Evidence for God from Science

Of course, Hugh Ross and Reasons.org don't believe the Neanderthals were human: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... n-mooallem And: http://www.reasons.org/articles/neander ... erbreeding

Other views: https://www.nytimes.com/20 ... .html?_r=0

https://www.yahoo.com/news/neanderthal- ... 06637.html

They certainly don't seem as thick as popular media has long asserted them to be - least as smart as most politicians.

The picture in the third link is the boomerang kid from Mad Max.

Ah, he's an Aussie kid, whaddya expect??? Probably looks a bit like the young K!

I hope Kurieuo doesn't mind if I post his picture:

I mind! Creepy.

I'm told that's a pretty typical look for Aussie men.

Philip wrote:Of course, Hugh Ross and Reasons.org don't believe the Neanderthals were human: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... n-mooallem And: http://www.reasons.org/articles/neander ... erbreeding

Other views: https://www.nytimes.com/20 ... .html?_r=0

https://www.yahoo.com/news/neanderthal- ... 06637.html

They certainly don't seem as thick as popular media has long asserted them to be - least as smart as most politicians.

What I don't get is why they don't think they were human. They were human just like us.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

Philip wrote:Of course, Hugh Ross and Reasons.org don't believe the Neanderthals were human: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/the-cells- ... n-mooallem And: http://www.reasons.org/articles/neander ... erbreeding

Other views: https://www.nytimes.com/20 ... .html?_r=0

https://www.yahoo.com/news/neanderthal- ... 06637.html

They certainly don't seem as thick as popular media has long asserted them to be - least as smart as most politicians.

What I don't get is why they don't think they were human. They were human just like us.

Here's what Reasons.org has to say about Neanderthals:
http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=Neanderthal+
Basically, their position is that Neanderthals were bipedal beings, but not modern humans.

I'll say this about Reasons to Believe, they sometimes are so married to what they've long asserted, that they seem incapable of backing up here and there. I met Hugh's main RTB colleague, Fuz Rana, a few months back. I asked him how much he knew about the ancient Mesopotamian and ancient Hebrew creation myths, and of how they are eerily similar to the accounts Moses wrote, yet with very key differences related to Yahweh, etc. He wasn't particularly up on this at all. Further I asked him he had read Professor Johnny Miller's book, "In the Beginning We Misunderstood," as it fairly new and takes the approach of two evangelical scholars whose thesis is that much of what parts of the Bible people have assumed was meant to be taken as scientific explanations, were not that at all. Amazingly, he had not read this - particularly surprising as it had created a lot of recent scholarly attention and had been well-received. And especially as Miller's thesis (similar to Michael Heiser's) is in stark opposition to how Hugh Ross has tried to harmonize the Bible's passages God's of creating the world and universe with modern scientific understandings. I would have thought, as this had been so discussed amongst Christian scholars interested in creation views, that He and Hugh would be up on it. In talking to Miller, I gathered that Hugh had read it, but wasn't impressed, or hadn't responded to it. Point of all this, is that RTB has likely interpreted quite a few passages of the Bible as speaking of scientific things, that were not at all meant as such, but they have built much of their ministry around this. If you read the ancient Creation myths of the region, there is no way it is an accident that the Moses accounts are so incredibly similar - actually, it's impossible!

The thesis of the Miller book is all about that God, through Moses, was more likely been correcting the new nation of Israel's false Creation understandings, as when this accounts were written, Israel was a brand new nation that had just absorbed four centuries of pagan Creation myths. This was a pre-scientific age people - they wouldn't have understood the scientific views if they'd been explained. So Miller asserts that the reason the ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation myths are so eerily similar is that God was using what they DID know/had absorbed, to correct their false THEOLOGICAL understandings about God, and NOT their scientific ones (which were totally alien to them). I got to personally speak with Miller about a year and a half ago - he actually started out as a staunch YEC.

None of that is to say that RTB and Hugh Ross haven't done a tremendous service to Christians all over. But it is to show that they are dogmatic in some areas. Also, they are not theologians or Hebrew scholars. Which can present some issues for how they interpret key texts. Because if they weren't necessarily speaking to scientific explanations - what WERE they speaking to?

I'm so offended, I'm lost for a response.

I'm so offended, I'm lost for a response.

OK, snowflake - explain. This is not new about RTB.

Philip wrote:

I'm so offended, I'm lost for a response.

OK, snowflake - explain. This is not new about RTB.

I think he's offended that Mrs. K gave me that picture of him. She said she's tired of going out in public with a man that looks like that.

Philip wrote: If you read the ancient Creation myths of the region, there is no way it is an accident that the Moses accounts are so incredibly similar - actually, it's impossible!

The thesis of the Miller book is all about that God, through Moses, was more likely been correcting the new nation of Israel's false Creation understandings, as when this accounts were written, Israel was a brand new nation that had just absorbed four centuries of pagan Creation myths. This was a pre-scientific age people - they wouldn't have understood the scientific views if they'd been explained. So Miller asserts that the reason the ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation myths are so eerily similar is that God was using what they DID know/had absorbed, to correct their false THEOLOGICAL understandings about God, and NOT their scientific ones (which were totally alien to them).

I think the reason Moses (or God, rather) used similarities from the Mesopotamian myths is to teach truths that they would understand. Like for example the sun, moon, and stars are first mentioned in day 4, while most cultures in that time and place held them with high regard. That's not to say there weren't real events that took place (like separating light from dark) or the creation of man but ofttimes we overlook the deeper meanings in text.