That it's easy to think of seals as an aquatic version of dogs seems justified as they're seen as on the same developmental branch (along with cats).
The other is that, if I'm reading this correctly, they're saying Neanderthals are a more developed specie than Humans (I'm assuming they mean Homo Sapiens). That's pretty interesting if that's the case. Now, most of humanity has Neanderthal DNA, and I've always wondered if you were assuming that the Bible is true but not literal, how do you see the creation of man in this? I'd supposed that perhaps Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens-Neanderthal breeding pair to be successful.
Interestingly, the order of Genesis 1- Plants, Sea life, Birds, Mammals, is correct.
An argument I've heard before is that Adam and Eve differed in some key respect from earlier 'human' life. But it may be a mistake to run Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together. They are two different stories about creation, and it's not clear that they are even meant to be literal or literally compatible with each other.
E.g., Gen 1 describes the creation of men and women as one act, both in the image of God, 'male and female He created them'; Gen 2 makes the creation two acts, with the creation of Adam prior to the creation of Eve both in that Adam is created first, and in that Adam alone is made in the image of God.
The two books are quite different in their depiction of God, even. I'm inclined to read Gen 1 as the better account, and Gen 2 as a favored oral tradition that was important enough culturally to get and stay included as the Bible was coming together in that time lost to history.
Adam was the first son of God, for a human. Eve was his cloned sister-wife.
Thus Eve can be considered a daughter of their creator god, but only because of Adam, translated as 'Man'.
Since these accounts came before the Divine Flood, most of the data has been lost or corrupted. The records that they should have passed down, we can no longer find. Some speculate that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built pre flood to house certain Adamic family histories on stone or metal. That casket wasn't a grave, but a golden rectangle like the Ark of the Covenant.
The problem with the theory of evolution is that it has no evidence for bio genesis. The creation of new species lines. The fossils don't match up either. Micro evolutions such as foxes becoming domesticated and their ears turning down do not prove the origin of life, after all.
4 comments:
Interesting that man has been causing mass extinctions for the last 440 million years. Prolly cause that rusty ocean, too.
Eric Hines
Couple of things jump out at me.
That it's easy to think of seals as an aquatic version of dogs seems justified as they're seen as on the same developmental branch (along with cats).
The other is that, if I'm reading this correctly, they're saying Neanderthals are a more developed specie than Humans (I'm assuming they mean Homo Sapiens). That's pretty interesting if that's the case. Now, most of humanity has Neanderthal DNA, and I've always wondered if you were assuming that the Bible is true but not literal, how do you see the creation of man in this? I'd supposed that perhaps Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens-Neanderthal breeding pair to be successful.
Interestingly, the order of Genesis 1- Plants, Sea life, Birds, Mammals, is correct.
An argument I've heard before is that Adam and Eve differed in some key respect from earlier 'human' life. But it may be a mistake to run Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together. They are two different stories about creation, and it's not clear that they are even meant to be literal or literally compatible with each other.
E.g., Gen 1 describes the creation of men and women as one act, both in the image of God, 'male and female He created them'; Gen 2 makes the creation two acts, with the creation of Adam prior to the creation of Eve both in that Adam is created first, and in that Adam alone is made in the image of God.
The two books are quite different in their depiction of God, even. I'm inclined to read Gen 1 as the better account, and Gen 2 as a favored oral tradition that was important enough culturally to get and stay included as the Bible was coming together in that time lost to history.
Adam was the first son of God, for a human. Eve was his cloned sister-wife.
Thus Eve can be considered a daughter of their creator god, but only because of Adam, translated as 'Man'.
Since these accounts came before the Divine Flood, most of the data has been lost or corrupted. The records that they should have passed down, we can no longer find. Some speculate that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built pre flood to house certain Adamic family histories on stone or metal. That casket wasn't a grave, but a golden rectangle like the Ark of the Covenant.
The problem with the theory of evolution is that it has no evidence for bio genesis. The creation of new species lines. The fossils don't match up either. Micro evolutions such as foxes becoming domesticated and their ears turning down do not prove the origin of life, after all.
Post a Comment