Humans

[lucaspa]

Most people believe that modern man showed up around 9.000 years ago at the end of the last major ice age. Then written history begins about 6000 years ago.

John, Cro-Magnon is fully modern human and that population dates back 30,000 years. No one in anthropology I can find, nor anywhere else, believes what you said.

If "most people" believe this, then provide the references for them saying so.

 

[lucaspa]

Clearly the Bible teaches there is a direction:

2 Tim. 3:13
But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

We see here that people who are deceived are going in a direction that just gets worse and worse.

Proverbs 4:18
But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.

Those who are just are indeed heading toward perfection. So that apart from God, everything gets worse and worse. But when God is a apart of it, everything just keeps getting better and better.

Is the Bible talking about evolution here? No. It's talking about about moral development.

And yes, I can see 2 Tim 3:13 at work in your posts. I think it is accurate.

 

[lucaspa]

Is this another personal attack on me?

Do you want to discuss science, creation & evolution, or do you just want to discuss me?

In order to continue discussion with you, we have to figure out how you discuss.

John, you have said many times that your purpose here is NOT to discuss science, creationism, or evolution. It is to bring people to what you say is God. So you are never discussing the topic. As far as we can tell, you haven't read Origin of the Species or any other scientific work on evolution.

So, since your stated purpose, by you, is to bring people to God, one of the things we have to discuss is whether your god is God. How else can we evaluate if you are achieving your purpose? From what you have said about your god, it isn't God.

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis 1 places the creation of Man in day six. It is in Genesis 2 that shows that Man was first formed on day three.

...
On day three Man becomes a living soul, and on day six Man is separated into its respective male and female components.

The day six account in Genesis 1...
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them....

...also shows first a singular "him". then a plural "them.

And since Adam had named all the animals before being put to sleep, Adam had to be around prior to day six in the account of Genesis 1 to do the naming.

You are trying to reconcile the accounts but you still can't get around the fact that Genesis 1 says Day 6 and you say Genesis 2 says day 3.

The KJV translation in Genesis 1:27 is faulty. It should read "in the image of God created he them, male and female created he them ... " The word KJV translates as "him" can also mean plural. Even by your translation, however, it still shows the male being created on day 6 and not on day 3. No way around it.

 

[Duane Morse]

"Who else but God is going to conduct the breeding experiments?"

Maybe us?

"LOL! I love the machinations people come up with trying to reconcile Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Remember Genesis 1:27? Male and female created TOGETHER on day 6. "

This is not a machination, and the two do go together.
The day six account in Genesis 1...
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them....

...also shows first a singular "him". then a plural "them.
as I said before.

"Languages change without corresponding genetic changes. Look at the development of English out of French and Saxon. No major genetic changes involved. "

Yes, but at Babel it was done in an instant, not one language evolving into different. At one moment they all were speaking the same language, the next they were speaking different languages. So they could no longer understand each other and left off what they were doing.
Totally different.

 

[JohnR7]

John, Cro-Magnon is fully modern human and that population dates back 30,000 years. No one in anthropology I can find, nor anywhere else, believes what you said.

How many Cro-Magnon have they found?

If "most people" believe this, then provide the references for them saying so.

By modern man I was not refering to the physical features, rather I was making a referance to civilization. Growing food, hurding animals, building cities. This began when the land that the glaciers covered began to once again be productive and support life.

There is still the "Alantis" theory going back to Plato that there were cities and civilization at a sooner date. But any evidence of this would be underwater and no one is that intested to excavate a underwater site right now.

 

[sfs]

I hate to tell you, but all the genetic diversity in humans -- all 6 billion of us across 7 continents -- is LESS THAN A SMALL POPULATION OF CHIMPS in Africa. What we are talking about is not genetic diversity, but GENETIC SIMULARITY with other species.

You were talking about genetic similarity, but I was talking about genetic diversity, and I'm the one he was responding to. Human genetic diversity is indeed low compared to other primates -- it's about a third that of chimps -- but it is still much too high for us to have been descended from a single couple in the recent past. That was my point, and it's the reason that diversity is relevant. (Genetic diversity can be a bit misleading, by the way: while humans have a lower diversity than chimps, we almost certainly have more genetic variants in our population than they do, simply because our population is much larger.)

 

[lucaspa]

(Genetic diversity can be a bit misleading, by the way: while humans have a lower diversity than chimps, we almost certainly have more genetic variants in our population than they do, simply because our population is much larger.)

Not according to the paper I posted. We have less genetic variation in our entire population than is present in one small population of chimps in Africa -- not to mention all the other populations.

 

[lucaspa]

A recent study summarized in the NY Times shows that part of our language ability -- the ability to read facial expressions -- is shared among primates. Another instance of showing that humans are not completely unique. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/01/science/01MONK.html?tntemail1

 

[sfs]

Not according to the paper I posted. We have less genetic variation in our entire population than is present in one small population of chimps in Africa -- not to mention all the other populations.

It says that our diversity is lower, not that the total number of variants is lower. If you compare any two human chromosomes, you will find fewer differences than if you compare two chimp chromosomes or two gorilla chromosomes. If you look at all the variants in a small sample of human chromosomes you will find fewer variants than if you look in a small sample of gorilla or chimp chromosomes. Both of these are because humans have had a small long-term effective population size, and the number of variants that a population carries is proportional to the size of the population (in the absence of natural selection, at least). But if you were to examine the entire population, you would find more human variants than chimp or gorilla variants, simply because the human population has expanded so enormously in the last few thousand years that there has been a much larger opportunity for mutations to occur in humans. Most of these variants would be exceedingly rare since they only occurred recently, but they'd still be there.

 

[lucaspa]

How many Cro-Magnon have they found?

Several dozen, plus indications of populations in the hundreds.

By modern man I was not refering to the physical features, rather I was making a referance to civilization. Growing food, hurding animals, building cities. This began when the land that the glaciers covered began to once again be productive and support life.

John, civilization arose in areas that the glaciers had NEVER covered. No glaciers in the Indus Valley, Indonesia, Egypt, or Mesopotamia. However, if you want "modern" man created separately from previous people, then they have to be a separate species. Otherwise you simply have changes in technology and culture, not the complete difference in biology your theory demands. Changes in technology/culture do not require a separate creation but are simply small improvements accumulating over time as humans do what they do: communicate the discoveries of the previous generation to the next.

There is still the "Alantis" theory going back to Plato that there were cities and civilization at a sooner date. But any evidence of this would be underwater and no one is that intested to excavate a underwater site right now.

"Atlantis" is not a theory, but simply references in two of Plato's works. No mention in any other document from the period. The island of Thera looks like the best bet that might have been Plato's "Atlantis". People have seen that there was a flourishing city/culture on the island that was wiped out when the volcano erupted.

 

[Siliconaut]

It is also possible that Atlantis is a past "urban myth". Considering that no other source before Plato cited this myth, it may have well been invented or embellished by Plato.