• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

And vastly more powerful. Likely didn't have the myostatin gene that we have. Brain larger (almost certainly from greater muscle mass) but based on skull impressions, somewhat different in structure.



They had a cricoid structure like we do. That is what permits speech in a human sense. But a bit different than ours. Learn about it here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=S64bAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=neandertal+chrichoid&source=bl&ots=FrK2TmRbku&sig=ULSEgv0w3Cva5RyILbDSxn9tarY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL8oOmksDLAhWLNSYKHa2HC5UQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=neandertal chrichoid&f=false

Sounds like a gorilla to me.
Or a gorilla wannabee.
 
There are areas that are allegorical but Genesis is written as direct history with absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

That assumption is not supported by scripture. It is a modern revision to God's word.
 
Sounds like a gorilla to me.
Or a gorilla wannabee.

Nope. There are a huge number of differences between gorillas and H. sapiens. A Neandertal, groomed and dressed in modern fashion, would look a little unusual, but everyone would recognize him as a human.

neandertal-traje-200x300.jpg
 
And vastly more powerful. Likely didn't have the myostatin gene that we have. Brain larger (almost certainly from greater muscle mass) but based on skull impressions, somewhat different in structure.



They had a cricoid structure like we do. That is what permits speech in a human sense. But a bit different than ours. Learn about it here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=S64bAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=neandertal+chrichoid&source=bl&ots=FrK2TmRbku&sig=ULSEgv0w3Cva5RyILbDSxn9tarY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL8oOmksDLAhWLNSYKHa2HC5UQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=neandertal chrichoid&f=false

From fossil information, it appears that speech became more important as we go from archaic H. sapiens to more modern populations like Neandertals, Denisovans, and anatomically modern humans.
Thanks for the info on speech but about the brain size. Do gorilla's and chips have larger brains than us?
 
Nope. There are a huge number of differences between gorillas and H. sapiens. A Neandertal, groomed and dressed in modern fashion, would look a little unusual, but everyone would recognize him as a human.

neandertal-traje-200x300.jpg
That's a joke, right? That pic doesn't even come close to having a gorilla nose or lips or forehead...... You could have at least given it a Donald Trump comb over.....
 
That's a joke, right? That pic doesn't even come close to having a gorilla nose or lips or forehead...... You could have at least given it a Donald Trump comb over....

But it's a pretty good representation of what a Neandertal would look like in modern clothes. Gorillas would look very different, of course. As you see, a Neandertal would stand out, but clearly would be accepted as a modern human, by those who didn't know who he was.
 
Soon as you say "Could've" you lose me. The Bible is a solid and confident source. There are areas that are allegorical but Genesis is written as direct history with absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
Correct. But we don't know how to decipher that source, which is why, you say "could've" when not sure. Speaking otherwise is a silly thing to do.

We actually don't know if Genesis was written as direct history, and again, even if it was, the Hebrew word for "father" merely means direct male ancestor, which is something that can't be rebuked.

Again, scientific evidence.
 
Thanks for the info on speech but about the brain size. Do gorilla's and chips have larger brains than us?

No, they don't. The comparision of brain sizes can be misleading, because the amount of mass has some relationship to brain size (muscle, in particular, requires brain tissue to manage it). However, a "encephalization index", accounting for body mass, is possible. Let me see if the internet has one for the hominins. (Barbarian checks)

Yes, this is for all primates (which as a group, tend to have larger brains for their sizes than other mammals). Notice that all primates but the genus Homo have about the "right" size brains for their size, but humans are well above the regression line. It's not on this graph, but all species of Homo and Australopithicus are above the line.
encephalization.gif
 
Last edited:
I've got to disagree.

You see, God is not bound by time or space, therefore these "6 days" could've been far longer than six literal days. Also, there is nowhere that implies it should ALL be taken literally.

I'd also like to say that the Hebrew word "Father" just meant direct male ancestor, and not necessarily a dad. Therefore, you may do with that what you will, but, that could imply that when referring to people as a "father" in the bible, it actually meant direct male descendant, which means the bible could've been a much longer stretched amount of time.


There's also a lot of scientific evidence pointing to an older earth, and little, if any scientific evidence pointing towards a young earth.

There is atleast a bit of Actual biblical evidence pointing towards an old earth, while it is neutral on the new earth subject.
Once again this is all man's attempt at finding other explanations for what God has already explained in the bible. The second you start questioning even the smallest part of the bible as true then you are throwing the entirety of it into question. Is it too much to fathom that God would inspire a group of men to pen what He wanted included in the bible without embellishment, and maintain its accuracy throughout the history of the church?
 
FOR TURNORBURN

Brother Paul says:


I agree with both of you except when it comes to dating the early events of Genesis. Dating in the books of the generations of Adam and Noah cannot be accurately discerned. It was common in those days to sometimes represent entire kingdoms by the name of the King (which could last a long time after he was dead) and sometimes blot out the remembrance of entire persons and events.

As far as it being the work of the devil to create these places, people, and events, just to confuse the faithful, I think modern fundamentalism gives the devil far too much credit. He/they have no power to create anything.

Though this three source idea may extend the time frame for more, the fact that these three groups
have a more common male lineage (possibly the sons of our Noah) and three distinct female lineages (their wives)
only begs the question of when these events occurred....we already know the dating according to
Bishop Ussher is off by generations.


Turnorburn says:

Far too much credit you say? Gods word has this to say about him..

II Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Unlike us he's at it 24/7


flag-israel.gif


Hi Turnorburn,
Just a quick aside since I do believe the bible does not tell us everything.
Brother Paul and you are talking about the generations. He's saying they cannot be accurately discerned and you're disagreeing with him.

What is your understanding of Mathew 1:1-17 ?
Mathew divides the generations into 3 groups of 14.
From Abraham to David.
From David to the exile
From the exile to the Son of David

Do you think this was accidental or do you think Mathew had a reason?
My NASB intro to Mathew says that 14 is a sacred number - twice 7 or the Sabbath.
It's the numerical equivalent of the name of David.
It's his way of emphasizing that Jesus is the promised Son of David.

Mathew was writing to Jews and it would seem he purposefully intended to group the generations into the number 14 for each group.

So wouldn't this be playing around with the generations?
Thus, some must be missing, which would prove Brother Paul's point.

Wondering
 
Just a general comment. All this is much too scientific for me.

We keep hearing that the missing link cannot be found.
I read this thread and it seems like there are some. I say "seems" because I don't think we can be sure - but this is not based on any solid fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So we have these skeletons that don't look like humans and don't look like monkeys.

As far as the 3 source idea - I do believe that eventually we'll be able to go beyond that and get to one source. I thought we were there already - wasn't humankind traced back to a single woman living in Africa?

OR

Is it possible that God could have created everything, including "man" but then decided that he wanted that "man" (neanderthal or whatever else came first or after) to be better and have more qualities as God has?
So God BREATHED into the "man" and made him into His image (Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7).

Just quick: Some qualities of God:
Mentally - we're rational and we can choose
Morally - Our righteousness is a reflection of God's holiness, our conscience is a remnant of original state; we recoil from evil
Socially - We can love. We need fellowship. Marriage, friends...

This would satisfy me as an explanation.

Wondering
 
Just a general comment. All this is much too scientific for me.

We keep hearing that the missing link cannot be found.

No, it's the missing lynx. And it's been found...

article-2129091-1292EB6D000005DC-904_634x660.jpg


So we have these skeletons that don't look like humans and don't look like monkeys.

There are lots of transitionals between humans and other primates.

As far as the 3 source idea - I do believe that eventually we'll be able to go beyond that and get to one source. I thought we were there already - wasn't humankind traced back to a single woman living in Africa?

There's pretty good evidence for that, yes. But it wasn't the first woman. It was just the last woman from which every person today is descended.

Is it possible that God could have created everything, including "man" but then decided that he wanted that "man" (neanderthal or whatever else came first or after) to be better and have more qualities as God has?
So God BREATHED into the "man" and made him into His image (Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7).

Just quick: Some qualities of God:
Mentally - we're rational and we can choose
Morally - Our righteousness is a reflection of God's holiness, our conscience is a remnant of original state; we recoil from evil
Socially - We can love. We need fellowship. Marriage, friends...

This would satisfy me as an explanation.

Those are all mental or spiritual qualities. Which is precisely the way we are in God's image.
 
Just a general comment. All this is much too scientific for me.

We keep hearing that the missing link cannot be found.
I read this thread and it seems like there are some. I say "seems" because I don't think we can be sure - but this is not based on any solid fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So we have these skeletons that don't look like humans and don't look like monkeys.

As far as the 3 source idea - I do believe that eventually we'll be able to go beyond that and get to one source. I thought we were there already - wasn't humankind traced back to a single woman living in Africa?

OR

Is it possible that God could have created everything, including "man" but then decided that he wanted that "man" (neanderthal or whatever else came first or after) to be better and have more qualities as God has?
So God BREATHED into the "man" and made him into His image (Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7).

Just quick: Some qualities of God:
Mentally - we're rational and we can choose
Morally - Our righteousness is a reflection of God's holiness, our conscience is a remnant of original state; we recoil from evil
Socially - We can love. We need fellowship. Marriage, friends...

This would satisfy me as an explanation.

Wondering
Why is it so hard to believe that God created man and saw that it was good. No more change, no more morphing and nothing before that. This is what the Bible clearly states and this is what God is more than competent of doing.

There will never, never, never be a "transitional fossil". This is due to the fact that fossils, contrary to scientific hopes and dreams, can ONLY tell you that the bones were once a creature that once lived and died. It cannot tell you how many brothers and sisters it had, if it had offspring and if so how many. It cannot tell you if it was a monogamous creature or mated for life. I

Fossils are a snapshot. A simple frozen moment in time for the bones of a creature. Finding bones of a similar creature shows no proof that the two were related by a chain of evolution. Comparing similar bones and shouting that the one morphed into the other is like showing some bones from a hound and a German Shepard and stating that one evolved into the other when they are just different types of the same KIND.
 
Why is it so hard to believe that God created man and saw that it was good. No more change, no more morphing and nothing before that. This is what the Bible clearly states and this is what God is more than competent of doing.

There will never, never, never be a "transitional fossil". This is due to the fact that fossils, contrary to scientific hopes and dreams, can ONLY tell you that the bones were once a creature that once lived and died. It cannot tell you how many brothers and sisters it had, if it had offspring and if so how many. It cannot tell you if it was a monogamous creature or mated for life. I

Fossils are a snapshot. A simple frozen moment in time for the bones of a creature. Finding bones of a similar creature shows no proof that the two were related by a chain of evolution. Comparing similar bones and shouting that the one morphed into the other is like showing some bones from a hound and a German Shepard and stating that one evolved into the other when they are just different types of the same KIND.
Hi Jacks Bratt
I'm going to have a problem because I know so little. But here goes:
I believe God created the first man and woman. I don't believe in evolution, except some evolution within a species for the purpose of survival. For instance, fish at the bottom of the ocean have no eyes because they don't need them. Frogs have a long tongue because they need to catch flying insects. The notion that one species could evolve into another has always sounded pretty silly to me since I was a teenager. Many moons ago.

So I'm with you and agree to everything you've stated.

I'm just trying to understand about these "creatures" that are found. I know that the missing link has never been found and I doubt it ever will be. I'm just trying to put together the idea that these "creatures" are found and my truth that God created the first man and woman.

So I gather you don't give any value to my idea that maybe God took one of these "creatures" and made man out of it as I had explained.

What if one day the link IS found? Wouldn't my "theory" explain it and reconcile it to the Genesis story?
Or are you going to say I don't have enough faith??

Wondering
 
No, it's the missing lynx. And it's been found...

article-2129091-1292EB6D000005DC-904_634x660.jpg




There are lots of transitionals between humans and other primates.

There's pretty good evidence for that, yes. But it wasn't the first woman. It was just the last woman from which every person today is descended.

Is it possible that God could have created everything, including "man" but then decided that he wanted that "man" (neanderthal or whatever else came first or after) to be better and have more qualities as God has?
So God BREATHED into the "man" and made him into His image (Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7).

Those are all mental or spiritual qualities. Which is precisely the way we are in God's image.
Pretty funny Barbarian --

What do you mean it was the LAST woman?? I thought it was the first --
(and please don't post a poll or research paper - just tell me what you mean!)

Wondering
 
But, as Christians understand, nothing in scripture is contrary to anything in biology.

That would be a true statement....The real problem is, is that evolutionism is in contrary to much of biology.
 
Now having said what I did above...this IS Science AND Christianity not Science OR Christianity. How do the two mix? Did God intend for us to find these things and wonder? Just as the Bible helps us see how we should understand some things in Science, science sometimes helps us see how we should understand some things in the Bible....

I am repulsed when "scientists" use science to try and disprove "God" and what God has revealed. One deals with who and why questions and the other with what and how questions and rarely speak the same language...this is the "scientist's" problem,,,the problem with us is that we each think our theological approach and hermeneutic (mostly what we have been taught) is correct...so like science, Christianity develops different opinions which we impose onto the words or stories to make them appear to say what we believe. For example, I believe in the flood....was it 4004 B.C.? Sorry...I do not believe that! Was the entire pangea-like world at the time flooded? I believe that! Was the world as WE know it (with people already on divided continents) what or how we should imagine it? Absolutely not (IMHO), and nothing in the Bible supports such a notion (but people are entitled to their opinion).

You posted "I am repulsed when "scientists" use science to try and disprove "God" and what God has revealed."
Repulsed might be to heavy of a word for me...but I agree.
What I don't like is when Theo-Evo Christians change the bible to make it conform to the "science" of evolutionism.
 
So do either of you have an opinion on what the OP was about? We know inevitably Adam and Eve are the original pair humans and they were created by God. Since science does not speak in these terms where do the African roots, Neanderthal roots and Devisovan roots fit in? They have three different matrilineal sources but similar male sources (genetically speaking)...we now know these were all humans of one branch or another...(no troglydites or apemen)

You asked where the Neanderthal roots fit in....There is some interesting science that suggest the Neanderthal were the people in the bible that lived to long ages. They say as we live..well past 100 features of our skull changes.
 
What do you mean it was the LAST woman?? I thought it was the first --
(and please don't post a poll or research paper - just tell me what you mean!)

It means that she is the class common female ancestor of everyone living today. Not the first woman, by any means.

Suppose that humans only lived where the Flood actually happened, and every human on Earth except Noah's family died. Then, Noah's wife would be the last common female ancestor of all humans living today. But certainly not the first woman.
 
Once again this is all man's attempt at finding other explanations for what God has already explained in the bible. The second you start questioning even the smallest part of the bible as true then you are throwing the entirety of it into question. Is it too much to fathom that God would inspire a group of men to pen what He wanted included in the bible without embellishment, and maintain its accuracy throughout the history of the church?
Do you know why I used the words "maybe" and "could've"? Because we simply do not know, and we can not know. The bible never was clear on the generations subject, ever. But rather than taking the bible 100% at face value, and denying scientific evidence and saying "The world is only 6000 years old because the bible says so" we should be discerning. The bible is not clear on the matter, as such we must work with the bible with the information that scientists give us.

Far too much has been proven, far too many creatures have been discovered, far too many events have transpired, and all those things COULD NOT have happened within 6000 years, as simple as that.
 
Back
Top