Creationists stumped by new hominid fossils

[bybee]

If I am responsible for the sins of my wife and daughter, then I am toast.

I spell it that way because sometimes the vowels are taken as a name, and also because its easier for me to remember my own handle by the mnemonic "I owe you a e" whatever that means

You are responsible to be a role model.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If I am responsible for the sins of my wife and daughter, then I am toast.

probably.

I spell it that way because sometimes the vowels are taken as a name, and also because its easier for me to remember my own handle by the mnemonic "I owe you a e" whatever that means

(I have a touch of CDO, which is like OCD but in alphabetical order).

 

[bybee]

Are you saying that when we KNOWINGLY disobey God, as Eve did, even though she was deceived - this is not sin?

Sure, Adam's sin was greater in that he KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY, eyes-wide-open disobeyed God.

But Paul ignores women, and tells them to keep silent. He even discounts their sins.

You are cherry picking Scripture as every willful misogynist is wont to do.
Had Adam lived up to his God given role he would have refused the fruit and Eve alone would have had to answer to God. Sin would not have entered the world, at least not then.

 

[patrick jane]

If I am responsible for the sins of my wife and daughter, then I am toast.

I spell it that way because sometimes the vowels are taken as a name, and also because its easier for me to remember my own handle by the mnemonic "I owe you a e" whatever that means

you owe me a View attachment 20675

 

[iouae]

You are cherry picking Scripture as every willful misogynist is wont to do.
Had Adam lived up to his God given role he would have refused the fruit and Eve alone would have had to answer to God. Sin would not have entered the world, at least not then.

Yes it would have, for God not to be a liar.


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Eve ate, so she would surely die.

Eve would have paid for the wages of her sin, which was death.

 

[iouae]

you owe me a View attachment 20675

Thank you PJ. That will help me remember my handle on my less lucid days, especially the banner E

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes it would have, for God not to be a liar.


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And only Adam was told that.

Eve ate, so she would surely die.

Eve would have paid for the wages of her sin, which was death.

Did Eve die?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Since you accept the portrait as realistic maybe even real, I choose to dismiss your entire article as science falsely so called.

Did you get any DNA from the bone to substantiate its species?

No, you did not, you guessed even as some "scientist" guessed what that animal looked like.

Still waiting for your "scientific" answer to my questions.

Pretty doubtful that you'll be able to extract DNA from fossils that old. Not that somebody won't try, but this isn't Jurassic Park, buddy. It's reality.

If you can't trust paleontologists as a whole to know what they are looking at when their entire profession rests on their ability to do so, then you're simply another conspiracy nut who thinks the world is out to get Christians. If you think scientists simply "guess," then I'm left to conclude that you don't know what the scientific method is.

Perhaps in six months another scientist will show that this fossil species is really just a strange looking version of a previously known species, but that's very unlikely given the number of fossil species discovered compared to the number of fossil species incorrectly identified.

 

[iouae]

And only Adam was told that.


Did Eve die?

I don't see Eve around??

Didn't Eve say that it was wrong to eat the fruit before she ate it?
So the message somehow got to her. And every day they walked with God, who no doubt also repeated what He told Adam.

She was deceived into thinking it would make her smart, but she was not deceived as to knowing that doing it was wrong. Read the account.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Didn't Eve say that it was wrong to eat the fruit before she ate it?
So the message somehow got to her. And every day they walked with God, who no doubt also repeated what He told Adam.

Actually a modified message got to Eve.

Genesis 3:3 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.​

From this, I picture the conversations on the issue like this:

God to Adam: Do not eat from the fruit. If you eat it you will die.

Adam to Eve: God said, "Do not eat from the fruit or you will die." So, don't touch it.

Eve to serpent: God said, "Do not eat from the fruit, or touch it, or you will die."

 

[iouae]

Actually a modified message got to Eve.

Genesis 3:3 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.​

From this, I picture the conversations on the issue like this:

God to Adam: Do not eat from the fruit. If you eat it you will die.

Adam to Eve: God said, "Do not eat from the fruit or you will die." So, don't touch it.

Eve to serpent: God said, "Do not eat from the fruit, or touch it, or you will die."

Yes....???

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes....???

You don't think that is significant?

 

[iouae]

You don't think that is significant?

No. I don't even understand why you would think that is significant. Am I missing something?

Do you want 3 written warnings before someone is responsible for sin?

 

[everready]

Even though there haven't been any threads on it here at ToL, I'm sure most everyone has at least heard about the hominid fossils discovered deep in a South African cave. If not, National Geographic has a very good article...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

In sum, these specimens show a fascinating mixture of modern and primitive traits, which is what we would expect if humans shared an evolutionary common ancestry with other primates.

But one of the more entertaining aspects of finds like these is to watch the creationists try and figure out how to force them into their religious belief that such organisms must either be "fully human" or "fully ape". So what are we seeing?

Bones of Contention: How Will Creationists Respond To A Huge New Hominid Fossil Find?

Answers in Genesis sez: Fully ape

Institute for Creation Research sez: Doesn't matter, but maybe human

Kurt Wise sez: Fully human

Reasons to Believe sez: Fully ape

Todd Wood sez: I dunno

And creationists wonder why they're laughed at? Hilarious. :chuckle:

Bible believers don't wonder why we're laughed at it comes with the territory.

everready

 

[genuineoriginal]

No. I don't even understand why you would think that is significant. Am I missing something?

Yes.
Eve was only able to be deceived because Adam added to the commandment.
This puts responsibility for the incident on Adam.

Adam was not deceived, and deliberately and willfully sinned.

 

[iouae]

Yes.
Eve was only able to be deceived because Adam added to the commandment.
This puts responsibility for the incident on Adam.

Adam was not deceived, and deliberately and willfully sinned.

So "and don't touch it" was added.
Do you think this nullifies "don't eat it" which she did.

Adam faithfully passed on the warning. Telling her to not even touch it sounds a good idea.

Suppose you have a daughter and you tell her not to drink the bleach, and your wife adds "and don't touch it" - that this is taking away from "don't drink bleach"?

 

[aikido7]

Even though there haven't been any threads on it here at ToL, I'm sure most everyone has at least heard about the hominid fossils discovered deep in a South African cave. If not, National Geographic has a very good article...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

In sum, these specimens show a fascinating mixture of modern and primitive traits, which is what we would expect if humans shared an evolutionary common ancestry with other primates.

But one of the more entertaining aspects of finds like these is to watch the creationists try and figure out how to force them into their religious belief that such organisms must either be "fully human" or "fully ape". So what are we seeing?

Bones of Contention: How Will Creationists Respond To A Huge New Hominid Fossil Find?

Answers in Genesis sez: Fully ape

Institute for Creation Research sez: Doesn't matter, but maybe human

Kurt Wise sez: Fully human

Reasons to Believe sez: Fully ape

Todd Wood sez: I dunno

And creationists wonder why they're laughed at? Hilarious. :chuckle:

I love it when new knowledge pulls the rug out from under me!

 

[ok doser]

I love it when new knowledge fairy tales pulls the rug out from under me!

fixed that for ya :thumb:

 

[Jonahdog]

So let me get this straight: you think that scientists just make up the shapes of fossil skeletons?

Basically, some here think that scientists make up everything. Either to keep their funding stream going or because there is a great atheistic conspiracy in science. Take your pick.

 

[6days]

When one puts together the following verses...

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

... then one sees that we are talking about the wages of sin being death.

Animals and proto-humans do not sin. They lived and died since 4 million years ago. Sin began with Adam (actually it began with one woman). That is when the wages of sin or death began. That is what Rom 5:12 is getting at.

Your belief system is heretical. God did not create proto humans lie some mad scientist who couldn't get it quite right