know, everything before the Flood was larger due to the increased air pressure. So, I'm sure their bodies tried to adjust to the new pressures, climates, and all the rest, but just not as successfully as severl other animals did. I mean, the pre-flood period was almost paradise, relatively, to the conditions of Earth today, and several creatures in that enviroment would've had trouble adjusting. Like throwing an emu in the Arctic, lol, it's completely different.

Isildur9473
02-10-2006, 10:08 PM
Dittoed - Cavemen are a myth dreamed up by evolutionists who needed a 'after monkey' 'before man'.

You're right! All of those fossils we've found aren't really fossils but... Wait, what are they?

disciple
02-10-2006, 10:15 PM
If you've lived in Iowa, you've seen cavemen. :X

korey_cooper_jr
02-11-2006, 06:39 AM
If you've lived in Iowa, you've seen cavemen. :X

Haha, man, that was a good one. :)

Aragornsgirl217
02-11-2006, 07:03 AM
^^Very good one:)

Mr. Xcitement
02-11-2006, 07:55 AM
Well I have watched the Discovery channel before on both these on what science and evidence points to. First they say that evidence points to a meteor causing the extinction of dinosaurs. With the flood, they say it wasn't a "world wide" flood, that this is where the...dead sea I believe came from, that Noah and his family lived in that area before it was flooded, and that it was like the world was flooded to him, because everything he ever knew was flooded. They have found remains of ancient buildings under there and everything. They made sure to say though, that even if it proves the world being flooded not as true as people think, they believe that the story of Noah and the Ark is more about learning a lesson than being a truthful event. Oh, also when archeiologists were exgavating (sp) in Iraq years ago they found old papers that date back older than the papers they have on Noah, and that they have the same story, but with different names.

PinkGoo
02-11-2006, 07:58 AM
You're right! All of those fossils we've found aren't really fossils but... Wait, what are they?
We haven't found any fossils of "cave men."

amodman
02-11-2006, 09:00 AM
Well I have watched the Discovery channel before on both these on what science and evidence points to. First they say that evidence points to a meteor causing the extinction of dinosaurs. With the flood, they say it wasn't a "world wide" flood, that this is where the...dead sea I believe came from, that Noah and his family lived in that area before it was flooded, and that it was like the world was flooded to him, because everything he ever knew was flooded. They have found remains of ancient buildings under there and everything. They made sure to say though, that even if it proves the world being flooded not as true as people think, they believe that the story of Noah and the Ark is more about learning a lesson than being a truthful event. Oh, also when archeiologists were exgavating (sp) in Iraq years ago they found old papers that date back older than the papers they have on Noah, and that they have the same story, but with different names.

And this concludes my treatise against the inaccuracy of the Discovery channel and nearly all it's programs. In fact, I generally like to call it the propaganda channel. Thanks Discovery channel, you have adequately proven to me that there was no Flood, David and Jonathan were homoerotic lovers, and Jesus probably never did half the things the Bible said he did! w00t.

But seriously, I like the Discovery and History channels at times, but they spout so much garbage sometimes I just can't take it. In any case, there's som many things wrong with these "facts" you've mentioned, it's not even funny. A world-wide Flood is accepted by even many Atheistic Scientists to explain some things, but, of course, sometimes it conflicts with their "meteor" and "evolution" theories.

1. Geology proves a world-wide flood on many levels. Firstly, all around the world we find layers of sediment that would not naturally occur in the order they are without first being shifted around by a massive "flood" of some sort.

Secondly, a world-wide flood is about the only reasonable explanation to explain how the dinosaurs and other animals not only died off so quickly, but how so so many of their bones were compacted immediately and the ridiculously large and numerous deposits of things such as oil occured.

Thidly, some radical even must have occurred to cause many of the ruins that are beneath the sea we find today (all the spots they're trying to say are "Atlantis," anyone?). In fact, there's some theories of things built by man above ground that were affected by the flood. One being that the damage done to the head of the Sphinx does not correspond to the wear of it's body. It is theorized, and not even originally by a Christian Scientist, that the head was built larger than it was now and above ground, and later the ancient Egyptians whom we have "recorded" to have built it added the body and such. This is simply an example (and from memory, not research), not the only proof. A flood does not mean everything was destroyed. Haven't you ever known things to survive one or another through a normal Flood?

2. A world-wide flood is one of the single-most agreed upon things by almost every ancient culture in the world. As is the story of a single man, family, or household to have built a boat and survived. Babylonians (Iraq) had a very popular story, and even as far as the Native Americans had legends of such.

We have, actually, found many artifacts from before the flood. Many of which, even, show a possibly more advanced society than our own having existed. And I'm sure you've seen the satellite pictures taken of the Ark back when it was slightly visible and/or heard the many accounts of people finding remains of, possibly, a boat on Mount Ararat?

3. The Dead Sea? Cause by the Flood? That's possibly the biggest joke in all of that crap spouted by the documentary you've cited. Ever heard the story of Sodom & Gomorrah? That, my friend, is the origin of the dead sea. Their "theory" is completely ridiculous! What in the hell evidence did they cite that the Dead Sea originated from a flood? That's just bullcrap...If you don't believe in God you can try and rationalize, unsuccesfully, the existence of the Dead Sea all you want. Or, if you do, accept that that is the ruins of God's punishment against a sinful city.

Isildur9473
02-11-2006, 09:17 AM
We haven't found any fossils of "cave men."

Yeah we have. The term cave men isn't always used to define men who lived in caves, but rather men who are of the same genus that we are. We're "Homo sapien". There's also...

Homo erectus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Erectus)
Homo rudolfensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis)
Homo habilis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis)
Homo ergaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster)
Homo floresiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis)
Homo atecessor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor)
Homo heidelbergensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis)
Homo neanderthalensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis)
Homo rhodesiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis)
Homo cepranensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_cepranensis)
Homo georgicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_georgicus)

Those are all examples of cavemen. Seeing as their were once many different species in the genus Homo, why were they created?

NightCrawler
02-11-2006, 10:25 AM
All human OR animal. Not in between. Neanderthal (neanderthalensis), that was found in the caves, right? That is where they got the whole CAVE MAN idea. Neanderthal is a human, just as human as Disciple.

But more human than me.

I am a robot
http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/images/Space%20Page/robot-bigredyellow.JPG

PinkGoo
02-11-2006, 10:26 AM
All human OR animal. Not in between. Neanderthal (neanderthalensis), that was found in the caves, right? That is where they got the whole CAVE MAN idea. Neanderthal is a human, just as human as Disciple.
Quoted for truth.

..Not much else I can say.

NightCrawler
02-11-2006, 10:26 AM
As the same thing as homo sapien.

amodman
02-11-2006, 10:49 AM
Yeah we have. The term cave men isn't always used to define men who lived in caves, but rather men who are of the same genus that we are. We're "Homo sapien". There's also...

Homo erectus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Erectus)
Homo rudolfensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis)
Homo habilis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis)
Homo ergaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster)
Homo floresiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis)
Homo atecessor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor)
Homo heidelbergensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis)
Homo neanderthalensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis)
Homo rhodesiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis)
Homo cepranensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_cepranensis)
Homo georgicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_georgicus)

Those are all examples of cavemen. Seeing as their were once many different species in the genus Homo, why were they created?

Wow, they actually teach you this stuff as fact? Insane. Hardcore evolutionists find one skull possibly shaped a little different for whatever reason and call it another spcies. A. Not all of those are even real evidence and B. Any of these examples could basically be found in any human with a variety of disorders, bone damage, etc.

Isildur9473
02-11-2006, 10:52 AM
Wow, they actually teach you this stuff as fact? Insane. Hardcore evolutionists find one skull possibly shaped a little different for whatever reason and call it another spcies. A. Not all of those are even real evidence and B. Any of these examples could basically be found in any human with a variety of disorders, bone damage, etc.

Yeah, they do. It has more going for it than you give it credit for. They're a good buffer for what would have been inbetween apes and modern man if evolution were true. Also the aging on the bones proves that they've been there for a long time, I can't remember the exact age.

So, you think that every one of those species that they've spent a long time thinking about is just something that they're not thinking about? That they're all Homo Sapiens even though certain ones have different bone structures?

amodman
02-11-2006, 11:03 AM
Yeah, they do. It has more going for it than you give it credit for. They're a good buffer for what would have been inbetween apes and modern man if evolution were true. Also the aging on the bones proves that they've been there for a long time, I can't remember the exact age.

So, you think that every one of those species that they've spent a long time thinking about is just something that they're not thinking about? That they're all Homo Sapiens even though certain ones have different bone structures?

I have never seen an accurate enough report to "prove" evidence of the bone structure found of a completely different species. In fact, most scientists would agree, as most say they are "still looking" for the proof of a -missing- link.

In any case, were anyone to "prove" a certain was, without a shadow of a doubt, a skull of something other than human origins, my first assumption would be perhaps the skull of a Nephilim. That is, the giant race of people that has been recorded to exist that we know to be the result of breeding between fallen angels and humans. I've heard rumours they have actually found some giant bones and/or skeletons and just didn't make a big public release of the information (as it wasn't what they were looking for!), but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

There are a variety of skull of actual people in the past 100 years that, if "analyzed" correctly could prove yet another, or an existing, "race" of humans they have listed there. This is due to growths, disorders like elephantitis, soft bone marrow having been manipulated in early life or death, all kinds of things, really.

asparagus
02-11-2006, 11:51 AM
We should remember, Amodman, that theories can only be disproven. You don't really confirm theories; they're tentative.

disciple
02-11-2006, 03:18 PM
Neanderthal is a human, just as human as Disciple.
I dunno whether or not to be insulted. ;)


But more human than me.

I am a robot
I used to think I was a robot when I was a kid. :D

Mr. Xcitement
02-11-2006, 05:28 PM
I have never seen an accurate enough report to "prove" evidence of the bone structure found of a completely different species. In fact, most scientists would agree, as most say they are "still looking" for the proof of a -missing- link.

In any case, were anyone to "prove" a certain was, without a shadow of a doubt, a skull of something other than human origins, my first assumption would be perhaps the skull of a Nephilim. That is, the giant race of people that has been recorded to exist that we know to be the result of breeding between fallen angels and humans. I've heard rumours they have actually found some giant bones and/or skeletons and just didn't make a big public release of the information (as it wasn't what they were looking for!), but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

There are a variety of skull of actual people in the past 100 years that, if "analyzed" correctly could prove yet another, or an existing, "race" of humans they have listed there. This is due to growths, disorders like elephantitis, soft bone marrow having been manipulated in early life or death, all kinds of things, really.

I have read about these skulls and bones, but of course they never mentioned Nephilim, the only mentioned other human races. I completely agree with your theories on the bones (also, if you have learned about these things this way I'd really like to know, for I love reading about these things), also the part I stated about the Discovery Channel, I didn't mean to say that I believe it, I believe the world has been flooded before, and know there is scientific proof about it.

Again, it is off subject, but I'd really like a web link or something from you to read these things, because you give awesome points.

amodman
02-11-2006, 07:03 PM
I have read about these skulls and bones, but of course they never mentioned Nephilim, the only mentioned other human races. I completely agree with your theories on the bones (also, if you have learned about these things this way I'd really like to know, for I love reading about these things), also the part I stated about the Discovery Channel, I didn't mean to say that I believe it, I believe the world has been flooded before, and know there is scientific proof about it.

Again, it is off subject, but I'd really like a web link or something from you to read these things, because you give awesome points.

I can try later ;) (You can find a lot of sites with a quick Google search, but you have to check the validity each one of them out as often they are muddled with their annoying beliefs, lol). Mostly, I'm going off of memory from the research I've seen collected by others. I have an insane memory for facts and details sometimes, and I also have several relations who've done some hardcore studies on various subjects such as Evolutionary theory, Nephilim, etc. Of course, I've looked stuff up and read it on my own, but mostly just to confirm what's been said (can't take anything at face value, ya know!).

That said, I also just have a tendency to construct all my statements argumentarily (not in the fighting sense of the word, but the blanket standpoint type). I'm sorry, I just happen to enjoy writing and philosophy ;), lol.

Mr. Xcitement
02-12-2006, 12:11 AM
I can try later ;) (You can find a lot of sites with a quick Google search, but you have to check the validity each one of them out as often they are muddled with their annoying beliefs, lol). Mostly, I'm going off of memory from the research I've seen collected by others. I have an insane memory for facts and details sometimes, and I also have several relations who've done some hardcore studies on various subjects such as Evolutionary theory, Nephilim, etc. Of course, I've looked stuff up and read it on my own, but mostly just to confirm what's been said (can't take anything at face value, ya know!).

That said, I also just have a tendency to construct all my statements argumentarily (not in the fighting sense of the word, but the blanket standpoint type). I'm sorry, I just happen to enjoy writing and philosophy ;), lol.

That's awesome, I'll have to look some up later when I have more time, and I must say, you do construct your statements extremely well, I often have a very hard time setting up my statements.

As for the subject on hand, I remember reading a book called..."The Source" that talks about the odd shaped skulls, and it's funny, not once do they mention deformities or anything like that, they jump straight to alien interference with the human race, and well, when I first read the book I thought it interesting, and now I think it more funny than anything else, since there's no proof at all on that.

amodman
02-12-2006, 07:16 AM
We should remember, Amodman, that theories can only be disproven. You don't really confirm theories; they're tentative.

Ah, I forgot to respond to this. Yes, theories are never "proven," but only supported. However, it really is the best to live for the Lord, isn't it? We already have what we need to believe laid out for us. And, when science supports what God tells us, I tend to take that as fairly supportive evidence ;).

terrasin
02-12-2006, 11:59 AM
I would like to know where in the Bible it says that there is no evolution. Christians a lot of times jump to conclusions without fact because they want so much for something to be true or not true.

I for one believe the Earth and the Universe are both millions upon millions of years old. Too much evidence proves it to be true. Take the meteor that hit the Earth and supposadly killed all the dinosaurs for example. If the Earth was only, say, 5000 years old as some people believe, that hit would not only have killed off most or all of the humans as well, but it would have been recorded somewhere as the cloud of dust would have lasted for about 100 years before starting to fade away. As far as the Earth being created in 7 days, that does NOT, I repete NOT mean physical Earth days. Durring the origional translations of the Bible to modern language, there was no word that translated from the word used in the origional text. So after, I'm sure, many hours of thought, they decided to use the word that was equal to our modern 24 hour day. This does not mean that God created the world in 168 hours. It could have been Eons for all we know.

Continuing on, I believe that the so called cave men were pre-Adam and Eve. The reason being simply that Adam and Eve were the start of the modern intelligent human race as we know it. Cavemen only signs of survival when re find remains. Small weapons made from sharpend rock and so fourth. They wern't farmers and we aren't even sure if they had a spoken language, but it was highly doubted.

The next questions would be "Why would God create them" and "Why didn't he tell us about them?" He did cause he can. Simple as that. If God really wanted to, he could create a giant 60 foot turtle with the head of a snake and feet like a llama. He's God and and he can pretty much do what he wants. As for why he wouldn't tell us about it? Who knows. Why are a lot of other things missing from the Bible? The Bible tells us strictly what God needed us to know. He didn't waste time with pointless history that was no longer in existance or about the stars or about the tides of the sea. All he told us were guidelines and stories about the things he has done in the time of modern man. Because that is what matters first and foremost.

CJ

sky_flashings
02-12-2006, 12:25 PM
In Genesis it says that God created Adam and Eve last of all his creations. And going with what CJ said, what is translated to our 7 days of creation does not neccessarily mean that God took literally 7 days to create earth and everything in it. I find it highly possible and cavemen were created as animals, smarter than most, who resembled humans, and that they evolved into what we know as the modern day human, or simply died out for one reason or another. While not exactly mentally developed like Adam and Eve, they were still thinking creatures who made tools, cave paintings, etc. And to people who think that all sorts of evolution is evil, take a simple look at where we've come since Adam and Eve. While we may not have been forming from a mouse or anything like that, (that theory I do not believe), we are changing and supposedly "getting smarter". ;) At the beginning, we had very little resources and had to make them. We made tools out of rock and wood. As time when on, we began growing smarter through trial and error in the way cities should be built, war tactics, resources that can be used, (ie feul, metals, etc.), etc. etc. That in itself tells me that it's possible that another creation has evolved beyond changing it's colors to blend into their surroundings, or anything like that.

disciple
02-12-2006, 12:30 PM
As for why he wouldn't tell us about it? Who knows. Why are a lot of other things missing from the Bible? The Bible tells us strictly what God needed us to know. He didn't waste time with pointless history that was no longer in existance or about the stars or about the tides of the sea. All he told us were guidelines and stories about the things he has done in the time of modern man. Because that is what matters first and foremost.
That's what I think, but hey, some people take a lot of value into useless or meaningless information such as cavemen or whatnot.

Isildur9473
02-12-2006, 12:31 PM
That's what I think, but hey, some people take a lot of value into useless or meaningless information such as cavemen or whatnot.

So... Our past is meaningless?

disciple
02-12-2006, 12:32 PM
So... Our past is meaningless?
EVERYTHING IS MEANINGLESS!! ;D :P ;)


Sorry, I was reading Ecclesiastes a lot yesterday. :P

amodman
02-12-2006, 03:45 PM
In Genesis it says that God created Adam and Eve last of all his creations. And going with what CJ said, what is translated to our 7 days of creation does not neccessarily mean that God took literally 7 days to create earth and everything in it. I find it highly possible and cavemen were created as animals, smarter than most, who resembled humans, and that they evolved into what we know as the modern day human, or simply died out for one reason or another. While not exactly mentally developed like Adam and Eve, they were still thinking creatures who made tools, cave paintings, etc. And to people who think that all sorts of evolution is evil, take a simple look at where we've come since Adam and Eve. While we may not have been forming from a mouse or anything like that, (that theory I do not believe), we are changing and supposedly "getting smarter". ;) At the beginning, we had very little resources and had to make them. We made tools out of rock and wood. As time when on, we began growing smarter through trial and error in the way cities should be built, war tactics, resources that can be used, (ie feul, metals, etc.), etc. etc. That in itself tells me that it's possible that another creation has evolved beyond changing it's colors to blend into their surroundings, or anything like that.

You can believe whatever you want, but I, quite simply, find that theory ridiculous. So you're saying God might've created some sort of semi-sentient beings that developed into humans?

Personally, I think we can oust that theory outright. God created man in his image, with a full mind to think and learn and feel, not some dumb creature that first needed "evolving." I agree, the Bible is not a complete history of the world, but the story of Creation isn't there as some meaningless symbolic piece of jargon. It's true it can be taken several different ways (7 days? Earth's rotation, Universe, Galaxy, other? Who knows), but in any case, it says quite simply that God created Adam and Eve fully capable and ready for his purposes. In my opinion, it was most likely the case for every animal and creature on Earth.

Further evidence of the fact is that God created Man, animals, and Angels. He did NOT create any sort of "in-between" ground. In fact, he expressly forbid any cross-relations of any sort in the nature of reproduction. It was, after all, the very cause of Earth's destruction in the Flood in the first place.

Also, we happen to know that Adam was one of the smartest people in the history of mankind. He competently, after all, built a civilization. It has even been theorized (and yes, this is a completely different discussion that should be taken elsewhere if desired to be discussed and I have no intention of going into it in detail here) that Adam was perhaps the, or, one of the designers of the pyramids. Or at least, of their basic model structure.

And on that light, the pyramids are a perfect example of knowledge of past civilations that has been lost. I can't remember the exact amount of years (something like 1621, maybe?) recorded in the Bible as the amount of time between Creation/the fall of Adam and Eve and the Flood, but in that time we have evidence to the fact that mankind made more advances in certain areas of science than we've made in many times that! This, I think, disproves the idea that mankind, at least after the fall, was any sort of "stupid." (and, as I've pointed out, highly doubtful, or in my opinion, outright impossible before). If anything, the mental capacity of humans (due in no small part to the difference of enviroment & lifespans, but also from simple time and periods of procreation) has decreased, not increased. There's no telling the amount of knowledge Adam may very well have had access to directly through God in the first place...

Lastly, back on the subject of "time" of creation, I have two things to mention. First off, I find it ridiculous when Scientists such as Astronomers or Geologists and whatnot attempt to "prove" the fact that the universe is billions and billions of years old due to the required time of formation of the various planets, solar systems, etc. While, I do not outright discount the possibility, and accept the idea as model for scientific study, ask yourself this (as an example), is it possible for a human to develop on it's own to a fully grown/matured state immediately? Your reply is, no, of course not. Humans need time to develop and physically mature. However, this was most likely the exact case of what God did in Creation, and is hardly debated ever among those who accept the Bible as truth. So, how hard is it to accept the possibility that God created the Universe with its planets, solar systems, etc. in more than a moment - bypassing all the time necessary for developement? Again, I do not wholly support the idea in its entirety that that is what happened, but to some extent I would imagine, yes, God did make many plants, stars, and what have you extremely progressed in their cycles of life in the orignal inception.

Secondly, for whatever type of "days" the Bible might refer to, what many people (and by people, I mean hardcore evolutionists) often overlook is how long, exactly, Earth has been inhabitable. We theorize about its time of developement, atmosphere, etc. However, and this is something I need to brush up on myself before really discussing at much length further, there are several scientific evidences to the fact taht Earth can't have been inhabitable (At least, for us...or any known species for that matter ;)) for more than, say, 6-10 thousand years. That is where most Creationists take their idea of the 6-10 thousand year old Earth. The mistake often made on the Creationist side, however, is the concrete belief that the Earth/Universe is only 6-10 thousand years old.

Hyothesizing about the past of the Universe, by and large, I agree is mostly pointless except for the comprehension and study of what we see happening around us. However, the point I attempted to make in my last paragraph here is that, for all intensive purposes and concerns, the history of humanity can only really be approx. 6-10 thousand years. Some people say "Well, we don't know how long exactly Adam was in the Garden..." and I say, hogwash. Sure, we don't know that, but we do know how long Adam was alive! And from the first day of his life to the day of the Flood we are given the estimated count of something like 1,621 years (Note: This isn't just something I read. I actually figured it out one day at school when I was bored in the geneolgy list with a pen and paper before ever even reding about it ;)). And in all this time, mankind has been, ummm, -not- "cavemen," lol.

terrasin
02-12-2006, 06:30 PM
If you want to look at it that way, than Religion itself, including Christianity, is nothing but theroy. One of many, mind you. No one can PROVE that God exists. And you can argue it all you want about "God working in your life" or some devine healing or some other mumbo jumbo, but miracles have happened to even unbelievers. That proves nothing that a God exists. Think about it.

And I do believe that God exists, so don't go thinking otherwise. Faith is believing what you cannot see will happen.

CJ

amodman
02-12-2006, 06:45 PM
If you want to look at it that way, than Religion itself, including Christianity, is nothing but theroy. One of many, mind you. No one can PROVE that God exists. And you can argue it all you want about "God working in your life" or some devine healing or some other mumbo jumbo, but miracles have happened to even unbelievers. That proves nothing that a God exists. Think about it.

And I do believe that God exists, so don't go thinking otherwise. Faith is believing what you cannot see will happen.

CJ

What are you responding to? ??? Lol, seriously, I can't figure it out...was this a mis-post?

terrasin
02-13-2006, 12:45 AM
Your last post in general. Just making the point that everything in religion and history past a certain point is meerly speculation and theroy.

CJ

skynes
02-13-2006, 01:13 AM
I take the days in Gen 1 to be 24 hour days due to:

"and the Spirit of God was hovering over those waters"

God is now on earth, from here on Gen 1 is written from earth's perspective, so all distances and times would be relative to the earth.

So a Day would an earth day, not a universe day.

Besides that, what about Exodus 20?
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. "

Written by God Himself on stone.


May I ask, what evidence is there of a 'meteor', is that not one of the many theories on the extinction of dinosaurs?

Mr. Xcitement
02-13-2006, 02:21 AM
You also have to remember, that there is always the possibility that the wording of those passages may have been messed up a little through translation.

As for the hovering over the water part, Earth has always been called the "blue planet" because we have water and we haven't found liquid water on other planets yer, so that line could just mean God is hovering over Earth, and not necesarily right over the water.

skynes
02-13-2006, 02:39 AM
I believe that God protects His word as He promised to.
If He hasn't protected it, then I have no reason to believe anything the Bible says without seeing the absolute original manuscripts.

Hover and fly are different Nick ;) Hover is a close proximity while fly is way way above.

Isildur9473
02-13-2006, 05:48 AM
May I ask, what evidence is there of a 'meteor', is that not one of the many theories on the extinction of dinosaurs?

There are craters all over the Earth and Moon. How do you figure they got there?

skynes
02-13-2006, 05:55 AM
Moon yes, but where on the earth?

Sorry I dropped geography after I was 14. So I honestly have no idea if there's massive craters on earth.
Way I figure it, if a meteor is going to annihilate 95% of the planet. It needs to be pretty big... I mean small island big at least.

Reeper
02-13-2006, 05:55 AM
I'm just interested CJ, what word was it exactly that they didn't know how to translate and so just decided to say it said twenty four hour period?

Peace

NightCrawler
02-13-2006, 07:34 AM
Very long winded, Amodman. And in general, I agree wholeheartedly. (some of it is speculation, but it has good reasoning and realism)

amodman
02-13-2006, 08:00 AM
I believe that God protects His word as He promised to.
If He hasn't protected it, then I have no reason to believe anything the Bible says without seeing the absolute original manuscripts.

Hover and fly are different Nick ;) Hover is a close proximity while fly is way way above.

The Barringer crater is one, actually. I think it's only a couple miles across, though. It's estimated to be only 1/3 as deep as is once was, though, it's also estimated to be 49,000 years old, heh. The "youngest" meteorite crater on Earth. There's some others, too. I'm sure their "Ages" were discovered by carbon dating, but whatever. If you're curious as to how we know they were caused by meteorites (or, impact, at least), it's the same way we found the moon's craters were caused by impact. Shatter cones - conical fractures in the rock. These are indicative of either a major impact, or a nucelar explosion ;).

It is theorized that the Earth was once covered with craters just like the moon, though we have no solid evidence to the fact other than the sheer impossibility of the moon being so covered and Earth not. I suppose it most likely the majority of the impacts we see in the Galaxy/Universe or whatever are from the Creation process, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions about Earth. Pretty much anything from that period would be long, long gone. The few impacts on Earth could've occurred at any time, really. My guess might be they smashed through the canopy and help cause the Flood, but I base that off of absolutely nothing at all, heh.

p.s. Gracias, Crawler. I, erm, tend to just sit and write sometimes with no thought to length. So, ya know...some of my extremely long-wnded posts in Mars Hill ;).

Mr. Xcitement
02-13-2006, 08:53 AM
As with craters on Earth, you also have to remember Earth is sort of like a living planet compared to the moon, we have wind, rain, storms and such that cause erosion and for the most part could erase smaller impacts from view, we also have our huge oceans which most likely took quite a few hits (which could possibley aid to the flood) and thus, their craters would be invisible for us.

Also to do with the hovering part, you have to remember how God is always around, and I believe He would be hovering over the planet not down here on it during creation, as He would most likely want to see the whole thing.

Reeper
02-13-2006, 09:40 AM
K. Another thing I noticed and became curious about while I was reading was the number amodman gave for the time between Adam's creation and the flood. I think you said 1621 years or something along those lines. I was just wondering where you got that number first and just wanted to point out that later on in Genesis it tells us how old Adam was when he died (930 see Genesis 5:5).

Also, most creationists I know who think the earth is about 6 thousand years old don't take it from what you mentioned they get that number by taking the ages mentioned in the bible and working backwards. Also they are supported by such things like the oldest tree in the world is only about 4000 years old, the oldest coral in the world is only I think about 3500 years old, and the oldest known civiliztions, throwing out carbon dates cause they are skewed (see creation/evolution thread don't know what page) are only about 5000 years old.

Now again as far as CJ's comments, I'm not sure where to begin. We have already discussed and debunked the pre-adamite race theory (again see the creation/evolution thread, it's in there somewhere), and as far as God not needing to tell us he did it through evolution I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree. If he says in the bible he did it one way, but then actually did it another way he is lieing and he doesn't do that. But if you feel that he can, that is lie, cause he is God, then I'm not sure the point of your faith. If God can simply lie whenever he wants I'm not sure the point of salvation cause that might be just one big joke by God. But we've been over this before. Now if you are implying that evolution can fit into the creation story, I again have to respectfully disagree. The Bible and evolution accounts are very different. Evolution has the sun and stars before the earth basically, the bible has the earth created well before the sun and stars. Evolution has reptiles evolving into birds, the bible has the birds existing before any reptiles. Evolution says that plants could not exist without the sun, however the bible has plants producing fruit and so forth before the sun is even created. And I could go on, but I think the point is made. The two accounts are very different and do not fit together at all. Now I know that is based on the literal translation of the bible but as I stated before if the bible is not translated literally what is the point of faith at all.

Peace

amodman
02-13-2006, 10:48 AM
K. Another thing I noticed and became curious about while I was reading was the number amodman gave for the time between Adam's creation and the flood. I think you said 1621 years or something along those lines. I was just wondering where you got that number first and just wanted to point out that later on in Genesis it tells us how old Adam was when he died (930 see Genesis 5:5).


Quite easy, actually. I somewhat mentioned it in my post. That is, you look at the geneology list, and it gives you a direct line from adam to Noah, and how old each person was when they had their child. So (making up numbers and names here, but you get the point), if Adam was 62 when he had, let's say, jim, that's 62 years. Then Jim was 45 when he had Tom, that 62 + 45 = 107. Then Tom was 57 when he had Harold, so thats 107 + 57 = 164 and so on and so on all the way to how old Noah was when the Flood came. Later, I found the exact same number I came to on my own as such as the number agreed upon for the period between Creation and the Flood, but it's simple math, really.

Unfortunately, though, there is no direct way to do this for the period after the Flood to get a solid number for then until present. Guesses and estimates have been made, but nothing concrete ;). I don't really care, myself. Something like 6-10 thousand years from the Creation of man to present is as close as I care to really indicate. I'm no anthropologist/historian, lol.

terrasin
02-13-2006, 11:51 AM
I take the days in Gen 1 to be 24 hour days due to:

"and the Spirit of God was hovering over those waters"
You're missing the point there. There was no proper translation for the word in the origional text. The word "days" in very inaccurate when is wasn't even close to being a 24hr day.

I'll have to find out what the origional word was. I got into a discussion about this with my pastor not too long ago who is part of this large organization of theologists. Needless to say, I've been able to learn a lot about decoding the texts from him into a literal form.

CJ

asparagus
02-13-2006, 12:19 PM
The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/061861916X/sr=8-1/qid=1139865307/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6960582-3054327?%5Fencoding=UTF8) I found this to be a rather convincing read.

alorian
02-13-2006, 12:50 PM
This thread scares me.......

*Reminisces over the Creation/Evolution thread* *shudders*

"Cavemen" weren't even around during "Noah's Time". I'd pull up timelines, but I've got to go in a few minutes, and quite frankly don't have the time. I'll leave this up to Alex, Scott, etc

asparagus
02-13-2006, 01:12 PM
You're missing the point there. There was no proper translation for the word in the origional text. The word "days" in very inaccurate when is wasn't even close to being a 24hr day.I agree. If the word days here is a 24 hour period, is the word "day" in Hosea 2 also a 24 hour period? Perhaps it isn't the same Hebrew word as in Genesis?

Reeper
02-13-2006, 01:44 PM
Quite easy, actually. I somewhat mentioned it in my post. That is, you look at the geneology list, and it gives you a direct line from adam to Noah, and how old each person was when they had their child. So (making up numbers and names here, but you get the point), if Adam was 62 when he had, let's say, jim, that's 62 years. Then Jim was 45 when he had Tom, that 62 + 45 = 107. Then Tom was 57 when he had Harold, so thats 107 + 57 = 164 and so on and so on all the way to how old Noah was when the Flood came. Later, I found the exact same number I came to on my own as such as the number agreed upon for the period between Creation and the Flood, but it's simple math, really.



My fault I don't know what I was thinking about. I for some reason had it in my head that you were saying that Adam lived to be 1621 years old. Sorry. Too much genetics in my head right now.

Peace

skilletfreak101
02-13-2006, 02:54 PM
WHAT IN THE WORLD?!?!?!!?!?!? CAVEMEN?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! you have got to be kidding me.

skynes
02-14-2006, 01:00 AM
^ Such an excellent argument and addition to this thread. </sarcasm>


I was going to check the Hebrew words in Gen 1 last night in my dictionary, but its at the bottom of a big pile of stuff that I couldn't be bothered shifting.
When I can get it out I'll look up Genesis 1 a lot and find out the words for you all.

Reeper
02-14-2006, 04:32 AM
The word we are talking about here is Yom. Here is a link about it's use and its context related to Genesis. It's from Ken Ham. He's says it much more concisely than I probably would.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/study_guides/answersSG2.pdf

It's a pdf so if your computer can't handle them don't click it.

Peace

terrasin
02-14-2006, 09:33 AM
The word we are talking about here is Yom. Here is a link about it's use and its context related to Genesis. It's from Ken Ham. He's says it much more concisely than I probably would.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/study_guides/answersSG2.pdf

It's a pdf so if your computer can't handle them don't click it.

Peace
^ That is new earth believing hogwash. Obviousely their "careful study" wasn't much study at all. Probably only what them, themselves believe. I'll consult my pastor once again on this topic I suppose to get a more educated answer seeing as he's open minded to all religious topics and not stuck up on his own beliefs keeping himself from learning from other people who have been studying this their whole lives. :\

CJ

Reeper
02-14-2006, 11:31 AM
Whoa I think I struck a nerve.

First I'm gonna say calm down. Let's make sure we don't take anything personally. Not saying you did just setting a precedent for further discussion. With that said...

O.k. if it is hogwash, go talk to your pastor and refute it. Show me how it is wrong. And I'm not talking science. You stated before that you believe God can do anything he wants. So why can't he create the universe in six days? Maybe the case is that God, you know the author of all knowledge, said he created the world in six days and did (cause the one thing God can't do is lie remember) and those people that "have been studying this their whole lives" are mistaken. Remember science is fallible. God is not. Show me how the interpretation of the word Ken Ham gave is wrong.

Peace

NightCrawler
02-14-2006, 01:04 PM
I don't think cavemen were wiped out in Noah's time.

For example, the zealots lived and camped in caves that were in the sides of large cliffs. Mind you, this is about Jesus' time.

skilletfreak101
02-14-2006, 02:12 PM
ok im confused...what are you guys trying to talk about on this thread? i don't understand the concept. of course these "cavemen" you talk of were wiped out during the flood...almost ALL humans were wiped out during the flood. as for after the flood...i don't know what you guys mean, maybe people who lived in caves? whatever. it seems like you guys are talking of "cavemen" as they are different species...or maybe im just stupid

unshakeable15
02-14-2006, 04:07 PM
While we may not have been forming from a mouse or anything like that, (that theory I do not believe), we are changing and supposedly "getting smarter". ;) At the beginning, we had very little resources and had to make them. We made tools out of rock and wood. As time when on, we began growing smarter through trial and error in the way cities should be built, war tactics, resources that can be used, (ie feul, metals, etc.), etc. etc. That in itself tells me that it's possible that another creation has evolved beyond changing it's colors to blend into their surroundings, or anything like that.
i have an easy way to refute your premise that people have gotten smarter throughout the centuries and millenia. Go back in time, grab a baby from the era of Job (the earliest book written down) and bring the baby back here and raise him as your own. If he can grasp using the computer, understand the principle behind television, record a decent message on a voice mail and basically do the stuff we all can do easily enough, then it's false.

Oh, wait, can't do that. Darn. So i guess it all comes down conjecture. i can't prove that people haven't gotten smarter, you can't prove they have.

But i can say that your proof (the fact that we have the microchip, cavemen had sharp rocks) isn't proof at all. You can't have a microchip witout the Advanced Calculus needed to design and create it. Can't have Advanced Calculus without basic addition. Can't have addition without numbers. Everything builds upward. The fact that we have so much awesome knowledge in 2006 is because people have learned from each other.

Isildur9473
02-14-2006, 04:57 PM
i have an easy way to refute your premise that people have gotten smarter throughout the centuries and millenia. Go back in time, grab a baby from the era of Job (the earliest book written down) and bring the baby back here and raise him as your own. If he can grasp using the computer, understand the principle behind television, record a decent message on a voice mail and basically do the stuff we all can do easily enough, then it's false.

Oh, wait, can't do that. Darn. So i guess it all comes down conjecture. i can't prove that people haven't gotten smarter, you can't prove they have.

But i can say that your proof (the fact that we have the microchip, cavemen had sharp rocks) isn't proof at all. You can't have a microchip witout the Advanced Calculus needed to design and create it. Can't have Advanced Calculus without basic addition. Can't have addition without numbers. Everything builds upward. The fact that we have so much awesome knowledge in 2006 is because people have learned from each other.

Actually, taking a look at skull structure of other types of humans shows that they had smaller brains and were generally not as intelligent...

ok im confused...what are you guys trying to talk about on this thread? i don't understand the concept. of course these "cavemen" you talk of were wiped out during the flood...almost ALL humans were wiped out during the flood. as for after the flood...i don't know what you guys mean, maybe people who lived in caves? whatever. it seems like you guys are talking of "cavemen" as they are different species...or maybe im just stupid

They were different species. Species are broken down in the following, here it is for a human:

Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Mammalia
Order - Primates
Family - Hominidae
Genus - Homo
Species - Sapien

There were once other species in the genus Homo, but we're the only surviving ones.

bob
02-14-2006, 05:00 PM
There were once other species in the genus Homo, but we're the only surviving ones.

Can you please list a few other species in the homo genus please? I don't recall there ever being one.

Isildur9473
02-14-2006, 05:02 PM
Can you please list a few other species in the homo genus please? I don't recall there ever being one.

Yeah.

Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo floresiensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo cepranensis
Homo georgicus

bob
02-14-2006, 05:09 PM
I don't trust carbon dating, it's inaccurate.

Isildur9473
02-14-2006, 05:11 PM
I don't trust carbon dating, it's inaccurate.

It's not the carbon dating, Google em and look for their skeletal structure, it's radically different than ours.

bob
02-14-2006, 05:17 PM
The skeletal structure might be different, but there's no way that they lived 1.5 million years ago because I highly doubt the Earth is that old. Considering that if you take into account how much mass the sun burns every year the sun would have been out to where Mars is in the solar system about 50 million years ago, which means that things like the Jurassic period wouldn't have existed because the sun would have occupied the space where the Earth is.

Isildur9473
02-14-2006, 05:19 PM
The skeletal structure might be different, but there's no way that they lived 1.5 million years ago because I highly doubt the Earth is that old. Considering that if you take into account how much mass the sun burns every year the sun would have been out to where Mars is in the solar system about 50 million years ago, which means that things like the Jurassic period wouldn't have existed because the sun would have occupied the space where the Earth is.

Where did you hear that?

bob
02-14-2006, 05:22 PM
Well, it's common sense. Because the sun is "supposed" to burn at a constant rate, so once I calculated how large the sun's mass would have been 50 million years ago, I have seen it in various web articles too. I'll try to find something, give me a few minutes please.

unshakeable15
02-14-2006, 05:25 PM
Actually, taking a look at skull structure of other types of humans shows that they had smaller brains and were generally not as intelligent...
Good refutation. However, there is still my theory that they used a larger percentage of their brains than we currently do. just because it didn't go up on top of their eyeballs like ours do doesn't mean they were dumber. It's only a theory that they were dumber. Which is why i posted that little tangent concerning going back in time and all that. We can't really know for sure. This is one of those things that's not provable.

alorian
02-14-2006, 05:33 PM
I agree with Greg on this one. If you look at the skull structure, you can see the shape of the brain. Different parts of the brain perform different funtions, correct? By looking at the brain cavity, one can tell which part of the brain existed to what extent. By this evidence, one can tell that we are more intelligent today than the owners of these skulls.

amodman
02-14-2006, 05:34 PM
Wow, this thread just, like, went back two or three pages...

alorian
02-14-2006, 05:40 PM
We tend to do that in Mars Hill, don't we? ;)

To paraphrase myself in another thread, I don't believe in Evolution on a grand scale.

The skulls we have found, though, are humanesque, and they didn't have the thinking capacity we do today to reason etc.

bob
02-14-2006, 05:40 PM
Wow, this thread just, like, went back two or three pages...

It's because there's no real evidence to prove either sides of it, so everything will eventually repeat itself . . .

skilletfreak101
02-14-2006, 05:43 PM
Actually, taking a look at skull structure of other types of humans shows that they had smaller brains and were generally not as intelligent...



They were different species. Species are broken down in the following, here it is for a human:

Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Mammalia
Order - Primates
Family - Hominidae
Genus - Homo
Species - Sapien

There were once other species in the genus Homo, but we're the only surviving ones.
wait a minute...isn't that all evolution?

Isildur9473
02-14-2006, 05:44 PM
Good refutation. However, there is still my theory that they used a larger percentage of their brains than we currently do. just because it didn't go up on top of their eyeballs like ours do doesn't mean they were dumber. It's only a theory that they were dumber. Which is why i posted that little tangent concerning going back in time and all that. We can't really know for sure. This is one of those things that's not provable.

That's a good point. Whales have brains much bigger than ours, but they don't use all of it. I also read somewhere that Octopi are something like 8 times more intelligent than we are, but since the have such short life spans they can't do anything.

Isildur9473
02-14-2006, 05:46 PM
wait a minute...isn't that all evolution?

How did you get evolution out of that?

bob
02-14-2006, 05:46 PM
I hate biology. :) I think it was more my loathing towards the teacher more than anything else.

amodman
02-14-2006, 05:50 PM
We tend to do that in Mars Hill, don't we? ;)

To paraphrase myself in another thread, I don't believe in Evolution on a grand scale.

The skulls we have found, though, are humanesque, and they didn't have the thinking capacity we do today to reason etc.

Whatever. Look back then for my comments on the subject then if you want them. In recap Skull/bone theory = A. Propaganda, B. Lack of Evidence (both in convincing detail that these are skulls of both "human" origin and that, when they are, are not do to other causes, and also in quanity of evidence found), and C. Nephilim...

skilletfreak101
02-14-2006, 05:52 PM
wait a minute...so you're saying that there are different species of human beings? well if you are then that is evolution

Isildur9473
02-14-2006, 05:58 PM
wait a minute...so you're saying that there are different species of human beings? well if you are then that is evolution

Yeah, I am. I think there were many species of human beings, how else would you explain all of the humans with different bone structure, and other charectaristics that set them apart from us. It's really not evolution, it's more along the lines of common sense.

I have never seen an accurate enough report to "prove" evidence of the bone structure found of a completely different species. In fact, most scientists would agree, as most say they are "still looking" for the proof of a -missing- link.

In any case, were anyone to "prove" a certain was, without a shadow of a doubt, a skull of something other than human origins, my first assumption would be perhaps the skull of a Nephilim. That is, the giant race of people that has been recorded to exist that we know to be the result of breeding between fallen angels and humans. I've heard rumours they have actually found some giant bones and/or skeletons and just didn't make a big public release of the information (as it wasn't what they were looking for!), but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

There are a variety of skull of actual people in the past 100 years that, if "analyzed" correctly could prove yet another, or an existing, "race" of humans they have listed there. This is due to growths, disorders like elephantitis, soft bone marrow having been manipulated in early life or death, all kinds of things, really.

They've found a lot of skeletons in the past since these species were all alive within 5 Million years ago, and geologically speaking that's not very long. The world has been around for Billions of years I would have to believe.

Maybe it's just me? I mean the idea of Genesis actually being literal is so far fetched it's ridiculous in my opinion. Evolution seems to make a lot of sense, more sense than an omnipotent being creating everything in 7 days. Then again that's getting off of the topic and into my personel problems.

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29)

Try reading through all of that.

amodman
02-14-2006, 06:12 PM
Yeah, I am. I think there were many species of human beings, how else would you explain all of the humans with different bone structure, and other charectaristics that set them apart from us. It's really not evolution, it's more along the lines of common sense.



They've found a lot of skeletons in the past since these species were all alive within 5 Million years ago, and geologically speaking that's not very long. The world has been around for Billions of years I would have to believe.

Maybe it's just me? I mean the idea of Genesis actually being literal is so far fetched it's ridiculous in my opinion. Evolution seems to make a lot of sense, more sense than an omnipotent being creating everything in 7 days. Then again that's getting off of the topic and into my personel problems.

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29)

Try reading through all of that.

*raises eyebrow* Yes? Sounds like page out of an evolutionary textbook. Nothing's been proven. No offense, but if you believe there are skulls of other "human" races, prove it. Skulls of extinct monkeys/nephilim/mis-interpreted human skull is my opinon. (Also, I don't trust Wikipedia.org for scientific matters...lol, opinions and perhaps location of some evidence, maybe, but not something to go upon, heh)

If evolutionists really had concrete evidence of human sub-species, than they wouldn't still be looking for it (at least, not as ardently as they appear to be)...and what little "evidence" they do have is conspicuously short in quantity. Even the propaganda channel (I'm sorry, discovery channel) did a special on the "scientific" interpretations that could be made from any number of human skulls were they dug up from their graves and assumed to be old, lol. (In fact I think there was a story of this once...don't hold me to it, but I recall something of that nature of some scientist claiming to have found another grouping of humans and it turned out to be some guy's head from like 50 years ago, lol).

p.s. We were actually on the topic of Creation/Age of Earth before you and some others came in and moved it back, lol.

edit: I should note, when I say "prove it," I mean back up the statement with an argument for the "evidence" found. It's legitimicay, accuracy in interpretation, etc. Just a turn of phrase to say, give me a good counterpoint, if you wish, on this note.

skilletfreak101
02-14-2006, 06:16 PM
Maybe it's just me? I mean the idea of Genesis actually being literal is so far fetched it's ridiculous in my opinion. Evolution seems to make a lot of sense, more sense than an omnipotent being creating everything in 7 days. Then again that's getting off of the topic and into my personel problems.




ahh i see where you're coming from...well i have many disagreements in your beliefs but i don't want to debate on this thread because that would be dumb

Spiffles
02-14-2006, 06:38 PM
eveolution is stupid.. anyone who trys to tell me i come from monkeys or some combonation of monkey and human or stupid fish that changed into land creature is a moron.
The book of genises is no more far fetched then a freakky little frog jumping out of the water, growing legs, then standing up on its two hind legs and walking around, then starting to speak and becoming intelligent, so intelligent that it turned into people that created the whole idiotic idea in the first place...



As for cave men.. i tend to think the same as who ever it was that said they where probably just people that lived in caves.. i doubt they wherre any different form of "sub-human" or whatever idiot scientist will come up with..
It's natural for people to live in caves.. the native peoples of australia in some parts lived in caves.. it provides shelter from the elemtants and a centralized place to base a living.
All these so called "cave men" that scientists find i bet are as someone else mentioned, probably a informity of some kind or another.. like. how many have they found?? 10 or 20?? unless they ahve found thousand upon thousands then they are real complete retards for basing a whole "race or different kind of species/human" off of it.

alorian
02-14-2006, 06:59 PM
eveolution is stupid.. anyone who trys to tell me i come from monkeys or some combonation of monkey and human or stupid fish that changed into land creature is a moron.

Now that I've taken 10-15 minutes to breathe after reading this..

Those words are NOT constructive to these boards. Your evidence, too, is bunk (invalid). Most evolutionists don't believe we evolved from "monkeys", but another type of being.

If you continue to call people morons when they hold different opinions, please don't post here anymore, because it will only cause tension, and dissolve a thread into dissent and chaos.

Also, even though theories may sound far-fetched, don't call them "stupid". It makes other people mad, and, again, does more harm to these boards than good.

Thank you :)

Seth

terrasin
02-14-2006, 08:06 PM
Yeah, I am. I think there were many species of human beings, how else would you explain all of the humans with different bone structure, and other charectaristics that set them apart from us. It's really not evolution, it's more along the lines of common sense.
This raises a very good and interesting point. We people are very different than we would have been 50,000 years ago. Years of breeding within different races will eventually change a whole population and create whole new races.

For example, if white people breed with asians, or blacks with indians, the more it continues throughout time would cause a whole new race to be born as others slowly die out. This would take hundreds of years, but under certain circumstances, could cause dramatic changes to where the bone structure and other bodily features are completely different. Even health is effected by race. There are some health problems more common in blacks than in whites and vice versa. But when you have blacks and whites marrying and having kids, those kids will have a DNA structure made made up from both races. But you have this with all forms of race. Some families have a history of health issues passed down through generations.

I could go on for an hour on this topic about genetic construction and how health differs between races and nationalties, but I will leave it at that over long periods of time, things change. 50,000 years from now there might not be any whites, asians, blacks, hispanics, etc left because we would have interbread enough that we would be whole new races unlike the ones we are now. Common science.

CJ

asparagus
02-14-2006, 08:07 PM
edit: I should note, when I say "prove it," I mean back up the statement with an argument for the "evidence" found. It's legitimicay, accuracy in interpretation, etc. Just a turn of phrase to say, give me a good counterpoint, if you wish, on this note.
A good note. I don't believe evolution has been proven (nor do I believe Christianity has been proven). However, I believe that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Christianity, so I believe it. It certainly hasn't all been worked out (and I doubt it ever will), but it still provides the best-supported framework for life.

So when an agnostic comes up to me and says, "You can't prove Christianity," I tell them, "Well of course I can't, but I can give you a lot of evidence."

In the same way, it is unfair for us to challenge the agnostic for proof of evolution. It is a huge, multifaceted and multidisciplinary theory. Like Christianity, it certainly hasn't all been worked out (and like Christianity, I doubt it ever will.)

amodman
02-14-2006, 08:24 PM
This raises a very good and interesting point. We people are very different than we would have been 50,000 years ago. Years of breeding within different races will eventually change a whole population and create whole new races.

For example, if white people breed with asians, or blacks with indians, the more it continues throughout time would cause a whole new race to be born as others slowly die out. This would take hundreds of years, but under certain circumstances, could cause dramatic changes to where the bone structure and other bodily features are completely different. Even health is effected by race. There are some health problems more common in blacks than in whites and vice versa. But when you have blacks and whites marrying and having kids, those kids will have a DNA structure made made up from both races. But you have this with all forms of race. Some families have a history of health issues passed down through generations.

I could go on for an hour on this topic about genetic construction and how health differs between races and nationalties, but I will leave it at that over long periods of time, things change. 50,000 years from now there might not be any whites, asians, blacks, hispanics, etc left because we would have interbread enough that we would be whole new races unlike the ones we are now. Common science.

CJ

I find genetic progression interesting as well, though our views differ somewhat. I don't believe bone structure "evolution" is possible. I don't think we're going to develop a new ligament or a new organ or the way our knees bend. What's there is there, and our bodies are designed perfetly. But on that note, it is intriguing to see the ways the human has developed, or, adapted to its enviroment (black skin, white skin, immunities, capabilities, etc.). It makes me think how perfectly man must have been made originally to be ready set to spread out among the Earth and thrive and multiply within almost any of it's possible enviroments...

Spiffles
02-14-2006, 09:30 PM
Now that I've taken 10-15 minutes to breathe after reading this..

Those words are NOT constructive to these boards. Your evidence, too, is bunk (invalid). Most evolutionists don't believe we evolved from "monkeys", but another type of being.

If you continue to call people morons when they hold different opinions, please don't post here anymore, because it will only cause tension, and dissolve a thread into dissent and chaos.

Also, even though theories may sound far-fetched, don't call them "stupid". It makes other people mad, and, again, does more harm to these boards than good.

Thank you :)

Seth


re red it again without the idiotic personal comments at me.... thanks...

i said.. people that TRY TO TELL ME i came from monkeys etc etc...

so before you make stupid comments AT me.. read it properly.. and then take your own advice..

i could care less what others think themselves.. i object when people tell me what to beleive.. which is EXACTLY what i said.. and yes.. a number of scientists have said the monkey evoloution thing, so that is not a load of crap i'm pulling out of now where either...

skynes
02-15-2006, 01:51 AM
Spiffles, you've insulted everyone on the board who believe Evolution is true, you've insulted the scientists who research into it and you've insulted Seth by calling his comments stupid.

Your statement of "I could care less what others think" shows a complete disrespect of other people, you say you hate beliefs being forced, by calling them stupid you've done precisely that. You're insulting all those with a different point of view.

I concur with Seth, if all you're going to do is insult people and insult arguments, don't post here. That attitude is not welcome here.

Spiffles
02-15-2006, 02:15 AM
no i didnt.. read what i wrote.. i said everyone who trys to tell me what to beleive is stupid... which is what i said..
if people want to beleive it that is fine, it doesnt bother me... the people i call morons are the ones that try to tell me what to beleive...

i NEVER said, people who bleieve this are morons.... there is a massive difference bewteen that statement and what i said... but

i get flamed for saying people who tell me what to beleive are idiots????

*rolls eyes*

Spiffles
02-15-2006, 02:21 AM
eveolution is stupid.. anyone who trys to tell me i come from monkeys or some combonation of monkey and human or stupid fish that changed into land creature is a moron.
The book of genises is no more far fetched then a freakky little frog jumping out of the water, growing legs, then standing up on its two hind legs and walking around, then starting to speak and becoming intelligent, so intelligent that it turned into people that created the whole idiotic idea in the first place...



this is exactly what i said...

i never once said anyone was a moron except for the poepl that try to tell me what to beleive... that is it....

you all need to stop taking what i say and turning it into something else.. and then flaming me.. and telling me not to flame when that is exactly what you are all doing....

skynes
02-15-2006, 02:26 AM
eveolution is stupid.. anyone who trys to tell me i come from monkeys or some combonation of monkey and human or stupid fish that changed into land creature is a moron.

Firstly you insulted the theory, which in turn insults all who follow that theory.

Then you say anyone who tries to tell you evolution is a moron. Well many people in this thread have been promoting that idea, so you just called CJ and Greg etc. Morons.

so intelligent that it turned into people that created the whole idiotic idea in the first place...
A second time where you insult the theory.

i doubt they wherre any different form of "sub-human" or whatever idiot scientist will come up with..
An insult to scientists who believe in cave-men.

unless they ahve found thousand upon thousands then they are real complete retards for basing a whole "race or different kind of species/human" off of it.
Insulting all evolutionists by calling them retards for the theories on sub-humans.
it again without the idiotic personal comments at me....
An insult toward Seth accusing his comments of being idiotic.

so before you make stupid comments AT me..
Again saying that Seth's comments are stupid.

and then take your own advice..

Seth follows his own advice quite well. He didn't insult you at all, he didn't say you were stupid or idiotic. At most he said your evidence is bunk (invalid).

Spiffles
02-15-2006, 02:33 AM
Firstly you insulted the theory, which in turn insults all who follow that theory.

Then you say anyone who tries to tell you evolution is a moron. Well many people in this thread have been promoting that idea, so you just called CJ and Greg etc. Morons.

no i didnt because they didnt tell me what to think or beleive, nor did i tell them what to think or bleieve

you see.. this is my issue with you people... you arent reading what i wrote properly.. the rest was all in the same statement to do with someone telling me what to beleive, therefore that person is a moron for trying to tell me what to beleive, hence why i had it all in the one paragraph


as for me saying stop with the idiotic personal comments.. there was personal comments.. and personal comments are idiotic, so if you all wanna take offence to me defending myself over personal comments, feel free

weebird20
02-15-2006, 03:33 AM
ok guys....before this goes any further can i just say that what Spiffles said in his first post eveolution is stupid.. anyone who trys to tell me i come from monkeys or some combonation of monkey and human or stupid fish that changed into land creature is a moron. this was his own opinion on the matter...he was in no way attempting to say that they truely are morons and what they believe is stupid....he was sharing his thoughts on how he himself felt about those things....please do not take it as a personal attack as that is NOT what it was intended to be...so no more should be said on this matter...thank you.

now back onto the orginal topic please....

Reeper
02-15-2006, 04:29 AM
K. just a few quick things. While I agree that in 50,000 years there may be no more blacks, whites, asians, etc. This does not mean there will not be any humans. Things may change and vary but they will not vary outside of their own kind and produce a new one. That is what is necessary for true darwinian or any other kind of evolution, besides micro, to be true. This doesn't happen and more importantly has never been observed. Therefore it is not science, you can choose to believe it if you want but don't call it science.

Now that is precisely my problem with Alex's post. It is completely reasonable for us to ask Evolutionists for proof of their theory. They are calling it science. Science is that which can be tested, observed, and repeated. So it is completely reasonable for us to ask them to test it, observe it, and then repeat those tests and observations. If after that they have no evidence, well then tough, find a new theory, or continue trying to prove the one you got, but don't call it science and don't teach it to me as fact. If they decided to remove the label of science from evolution and simply call it a belief than I would agree, we then do not have to ask for evidence. But so far as I know they havn't done that therefore evidence is necessary.

Still waiting for that reply on Yom CJ.

Peace

skilletfreak101
02-15-2006, 06:56 AM
A good note. I don't believe evolution has been proven (nor do I believe Christianity has been proven). However, I believe that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Christianity, so I believe it. It certainly hasn't all been worked out (and I doubt it ever will), but it still provides the best-supported framework for life.

So when an agnostic comes up to me and says, "You can't prove Christianity," I tell them, "Well of course I can't, but I can give you a lot of evidence."

In the same way, it is unfair for us to challenge the agnostic for proof of evolution. It is a huge, multifaceted and multidisciplinary theory. Like Christianity, it certainly hasn't all been worked out (and like Christianity, I doubt it ever will.)



wait a second...you can't prove christianity??? just look around you...everything that's everything is proof. Evolution was some made up theory by some guy who wanted to try to prove God wrong...now if there are people on here who believe in evolution...then don't listen to me. But honestly, if you say that you can't prove christianity, and that you are believing soley it because it has "more" evidence than evolution, than that's a pretty low faith. if you actually think about it, evolution is proof of christianity. it says in the bible that in the last days, people are going to reject God...and believing in evolution is a pretty good way to reject God. so whatever...just the fact that you said that you couldn't prove christianity kinda bothered me.

NightCrawler
02-15-2006, 07:54 AM
So back on topic... pigmes.

asparagus
02-15-2006, 08:16 AM
wait a second...you can't prove christianity??? just look around you...everything that's everything is proof. No, that is evidence. But honestly, if you say that you can't prove christianity, and that you are believing soley it because it has "more" evidence than evolution, than that's a pretty low faith. That's not what I said. We're all operating under some type of paradigm. All I was saying is that mine isn't complete. T. E. Lawrence once said "specifically of course we can know nothing - unqualified - but like the rest of us, I've fenced my life with a scaffolding of more or less speculative hypotheses." ...but if you actually think about it, evolution is proof of christianity. it says in the bible that in the last days, people are going to reject God...and believing in evolution is a pretty good way to reject God. so whatever...Where I come from, we don't call that proof. We call that circumstantial evidence. You are frequently using the word proof in place of evidence.

PROOF vs. EVIDENCE
There happens to be a big difference between proof and evidence. Let's
suppose that I am a lawyer and I am prosecuting person X for murder in the
first degree. In the course of my investigation I was able to find the gun,
that was used in murder. To my delight I found it in a dresser drawer at
person X's house. While in court I call the police officer that found the
gun at person X's house. Having called up the officer I proceed to ask him
a series of questions. Is this the gun that was used at the scene of the
crime? Whose finger prints were found on the gun? And the all important
question, where did you find this gun? The police officer answers all of
these questions in such a way that the poor defendant seems to have no hope;
however, I, not being in all my senses, decide to ask, Can we be positive
that this gun was fired by person X, which led to the death of person Y, and
therefore prove that person X is guilty? Of course the police answer has to
answer no. Why? Well because although the gun was found at his house with
his finger prints, this is only evidence that person X is guilty. Just
because the gun was found at his house with his finger prints doesn't prove
anything, it only gives us good reason to believe that person X did it.

asparagus
02-15-2006, 08:24 AM
Now that is precisely my problem with Alex's post. It is completely reasonable for us to ask Evolutionists for proof of their theory. They are calling it science. Science is that which can be tested, observed, and repeated. So it is completely reasonable for us to ask them to test it, observe it, and then repeat those tests and observations.Of course. And they can do the same to us, and we can present our evidence. I have no problem with this or what you have said. If after that they have no evidence, well then tough, find a new theory, or continue trying to prove the one you got.Basically the scientific method here. Sounds good.

My only objection in all of this is you asking them for proof. That is not what you are doing. You are asking them for evidence.

As I have already mentioned on here, science is not so interested in proving theories. You cannot confirm theories. You can test a theory, and if it fails the test then a new theory must be formulated to explain the results (or a revision to the old theory). If the theory, however, passes the test, this does not mean that the theory is true. Far from it, it merely means the theory passed the test. If you want proof of a theory, even in some of the "harder" sciences, like physics, PROOF is still exceptionally hard to come by. Even Newton's "laws" are in some sence merely theories that have not failed a test.

The only discipline in which I think you can actually PROVE something is math.

NightCrawler
02-15-2006, 08:27 AM
Are pigme humans not human?

terrasin
02-15-2006, 11:25 AM
I find genetic progression interesting as well, though our views differ somewhat. I don't believe bone structure "evolution" is possible. I don't think we're going to develop a new ligament or a new organ or the way our knees bend.
I'm more talking about characteristics of bone structure. Some races have more brittle bones, some races have smaller people, some races are very athletic while others aren't built that way. In 50,000 years, while I highly doubt humans will be around that long on this planet, it's highly plausible the races will have completely different bone structures than we do now as a result of breeding within different cultures.

Reeper: I'll reply to it once I get a chance to talk with him. I have a very busy schedule and the few minutes I do have, most sane people are either sleeping or not available.

skilletfreak101: The world around you is not proof that there is a God. A lot of people believe our existance is purely accidental. The Christian mentality is the whole "You can't look around at the beauty of the world and tell me a God doesn't exist". The fact is, you can, and people do. Otherwise, everyone would be believers. :>

CJ

terrasin
02-15-2006, 11:28 AM
Also, I don't believe we will be around in 50,000 years simply that we are chewing up our resources. It's sad that we have come to this, destroying the Earth. Do you realize that in the last 100 years alone, companies around the world have logged 1/3 of the worlds trees? We're running out of fossil fuels and need to come up with new energy sources. We are eventually going to be the cause of our own demise.

CJ

Reeper
02-15-2006, 05:29 PM
CJ, take your time. Whenever you get a chance is fine.

Alex, We're talking about the same thing I think. I just sometimes erroneously use proof and evidence interchangeably.

And Nightcrawler, I thought you were calling us all pigmys not that you wanted to talk about them. Short answer, pygmys are just short human beings.

Peace

asparagus
02-15-2006, 06:10 PM
Alex, We're talking about the same thing I think. I just sometimes erroneously use proof and evidence interchangeably.That's what I thought, I think. : - )

NightCrawler
02-15-2006, 07:10 PM
And Nightcrawler, I thought you were calling us all pigmys not that you wanted to talk about them. Short answer, pygmys are just short human beings.

Peace
Yeah, I don't get how some people just have this notion that I do things without purpose. I can't think of a single thing that I do that does not serve a purpose. For example, this post is to help explain myself as a person that makes sense.

skynes
02-16-2006, 12:14 AM
Right, I checked my Hebrew dictionary.

The word for Day in Genesis 1, in ALL instances of Genesis 1 is in fact Yom. It's also used literally hundreds of times in the OT.

It's definition is as follows:

Day - Yom:
day (24 hours), days, infinite period of time, era of a certain characteristic (e.g. in the Day of the Lord), prophetic (e.g. on that Day).

There was no mention of it being metaphorical whatsoever.

I also looked up 'Hover'
...Found nothing, KJV uses 'moved' and this is a KJV concordance so...

Moved - Rahap:
Move, Shake, Tremble, Hover, Flutter.

So I'd God was in fact very close to earth here, merely hovering over the water.

unshakeable15
02-16-2006, 04:34 PM
another thought i had when i took Anthropology last.

we call these bones Homo erectus and Homo habilis, designating them as separate species from ourselves, but we don't know that to be the case. the way, in science, that one species is separated from another is through reproduction. if the two mate and produce viable offspring (that is, it can mate and produce offspring, unlike the inftertile liger or mule), then they are of the same species. it is possible that habilis and erectus are of the same species as ourselves, that is, sapien, but we can't prove it since none of them are alive to reproduce with.

another thought that has no way to prove one way or another, but i like to think about.

skynes
02-17-2006, 12:53 AM
I double-checked the dictionary. I made a bit of a mistake.

Yom:

Day as in 24 hours, Daytime as opposed to nighttime, Indefinite period of time (eternity), an era of a certain characteristic such as 'the Day of the Lord', the prophetic as in 'on that day'

asparagus
02-17-2006, 06:00 AM
It seems this definition may allow for a little more flexibility?

Reeper
02-17-2006, 08:19 AM
^until you take into consideration the context the word is used in. See the link I gave for the Ken Ham thing.

Peace

asparagus
02-17-2006, 09:29 AM
^until you take into consideration the context the word is used in. See the link I gave for the Ken Ham thing.

PeaceWould you be willing to repost that link?

terrasin
02-17-2006, 11:27 AM
I double-checked the dictionary. I made a bit of a mistake.

Yom:

Day as in 24 hours, Daytime as opposed to nighttime, Indefinite period of time (eternity), an era of a certain characteristic such as 'the Day of the Lord', the prophetic as in 'on that day'
What you are missing in the translation though is that this is what they have "choosen" to represent what Yom means. Probably made the decision when they were decoding the Bible because there was no proper translation. So in simple terms, the dictionary is pretty much useless. You need to look further back than that into how they made the translation because there was no proper word to describe what Yom meant.

CJ

skynes
02-20-2006, 08:08 AM
It seems this definition may allow for a little more flexibility?

Not really... It makes it even less flexible.

What you are missing in the translation though is that this is what they have "choosen" to represent what Yom means. Probably made the decision when they were decoding the Bible because there was no proper translation. So in simple terms, the dictionary is pretty much useless. You need to look further back than that into how they made the translation because there was no proper word to describe what Yom meant.

I got that definition from Strong's Strongest Concordance.
Where'd you get that from?

Reeper
02-23-2006, 03:23 PM
Totally off topic here but where does Strong's Strongest Concordance rank when compared to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. No real point there just curious.

Peace

skynes
02-24-2006, 01:57 AM
Some extra bits and pieces in it, Topical Dictionary, Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic dictionaries, maps of areas, maps showing paths taken along Paul's missionary journeys etc.

NightCrawler
02-24-2006, 06:43 AM
Gen 1:5
Day..............[03117] yowm

Gen 1:8
And God [0430] 'elohiym
called [07121] qara'
the firmament [07549] raqiya`
Heaven. [08064] shamayim
And the evening [06153] `ereb
and the morning [01242] boqer
were the second [08145] sheniy
day [03117] yowm


Outline of Biblical Usage






1) day, time, yeara) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of timea) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year



f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday
3) tomorrow

skilletfreak101
03-03-2006, 05:24 PM
ok im sorry guys but i don't get this subject at all. cavemen? and don't tell me there were different species of human. all humans came from one man: Adam. seriously...if you believe that everyone is in need of a Saviour, and that all need forgiveness of their sins, then everyone must've come from Adam because he was the one who first sinned. if there were different types of humans other than Adam, then not all of us would be sinners.

disciple
03-03-2006, 05:34 PM
"Primary significance appears to be heat of the day."

That could mean a lot of things...