A Complete Skull from Dmanisi

[Aman777]

I did tell you numerous times. Genesis 2:4-7 is the start of details of the 6th day of creation. It is an overview of day 6. It has nothing to do with day 3.

Dear ED, Here is what I posted, which you ignored. Now, you give us a hand wave as if that were refuting what I posted. Try again?

Aman:>>>>Genesis 2:4-7 tells us that on the Day the Earth was made (the 3rd Day Gen 1:9-10) but BEFORE the plants grew (the 3rd Day Gen. 1:12) the LORD God (Jesus) made man of the dust of the ground. Adam was made BEFORE plants, trees, and the first Stars of our cosmos whch did NOT put forth their Light until the FOURTH Day. Genesis 1:16 <<<<<<<<<

Where in these verses does it say ANYthing about the 6th Day? I will wait until you try to connect it to the 6th Day, which you cannot.

There is no such thing as ancient men. We are all the same since creation. In fact they actually had more knowledge than we do today.

Really? I am speaking of ancient men who lived thousands of years ago, who were totally ignorant of today's technology, and walked because they didn't have the knowledge of how to build a car.

The bible is not "ancient man's tradition" and there is no reason to think they knew any more or less about scripture than we do except for prophecies later in the NT that came true with Jesus.

The Bible was authored by God. Ancient men told us what they thought it was saying, but they were completely wrong because they were trying to understand God, whose knowledge was far superior to theirs. These same people wound up calling for the Crucifixion of their own God. Are you Jewish?

By the way, what exactly is the "Supreme Intelligence of Creation".

God is the Supreme Intelligence of Creation. He is an invisible Spirit and has but ONE Image and that is that of His Son, Jesus Christ. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dad]

I moderated on here years ago, it was amazing how it was always the same thing on both sides. Invariably it was petty rudeness and yea, there is an ignore feature.

What is a shame is that a complete Dmanisi skull was discovered, I mean a nearly perfect one. They haven't been able to figure out anything all that conclusive from the others and they've been finding them for a while. Sad really, toss it in with the rest of the discoveries that have been dragged into this mud wrestling tournament that is Darwinism Vs. Creation.

The only thing rarer then a find like this is a self respecting creationist who would participate in one of these debates. I'll bet the majority of creationists who post here aren't, I've always thought that.

The skulls are most likely post flood. It is probable also that man and beast could not fossilize in the former nature.

The issue of skulls therefore would be whether these were early post flood man, or some sort of ape.

Most creationists try to believe in creation the best way they know how. It is more important that they respect God's word, than science or themselves on issues.

 

[mark kennedy]

The skulls are most likely post flood. It is probable also that man and beast could not fossilize in the former nature.

The issue of skulls therefore would be whether these were early post flood man, or some sort of ape.

Most creationists try to believe in creation the best way they know how. It is more important that they respect God's word, than science or themselves on issues.

If you compare the cranial capacity of the newly found skull with what they were saying about the previous ones the significance starts to emerge. Why are there no Chimpanzee ancestors? Which is the more likely explanation: The overall cranial capacity of apes reduced gradually over time or an ape brain tripled in size about 2 million years ago, for no apparent reason and no known molecular means?

They bury these discussions in drama and debate not because the truth is so hard to find but because it is so glaringly obvious.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. BTW, the specimen is either antediluvian or from the time of adaptive radiation immediately following the Deluge.

 

[dad]

If you compare the cranial capacity of the newly found skull with what they were saying about the previous ones the significance starts to emerge. Why are there no Chimpanzee ancestors? Which is the more likely explanation: The overall cranial capacity of apes reduced gradually over time or an ape brain tripled in size about 2 million years ago, for no apparent reason and no known molecular means?

We do not need to chose between those two options.

They bury these discussions in drama and debate not because the truth is so hard to find but because it is so glaringly obvious.

Just to be clear, what are you saying happened?

P.S. BTW, the specimen is either antediluvian or from the time of adaptive radiation immediately following the Deluge.

I guess to know that, one would need to know about what layer the flood was. How did this adaptive radiating work? Animals adapted faster because of some radiation after the flood?