Um,. no... the most accurate way of conveying information is to go out and obtain the information for yourself.How is that possible?If someone uses a secretary and dictates events that transpired,thats the most accurate way of relaying information.
Prove it. Prove Jesus geneology is accurate, and that the oral tradition first written down in the time of Moses existed unchanged for the several hundred, if not thousand, years it was orally transmitted.You seriously underestimate the ancient israelites ability to firstly relay information orally,and secondly keep records.They were meticulous.This is why you can trace Jesus earthly geneology.
I'm discussing the broader scientific information here. But the point you raise is a good one. If Genesis were actually "God's word", it WOULD say that Adam was descended from beasts. Since it doesn't say that, it looks like good evidence Genesis isn't God's word. It DOES, however, look suspiciously like the sort of thing someone with absolutely no scientific understanding of biology would write to explain his place in the world and origin.Thats not the issue.Mans apparent descend from primates isnt the same as God created the heavens.Its only an issue if you think they werent mentally able to cope with a concept that God formed man from beasts,or he formed man from clay.Thats not rocket science.What does the account say? He formed Adam from a beast? or he formed him directly from clay?
How so? Be specific.Your scientific knowledge regarding primate to man firstly is false,
I get that you're automatically gainsaying everything I say... but could you make a small effort to address what I say specifically, rather than just going "nuh uh it isn't" in completely irrelevant fashion? I do you the courtesy of responding to YOUR points specifically...secondly has nothing to do with the creation of the heavens and thirdly contradicts a straight forward account.
Well then apparently I found your initial coverage inadequate. Extremely common YEC tactic, for some reason. Make a really bad, broad, generalising straw herring attempt at addressing an incissive point, and then refuse to discuss it further, as though having addressed it in such a stultifying fashion is all that is required, rather than actually attempting to make any rational, coherent specific points.Covered already.Seems our superior knowledge doesnt stop one from repeating a point.
Ladies and gentlemen... the crux of the issue.I prefer to look at it that some things hold true no matter how old they are.
All the science in the world will not convince you if you PREFER TO LOOK AT IT in a contrary way.
Upvote
0