/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I don't believe their appearances are specifically mentioned in the Bible, likely for good reason as to not have a WE WUZ before it became a thing.

I'd imagine they would look distinctly different from any of the races today, if one could mix all the races of man, and the dead men in the likes of homo naledi, australopithecus, and erectus you'd be in a closer ballpark to what Adam and Eve might have resembled.

>>658047

>australopithecus

Taken it further back than a lot of people I've met. Does that apply to specific forms, or just in general?

>>658090

I say in general, mostly my opinion comes from a small seminar I watched perhaps half a year ago unedited by I believe Dr. Todd Wood on hominids and he had an interesting theory on a clear separation of humanity and ape was due to facial structure and lengths. Australopithecus made the cut in the more "human" group, pretty interesting stuff.

This meaning a difference between man and ape, just not as broad of a line most people would like to acknowledge.

>>658101

>Todd Wood

Yeah, but critters like afarensis and africanus and all of paranthropus didn't make the cut in those. Only one that was considered related was sediba, and even then he's kinda wondering if something went wrong.

Do you strictly adhere to his conclusions, or just base your ideas upon his?

>>658104

You're right, it's a system in infancy and always subject to improvement.

I'm still in the process of self-educating on early history of man and other concepts, so I'd say i'm just basing my ideas on his and what I can get a hold of for myself. When it comes to subjects like the history of Genesis, I've noticed thus far that it's best to sit back and listen to what everyone has to say until you can bring more than enough to the table. Bought "faith reason and earth history 3rd edition" for that reason, pretty good read.

If i'm not mistaken, you're the same anon that makes these genesis threads right?

>>658106

>I'm still in the process of self-educating on early history of man and other concepts

Well that's always good, gotta keep informed in these rather confusing times.

>Bought "faith reason and earth history 3rd edition" for that reason, pretty good read

Interesting, may look into it. Now if I had to recommend something, it'd be Lucy to Language, mainly for giving a more objective look at the fossils themselves and their history. A bit cumbersome due to its size (actually shows life-sized photos of the skulls) and slightly dated (last update was in '06) but well worth it.

>If i'm not mistaken, you're the same anon that makes these genesis threads right?

Nah, haven't really been around much til that Eddy thread popped up.

>>658337

Second Adam is pic related.

The color relates to the color of human skin.

>>657965

WE

>"It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline." - Carl Linnaeus, 1747

<a God-fearing Christian said this nearly a century before Darwin's publication

It's a bit off-topic, but I feel like this is important.

Whoooo was he?