400,000 year old fossil cranium found in Portugal

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, Jewels7 said:

There's going to be supporting arguments for the YE idea of course. The mistake as I see it is thinking in human terms of time and God's clock of creation. We believe 6 literal days and yet we're not even on God's calendar now. We're living according to man's calendars across the ages. Gregorian, etc... 

Earth is millions of years old, humanity is in the hundreds of thousands. We argue God created everything and then we conflict over whether or not God followed a literal 7 day week? As if time as we know it is infinite and universal. The bible tells us God doesn't think the way we do. We think God created according to our belief in clocked time? 

 

 

actually, its not a mistake, the mistake, is trying to force our time table into the Bible, which is what many try and do, and it doesnt work, which I will address in worthys reply, I am going to address the science between radio carbon dating here. I will sum up basically what the AIG article did-in that its unreliable, at best, because its based upon many, many assumptions. the biggest one, is assuming the rate of decay has stayed the same over millions of years...as well as atmospheric conditions...etc. Since we dont know those things (its impossible to know) it makes virtually all modern dating methods as being extremely unreliable, with radio carbon dating alone, they have dated the same object multiple times, and gotten different dates every single time. There is not a single dating method known to man, that can accuratly date the earth, because they all work under assumptions, assumptions that no educated scientist has any ability to make, unless of course they own a DeLorean.

54 minutes ago, worthy said:

1 day is as 1,000 years to God.

That verse, is taken so horribly out of context here, that its not even funny. In 2 peter 3:8 Peter was not addressing the creation of the earth, but rather trying to describe how God is outside our timeline. Context is key. Now, keep in mind the Bible was NOT written for Gods benefit, but for OURS. God wrote the Bible, so that WE can know who HE is, and the plan to salvation, He wrote it so that WE can understand it. With that in mind, it would not make sense for God to write a book that WE cannot understand. The answer is, He wrote it so that we can understand, and context is key.

To illustrate this, lets go back to the creation account and some hebrew. The hebrew word for day, is Yom. Now, the hebrew word for day, can be used both figuretively, and literally, depending on context. In all hebrew writing, both OT and other writings, any time the word Yom is used after a number, (I.E. on the first day) it is used as a literal, 24 hour day. You will see in the creation account, each time the hebrew word Yom (day) is used, it is preceded by a number, indicating a literal, 24 hour day. The ONLY time this is ever, questioned, is in the first chapters of Genesis. Hmmmmm wonder why.

In ancient Israel, they also did not mark their days mornings to evenings like we do, they marked their days by evening to morning. In hebrew writing, any time an author used the term "and the evening and the morning" it indicated a literal, 24 hour, day. The only place this is EVER questioned, is in the creation account. Notice a trend here?

Now, lets move on to the hebrew word for days. It is Yomin. Again, like the hebrew word for days, it can be used both literally, and figuratively, based upon context. In Exodus chapter 20 verse 11 it says:

 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

now notice, the author uses the word yomin, after a number. Now everywhere else in Hebrew writing, when Yomin is used after a number, it is meant to indicate a period of literal, consecutive 24 hour days (how many depends upon the number) Yet its only questioned, when it is used in conjunction with the creation account. On top of that, you dont see us working for 6000 years and taking 1000 years off do you.....

Now, you see the trend here? If the words used in the creation account are used anywhere else, no one would question what they mean, yet they are always questioned in the creation account. You want to know why? its not because God is speaking so we cannot understand-God wrote the book for us, its ridiculous to think He would write it so we couldn't understand it, its because were trying to take mans understanding of science, and force it into the Bible, and it just doesn't work. Mans ways are fallible, Gods ways are perfect. Every time we try to put our understanding into the Bible, it will fail, and we are foolish, to think our understanding, is more important then Gods. Its black and white, in context, the Biblical account is a literal, 7 consecutive, 24 hour day creation, and then if you add up the geneologys of everyone who lived you get a age between 6-10,000 years.

[Kindle]

2 minutes ago, The_Patriot2017 said:

actually, its not a mistake, the mistake, is trying to force our time table into the Bible, which is what many try and do, and it doesnt work, which I will address in worthys reply, I am going to address the science between radio carbon dating here. I will sum up basically what the AIG article did-in that its unreliable, at best, because its based upon many, many assumptions. the biggest one, is assuming the rate of decay has stayed the same over millions of years...as well as atmospheric conditions...etc. Since we dont know those things (its impossible to know) it makes virtually all modern dating methods as being extremely unreliable, with radio carbon dating alone, they have dated the same object multiple times, and gotten different dates every single time. There is not a single dating method known to man, that can accuratly date the earth, because they all work under assumptions, assumptions that no educated scientist has any ability to make, unless of course they own a DeLorean.

That verse, is taken so horribly out of context here, that its not even funny. In 2 peter 3:8 Peter was not addressing the creation of the earth, but rather trying to describe how God is outside our timeline. Context is key. Now, keep in mind the Bible was NOT written for Gods benefit, but for OURS. God wrote the Bible, so that WE can know who HE is, and the plan to salvation, He wrote it so that WE can understand it. With that in mind, it would not make sense for God to write a book that WE cannot understand. The answer is, He wrote it so that we can understand, and context is key.

To illustrate this, lets go back to the creation account and some hebrew. The hebrew word for day, is Yom. Now, the hebrew word for day, can be used both figuretively, and literally, depending on context. In all hebrew writing, both OT and other writings, any time the word Yom is used after a number, (I.E. on the first day) it is used as a literal, 24 hour day. You will see in the creation account, each time the hebrew word Yom (day) is used, it is preceded by a number, indicating a literal, 24 hour day. The ONLY time this is ever, questioned, is in the first chapters of Genesis. Hmmmmm wonder why.

In ancient Israel, they also did not mark their days mornings to evenings like we do, they marked their days by evening to morning. In hebrew writing, any time an author used the term "and the evening and the morning" it indicated a literal, 24 hour, day. The only place this is EVER questioned, is in the creation account. Notice a trend here?

Now, lets move on to the hebrew word for days. It is Yomin. Again, like the hebrew word for days, it can be used both literally, and figuratively, based upon context. In Exodus chapter 20 verse 11 it says:

 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

now notice, the author uses the word yomin, after a number. Now everywhere else in Hebrew writing, when Yomin is used after a number, it is meant to indicate a period of literal, consecutive 24 hour days (how many depends upon the number) Yet its only questioned, when it is used in conjunction with the creation account.

Now, you see the trend here? If the words used in the creation account are used anywhere else, no one would question what they mean, yet they are always questioned in the creation account. You want to know why? its not because God is speaking so we cannot understand-God wrote the book for us, its ridiculous to think He would write it so we couldn't understand it, its because were trying to take mans understanding of science, and force it into the Bible, and it just doesn't work. Mans ways are fallible, Gods ways are perfect. Every time we try to put our understanding into the Bible, it will fail, and we are foolish, to think our understanding, is more important then Gods. Its black and white, in context, the Biblical account is a literal, 7 consecutive, 24 hour day creation, and then if you add up the geneologys of everyone who lived you get a age between 6-10,000 years.

Its not only said that in 2peter it was also said in Psalms 90:4. How do you know if back in the Bible days a day was 24 hours?

[The_Patriot21]

Just now, worthy said:

Its not only said that in 2peter it was also said in Psalms 90:4. How do you know if back in the Bible days a day was 24 hours?

did you not read my post? how I know is context. context is key. In both psalms, and 2 Peter, context indicated a figurative days (in fact 2 peter was in greek not hebrew) while the context in Genesis indicates a literal period (not thousands of years) 

[Kindle]

1 minute ago, The_Patriot2017 said:

did you not read my post? how I know is context. context is key. In both psalms, and 2 Peter, context indicated a figurative days (in fact 2 peter was in greek not hebrew) while the context in Genesis indicates a literal period (not thousands of years) 

Yeah I read. did you read my post? I didn't ask how you knew if the 1,000 years was in context. I was asking how did you know that in bible days 1 day was 24 hours.

[The_Patriot21]

2 minutes ago, worthy said:

Yeah I read. did you read my post? I didn't ask how you knew if the 1,000 years was in context. I was asking how did you know that in bible days 1 day was 24 hours.

I explained that in my post, please go back and read it all and pay particular attention to the parts where I addressed the hebrew word "yom" and how its used. Im not trying to be rude, but the discussion can't go anywhere if I keep having to repeat myself. Again, the key is "context" 

[Kindle]

Just now, The_Patriot2017 said:

I explained that in my post, please go back and read it all and pay particular attention to the parts where I addressed the hebrew word "yom" and how its used.

I know Hebrew and Greek. I know what the Hebrew word yom means and how it is used.

I shall not take up anymore of your time. Thank you for providing evidence to back up your statement's.

[Willa]

Neanderthal were human as I also understand, since they were also responsible for cave drawings.  But I am not so sure about Lucy.  All kinds of claims have been claimed by here discoverer, Leaky, such as that astrolopithicus ?  was also human.  These are off the top of my head from dimly remembered physical anthropology class. I have also been following the discovery of another human discovered in China.  It is assumed that it was not human, but since it could interbreed with existing humans, I suspect that this was also human.  We come in differing sizes and shapes.  Isolation causes divergence.  

Ancient civilizations are fascinating.  The Ainu of northern Japan, the Aboriginal Australians, the cave dwellers of South Africa, the ancient peoples of Sri Lanka, African Pygmies.  Have you ever seen "The Gods Must Be Crazy".  It is one of my favorite movies, contrasting civilizations and customs of us crazy peoples in South Africa, with some British slap stick thrown in.  

 

[The_Patriot21]

Lucy is a lie-or shows how far evolutionary scientists will go to deceive. Lucy was a human skeleton they mixed with a ape skeleton they found buried deeper down and in a different location.

The Aborigines are fully human. And still alive today just visit Australia. The fact is most of not all evolutionary science is not science. Most of it is built upon conjecture, false assumptions, half truths and flat out lies.

Some reading on the subject

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/

[Dennis1209]

On 3/13/2017 at 10:45 PM, MorningGlory said:

The title of this article is a little misleading.  It states a fossil HUMAN cranium in the headline but, if you read the article, you find that it was a NEANDERTHAL cranium that was found.  Neanderthals were not of our species so they were not, therefore, human.  It's interesting to read though because I, personally, didn't know that Neanderthals made and used tools.

http://mashable.com/2017/03/13/human-fossil-evolution-portugal/#fLRfjSDzvEqt

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it makes me wonder about some of these skulls they find and try to make a family tree out of. If they're not extinct animals which is probable, could what they are finding be men of old, men of renown. In other words hybrids like the Nephilim? It's my understanding these offspring of the fallen angels mating with women (Gen 6:) varied in appearance, statue and size before and after the antediluvian period. 

As far as dating methods, everyone should know carbon 14 dating is a pipe dream and has been scientifically shown how water and the environment make it very unreliable. A little study on how things layer in the earth from a deluge discredits the earth layer fossil record also. 

If only science would approach "science" from a Biblical perspective, think of how much more our knowledge and advancement would be? 

While I'm thinking about it, how often do you hear about any testing and reporting of a DNA analysis? Skull, bone and teeth are often good candidates for extracting viable DNA from extended periods of time. No doubt when they can't reconcile the results to fit their evolution theory, the results are inconclusive or bad samples.  

[No124get1952]

Since Carbon-14 dating has been discredited for being inaccurate for years, it is very difficult to accept any relic as coming from any farther back than what Genesis says as the beginning of history. What the Nephilim and such looked like is really NOT central to the story of the Gospel, so although interesting to consider, I generally ignore those questions as non-essential to my faith.