No you are cherry picking through this evidence so that it matches your religious text. The 'adam' referred to in that article has nothing in common with the adam in the bible.
:roflmao: What about the genetic lines that have not survived????? In 1854,a turkish scholar,Hurumuzd Rassam,discoverd the remnants of a library of clay tablets in the ruins of Nineveh,the capital of ancient assyria-a library that had beed collected by the last great Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal,about 650 bc. In 1873 the english Assyriologist George Smith discovered clay tablets giving legendary accounts of a flood so like the story of Noah that it became clear that much of the first part of the book of genesis was based on Babylonian legend. Presumably, the Jews picked up the legends during their Babylonian captivity in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. I don't see how it can prove that there was a first man, it will just be able to trace back to the furthest point allowable I don't see how you can prove that we are related to someone without having their DNA if you had Adams DNA you could by recognition of similarities trace the living blood line but without Adams DNA you are just tracing mankinds bloodline back to the furthest point scientificaly proveable then usin a leap of faith to fill in the gaps which leads you to the result you want???????
SCIENCE also says we evolved from monkeys????????????? SCIENCE also says we evolved from neanderthal?????????? SCIENCE said the world was flat????????????????????????? SCIENCE says we evovled from out of the seas???????????? Science says alot of things, and if you look you can find scientific fact which will back most theories no matter how ridiculous, you need to look at the proof for and against to give an insight if, you just look for evidence to support what you think, you will not see the whole puzzle just a few peices,which are used to decide how the finished picture should look.
This is what I have been talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA&feature=related with all due respect, I think you guys are getting lost again.
science never said we evolved from monkeys... sciences states that things grow change and morph into other things... great example.. a caterpillar goes into hibernation or what not... then evolves into a butterfly. evolution.. viruses die out after being exposed to antibodies.. but evolves into another strand and becomes a super virus.. evolution... not all things have to be what we come from but what the def. of evolution is.. most scientists take into account that philosophy has more weight than actual hard evidence.. its the most challenging thing to man kind... if it was as simple as saying.. god created man to do his bidding... would mean that we wouldnt do anything but wat god wanted.. instead we evolved to learn and morph into intelligent beings..
SCIENCE did say we evolved from monkeys i've just typed in a random selection, evolution man evolution of man darwin darwinian monkey to man ape to man there is hundreds of examples of science stating that we evolved from monkeys or apes. science is not always right
No Pinocchio, you need to check your facts. Science says man and ape have a common ancestor but are two different branches of the same tree. Science does not say man evolved from ape.
exactly its a hypothetical analogy that when you look at another being... "ape or monkey" you see common traits.. not necessarily meaning that we came from them or where them.. but we share similarities... ill name a few things we have in common.. ability to walk.. ability to sign.. most humans cant but it is a form of communication. now to tell what we dont have in common.. ape are unable to walk straight up.. no support.. odd placement of thumbs... HAIR ALL OVER THE PLACE.. face more together...
To be more exact, humans are a kind of ape. We are large primates without tails. The major difference is brain size, but we seemed to have separated from our ape ancestors long before our brains grew so large.
I think you should look up PITHECOMETRA PRINCIPLE or THESIS, and thomas huxley. I think personaly that we must have evolved from neanderthal.Apes or monkeys I don't believe it I was trying to make a point that science can be wrong, the post 71 says we can prove the existence of Adam or first man, in post 83 I've put some historical facts about genesis, how can science prove that stories based on babylonian legends are true??????????? maybe it can prove that Pinocchio was in fact turned into a donkey????
Not that it makes any sense, but Genesis was written by Moses, who had a revelation...supposedly from God, who explained to him the beginnings of mankind and all creation.
"Let the man who is without sin cast the first stone." "Thou shalt not kill." "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's" There is a boatload of philosophical arguments which supports its own system of ethics. However, like all arguments which support ideals, they can be debated. And, I would debate some of the arguments.
I agree with that both Science's and the Bible's statements of fact COULD be interpretted as pointing to the same conclusions. But, if we are to accept the Bible in a less literal fashion, how can we trust every inclination others have about their own revelations? How do we know when the line is crossed, and the text has been grossly misinterpretted? That is dangerous, a good example of this is the Crusades. I realize that the first Christians debated things, and that is good, a spiritual religion should always question tradition and doctrine. That's what peterves me about today's religion, they are not that way at all...but if they were, how could we hope to believe in something concrete if it is always changing...we can't believe in false hope. Religion is a double-edged sword without an entity within this reality dictating truth. So far, we don't have that. Supposedly the Holy Spirit, but come on...it is the Holy Spirit that is in question. There are so many factors that can come into play that affect the mind, how can we believe in the Holy Spirit? This is where reason is master...you would have an easier time persuading me to believe in God if you can prove that the Holy Spirit exists. And that is next to impossible. We can't even prove if ghosts really exist or not. So, I don't believe in ghosts.
GENESIS was a collection of babylonian legends, written by the jews. and is a collection of stories not 1 story. there is proof of this in the libary of ashurbanipal?? If we are to believe moses word for word does that mean all christians have been condemed to hell.........thuo shalt not worship any icon or idol???????? moses was around well before jesus ( genesis was written around 650 Bc) so by worshiping a man on a cross have they missed the point in the concept of the word of God (living in harmony with each other) and in fact not upheld his commandments??? thou shalt not kill.....the crusades,the inquisition and now the middle east is separating in to a war of two sides christian and muslim
That's exactly what that means. worshiping Idols is against the Christian or Jewish loyal to God. But this should show you have far Christianity has deviated from God's word. If you find contradictions then you've not found a true teaching...and that's typically what tradition does to a teaching.
You are technically correct, Moses physically could not have authored Genesis. In fact, there is evidence that multiple authors wrote the collection. However, it is accepted fact among Christians, that Moses wrote the book and was passed down orally as was common in those days...but it really doesn't matter, my point was that Genesis was supposedly written by divination of what happened years before the author(s) lived to write the story.
But Babyloian legends were found in tablets, in the library of Ashurbanipal as these pre-dated the time that the Jews were held there in captivity, and as the legends bared so many similarites to stories in genesis it can only be this that genesis is based on maybe moses copied them down, or maybe he read so many that he passed them on by word of mouth (chinese whispers) or wrote his own version but as to divination, for exegesis of genesis you start by taking it out of the bible and looking at it on its own, The very last thing done is to look at the text.
Actually there is nothing to say that Genesis isn't exactly what it says it is. "An account of the creation of the heavens and Earth. There is no information that gives us positive direction of the flow of information between the two cultures. All we really know is that there is some sharing going on. Who passed it and when it got passed and who got served that sharing is a complete unknown.
