Some scientists will be upset...

[ironglow]

  I have observed with amusement over the past 3-4 decades, the ravings of otherwise highly educated people, over the remains found in the Olduvai gorge and elsewhere in Africa.  First they find some piece of ape and go bonkers over them, then they find some bones dated about 200,000 years ago which may have what appears to be some human features.  So what do they do ?  They name these bones "Lucy" and declare it to be the oldest example of human remains !
 Next, they build a whole culture around these few bones !  They say uinequivocally that this is where humankind originated...right there in Africa.  
    This is nothing new; others did virtually the same thing with "Java man" and "Piltdown man"...until the fraud was uncovered, they even did the same with one single tooth, building a body around the solitary tooth...and naming it "Nebraska man", ....until exposed.  
    So they lined up a batch of monkey bones, purporting to lead up to Lucy...while others said "Lucy" was nothing but monkey bones to start with !
   I have for decades, believed scientists were too quick to claim Lucy as "origin".  Common sense would have required one to cautiously say "oldest found thus far".
      
     Now their whole house of cards could come tumbling down. Archaeologists have found what so far have proven to be real human bones, dated 400,000 years of age.      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132365459 
           While this may cause some distress to Christians who endorse the Usher chronology, it does appear to fortify Biblical accounts of man's origins/creation in the mid east.  After all, the site in Israel is not too far from the assumed area of the Garden of Eden.


   Some things are interesting to observe...how the big lie of "global warming" is at this moment..crashing; and how those who would defy God's word over origins...are getting egg on their collective faces.

[Conan The Librarian]

A precursor to Lucy's specie dated about 4 million years more recently found in the great rift. I can't recall any scientists calling these finds anything other than precursors to our specie. Maybe some of the creationists muddy the waters a bit.  Here's the currently understood timeline:
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

[oldandslow]

The story I read said they had only found teeth. They were "confident" they will find skulls and bones later. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[littlecanoe]

ironglow,

It's nice to see a reference to Ussher.  I agree with him based on his scriptural approach.  I won't be shaken by findings.
As you have noted, subjectivity is a large part of archaeology.  Just like any other science, holes are found in logic that is applied
and new technology and understanding of processes lead to new views of old findings.  This is true in archaeology, medicine, all areas
of applied science.

One day all will know.  Every knee will bow.  Every tongue will confess that God is Lord.  God will not be mocked and the fury of His
justice will poured out on unbelief, mercy to those who have trusted.  In that moment, all will be clear and lies will melt away.

lc

[powderman]

LITTLECANOE. All true, and the liars and deceivers shall be known to all and cast out. POWDERMAN. 

[Scibaer]

Well, this is going to have alot of research thrown at it, before it plays out.
 what they have found are teeth...  "Based on the evidence they've sited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.
 which is most likely the case, which throws off the claim its modern human, homo sapien.... Teeth are often unreliable indicators of origin, and analyses of skull remains would more definitively identify the species found in the Israeli cave, Mellars said.
at this time, no skull has been found.
this article seems to have some propaganda and separatist sentiment threaded into it .. these Israeli  archeologists know that a tooth does not allow for such a defined  claim.

[slim rem 7]

man an his worldly knowlege is kinda funny, huh .. good post iron ..slim rem 7

[Pat/Rick]

Comparing it to the "iceman" find they have nothing that I would call solid. Is the speculation of some based on what they want it to be? Or on what they can prove it to be ? Until such a time comes their hypothesis is not fact.

[SHOOTALL]

In some cases fact is what you can get others to believe , Global warming , The world is flat etc.

[crustylicious]

I'm proud to see so many NPR supporters here!

[Scibaer]

in a early human archeological dig find, teeth are a great find. they tell the age, general health and diet of the individual.
but that is about it, its hard if not impossible to differentiate between homo sapien, neanderthal or heidleburg man, neither of which is old enough to fit the bill that those  archeologist are claiming, by about 250,000 years.

it is so surprising that this article was found, with out any contradicting facts or comments on a NPR site ? its should not be.
when and if.. if they find the lower jaw bone for some real analysis, its all flag waving and nothing more.
what i find interesting , is with this find they have not said whether they know the age , by the progression of the dentition , of the specimen
(forget the name right now ) middle east man closely related to neanderthal man was replaced by modern humans in all but the most remote regions of the middle east about 105,000 years ago.. along come a Israeli archeological team  that finds in a cave, a tooth, dated by soil samples 'around" the tooth to 400,000...
  ok

[ironglow]

Scibear;
   Sounds much like the claims others make..a couple petrified bones such as Lucy does not a civilization make. As far as the "current understood timeline", obviously the operative word is "understood".  Some understand it this way, others do not build bridges where there is not enough concrete proof of a bridge's existence.
   Yes, we have had 'respected scientists' suckered in by Java man and Nebraska man, one would think they would not be so quick as to endorse the ideas they sometimes hastily do.  I can recall when all the "lather & blather" came about over the piece or two of petrification and named it "Lucy"...
   Almost immediately they broke forth with the idea that all mankind has it's roots in the rift valley.  They painted themselves into a corner, and now with the possibility that older HUMAN remains have been found, they start out in complete denial (a common human trait). If perchance these remains prove out...they will be spinning like a Caddie limo on a logging trail.
     With the hub-bub surrounding the rift valley, those associated with the 'discovery' came forth with what they thought may be an earthshaking discovery which they announced as such (condensed and paraphrased);
  
  " We have found through our research with bits of bones and DNA that all humans were descended from one, single woman..whom we will call 'Eve' !"

     Many people were not astonished in the least, and they were often heard to say:
  
  "Well, imagine that, these great minds have recently 'discovered' that all humans were descended from one female..named Eve !  No doubt George Washington was told the same thing by some old country preacher in the backwoods of Virginia, some 250 years ago.."  

   (Not to mention the millions who already knew it , prior to GW)

   Too often in their drive to be the "discoverer", paleontologists (as well as other disciplines), have been too quick to "call the game".

  I only point out the need for a bit more caution....and a shade less asumption.   ...But their comic relief is entertainment, to amused observers.

[Scibaer]

Glow, yep i know what you are saying. reminds me of the big clovis point people.
all the claims of early, pre native american settlers in the american south west, then just recently 'they' find a huge clovis people settlement in locations all over the eastern seaboard and now claim its the largest cashe of clovis artifacts in the US..
we just dont know, 'they" are looking at very small pieces to a very big puzzle.
science, specifically this science, is a methodology , not a fact from evidence based logic system.
your right, bones does not a civilization make, and a tooth does not a species make.
i just think that article and announcement carried with it support of  a agenda .

[mechanic]

Truth be told, there is not a lot of difference between Neanderthal and us.  Recent developments in unraveling the Neanderthal genome reveal we are essentially the same.  As a matter of fact, I think I've seen a few Neandethals in my time.......

The Biblical story of creation places Adam and Eve in Eden, near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers... still named that today.  The garden of course no longer exhists, and our race was driven out of it because of sin, but obviously we all owe our ancestry to one man and woman, and more recently, to one of the children of Noah.....

I read with interest some of the scientific findings, knowing that soon others will displace them, as mankind struggles in vain to paint God out of the picture.

"Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth".....

Ben

[MGMorden]

ironglow: Hate to burst your bubble, but the "Lucy" fossil was dated to approximately 3.2 millions years ago, not 200,000.  At 400,000 years this doesn't even come remotely close to pre-dating Lucy.

[ohiobenito]

you guys got it all wrong aliens came down from space and raped monkeys creating the human race and human intelligence.  My story is just as easy as yours to prove

[subdjoe]

As a matter of fact, I think I've seen a few Neandethals in my time.......

LOL, yeah, Raider Nation!   

And a fair number of interior linemen.

[ironglow]

ironglow: Hate to burst your bubble, but the "Lucy" fossil was dated to approximately 3.2 millions years ago, not 200,000.  At 400,000 years this doesn't even come remotely close to pre-dating Lucy.

 MG;
   Sorry, I think it is your bubble which is perched on the endangered species list !
     As I said originally, the finders at first thought the bones had some human characteristics, but that's about all.  Those pieces of petrified bone which some, in their tizzy quickly named "Lucy" or Australopithecus, was not even a human at all, while the teeth found in central Israel are obviously human.  While some set about trying to build a "link" where none exists, primarily what "Lucy" proves is that monkeys walked erect before their brains slightly enlarged...but then, perhaps they always walked erect !

[ironglow]

A precursor to Lucy's specie dated about 4 million years more recently found in the great rift. I can't recall any scientists calling these finds anything other than precursors to our specie. Maybe some of the creationists muddy the waters a bit.  Here's the currently understood timeline:
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

      Conan;
        Your statement, "maybe some of the creationists muddy the waters a bit" just doesn't apply.  This discovery was by archaeologists working in  central Israel.  I have long subscribed to their journal named "Biblical Archaeology Review", and I suspect I will be getting much more info soon.  The Archaeologists who contribute to this journal are I would estimate at about 50/50 believers vs unbelievers and likely few 'creationists' (intelligent design) stalwarts among them.
  As far as "muddying the waters", let's look at the situation with evenhandedness.  Whether Evolutionary supporter or Intelligent design backer, speaking from a strictly empirical position, neither side has totally proven their hypothesis, thus either side is capable of 'muddying the waters' whenever they offer an opinion.

   Best that can be said at this point, is that the evolutionists and those of the intelligent design school....are both operating upon faith !

[MGMorden]

MG;
   Sorry, I think it is your bubble which is perched on the endangered species list !
     As I said originally, the finders at first thought the bones had some human characteristics, but that's about all.  Those pieces of petrified bone which some, in their tizzy quickly named "Lucy" or Australopithecus, was not even a human at all, while the teeth found in central Israel are obviously human.  While some set about trying to build a "link" where none exists, primarily what "Lucy" proves is that monkeys walked erect before their brains slightly enlarged...but then, perhaps they always walked erect !

I don't think you're understanding how evolution works.  At some point in the fossil record the fossils WILL become human.  That's obvious because we're here today.  Finding human bones at a certain point proves nothing that wasn't already known.  "Lucy" is an INCREDIBLY old fossil.  One of our most distant ancestors, with a FEW (but very few) similarities to us.  She was indeed an ape (not a monkey), but unlike anything that we currently know.  We didn't jump straight from Australopithecus to modern human.  It was a slow process taking millions of years.  There are many phases that we passed through - Homo-habilis and Homo-ergaster for example, eventually morphing into our current species of Homo-sapien.  Several other offshoots such as Homo-heidelbergensis, Home-erectus, and Homo-neanderthalensis (Neanderthals - the most recent departure having disappeared only 30,000 years ago).

You can't jump straight from "Lucy" the fossil to Lucy your neighbor.  It's a slow gradual process.  You will find Homo-sapien fossils quite a ways back because our current species has been around quite a while.  You'll find it alongside some of the other offshoots as they were dead-ends that didn't make it.

Evolution is an incredibly easy phenomenon to observe.  Not just in the fossil record - we do it easily in a lab.  Hit a strain of bacteria with some antibiotics.  Much of it will die - but some fraction of them won't be affected.  They survive the ordeal.  They then reproduce.  Many of the resulting bacteria ALSO share that resistance.  Hit the strain with an anti-biotic again.  Same thing - but more of the resistant ones remain.  It's a simple process - survival of the fittest.  As hardships come along, any difference within an individual that games him or her a survival advantage makes them more likely to have children, and I don't think anyone is going to debate that children don't inherit many traits from their parents.

You see the same thing with dogs.  Most dog breeds today are man made.  Rapidly forced evolution.  Want to develop a small dog breed?  Keep breeding the smallest dogs of a litter with other small dogs.  Want to develop a large breed?  Do the opposite - pair you large dogs together.  Observe any trait that you want to capitalize on, and by mating them together, you make the trait more pronounced.

Now imagine a scenario: the climate in Africa shifts a bit.  Much land that was previously jungle (where apes can swing from trees) becomes prairie land.  Lots of tall grass for predators to hide in - few trees climb into for shelter.  It's an easily observable phenomenon even today that all apes (including ourselves) exhibit different behaviors depending on personality - much ingrained from birth.  Lets say that some of these animals tend to stand up on their back legs and look about more often.  Who do you think is going to spot a predator first over that tall grass: the individual who stays on his knuckles, or the individual who tends to stand up - even briefly - more often?  With survival comes more opportunities to mate.  While knuckle-boy is being chomped on by a lion (or rather, whatever proto-kitty eventually became what we refer to as a lion), Mr. Stand up is far away making babies.  Babies that are more likely to take after their father and stand up and see that lion ahead of time.

Now, over a few hundred years or so this doesn't have a rapid impact on things.  It just doesn't change THAT quickly.  Over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years though, those little selection processes start to accumulate.  The entire shape of a population starts to morph, slowly but surely.  Not just us.  Too many people seem to think that evolution equals "the man came from monkey idea".  No, EVERYTHING evolves.  The fossil record bears out that giraffes once had shorter necks.  Horses were once much smaller than they are now.  Whales and dolphins once walked on land.  And like everything else, we changed too - we are a species of ape (still - the ape thing isn't in the past), and as you trace our lines backwards we get more primitive forms of primate - eventually converging with the ancestor of our closest living relative - the chimpanzee, between 7 and 8 million years ago.  Humans and chimpanzees are more closely genetically related than any other two great apes species (the remaining ones being Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees, and Humans).  Too many naively ask "But why are there still apes?", which is not too bright a question.  That critter that was the common ancestor of chimps and humans ~7 million years ago wasn't a chimp either.  It was a species of ape that is no longer around - it diverged and evolved over time in separate areas into separate species. 

Eventually if you go past the primate stage THAT stage in our evolution descended from an even simpler and smaller mammal.  Trace it back farther and things change more.  Evolution didn't start and stop with the ape stage, nor with our species.  It's a process that has been going on since the first bastions of life formed in a pool somewhere a few billion years ago.

[Pot-Bellied Stallion]

Sooooo, let me get this straight - if we are all descended from Adam and Eve, then we are all products of incest.  If not who did the children of Adam and Eve marry and have children with?  This is what always gets confusing to me.

[Conan The Librarian]

It's amazing what gets attributed to being in the bible that just isn't there. That story of Adam and Eve has been so drastically elaborated upon that the popular understanding of it is practically unrelated to what's in the book.

One of my favorite sayings is that The Bible is the most widely owned and least read of books.

If you haven't read it cover to cover, do that. It's worth the time. There's no rush. Just get it done.

[ironglow]

 Conan;
         Read it, studied it and taught it cover to cover...much there to be learned.  Lack of familiarity leads to such conclusions as the Adam/Eve incest issue etc....but it will remain confusing for anyone who hasn't studied in depth.

   MG:
  Exactly my point..we can find fossils of men and we can find fossils of apes..but as with most all these assumptions, honest connections cannot be made.
  Not only the connections but even the time factor.  When it finally dawned upon the evolutionists that their evolutionary model simply did not have time enough during the age of this earth..they reached back to the Greek idea of "panspermia" and the later "exogenesis" to introduce their "transpermia" hypothesis.  It appears that they, like Cinderella's ugly sisters were going to do their best to cram on the glass slipper, even if it were not made to fit.
      
Of course, evolutionary transpermia claims that our earth was seeded eons ago by life forms hitch-hiking upon firey meteorites and when they arrived here, adapted into hopeful monsters.
  Intelligent design says that there is a creator responsible fore all that is, and even though there is a certain order to things which indicate such, still a large portion of pure faith is required...just as with the evolutionary/transpermia option.

   I repeat; since neither has been proven by empirical scientific standards, both are an item of faith and should be viewed as such..

[Spirithawk]

Sooooo, let me get this straight - if we are all descended from Adam and Eve, then we are all products of incest.  If not who did the children of Adam and Eve marry and have children with?  This is what always gets confusing to me.

I'd kinda like to hear the answer to that myself. Another question I'd love to hear the answer to. Since you must know Jesus in order to be admited to Heaven, does that mean that everyone born in the rain forests, who have never even heard of Jesus and likely never will, are all automaticly condemed to Hell? Kinda a cruel thing to do if so ain't it? Particularly by a merciful God?  Not meaning to be disrespectful in any way but they are certainly questions to be pondered. My problem with the Bible is very simple. It is professed to be the word of God, however....it was written by man, deciphered many times over by man, entire chapters left out because they didn't fit with the current human publishers views, and as a great chief once asked.....," Since there is but one Bible, since all can read it, why is it then that you all disagree so much on what it says?" No sorry folks. Were I to know it was and is God's words, not man's, I'd have much more faith in it. I believe it has good intent but I just don't trust man, nor man's intent when his own views twist the true meanings of the Creator's...period.  In the mean time I'll carry my religion in my heart not in a book.

[MGMorden]

 Exactly my point..we can find fossils of men and we can find fossils of apes..but as with most all these assumptions, honest connections cannot be made.

That statement in and of itself doesn't make sense.  That's like saying "We can find collies, and we can find dogs, but no connections can be made".  Man didn't just come from apes.  We still are.  As I said - genetically we are closer to chimps than any other two great apes species.  Humans and chips share more in common than chimps and gorillas do.  Our genetic makeup matches to 97%.  When we look back, we see many examples of VARIOUS species of apes.  Far enough back and the examples of the species of ape that we ourselves belong to goes away, but we find many other species of ape that are no longer around, but share many traits with modern man.  Go further back and THEY disappear, and we find yet another species of ape that is less evolved.  Not us, not the other less evolved species, but an even more primitive animal.  

The fossil record isn't complete, but it paints a very clear picture of species changing over time.  Lets say you have a photographer taking pictures of a car crash.  You see a nice red sports car driving along in the first picture.  Then a picture of it swirving.  Another picture of it stating to flip.  Another of it having flipped again.  And then finally a picture of it lying next to a grey sedan, both with impact damage.  No, you don't have a picture of them actually slamming into each other.  Maybe one exists somewhere taken by another photographer, but just because luck caused you to miss that shot doesn't mean that a sane and rational mind can't look at all the pieces of evidence that you DO have an draw a likely conclusion.  Not only man, but almost every single critter in the fossil record appears to be shifting forms over the eons.  

 Not only the connections but even the time factor.  When it finally dawned upon the evolutionists that their evolutionary model simply did not have time enough during the age of this earth..they reached back to the Greek idea of "panspermia" and the later "exogenesis" to introduce their "transpermia" hypothesis.  It appears that they, like Cinderella's ugly sisters were going to do their best to cram on the glass slipper, even if it were not made to fit.

What you point out as a weakness most admit as science's greatest strength.  Scientists DO NOT operate on faith.  They look at evidence at hand and choose the most likely explanation.  That's the way science works.  What makes that different than faith, is that in science, if they encounter evidence that requires changes to a theory, they CHANGE IT.  They adjust things until they get them just right.  Only the irrational mind clings to a believe based on no evidence and even when presented with evidence to the contrary plugs their ears yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!".

Timeframes for the Earth itself have been fairly well established for a while now.  We've pretty well nailed it down to 4.54 billion years old at this point  - within a 1% margin of error.  We're not EXACTLY sure when life in general sprung up.  That's currently a grey area as life it it's most basic stages leaves very little fossil records.  We have evidence of VERY basic life from stromatolite fossils dating back to 2.7 billion years ago.  There are some hypotheses that life could have formed earlier, but we have hard proof that simple, microbial life was around from that point forward and from that point on was off on a constant journey of change.  Take a snapshot at nearly any point in time, then move that snapshot forward a few million years and the animals present in the fossil record will differ subtly from the ones immediately preceding them.  Keep doing that enough times and things morph into new species that don't even resemble the originals much.

As to exogenesis, that has been forwarded as a POSSIBLE explanation for the basic origins of life.  It's not required, and you'll find almost no scientists that say that that is 100% what happened, but rather it's merely one of several possibilities that could fit the facts at hand.  Most scientists don't even regard this particular possibility as likely.  Possible?  Sure, but not the leading theory by a long shot.

The idea of panspermia (that the universe is filled with life) is merely an idea.  Based on the way life appears to have arisen on Earth, it's not too far fetched of an idea to assume that it could have happened elsewhere.  How is that different from a faith based initiative?

Scientists don't go on a crusade to convince the world that it's the truth handed down from above - they simply state that it's an idea with merit and propose that we go out and LOOK FOR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  If after we've observed a decent percentage of the star systems in our galaxy, if no life is found elsewhere, most scientists would be happy to revise or dismiss the idea.

I repeat; since neither has been proven by empirical scientific standards, both are an item of faith and should be viewed as such..

Proven, no, neither has been 100% officially proven.  Science isn't about 100% proof though.  It's about choosing the most logical explanation based on the evidence at hand.  Take the car example above.  Without an eye witness, it's perfectly POSSIBLE that both cars stopped undamaged and then a man in a Superman outfit jumped out, beat both cars with a bat, then ran off into the woods.  Based on the evidence we have though, it's far, far more likely that the cars merely crashed into each other.  In the same way, though neither has been 100% proven, the evolutionary scenario simply fits the existing data much better.

[billy_56081]

MgMorden, we have about mid to high 90% the same DNA as a dog pigs so did we come from them too? Actually the percentage differs from source to source. Also how many chromasome do humans and chimps have?

[MGMorden]

I'd kinda like to hear the answer to that myself. Another question I'd love to hear the answer to. Since you must know Jesus in order to be admited to Heaven, does that mean that everyone born in the rain forests, who have never even heard of Jesus and likely never will, are all automaticly condemed to Hell? Kinda a cruel thing to do if so ain't it? Particularly by a merciful God?  Not meaning to be disrespectful in any way but they are certainly questions to be pondered. My problem with the Bible is very simple. It is professed to be the word of God, however....it was written by man, deciphered many times over by man, entire chapters left out because they didn't fit with the current human publishers views, and as a great chief once asked.....," Since there is but one Bible, since all can read it, why is it then that you all disagree so much on what it says?" No sorry folks. Were I to know it was and is God's words, not man's, I'd have much more faith in it. I believe it has good intent but I just don't trust man, nor man's intent when his own views twist the true meanings of the Creator's...period.  In the mean time I'll carry my religion in my heart not in a book.

Very good questions to ask Spirit, and that's one of the key things that made me start examining this.  Through history classes, you can literally watch over the years as many religions begin to become more complex and take shape.  The Bible didn't address those other people because the MEN writing it didn't know they existed.

Heck the book is riddled with contradictions - not something indicative of a deity, but of men making continuity mistakes because, well, that's what men do.

Examples:

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
2 Sam 24:9

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
1 Chron 21:5

Different tallies for the same event.

-----

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Genesis 32:30

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18

------

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Kings 8:26

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
2 Chronicles 22:2

------

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Galatians 4:22

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Hebrews 11:17

-----

In an absolute BEST case scenario it's been fiddled with and translation errors have crept in over the years.  

[Spirithawk]

I'd kinda like to hear the answer to that myself. Another question I'd love to hear the answer to. Since you must know Jesus in order to be admited to Heaven, does that mean that everyone born in the rain forests, who have never even heard of Jesus and likely never will, are all automaticly condemed to Hell? Kinda a cruel thing to do if so ain't it? Particularly by a merciful God?  Not meaning to be disrespectful in any way but they are certainly questions to be pondered. My problem with the Bible is very simple. It is professed to be the word of God, however....it was written by man, deciphered many times over by man, entire chapters left out because they didn't fit with the current human publishers views, and as a great chief once asked.....," Since there is but one Bible, since all can read it, why is it then that you all disagree so much on what it says?" No sorry folks. Were I to know it was and is God's words, not man's, I'd have much more faith in it. I believe it has good intent but I just don't trust man, nor man's intent when his own views twist the true meanings of the Creator's...period.  In the mean time I'll carry my religion in my heart not in a book.

Very good questions to ask Spirit, and that's one of the key things that made me start examining this.  Through history classes, you can literally watch over the years as many religions begin to become more complex and take shape.  The Bible didn't address those other people because the MEN writing it didn't know they existed.

Heck the book is riddled with contradictions - not something indicative of a deity, but of men making continuity mistakes because, well, that's what men do.

Examples:

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
2 Sam 24:9

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
1 Chron 21:5

Different tallies for the same event.

-----

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Genesis 32:30

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18

------

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Kings 8:26

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
2 Chronicles 22:2

------

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Galatians 4:22

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Hebrews 11:17

-----

In an absolute BEST case scenario it's been fiddled with and translation errors have crept in over the years.  

Yep, my point. Too many take it litteraly, word for word, and in doing so miss the true meanings. Just remember, any TRUTH will stand up to questioning so don't be afraid to question. It doesn't necesarily mean disrespect if done honestly, it just proves sincerity and I'd think God would both see and understand.

[MGMorden]

MgMorden, we have about mid to high 90% the same DNA as a dog pigs so did we come from them too? Actually the percentage differs from source to source. Also how many chromasome do humans and chimps have?

A normal human has 46 chromosomes - occasionally you see abnormalities which can change that.  A chimp has 48, but that in and of itself is not a reliable indicator.  Some species of antelope also have 46 - doesn't mean we can interbreed with them.

Also, sharing a large percentage of DNA with a dog or a pig isn't that strange.  Remember, DNA isn't a trait unique to animals - ALL LIFE is made up of it.  Plants, bacteria - everything.  Dogs and pigs are both large mammals that we likely diverged from less than 100 million years ago.  It is to be expected that we'd share a large percentage of DNA with them as well, but the important part is relative - the percentage of DNA we share with chimps is even higher.  No other animal comes as close to matching our DNA profile as a chimp.  As said - chimpanzee DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to that of a gorilla, as chimps and humans diverged more recently than gorillas.  Humans and chimps are thought to have diverged circa 7-8 million years ago, whilst the line that became gorillas split away from that of the chimp/human line about 2 million years prior to that.  Orangutans are REALLY the oddballs, having split from the goriilla/chimp/human group between 14 and 16 million years ago.  They are genetically the most different species of great ape remaining.

[billy_56081]

Exactly McMorden, that is why the ape/human DNA link is invalid. And again depending on the source the percentage of chimp/human DNA matches is from the low to mid nintey percentile. Actually it has been downgraded with more accurate testing.