Replies

You claim a negative ("it's impossible"). Observation can only prove a positive. Claiming observation is a reason for a negative is logically invalid. It contradicts itself, because observation can only give a positive. There's only two ways to prove a negative. Total lack of observation within 100% of a set (you'd have to look at every single person born through history, and you can only then claim it's impossible if not one person had fast trait swapping), or you have to prove it's positive (that it is possible) is somehow logically invalid. You haven't shown either of these (the first is impossible, the second you haven't touched on). This is a big logical fallacy, trying to prove a negative (impossibility) with a positive (observation).

Yes I'm speaking of race mixing. That's what mixes traits (such as skin, eye and hair color). Why shouldn't I be? And no, I made no original claim that environment was enough to change races in 33 generations. This is what I said, and I quote: ...and environment has a hand in altering complexion at times.

But it can't change a race in 33 generations.

Some do, some don't. Many do, in fact, depending on the area. That's what makes the difference. Sometimes the split between the races and who intermarries is quite stark, such as in certain places down in South Carolina (how do I know? I've been there, and know someone who lives there. That's how things are. Big ethnic splits with one split being racial).

But there is gradual interchanging of DNA.

The reason we still see definable races, and the reason many people arn't of pure race, is because intermingling between races is a very gray issue, and not black and white as you seem to think. This depends on many different variables, many of them locational and based on society. Not everywhere is the same. Small society groups can range from extream splits (where whites arn't allowed to marry blacks) to inter-racial marriages, where they're not even thought of twice (though people still tend to be picky.

But even when there were these strict rules there was still interchanging of DNA. The urge won't be denied. :^)

That's just human nature). Racism (unfortunately) still exists in many forms, and this is one effect of it. To claim everyone doesn't give a hoo-ha about intermarriage is to ignore whole sections of society (one which I've seen for myself). I'm curious: where are you getting your black and white ideas of how things are?

Observation. Nothing has changed since ancient times. Read the bible and you'll see that in ancient times also the authority figures didn't wan't the races to mix, but they did anyway.

(And don't tell me 'observation'. Your's is the negative statement "It doesn't happen". Observation runs logically contrary to that.)

If it would happen, we would see it. There are plenty of examples to study.

Will you please read what I write? I said "If Adam was, as you claim,..." I'm not making any claim myself. I'm simply giving an 'IF you were right' situation.

But the ruddy gene isn't dominant. Whole populations would not be ruddy if Adamites mixed heavily with other races. Conclusion: Adamites did not mix heavily with other races and Adam was ruddy.

You've just contradicted yourself. With Adam, you basically said "Since the word adam [0120] comes from ruddy [0119], Adam must have been red toned." But with the ground, you basically said "The word ground (adamah) [0127] comes from ruddy [0119], but the ground isn't red toned."

The ground is red not ruddy. Adam means ruddy. All the others mean red.

To remain logically consistent, you must stick with one of the two logical forms: If a word comes from ruddy [0119], then it must mean the object of the word is red toned, OR If a word comes from ruddy [0119], it doesn't necassarily mean it's red toned. Those are you only two options if you wish to remain logically consistent. Either both Adam and ground are ruddy because they come from [0119], or they're not necassarily ruddy. (This is a logical problem. It has nothing to do with David's skin being ruddy. This is a seperate problem in and of itself. You can use David's skin to try to validate Adam's skin was ruddy, but you can't use the 'it comes from [0119]' to do it, because your argument is inconsistent, unless you chose the former of the two logical forms, in which case, you must agree that the ground was ruddy toned). If you try to claim Adam was ruddy because of [0119], you must claim the ground was also, otherwise you run into a logical fallacy. Working out this logical fallacy won't effect the "David's skin is ruddy" theory. We can work on that one later.

There were ruddy and brown people in the areas of the Adamites. There were no red people. If there were red people there and if there were red descendants and if the red gene weren't dominant, then it would be possible that Adam was red, but none of these conditions exist and so Adam was the ruddy part of 0119, the ground was the red part of 0119.

Can't use the [0119] argument until we've worked out the logical inconsistency with it. Unless you're using [0119] to validate your argument. Then you might be able to use it (but you can't prove anything off of it. You can only validate it a bit more. It's just one more piece of the puzzle.

It's no puzzle to me. Everything fits together very well, including scientific observation which you continue to ignore.

But it could also be a simple coincidence (such as ground [0127] and it comming from ruddy [0119] doesn't mean the ground is ruddy.

0119 also means red. Simple.

Though if you think about it, clay {ground} has a reddish tint at times. We could claim that Adam was made from red clay {the Bible doesn't specify what kind of ground}, and therefore Adam got his name from that.

0119 means to rub red, that's a blushing look.

But that's also assumption based on coincidence. You yourself agreed that not all of Adam's seed was ruddy: It's an interesting theory..however it's not proven. Only supported {and the support is fairly assumptuous}.)

Not at all. The 4 pieces of evidence is conclusive for me.

Give me the Biblical reference that says sin existed before Adam.

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Satan sinned in the beginning. One third of the stars (we and the angels) supported Satan. Mankind came 6 time periods later. Adam came 8 time periods later from the beginning. The fact that the verse says Satan was ready to devour Jesus proves it predates the present.

Also, about the Grand Canyon: Look at it and you'll also see sheer walls. This type of formation is a big indication of the canyon walls being cut very quickly (like in a flood situation). The curving aspect of the river is what gives it the theory that it's old. We're not talking about Evolution. We're talking about the Bible. I don't want to know what Evolution says (I don't agree the theory's very valid), I want to know what the Bible says. You're taking a theory and trying to apply it to the Bible, then trying to use that to claim what the Bible says.

The bible and science don't disagree. Genesis is clear: There were 7 time periods from the beginning before spiritual man. Genesis mentions the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. The bible doesn't disagree with that.

That doesn't make a strong argument at all. The Bible should be able to stand up on it's own. Let's stick with that route.

Yes, it's much better if we throw out the evidence that modern man had a clash with Neanderthals 40,000 years ago. It stands on it's own, it mentions dinosaurs.

If you have to use external theories like Evolution to back up your interpretation of the Bible, then you're argument is weak.

It's observation. God expects us to use our brains, that's why we have them.

If you do have good archeoligical or historical evidence (historical: from society, not from a theory like Evolution), please show me!

My link from my last post that you ignored.

The timeline was then: Adam was created. Adam sinned. Because of sin, Jesus came down to earth to give man a way to forgive his sins.

And there was sin in the beginning in which at least one third of the sons of God followed Satan making necessary this existence in this dimension.

Actually to give man a way to forgive his sins, by paying the price of man's sins, if you want to be technical about it ;)

Actually to pay the price of man's sins for those that would believe and follow His ways.

Actually, the passage is in Rev 12:4. Remember that Revelations is highly allegorical. This particular verse (specifically, the 'stars' in the verse) is generally understood to mean angels. This is backed up in verse 9, where it says that the Devil and his angels were cast out of heaven. Another interpreation of 'stars' seems to be the church (which existed after Jesus was born). This would place this passage in the End Days, instead of when the Devil first rebelled. Either way, it's not talking about humans before Adam (especially considering the 'stars' were cast out of heaven, which would mean either people who are going to heaven {Christians, which existed only after Jesus} or angels).

No it's not talking of humans before Adam. It's talking of stars of heaven before this existence. Right now we are man, then we were the stars of heaven.

Show me the Biblical reference for this.

1John 3.8

Not in mankind. That started at Adam.

The souls that inhabit man existed before the events in the Garden of Eden:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God was speaking to Jeremiah. Apparently Jeremiah stood with God strongly during Satan's rebellion.

You still have to use logic on it to see what it means, and context is a piece of that logic. You must use context when determining meaning of anything, or else you can (and many do) come up with any interpretation they want.

Yes there are many interpretations, but all but one fall apart when more wisdom is gained. The only way to gain wisdom is to study all of the Word.

Sorry dude, but even in the Bible, logic rules.

Yes, and logically the races can't form from two people in 33 generations.

Without it, the Bible can't make any sense. Why would a logical God write an illogical book for people who use logic to determine meaning? This is a silly argument for ignoring context.

Name anything I've said that isn't logical. It's not logical to say that all the races of the earth can form from two people in 33 generations. It's not logical to say that the geologic structures of the earth all formed in a few thousand years. It's not logical to ignore evidence of Neanderthals and their struggle with modern humans 40,000 years ago.

Doesn't say that in my Bible.

Speaking of quoting out of context, you just did it to me. I plainly said that Adam was formed to lay the foundation for the farmer of men, the Messiah.

Not in the parable. Not in Adam's creation. And not in the verse that says and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

Jesus explains the parable very clearly. The good men will go with him to the barn, the wicked will be burned as tares.

Note: There's a big difference between the phrase "there's no one to do this" and the phrase "I need someone to do this".

Jesus was a descendant of Adam. The family of Adam was tended to to bring about a saviour. It's God's plan. In the beginning was the Word. If Adam was the ancestor of Jesus, that means his human body was meant to be the ancestor of Jesus' human body.

What if I said "there's no one to clean my house"? According to you, you claim I need someone to clean my house. However, the fact is, my house is already clean, and that's why there's no one to clean my house. Trying to claim God is saying he needs someone to till the ground from that verse is logically indeterminate, because God could just as easily (and just as validly) be saying that He doesn't need anyone to till the ground.

In the beginning was the Word. The human body of Adam was meant to be an ancestor of the human body of Jesus.

The "And" doesn't follow the creation story, but rather the phrase "These [are] the generations..." which denote a new passage of scripture, and denotes a historical overview of something.

Irreconcilable differences. To me it's obvious that God is summing up that these are the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens because that's what the first verses of Genesis is talking about, the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. If what followed would have been the generations of Adam, God would have said so but he didn't, he said it was the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. Look up generations in this verse in the Strong's and you'll see that it can mean "proceedings".

One Israel (talked about here) is a man. The one we were previously talking about is a nation. There's a big difference between a man (or men) named Israel and a nation named Israel you know. What are you claiming here? That the man and nation are the same? I don't get it.

When Jacob/Israel was on his deathbed, he was prophesying to his sons what would become of their seed.

It does not. Haven't you read the page you yourself linked to? It says Note that almost all letters have meanings by themselves on that page. This doesn't mean these letters mean this when concatonated with another word, it means they mean something when they're by themselves. You do see the difference between together with another word, and alone, don't you? Your's is a silly argument.

The singular and plural argument is sillier. If the vav denotes singular and plural, you need to prove it, otherwise they're two different words. So far the only evidence we had is the the vav denotes connection and grace.

You can't claim they are different words, because our debate is trying to determine that.

If they are spelled different, they are different.

To claim they are is to either 1) be presumptuous, or 2) lead into a circular argument. We don't want to do either of those, so let's not claim unproven things as fact.

Just being logical.

This was because His mother was Mary (a member of mankind). Jesus was also the Son of God on earth. Jesus was not a true member of man. He was God in a human body. Jesus didn't sin. Jesus was holy, even on earth.

Jesus lived his life on the earth just as we're doing right now.

(If you want to know, I'm quite enjoying myself with this debate {even though it's getting longer then the Nile ;>}. It's quite interesting, and please note I hold nothing against you on this. I enjoy debates like this, and hope you're also enjoying it. I'd like to keep debating on this, if you don't mind :)

It's my favorite subject. It's very interesting to know that there was an existence before the human existence and that there was a struggle and that struggle continues with the human existence being a necessary step in resolving that struggle. It's also very interesting to know that America and Britain are throughout prophesy and will play a major role in the end time. It's a lot more interesting to gain wisdom to the point to where you don't have to get in arguments about evolution, or deny the dinosaurs, or deny Neanderthals, or try to jam everything into 6000 years. It's interesting to know that I existed before I was born into this body. I hope I was on the right side of the struggle.

So you're admitting that there are no cases where environment has changed a race in 33 generations? If it were possible for the environment to change a population's race in 33 generations, we would have seen it since we are surrounded by case studies.

But there is gradual interchanging of DNA.

But even when there were these strict rules there was still interchanging of DNA. The urge won't be denied. :^)

Observation. Nothing has changed since ancient times. Read the bible and you'll see that in ancient times also the authority figures didn't wan't the races to mix, but they did anyway.

If it would happen, we would see it. There are plenty of examples to study.

We do see it happening today. I give you the person I know who's mother is white, father is really black, and he has characteristics of both. DNA gets interchanged from parents to children in one generation. Also, some people do mix, while others don't. This is what keeps things balanced, and keeps them from going over toward pure defined races, or mixing of them into less definable races: The fact that many people don't mix (like the Adamites, which you claim).

But the ruddy gene isn't dominant. Whole populations would not be ruddy if Adamites mixed heavily with other races. Conclusion: Adamites did not mix heavily with other races and Adam was ruddy.

They could if a ruddy gene showed up in a population and ruddy people desided to go with ruddy people (depending on how much of a contrast the gene was). Many people do tend toward others that look like them. For example, the person I know (who's black..but not as black as his dad. His dad's really black) may deside to marry a lady who's black. His children may all be black. Or some might be black, and some white. Or all of them might be white. If they're all white (recessive gene I believe), then his entire family line will be white if his offspring down the generations marry only whites (even though he's black). In other words: It's possible. It's even easy to come up with a senerio in which it's possible. Also, according to you're line of thinking, if a dominate gene and a recessive gene intermix, the dominate gene should win out. If the Adamites did any mixing, why didn't they have groups of another gene mixed in with them?

The ground is red not ruddy. Adam means ruddy. All the others mean red.

There were ruddy and brown people in the areas of the Adamites. There were no red people. If there were red people there and if there were red descendants and if the red gene weren't dominant, then it would be possible that Adam was red, but none of these conditions exist and so Adam was the ruddy part of 0119, the ground was the red part of 0119.

Show me why you think this is. (You might also note that ruddy is red. Red/being reddish is the very definition of ruddy. So, by definition, calling one ruddy and another red is basically the same thing. In fact red is a synonym of ruddy. If someone is ruddy skinned, they're reddish-tinted, or a reddish-brownish, in skin tone. Either way, red tinted comes into it.) Another interesting point I'd like to bring out is that David's grandmother, Ruth, was apparently dark skinned (she was a Moabite, which were apparently a dark skinned race). So, if the dark skin gene is dominate, why wasn't David dark skinned? Perhaps it's easily possible that not all of David's ancestors were ruddy. (This is simply to show that race A {ruddy} could have mixed with some of race B {dark skinned} and still remain ruddy. Now this allows Adam to be either race A or race B, ruddy or dark, and David still remains ruddy {assuming for a moment that Adam was of a seperate race}.)

It's no puzzle to me. Everything fits together very well, including scientific observation which you continue to ignore.

Your explination is complex. Everything fits in very well with Adam being the first man (the true first man), and the explination is more simplistic. Occam's razor in action. Also, I don't ignore scientific observation. If you want to build a time machine and go back in time and take pictures, go right ahead and show me, and we'll have observation. Otherwise, history is infered, interpreted, by evidence it left behind, and that interpretation (not being directly observed without a time machine) might be wrong. I find the Theory of Evolution (the historical side of it) isn't valid enough for me to take it as an acceptable scientific theory. There's a difference between a theory, and the evidence that theory is based off of. Let's try to stick with the evidence. (I'll gladly accept archeological and literature evidence though). Let's keep the theories out of it for the moment. The Bible should be able to stand up on under it's own interpretation. If you'd like to toss in actual observed evidence (like historical ruins or writings), feel free. That's certainally allowable (and I encourage it).

0119 also means red. Simple.

Red is ruddy is red. Don't believe me? Look here!

0119 means to rub red, that's a blushing look.

Yes, it is a 'blushing' look. In fact, 0119 is a verb. I've seen arguments that Adam was white because of this. (Why? Because, 'only white people can blush', or some such argument).

Not at all. The 4 pieces of evidence is conclusive for me.

It can't be conclusive because there are other options.

Satan sinned in the beginning. One third of the stars (we and the angels) supported Satan.

Give Biblical evidence for the stars including 'we'. (Not Evolution theory. Not the theory that the 6th day man was before Adam {because that theory seems to be built off the Evolution theory, and not Biblical evidence}. Biblical evidence only {since we have no observable historical evidence for it}.)

The bible and science don't disagree. Genesis is clear: There were 7 time periods from the beginning before spiritual man. Genesis mentions the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. The bible doesn't disagree with that.

The 7 time periods were days. Morning and evening. Very specific. Gen 1:8 - And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.. "And the evening and the morning were the nth day" is the phrase used over and over again. Evening ([06153] - `ereb) is a literal period of moving from daylight to darkness. We know it as when the sun sets. Morning ([01242] - boqer) is a literal period of moving from darkness to light. We know it when the sun rises. Sunset and sunrise, basically. Day ([03117] - yowm) can mean several things: Time of light (when the sun's up), a 24 hour period (recognized by a circle of morning to morning), a year (oddly enough), or an undefined time period. By itself it might mean any of these things. However, in each of the 6 days of creation it's very carefully, and very specifically, combined with a literal evening and morning, denoting an actual 'day' (as in time of daylight or a 24 hour period). Seeing how each time statement is specified with a "evening and the morning", we can safely assume the 'day' means an actual 24 hour period. There's no room for making it anything else (unless you ignore the evening and morning. And in the Hebrew, there's no room for shifting the definitions on these two words).

As for the order of Creation vs. Evolution, they don't match up. For example Genesis gives account that the plants were made on the third day (Gen 1:11), then the sun was made on the fourth day (Gen 1:16). Evolution says the sun was here possibly even before the earth.

As for the dinosaur, Job 40:15-24 describes the behemoth, which is interpreted as a dinosaur. This was after Adam was born.

Yes, it's much better if we throw out the evidence that modern man had a clash with Neanderthals 40,000 years ago. It stands on it's own, it mentions dinosaurs.

Neanderthals: Evidence, yes. Observable fact, no. The Bible does mention dinosaurs...after Adam was born.

It's observation. God expects us to use our brains, that's why we have them.

God also gave us brains to recognize logic and context, too :)

My link from my last post that you ignored.

And there was sin in the beginning in which at least one third of the sons of God followed Satan making necessary this existence in this dimension.

I find no evidence for that (beyond speculation). Please provide Biblical evidence.

Actually to pay the price of man's sins for those that would believe and follow His ways.

It paid the price for all man's sins. It covers those who accept it. (Just how much more technical do you think we'll be able to get here? ;)

No it's not talking of humans before Adam. It's talking of stars of heaven before this existence. Right now we are man, then we were the stars of heaven.

Show Biblical evidence.

1John 3.8

1 John 3:8 says He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. It basically says "Those that sin belong to the Devil. Jesus therefore came down to fix this." It says nothing of the fallen 'stars' with the Devil, or of mankind.

The souls that inhabit man existed before the events in the Garden of Eden:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God was speaking to Jeremiah. Apparently Jeremiah stood with God strongly during Satan's rebellion.

Jer 1:5 doesn't say anything about pre-existance. Let me give you an example: King George declared his son, before he came out of his mother's womb, a prince. In other words, it's not talking about pre-existance of Jeremiah, but rather God's pre-ordained status to Jeremiah as a prophet when he will walk the earth. Pre-destination (basically), not pre-existance. Try again :)

Yes there are many interpretations, but all but one fall apart when more wisdom is gained. The only way to gain wisdom is to study all of the Word.

And use context and logic with it, too. I've studied much of the Word off and on.

Name anything I've said that isn't logical. It's not logical to say that all the races of the earth can form from two people in 33 generations.

This has little to do with logic, and alot to do with probability. It's possible for that to happen. Whether or not it's probable is another matter.

It's not logical to say that the geologic structures of the earth all formed in a few thousand years.

Never heard of the Flood? This has more to do with probability then logic. It's possible for a book tied to the end of a string hanging from a ceiling to jump up and down apparently on it's own (caused Brownian movement). It's not very probable though (though it can happen if given a long enough time, theoretically). This has nothing to do with logic.

It's not logical to ignore evidence of Neanderthals and their struggle with modern humans 40,000 years ago.

Not to ignore the evidence, no. But to ignore the interpretation of the evidence (if it doesn't seem valid), yes.

What you state has little to do with logic. The logic is in how you use the statements, not if something is possible or probable, or a theory (though logic has a big hand in helping to interpret evidence for or against a theory to validate it). It's not your evidence that's illogical...it's your interpretations of that evidence. And I've been trying to show you where your logic is weak. Logic and evidence arn't the same thing.

Doesn't say that in my Bible.

Speaking of quoting out of context, you just did it to me. I plainly said that Adam was formed to lay the foundation for the farmer of men, the Messiah.

No I didn't. I didn't claim you didn't claim that Adam was formed to lay the foundation for the Massiah. What I said was it doesn't say that in my Bible. In other words, I'm differentiating between your interpretation and my interpretation of the Bible (what you say and what the Bible says). You claim the Bible means that. The Bible doesn't say that outright. And I don't see how it can be interpreted to say such. Thus, my statement about it 'not showing up in my Bible'.

Jesus explains the parable very clearly. The good men will go with him to the barn, the wicked will be burned as tares.

Who claims Jesus' explination isn't correct? I didn't. However, it still doesn't mean it's linked to Adam's creation. Two different things there.

Jesus was a descendant of Adam. The family of Adam was tended to to bring about a saviour. It's God's plan. In the beginning was the Word. If Adam was the ancestor of Jesus, that means his human body was meant to be the ancestor of Jesus' human body.

I don't see the interpretation of Adam's existance being specifically so Jesus could come down to earth to be valid. But that aside, I agree with the rest of your statement.

Irreconcilable differences. To me it's obvious that God is summing up that these are the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens because that's what the first verses of Genesis is talking about, the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. If what followed would have been the generations of Adam, God would have said so but he didn't, he said it was the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. Look up generations in this verse in the Strong's and you'll see that it can mean "proceedings".

I don't see how what you just said contradicts with what I said. It was the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens (in other words, an overview of what came before, or 'proceedings'). Why should this passage be any different the all the other passages of the Bible that start with "These [are] the generations..."? That's what you seem to be claiming; that for some reason it is different. The question is: Why? (You can't use 'because man existed before and Adam was created after' to validate the Why, because you must use the Why to validate that Adam was created on the 8th day {after}. That would lead into circular reasoning. Must give another reason.) {Personally, even if you think it's irreconcilable, it's still fun to bump ideas around. That's how we learn.}

When Jacob/Israel was on his deathbed, he was prophesying to his sons what would become of their seed.

Alright, so here we have a nation of Israel. What does this have to do with the USA?

The singular and plural argument is sillier. If the vav denotes singular and plural, you need to prove it, otherwise they're two different words. So far the only evidence we had is the the vav denotes connection and grace.

Yes, I need to prove it. Still trying to look for some information. I may be going to the library for it, for you. Actually, we have no evidence vav, when combined with a word, denotes connection and grace for the meaning of that word. The only source we have gives the meaning of vav all by itself. We both need to find something that gives the meaning of vav with a word.

If they are spelled different, they are different.

Like 'car' and 'cars'?

Just being logical.

You claim as fact that the words Adam are different. This is what's being presumptuous (since we have nothing to show what vav means with the word adam). If you'd like to claim it as a theory, that's fine. However, don't claim something as fact that isn't (and then try to use that to prove your other points). Wait until we have enough evidence to show either way, then we can use them to validate other points. The adam with vav is undetermined at the moment, so it's invalid to use to try to claim an invalid premise. I'll try to get to the college library. They should have some textbooks on Hebrew (I hope). I'll let you know what I find. A question I'd like to ask you is this: How does your definition of adam with vav fit in with the verse it's in?

Jesus lived his life on the earth just as we're doing right now.

Yes He did. I don't dissagree.

It's my favorite subject. It's very interesting to know that there was an existence before the human existence and that there was a struggle and that struggle continues with the human existence being a necessary step in resolving that struggle. It's also very interesting to know that America and Britain are throughout prophesy and will play a major role in the end time. It's a lot more interesting to gain wisdom to the point to where you don't have to get in arguments about evolution, or deny the dinosaurs, or deny Neanderthals, or try to jam everything into 6000 years. It's interesting to know that I existed before I was born into this body. I hope I was on the right side of the struggle.

One of my favorite subjects is debating ;) Your theories are interesting. However, Historical Evolution is an unproven theory, and I don't deny dinosaurs (and I don't deny Neanderthal fossils, either. I just don't think they were pre-homo-sapien). Historical Evolution could be wrong.

-The Hajman-