Previous  1  2  3  Next

My issue is not with the simplicity of the creation story, it's with the stuff that's obviously incorrect.

If God is the primary source of the Biblical Creation story, and it claims it was given directly to Moses from God, why were the stars and light described as being created after the earth? Why were land plants, trees, and flowers described as being created before sea creatures?

This goes beyond a mere simplification of the process - it's just wrong, unless you want to make the claim that God's "tricking" us with all the evidence we have that gives a very different account of the order of "creation", or that Moses botched the story when he put it down to paper.

   

And yet many ignore the fact that food production origins are complex and varied. For instance, Netiv Hagdud and Jericho saw farming by 7800 BCE and 8500 BCE, but this doesn't address the fact that archaeological evidence exists to suggest food production in Greece by 7000 BCE or the Balkans by 5500 BCE and the Spirit Cave site in Thailand points to rudimentary agriculture by 9000BCE. The Bible doesn't mention this because the Bible is a specific source that isn't all encompassing, no matter how some try to push it as such.

   

OK yeah Big Bang theory makes a lot of sense for the way God made the earth.

But Genesis says God created man, it doesn't say God created animals, that morphed into man...

nope can't accept that.

And if God created man in the sense of mind and spirit, then evolution still can't work with that, because apes are not as brain developed as humans.

I don't want to turn this into an atheist-religion debate. I just want to discuss ways we can apply the religiously-controversial science to the Bible without compromising, omitting, or cherry-picking it's words.

And please don't say I am a dumb-ass for denying evolution... half of America does...

   

The Bible says that earth was created before the stars. We know that to be false. Elements such as iron that make up our planet had to have come from the reactions that occur in a supernova, a dying star - stars not only had to exist before planets, some had to exist and then die.

You're a dumb-ass for denying evolution. The only thing theoretical about evolution is the mechanism by which it occurs.

   

Did Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) possess this "sense of mind and spirit"?

   

Ah, it so nice being a dumbass, but at least in this one, I am a dumb ass in a majority! It must make atheists so sad when half of America denies evolution

Well, I guess God could have started the animals first....he made man and woman in the last days......soo...I guess....it could work, OMG...this is making more sense.

Days could be any spanse of time to God.

evolution was made over billions of years

so if man came on the last day, maybe God "created" man, through the evolutionary process throughout the millions/billions of years.

and this 'last stage' of evolution (humans) was blessed with mind, spirit, soul.

   

I've always wondered if neanderthals and homo sapienes inter mixed and reproduced. Is there any type of DNA evidence to show they did?

As for the question, their cave art and burial areas I would think would show if they had a sense of an after life and thus a "spirit". I'm unsure how we could reason if they had a sense of mind or not though.

   

Westmanguy,

Well, perhaps your problem with evolution is that you don't understand it.

Firstly, evolution isn't done. Evolution is merely the changing of the ratios of alleles within a given population. It's happening today and it will happen tomorrow with the birth and death of every man, woman and child. Got that?

Secondly, it isn't directed. Random mutation fuels the evolutionary process. Sorry, but Lamark was wrong many moons ago and so are you today.

Thirdly, I thank God that the law of evolution doesn't require your tacit approval.

Fourthly, instead of wondering about man and apes being genetically related, you should instead worry about the problems inherent in Genesis. Perhaps you can tell me who created Cain's wife in the land of Nod? Another God whip off a second creation not in the Bible? If you believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible, then you're making an assumption about Cain's wife's creation by believing the same God made her too. And if you're going to be making assumptions, than you're picking and choosing what to believe. And if you're picking and choosing what to believe anyway, you may as well go for evolution since there's a shit load more evidence for it.

Dumbass.

   

okey dokey, no need for rudeness......

   

Everybody, say hello to "Intelligent Design" - Creationism dressed up in new clothes.

Why are you guys so predictable?

   

In regards to interspecies (and that is still hotly debated) mating, the jury still seems to be out (hybridization has been suggested) but many have been inching towards possibly labeling Neanderthals either a subspecies of Homo Sapiens or an entirely new species (according to Mitochrondrial DNA) - the later seems be quite likely. Any way you slice it, however, they shared the same historical milieu as Archaic Homo and they certainly aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible.

In regards to culture, you are indeed correct as Neanderthals certainly had a concept of an afterlife (burial offerings suggest this) and their art suggests both aesthetic appreciation and higher cognitive functioning. I'm not sure how you arrived, however, at questioning whether they had "a sense of mind"?

   

Hey...i'm still being polite and patiently waiting for you to address my question regarding Neanderthals.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next