Topic awaiting preservation: Genesis Explained/Debated (Page 1 of 5)

Belladonna. I posted this because I think all could benefit from a post on this site.

I know there is many Chapters and we don't have to go thur all of them, but I wanted to know how you see the first two chapters.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvGene.html

(Edited by jade on 06-27-2005 15:46)

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/holytestament/falacy.html

http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/home.htm

http://www.cygnus-study.com/

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

horrible code

Jade, why are you asking this? It's a Hebrew traditional creation story, it is not in any way different than Native American creation stories, Aztec, Incan, Egyptian, Norse, Shinto, Babylonian and Sumerian ( many even predate Hebrew story of Genesis). Hebrew theology on Yawishim was nothing more than a development from ancestral pagan beliefs, there was another monotheistic competitors who followed Baalishm also sprung out of the same people, eventually the victorious group of Yaweh worshipers eliminated all the competitors and here you have Judaism what it became.

Why do you have to bring this shit up again and again and again...it's all been covered.

Mostly of all Jade I have advice for you and for Gid,

If you are obsessed with something, you see it everywhere no matter what it is and it definitely doesn?t make it "true" or "right" simply because of your and another million people obsession with such things.

http://www.pantheon.org/

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Diogenes, exellent link

found this two articles, anyone cares enough to understand Jewish myth or just get an insight on creationism take look:

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/creation_myths.html

Jade--I haven't been ignoring this topic, just trying to decide how best and appropriately to answer it.

I think, first, I should say why I think Genesis is accurate historically. This may be long and boring for some, but Jade, you asked, and I have a lot to say on the subject. So here goes.

I think the bible can be viewed as three books in one. History. Laws (both Human and "Godly") and lastly, Spiritual. I think we can all agree that the bible has been tampered with by those who want to dominate people's thinking to further political causes. The Roman Catholic Church has really done a number on it's laws. Not to mention Christian festivals. I think it is the Laws that were most tampered with, followed by the spiritual aspects running a close second in order to back those laws up. The history would have been left alone for the most part. Why? Becasue changing the history (other than the more detailed history of Jesus himself) would prove pointless in the "cause". Also, an accurate history would give more clout to the accuracy of the laws and spiritual parts of the bible in the common people's mind.

Not to say there are not conflicts in even the historical facts of the bible--you have to remember that history is written from the perspective of the writer. But cities like Ur, which were previously thought fictitious, have been found and are being excavated. All in all, the bible has been an excellent source of ancient history, and guided the acheological world in which direction to go looking in.

Now for the story of creation itself. There are many many creation stories in many many different cultures. And they are all very fantastical. But studied carefully, you can see that all these different stories have had an evolution all their own. They have branced out and grew more fantastical and mixed together as they evolved from one tribe to another, spreading throughout the globe. Getting more fantastical the farther from the "source" as you go. But they all go back to an original story or two or three somewhere in the beginnings of mans history.

Sumer and Nubia are the oldest civilizations found to date. Sumeria has the oldest form of writing, cuniform, to date. Abraham in the bible came from Ur--which was in Sumer. (Shinar in the bible)

Now all histories were handed down orally, and were probably considered ancient, before writing was invented. Given the history of the Jews, and the Hebrews before them, of strictness in transcription of the torah, I have no problem believeing that the line that led to the Hebrews were just as strict in handing down oral stories and histories. This cannot be prooven, but it is a semi-logical assumption to make considering "assuming" is all we can really do. The very fact that the Jewish still cling to the Torah today shows how important to them their history and lineage is and was. It is not something they take lightly at all.

So I think that the creation in Genesis is the most unchanged version of the "original story" that we have in existance today.

Changing the story in Genesis later would serve no purpose politically--except when you get to the part of original sin. Metaphors and a small change could place all blame on woman, which DID serve a big purpose. Even in the time of Moses. A purpose that we are still fighting to this very day. But that's an entirely different topic.

Back to the creation itself. The order given in Genesis can't be disputed. With a few exceptions, it generally follows the same path that evolutionists take. The clearness of this is what has led to the Intelligent Design theory. Genesis and Evolution mesh very well. And the bible is even scientifically correct. Genesis says of creation that after man "It is finished". Also the bible says later after creation that "there is nothng new under the sun". These statements agree with the first law of thermodynamics. It is also said in the bible that "the heavens and earth will pass away" or "are passing away". This is in agreement with the second law of thermodynamics. It cannot be disputed that every living thing is born (created) then grows old and dies. There are also facts like the circumcision covenant. Every male was to be circumsised eight days after birth. It is a medical fact that babies don't develope all of their clotting potential until roughly a week after birth. Granted, they are done much earlier now. But it doesn't explain how the ancients knew this. Or the order of evolution. (Which to me is only saying that you can't have insects until there are plants for it to feed on, and you can't have animals that eat insects until there are insects. Not that evolution occured) Or the laws of thermodynamics. Either they were much much smarter than we give them credit for, or someone told them.

The problem between evolution and creation is the time periods. Verses one and two of Genesis do not give a specific time period. The Lord could have moved over the face of the water for a very long time contemplating. Who knows? Verses 3-10 can be viewed as a construction of the earth from a watery void and an atmoshere so cloudy that it blocked the view of the sun and moon and stars. There are arguments and disagreements of the translations of the original Hebrew words. Some sources say a more true translation gives the impression that this was a reconstruction of the earth, that it was previously destroyed. That the earth wasn't void from the beginning, that it BECAME void.

Also, most sources that I have read say that the second chapter is a recount of the first chapter dealing more specifically with man. I don't agree with that. It says in chapter one that "male and female created he him"

I think the second chapter deals with the creation of agricultural (i.e. a more intelligent) man. God made a garden, and made a man specifically to tend it. This would explain lines like the Neanderthal, who are proven genetically to be no relation to us. That they were a different line that got killed off. Perhaps that was the downfall of man. The original sin. The killing of our own species, also made in a likeness of God, simply becasue we were smarter than they. Who knows?

So that leaves dinosaurs. Man couldn't have lived with those beasts, we'd have been killed off--at least that is the general belief. I personally think man lived side by side with the dinos.

Please read this link. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Read ALL of it. Some can be explained as myth, some could be hoaxes, but there are some that are very believable. I find it interesting that a scientist stated that it may come to finding human fossils along side the dinosaurs. And I also have no doubt that if that happened, it would NOT be made known to the public. Not readily, anyway. And that if it leaked, then there would be an explanation quickly formulated by the science world.

Carbon dating? I'm not going to get into that. I don't know enough about the specifics of dating methods. Only that they don't agree sometimes. And that fossils are mineral deposits that took the place of bone. (so you are really, technically, dating the minerals of earth, not the actual bone) And that many fossils aren't dated themsleves, but rather the earth they were found in was dated and the fossils labled according to that date. If it is true, that the earth was destroyed before, and a re-construction took place--then the minerals of the earth could be a lot older than life. There are also accounts of dinosaur bones (one case being a T. Rex) being found that aren't fossilized. That were actually bone, with red blood cells. So one has to ask how a true bone could survive for millions of years without fossilizing or decaying. Of course, these accounts aren't as accessable to the general public or widely re-printed like other records are, although they are just as scientific: found, examined and written by scientists. Hmmm, I wonder why?

And this is why I believe Genesis.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

The only thign I want to touch on is this -

quote:

---

ut it doesn't explain how the ancients knew this.

---

This is the type of issue that many bring up as some sort of stumbling block.

It really is very simple though. Observation.

There are a great many things that have been 'known' to man for eons. We can offer scientific explanations of them *now* that we could not offer before. But it was known anyway, through observation and trial and error.

A lot of the herbal remedies that have been used for longer than we can trace are a good example. We are now finding that a lot of these remedies do in fact have a great deal to offer, and we can label this scientifically. 20-30 years ago, it was looked at as some new-age hippy nonsense. But these things have been used forever, without a sceond thought, because they work. How did ancient man know it? Observation. Trial and error.

How did he know not to cut a baby before 8 days? Observation. Trial and error. How did he know things wasted away? Observation of the world around him. Etc etc etc.



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-01-2005 18:22)

Yes, that is one way DL. There's no denying that.

Which would mean they were much much smarter than we give them credit for. They just didn't have the technical MEANS to do (or explain) what we can today.

The Mayan calendar and the great Pyramid tell us they were much much smarter than we'd like to think too. The bible also makes a mention of the "circle of the earth". A fact that must have gotten lost somewhere just to be proven correct when Chistopher Columbus made his famous voyage.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Which would mean they were much much smarter than we give them credit for.

---

Than *who* gives them credit for? There is nothing to indicate they were less intelligent than we are today, and no reason we should think that.

quote:

---

The bible also makes a mention of the "circle of the earth"

---

As do many other sources. Big difference between a circle and a sphere though

Here's evidence of ancient batteries

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2804257.stm

Which in and of itself isn't really remarkable to me. What is remarkable is that, if these were in fact batteries, the knowledge was forgotten for a long period of recorded history. Until Ben Franklin harnessed electricity. Which makes me wonder if we're not really learning anything new, just re-learning ancient stuff and are able to apply it better.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

This is just my ramblings, DL

I don't know about you, but I grew up thinking cave people were, for lack of a better word, stupid. But they obviously could pass info along to each other, which means they could communicate with each other on more intellectual levels that just a "me tarzan, you jane" kind of level.

Stupid is a harsh word. No where near our sophistication I guess is closer to what I mean. They picked up stones and sharpened them, but didn't know anything else. But now, because of things I've read, I think they were very smart.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

There is no evidence to suggest they were any less intelligent than we are. In many cases (look around you! ), it is quite evident that with all of our techology and scientific advances, the world is filled with very stupid people.

It must be remembered that right now we are truly 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

What we know now, we know because it has been passed down by previous generations, for thousands of years (and as you've mentioned, many things were known, forgotten, rediscovered, etc...).

If we were left to start from scratch there is most certainly no reason to think we would start at a 'better' place intellectually than men were at 6,000 yaers ago. In fact, it's not much of a stretch to say we'd be worse off as a whole.



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-01-2005 21:49)

quote:

---

There is no evidence to suggest they were any less intelligent than we are.

---

Exactly.

This is why I don't believe intelligence evolved from a mutation in the genes of some primitive primate millions of years ago. An ape in the deepest jungles can bang a rock on a tree or hard nut to get at the meat inside, but he is still not intelligent like man is. Like man ALWAYS was.

(just my opinion here, no need to re-hash all that. I know very well where you stand on all that)

quote:

---

If we were left to start from scratch there is most certainly no reason to think we would start at a 'better' place intellectually than men were at 6,000 yaers ago. In fact, it's not much of a stretch to say we'd be worse off as a whole.

---

This is interesting. Elaborate more please.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I wish to first intercede here - the "first civilizations" that we know of, are the Aborigines of Australia, that go back (measured) 50,000~60,000 years. It is speculated that it goes back much, much further - some evidence indicates 250,000+.

Examining their culture (which was unbroken, until Europeans came), one can see that Mankind has held the relatively same "intelligence" i.e. the ability to think, reason, dream, and connect actions with consequences.

quote:

---

Back to the creation itself. The order given in Genesis can't be disputed. With a few exceptions, it generally follows the same path that evolutionists take. The clearness of this is what has led to the Intelligent Design theory. Genesis and Evolution mesh very well. And the bible is even scientifically correct. Genesis says of creation that after man "It is finished". Also the bible says later after creation that "there is nothng new under the sun". These statements agree with the first law of thermodynamics.

---

I disagree here. It follows the same path that evolutionists take? I think you really need to clarify this! What "path" are you talking about? And the "clearness" of it has led to the Intelligent Design theory? Theory??!! It's definitely not theory. Hypothesis at best.

The bible is scientifically correct? This is so far from the truth, I'm not sure where to begin. It really bothers me to no end, the amount of facts and evidence to the contrary, there is always some...one who thinks they know better, that comes here, and posts such junk on these boards...

I'm sick and tired of having to point these things out. Go research the issue, before trying to discuss it.

Even doing a search of these forums, will turn up links and evidence to the contrary.

To put it bluntly, we have already proven that the Bible is not always scientifically correct on these forums.

I see, BD, that you are showing your true colors, more and more.

This is particularly ignorant

quote:

---

This would explain lines like the Neanderthal, who are proven genetically to be no relation to us.

---

That is just not true! They have found in DNA a mixing of BOTH! Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. So genetically, it seems that they were pretty closely related, at least enough to mate and produce offspring. I even posted a link about this recently.

I tell you what - I'm sick and tired of crap like these threads. It is one thing to say "Well, this is what I believe" - ok. Fine. That is what you believe.

It is another to present things that simply are not true, as if they were (for example, that the bible is "scientifically correct", the Neanderthal, who are proven genetically to be no relation to us, etc, etc, etc!).

So, go on, use this thread, this topic, to get it all out of your system.

Go on, post away!

Lol, Belladona you can apply science to native American creation myths and say that they are scientifically correct. You can make it fit anyways you want, you can take any mystical passage turn it into metaphor as it pleases you and make it look and sound as scientifically accurate as you want it to sound...

And you are right, a lot of things were relearned, for example Ancient Greeks almost invented a steam engine, few Roman doctors almost understood modern medicine, Democritus was more accurate about what we are made of, he pretty much introduced idea of atoms, Aristotle figured out that earth was oval... and really none of this people were "Christian" or "Jewish" and none depended on "bible" or supreme mystical entity "god" yes many of them were pagan, some rejected beliefs in Deities...it all goes back to observation...

hell I don't see anyone bashing theory of gravity, there is so much not known about it and possibly it wont always remain consistent as it is now, but we accept it...no one bitches just because we don?t know where it comes from or what exactly is the source of this particular force...

There is so little know about lighting (I think) yet no one claims it is Zeus on Mt. Olympus throwing thunders.


it's just that, just because you believe in something that comforts you doesn?t make it so...

I am pretty certain I posted some links here which quite definitely refute most of all BD (it is a poison y'know) claims re: genesis etc.

It appears she either does not read or does not accept anything which confuses here world view with facts.

I was of the impression she was a seeker of truth, but the last page or two has me thinking she is more like jade than not.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Wow, here I was reading a nice dialogue between some people then BAM! There goes the neighborhood. Seriously WS, take a chill pill. You know as well as I do that there is absolutely no possibility that any human being knows everything out there. And who knows, some belief structures can change dramatically from new findings. We will just have to wait, ponder, watch, and hope for the best.

BTW WS, I looked up the dates for the Auzzies. You are right they did come up in the 50,000 to 60,000 range. Unfortunately that was only the largest range. Did you know that from a piece of Auzzie clothing the observer got 7 different dates? Ranging from 60,000 to 100 years ago? Granted that was one observation, but that at least makes me weary of just blindly believeing what someone says about a date they found.

Hey Bell, I have a theory. I think that mankind was at its highest at the first people (Adam and Eve), and are regressing from there. Actually a valid point because we have built machines now to the point that we are needing our bodies (cars anyone?) and minds (calculators anyone?) less and less. And when you stop using a muscle, it deteriorates.

I love playing the what if game: What if Aristotle (right Greek?) had actually taken the next step and applied his toy steam engine to a useful purpose?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Did you know that from a piece of Auzzie clothing the observer got 7 different dates? Ranging from 60,000 to 100 years ago?

---

*sigh*

Then keep on searching. As I mentioned, that date is confirmed - meaning, that it has been confirmed with a NUMBER of different dating systems - all coming in around that date.

Other, older dates are unconfirmed - that means, that results and conclusions drawn from the preliminary findings differ.

Of course, most YECs scream about the 50,000+ years - which, according to them, is impossible.

And I would hope, that those who post opinions here on this board and cite what they believe to be factual information, would first take a bit of time to make sure that what they believe to be factual, really is. Sometimes one is wrong. It happens to us all. In csuch a case, one should accept that, corrigate the position, and move on, having LEARNED from the experience.

BD has been caught in such a position (as have you, Gid) multiple times. One would think, that a few such experiences would make one a bit more cautious in future posts.

OR

State your opinion, period, without trying to "back it up" with what one believes to be facts. Such as "I believe..." Now that is fine, one is merely stating what one believes.

But stating that and then citing what one believes to be factual information, leads to the point being examined critically. And should the supposed factual information prove to be refuted, it throws the whole belief into the realm of the unrealistic, the illogical. And that is a pretty embarassing position to be put in, not to mention a non-credible one.

Such as you, Gid - you have shot your credibility to shreds on this board.

Now let us take a look at other, opposing positions - Bugimus and DL-44.

Both have researched the material soundly. Both have a sound grasp on their positions, and can logically and reasonably back up their positions. The big difference being the conclusion, for example (there are other differences, but that is the main difference).

I have had the great honor to be able to participate in a number of discussion with and against both (though it is rare that I have an opposing position to DLs, it does happen). I can honestly say, that I have learned much from them, and a number of other, respected (and not so respected, as one sees it) members on this board.

I have been "flamed" (though I prefer to call it "being called out") by more knowledgible members here, and I had to suck it up, and learn from it. It used to be a grand tradition here, that brutal honesty was the order of the day - and it is one of the best learning tools that I know of. Face to face with the stark reality of things. You want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

Though most of the minds of yore have moved on to other pastures (not sure if some of those threads still exist anymore - maybe in the Archives) - I would suggest to anyone new to these boards, to take a walk down the aisle of the Archive, and check some of them out - astonishing stuff. The old Asylum was full of such stored threads - as I first joined this board, I read them greedily, sucking up the knowledge, the information.

Incredible stuff.

(Edited by WebShaman on 07-02-2005 11:48)

I think for once Gid may be partially right.

There is certainly some evidence on these pages that certain members of the race are regressing.

Fortunately, the affliction is not universal.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WebShaman--the only thing I have to say is that that whole spill about why I believe Genesis was just that, my belief. It was directed at Jade because she asked for it. From me specifically. You didn't need to read it, and you most certainly did not have to comment on it----as it was not directed at you.

I did, however, put it in a public forum, so therefore you are entitled to comment and tear down anything I say.

My beliefs have nothing to do with "comfort". It is far more "comfortable" on your side of the fence. Wouldn't you agree? After all, I haven't attacked any of your personal beliefs, I have only questioned and searched and have stated what I've found. I'll probably continue searching til the day I die. But if anyone mentions God in any way shape or form, he or she is immediately attacked and pounded, called names like ignorant, and is basically told they need to go back to school.

So you're telling me that it is a scientific fact that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal DNA are mixed? That we ARE related? Well, I'm telling you, that it's a scientific fact that Sapien and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has proven that we are of NO relation to each other. Don't ask me to cite it. I have read so much that I don't even know where that came from now. But it shouldn't be too hard to find. Just do a search on mitochondrial DNA.

My point being, so WHICH scientific fact was right? Well, lets see.....

on a whim, I did a quick search and this is what I found on the very first shot.

quote:

---

In 1997 Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Penn State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans? Neanderthals are not our ancestors."² Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings.³

---

So how are our DNA mixed?? Please tell me. I must have missed something in all my biology classes.

There are all kind of phrases like--"commonly thought to be" or "the accepted theory is" when it comes to Sapien and Neanderthal having a common ancestor further back in history. But if one UNDERSTANDS the difference in nucleic DNA and mitochondrial DNA, it's pretty clear that we are not related.

The "theory" is that we have a common ancestor further back. The "fact" is, that they are a totally separate species of human from homo sapien. Even if you look at it from an evolutionary stand point, it doesn't make sense. Look, even if it's because of evolution that they were a separate species, Neanderthal should have been closer to us than chimpanzees, separate species or not. But they weren't-not according to science anyway. Science is going to tell me that my DNA is what? 99.8%? (something like that) the same as a chimpanzee-so we are kin to them, but I'm NOT A DESCENDANT or a RELATIVE of Neanderthal? Who was human? Sorry, but I interpret that as "double speak" and I find an awful lot of it in evolution.

Oh, I don't doubt there are countless ways to turn that around with words, but the fact is, words don't make it so. And it doesn't make sense to me no matter which way I look at those statements.

As far a the Aussies, I was talking about modern civilization when I spoke of the Sumerian and Nubian. You know, writing, business transactions, a FULLY DEVELOPED society. With a WRITTEN history. The point was writing down stories of creation that had been passed on only orally before them.

Anyway, it's all been my opinion of Genesis. I have no real idea of what happened back in the day, because I wasn't there. My opinion was given to Jade becasue she asked me. Throw it in the trash if you want to. I honestly don't care what you believe. But don't dis me personally for it. And don't presume to know that I need to go back and research anything. You have no idea how long I've worked and searched into this matter. You have no idea of my biological background that I apply to the things I research. You don't know me at all. Only what I post. And if I tried to post all of my own findings, well, I'd be typing forever. And unless you worked in biology, you'd never grasp it. No more than I would understand computer programming or calculus.

Gideon--I don't know if we are regressing or not. As much as man likes to fight wars, if ancient man had the technology for nuclear weapons, it's entirely possible that we wouldn't be standing here today. Hell, we killed off all the Neanderthals--how is that any different from what Hitler did to the Jews? Other than the obvious fact that he didn't succeed with his goal and Ancient man did succeed? Genecide is genecide, no matter when it happened. But I don't think that the fact that we stopped Hitler or refrain from the use of nuclear weapons today is a sign that we are "progressing" in any way either.

Man is no more peaceful than he was when he first walked on this planet. We are just more technical. More "sophisticated", more fearful of consequences--there is a difference in "fearing" the consequencs and "respecting" the consequences and respecting other human life. We have a pride and an arrogance to "be the better man", but that doesn't make us any less dark in our hearts. It just makes us better at fooling others. We are a race of "pretenders". We are still fighting over territory, possessions <cough>OIL<cough>, and power. Even the "gang-land" scene is the same basic thing, just on a smaller scale and more violent passage. Gangs fighting for territory, more power than the other gangs. What Nation does to Nation is no different, they just wear a tie when they do it.

The one thing I do see is that man is becoming more "individualized". Our hearts are hardening toward other men, even those in our own families. I could never throw a child of mine away in a garbage can. But it is happening. It may have always happened. It probably did always happen. We have media now to show us these things when in the past, we haven't. But in my heart I believe it has gotten worse. That is just what I feel, there is no proof that it really is worse than it ever was.

I could start waxing philosophical on a very high soap box here, but I'll spare some of you and jump down while it's still very small.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Just a quick note:

quote:

---

Like man ALWAYS was.

---

Like man has been since becoming what we can call 'man'.

You *must* understand that the timeframe of man's existence is quite small in comparison to the evolutionary chain.
It is silly to think that in that short timespan, our intellectual capacity - as a species - would change much if at all.

Once our species became...our species....it was equipped with the same physical and intellectual tools that we have today.

Somehow, I knew you were going to say that

But at least we agree that man always was intelligent.

You say toMAHtoes, I say toMAYtoes, but in the end, they both make ketchup.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 07-02-2005 19:19)

I posted this link in this thread (of which you were a participant - obviously, you did not read it) -

Human Evolution

quote:

---

In 1999, the skeleton of a child was unearthed in Lapido, Portugal. Dated to around 25,000 years ago, the remains show a mixture of Neanderthal and modern features, suggesting it may be a hybrid. But small fragments of Neanderthal DNA extracted from three different specimens show that they were not closely related to any present day human populations.

---

Blocks are mine.

The DNA extracted shows that they are not closely related to any present day human populations - but it does not exclude the possibility of hybrids (as the blocked part shows).

More research along these lines will be necessary.

I'm sure there was some cross-breeding at times. Thank God for genetic structure, or there'd be sheep-men and chicken-men running around in the backwoods of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Alabama today. Maybe a few dog-men in the cities.

You can cross a horse and a donkey. The mule hybrid is sterile.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I saw on the news one day, can't remember the location of the incident, that a woman killed (or tried to kill, been awhile back that I saw this) her husband becasue she found him trying to get it on with a chicken. <EEEWWWW>

I wouldn't have killed him. I'd have taken a picture, kicked him out, and humiliated him for the rest of his life. That's just plain disgusting.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Oh, and what does "not closely related" mean? That I'm your 3rd cousin twice removed? Or that somewhere back down the line we may have a common ancestor? Just how "not close" are we "not closely related"?

The phrase "not closely related" is a clever way of making "the THEORY is that neanderthal and sapiens have a common ancestor somewhere down the line" sound like we are closer than we are.

But I do agree that more research is needed.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Belladonna: you know you can use the button to modify your posts, provided they are less than 4 hours old.

quote:

---

Oh, and what does "not closely related" mean?

---

Investigate it, research it, and find out!

quote:

---

Investigate it, research it, and find out!

---

Why should I when you're here, and you've been so quick to point out and educate me on things you think I don't understand?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

educate me on things you think I don't understand

---

No, this is sadly mistaken.

My reactions are based on what you have posted.

If you are not interested in researching it...

*shrug*

I was joking WS.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

As I said, my reactions are based on what you post - if you are joking (or not being serious) - on the left there, are Slimies. They are a great way of presenting meaning

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I believe you have her stymied WS.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Belladonna... for future reference, when some posters get kind of ugly or rude and maybe even condescending and even resort to name calling, thur experience I see it as they never learned to get along well with others. I also think it stems from immaturity. Sometimes a lot of the nasty rebuttals stem from pride. But nobody knows everything. Some don't understand every post is appreciated even if its not what we want to hear. Your first post on Genesis was very enlightening. I learned very much from it. Very well thought out. I hope you decide to stay on the forum for a long time.

On Genesis creation story:

No one human person witnessed the creative 7 day effort of God. So one can qualify with the exact true story of creation.

I wonder why so often persons think the holy bible could be used as a science book to prove facts. The bible was not meant to used that way. It was written and kept in circulation for spiritual purposes. The bible is a spiritual book not a science book to support facts. When the early magisterium of the church complied the writings together and made it a canon of spiritual meaning, they did not intend for it to be used as a tool of argument to prove itself scientifically against the evolutionist theory. The number 7 is used throughout the bible in many stories to represent fullness/completeness. Especially in the Genesis story it is used to relate that God created all in its completeness with nothing lacking. If I am not mistaken I believe the early bible writings were written by priestly writers. Their meaning was to convey in the spiritual view. God did not appear in front of these persons and tell them what to write. God could of left a book down here to give us the answers. But the God of the OT always uses man to relate to other men to reveal who he is most of the time. Why God can't just show up and appear and tell us?? Who knows why. But this I do know, God meant us to co-exist peacefully, like in a perpetual garden setting with many fruits to nourish us and keep us living spiritually.


7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Could this possibly go along with the evoutionist theroy?

8: And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9: And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10: A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.
11: The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12: and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
13: The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush.
14: And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15: The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.


[/i]16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

[i]In the story of creation, the writers main purpose is to relate how Gods perfection extended to create what God is, so "man" was created in Gods spiritual image with the free will to love him or not. An this is where God breathed into man, his spirit.

God does not want to force us to love. God wants us to do it willingly. The writers want to relate how man in its perfected state should be and tells you how it was. In the story of the "Garden of Eden" the writers are relating how beautiful the soul was.. Eden represents the soul. Because a good soul produces many fruits. The Garden was peaceful and beautiful and very fruitful. There could of possibly been other fruitful humans at the time. But in all our beauty God wants us to know it comes from God and no other sources. All the tangibles in the story from the tree of wisdom to the apple, snake are possibly metaphors. The tree of wisdom represents God who is the supreme intelligence of all things living and not living. God thur Holy scripture writers wants us to know how beautiful we can be and how we can loose that beauty. In the original translation of the bible the name Adam means "mankind" God is neither male nor female, but if we are an extension of who God is spiritually, God has a feminine face also. The story of Eve being the temptress and making man fall is a story of seduction to pride, because pride is the root of all evil. Eve just represents the bad deed. Both fall. Women today shouldn't get the bad rap for Eve's behavior. The writers of the OT Genesis knew way back then how we can become too prideful when we think all God works generate from mans intelligence and not God. In other words we think we know it all and we should attribute nothing to God.

I believe the original writers never intended us to interpret the seven days as literal. They were just trying to get a point across in that every created thing comes from God. And that was its purposes. The story has been picked on and prodded and stuied as factual basis for scienctific creation and that is not near what the real intent is for. IF you opposed to the story of Genesis as fact thats ok and you are not in any danger of losing your soul. And if want to believe in the theory of evolution thats ok too, but if you don't get the message from the story the writers are trying to convey in the Book of Genesis in regard to the spiritual creation thats when it gets serious. And this is that God is at the origin of all things.

(Edited by jade on 07-11-2005 18:23)

Bell, I am an amateur Roman historian. I love reading about their history and cich culture. Unfortunately the overall murderous intentions of the people in Rome far out reached those of the western culture today. Abortions were wide spread, people could be murdered for speaking up at the wrong time, or violating certain laws. Capitol punishment was particularly gruesome. Looking at their cultrue, I am happy to be an American. Unfortunately, it does appear that we are slowly digressing back to that state of mind. It is a pity.

I thought you might like that one D-man.

Jade, do you believe that the Creation story recorded in Genesis is just a metaphor or a bunch of symbols? If so, could you tell me when you think a man is considered a man in the evolutionary line in order that he is able to be in God's likeness? That is something that has been troubling me for a while about that perception of Genesis. It doesn't really fit...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Gideon. I believe man was created in Gods spiritual image. The human person you are created as doesn't' t mean you took on God's physical being. We are created in the image of God. God is pure spirit. Just his spiritual essence which is the most important part of your creative self is why you were created. I am not saying I believe in the theory of evolution as factual. I do believe in the story of Genesis in the message it gives. There could of possibly been an Adam and Eve, but in my understanding of scripture the message the story gives is more important that the actual specifics. God breathed his spirit into man. At this point God made man aware of who God is by God telling Adam the laws of Paradise which represents the soul. I believe where Jesus references a Paradise that's in the place where God is. And God does live in the soul.

The story too is about today. Mankind (Men & Women) are still falling away into sin because of pride and arrogance. And even though they do fall there is still hope for salvation in the world in which we keep polluting with sin. The part about Adam and Eve being naked after they ate the apple, does not mean they were really naked or they partook of the same apple.

The story is suppose to convey how does it feel when you feel so guilty and ashamed in front of your piers for committing a horrible crime. When you have been stripped of dignity and feel embarrassment. Piers can see you for what you really are. You feel naked. And that is what the writers are trying to tell you how Adam and Eve felt. They were in a deep friendship with God. God was their personal friend and they knew God loved them dearly. When they did not trust God and went against his wishes the saw what they really did as a violation of the friendship they made with God. They felt remorse and were deeply sorry so God forgave them and gave them another chance to redeem themselves.

Look at the question in scripture when Jesus was asked about forgiveness by Peter. " How many times should I forgive? Jesus answered 70x7. And what about the scripture of story of the seven bridesmaids or in Revelations regarding the seven churches, seven scrolls, lamp stands. etc. Do you see how 7 is used to represent no limit? That is way I really don't get focus on the actual number of days in the creation story, because I feel that is not the essence of the story. But we do have a 7 day week systems of days that originate from the bible and that I believe is the maybe the reason God put 7 days. And to remind us how the 6 days of the week are incomplete until you fulfill the obligation to give thanks to the Lord on the 7th day. What do you think? Do you take the story literally.
We have to know that where God is there is no time, so why is so important for us to take the story so literally regarding the 7 day creation story in reference to evolution. We were created. We exist and that is the most important thing to remember.

(Edited by jade on 07-12-2005 15:36)

Why don't you two get a room?

Better still, start you own forum and take your smug, self-congratulatory attitudes there and enjoy your mutual mind-f**k in peace and delusion?

There is no hope whatsoever of either one of you achievieng intellectual maturity.

As it is with any other type of addict, you will never get better unless you want to.

Shoo, get away now.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

On the same token, there is nobody forcing you to come in here and read this, diogenes.

It's pretty silly to tell two people having a conversation which for all intents and purposes doesn't concern you that they should stop having the conversation.