Neanderthal/human interbreeding - the old-earth response

Haha, is "design-affirming" the new p.c. term for "science-denying"?

[This comment refers to the previous comment which was deleted for inappropriate content.]

Better trolls, please. Also, I'd advise against anybody clicking on the link in the troll's post.

Dave C said: Better trolls, please. Also, I'd advise against anybody clicking on the link in the troll's post.

I strongly recommend that Jim Foley edit Big Sonichu Fan's URL to indicate it's NSFW. I'll also make that recommendation via the PT backchannel.

Nothin wrong with hitting some hot Neanderthal skank now and then.

Its very telling that a ID'er who claims "Darwiniacs" are perverted retards would know about the link he posted. I had never seen that until today. Who's polluting who, Big Sonichu Fan?

Call me crazy but shouldn't they first prove that a soul exists before trying to figure out whether or not Neanderthals had them? Seems like a very sloppy methodology to me.

I am disappointed they didn't identify the Neanderthals as the Nephilim.

What I thought was great in the original paper was that they brought up all the diseases that are associated with all the genes that have experienced positive evolution since Homo Sapiens Sapiens split with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis (I am assuming that since they could interbreed, this is the correct naming now, where as if they couldn't, the name would be H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis). Most interesting of them was the disease (I am forgetting the name) that when people suffer from it they gain a barrel chest, recessed forehead and a protuding brow...you know, like a Neanderthal...

RBH said: I strongly recommend that Jim Foley edit Big Sonichu Fan's URL to indicate it's NSFW. I'll also make that recommendation via the PT backchannel.

SWT said: On other sites I frequent, the link would be gone, and the poster would be banned.

Many evangelicals believe that the soul is something added onto a body , rather than seeing humans as a psychosomatic unity which is the view of moderate evangelicals eg Malcolm Jeeves a psychologist and other Christians.

Hence RTB and YEC will say that Neanderthals have no soul .

This trichotomous view of humans ie people are souls with legs on is common to all Creationists whether OE or YE

Not having run the exact kinds of calculations, but don't you get into the realm of the absurd in trying to explain a model where Eurpoeans and Asian have a small number of Neanderthal like sequences, and African humans don't while trying to work around both 10,000 years and the Flood bottle neck? I am having difficulty trying to figure out a sequence of events that will reproduce the data let alone calculate the crazy low probability on the population genetics side.

RBH said: I strongly recommend that Jim Foley edit Big Sonichu Fan's URL to indicate it's NSFW. I'll also make that recommendation via the PT backchannel.

Michael Roberts: YECs don't say Neanderthals have no soul; quite the opposite. Not that there's much evidence for that, of course, but at least it's consistent with their opinion that humans have souls.

JGB: Yes, my point exactly.

Sonichu's comment is gone (and the next comment amended to hopefully make clear what everyone is referring to).

Re the Nephilim: Yes, the RTBers discussed the Nephilim, but decided that they couldn't have been Neanderthals.

It appears that at least some modern humans, or their close ancestors, could mate with neanderthals and have viable offspring. Hardly surprising.

It's easy to think of scenarios that would explain the approximate percentage of neanderthal genetics in the modern human genome.

1) If there were about 2-4% as many neanderthals at the time of contact and there was more or less undiscriminating interbreeding.

2) If the two groups tended to live in roughly different territories, but frontier zones between the groups contained mixed lineage individuals.

Re the Nephilim: Yes, the RTBers discussed the Nephilim, but decided that they couldn’t have been Neanderthals.

Remember, there were TWO Goliaths, according to our YEC trolls, because there are conflicting stories about someone named Goliath--so there had to be two, right? (Now, YECs, were either Neanderthal?) But there COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been two or more Jesi, despite the fact that there are absolutely conflicting stories about someone named Jesus, especially on Easter morning.

In other words, pay no attention to what the Bible actually says. They'll tell you what it means. In fact, you're better off not reading it at all. Most of them never have.

Rana may think it’s depravity, but really, how is a poor caveman meant to tell whether a Neanderthal has a soul, when we can’t detect them even with our fancy machines? Neanderthals made tools, must have worn clothes, hunted cooperatively, buried their dead, and very likely had spoken language.

Jim the Censor said: Michael Roberts: YECs don't say Neanderthals have no soul; quite the opposite. Not that there's much evidence for that, of course, but at least it's consistent with their opinion that humans have souls. JGB: Yes, my point exactly. Sonichu's comment is gone (and the next comment amended to hopefully make clear what everyone is referring to). Re the Nephilim: Yes, the RTBers discussed the Nephilim, but decided that they couldn't have been Neanderthals.

"Here we have yet another case of evolutionists using repression to avoid attention called to the truth about themselves!"

Uh, no. This is a case of evolutionists deleting your post that contained a link to a porn site to avoid calling attention to the sordid truth about you!

Just Bob said: ...COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been two or more Jesi, despite the fact that there are absolutely conflicting stories about someone named Jesus, especially on Easter morning.

Helena Constantine said: You might try for a plural in English: 'Jesuses.'

Joel said: "Here we have yet another case of evolutionists using repression to avoid attention called to the truth about themselves!" Uh, no. This is a case of evolutionists deleting your post that contained a link to a porn site to avoid calling attention to the sordid truth about you!

Helena Constantine said:

Just Bob said: ...COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been two or more Jesi, despite the fact that there are absolutely conflicting stories about someone named Jesus, especially on Easter morning.

Actually, Jesus is indeclinable, so the plural would be Jesus. It may have a plural in Hebrew, but it certainly would not be a Latin second declension plural (*Jesi) as you propose. You might try for a plural in English: 'Jesuses.'

Does the fact that Asians/Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry of 1-4 percent mean that there is a biological or scientific difference between Asians/Europeans and Africans, who do not have any such ancestry?

Kayleen said: Does the fact that Asians/Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry of 1-4 percent mean that there is a biological or scientific difference between Asians/Europeans and Africans, who do not have any such ancestry?

In other

Does the fact that Asians/Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry of 1-4 percent mean that there is a biological or scientific difference between Asians/Europeans and Africans, who do not have any such ancestry?

harold said: Kayleen - Your question is not meaningful.

Does the fact that Asians/Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry of 1-4 percent mean that there is a biological or scientific difference between Asians/Europeans and Africans, who do not have any such ancestry?

There is a "biological difference" between any two individuals of any species. There is a "biological difference" between me right now and the me of ten years ago. Whether or not you choose to treat some people badly is a purely subjective, ethical judgment on your part. Neither the theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory can tell you how you "should" treat people, whether you "should" respect them, or hate them, whether they are from Africa or anywhere else. Understanding the genetics of human beings is of great value. In addition to the pure scientific value, this knowledge is obviously of great value for medicine. There is no possible genetic discovery that will ever justify hatred or mistreatment of fellow human beings.

Whether or not you choose to treat some people badly is a purely subjective, ethical judgment on your part. Neither the theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory can tell you how you “should” treat people, whether you “should” respect them, or hate them, whether they are from Africa or anywhere else.

Big Sonichu Fan said:

Jim the Censor said: Michael Roberts: YECs don't say Neanderthals have no soul; quite the opposite. Not that there's much evidence for that, of course, but at least it's consistent with their opinion that humans have souls. JGB: Yes, my point exactly. Sonichu's comment is gone (and the next comment amended to hopefully make clear what everyone is referring to). Re the Nephilim: Yes, the RTBers discussed the Nephilim, but decided that they couldn't have been Neanderthals.

Here we have yet another case of evolutionists using repression to avoid attention called to the truth about themselves!

harold said: Ntrsvic - I didn't make any statements about the person who posted the question. There is nothing in my reply that hazards any kind of guess as to what that person behaves or thinks like. I simply make some logical comments. This statement is simply true on its own, as is the rest of my comment -

Whether or not you choose to treat some people badly is a purely subjective, ethical judgment on your part. Neither the theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory can tell you how you “should” treat people, whether you “should” respect them, or hate them, whether they are from Africa or anywhere else.

Indeed, my comment would be equally true if I addressed to you. I did it this way on purpose. This way, there is no need to argue about who is or is not a "racist" or whether anyone is "politically correct", functioning as the "racism police", or any other such nonsense. No-one has been "accused" of anything, no-one has been "silenced", and my comment simply stands as a factual comment on its own.

Dale Husband -

I believe that particularly extreme parody troll has been booted.

Intentionally or not, it was actually a decent parody of the kind of tormented raving homophobia, actually driven by self-hatred and barely secret over-the-top decadent indulgences in virtually all the drug and sex habits they claim to condemn, that characterizes many real creationists.

Ntsrvic -

No problems, man, I didn't think you were.

We're on the same side here.

YECs don’t say Neanderthals have no soul; quite the opposite. Not that there’s much evidence for that, of course, but at least it’s consistent with their opinion that humans have souls

I find myself trying to imagine what the deleted linked image was that would have supported creepy creationist arguments, and what I came up with was sufficiently disturbing that I immediately regretted the endeavor.

Lalala, think nice thoughts, lalala!

Oh, there's a lousy quote in the Nature article about the New Mexico group from a scientist that wasn't joining the dots right. "There is a little bit of Neanderthal leftover in almost all humans, he says." ... Well, since the article paraphrases, I'll assume it was the journalist's mistake. Most Africans (not African Americans who are mostly part white) would be left out of the sentiment "almost all humans," which I think is a little rude.

But yes, I am glad to know I'm a lil' Neandertal. It paints a less ugly view of early humanity that our closest cousins weren't utterly extirpated by genocide and exclusion. Much love for the cavemen!

Also, I MUST KNOW MORE about the x woman! How interesting is that idea? Hominid genes from an unknown species concurrent with our ancestors? Awesome! Or even if it's a known species, it's one we have no genes for, like late erectus or whatnot. Equally awesome!

I thought Mitochondrial Eve had to do with the folks from Battlestar Galatica?

This certainly raises interesting theological questions. If a human with a soul breeds with a Neanderthal without one, does the baby get one? Rana may think it’s depravity, but really, how is a poor caveman meant to tell whether a Neanderthal has a soul, when we can’t detect them even with our fancy machines? Neanderthals made tools, must have worn clothes, hunted cooperatively, buried their dead, and very likely had spoken language. It’s hard to see what grounds early humans would have had for shunning them as animals.

One might posit that they would act akin to Simon Browne, the man who claimed to have lost his soul. See http://hpy.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/7/26/257 This would actually be testable if we could clone a Neanderthal and see how similar they acted to humans.

Like many other scientific facts, the idea of H. neanderthalis - H. sapiens interfertility gives me an idea for a SF novel, set, say, fifty thousand years ago. And if you think it would have nothing to do with the current world, I have one word to say to you, just one word: exogamy.

Dave Luckett said: Like many other scientific facts, the idea of H. neanderthalis - H. sapiens interfertility gives me an idea for a SF novel, set, say, fifty thousand years ago. And if you think it would have nothing to do with the current world, I have one word to say to you, just one word: exogamy.

Ntrsvic said:

Dave Luckett said: Like many other scientific facts, the idea of H. neanderthalis - H. sapiens interfertility gives me an idea for a SF novel, set, say, fifty thousand years ago. And if you think it would have nothing to do with the current world, I have one word to say to you, just one word: exogamy.

Read Michael Chriton's "Eaters of the Dead"....its a retelling of Beowulf from an Arabian's POV where the tribe of Grendyll is inferred to be the last of the Neanderthals.....Its a awesome book.

Like many other scientific facts, the idea of H. neanderthalis - H. sapiens interfertility gives me an idea for a SF novel, set, say, fifty thousand years ago. And if you think it would have nothing to do with the current world, I have one word to say to you, just one word: exogamy.

Yes, I know about the Crichton and Jean Auel. I don't mean either one. This would be a love story and a tragedy. At the moment, I'm explaining the fact that King Arthur had knights, ie armoured cavalry, but I'll get to it. Maybe.

The cretins in The 13th Warrior were supposed to be neanderthals? So rude! OK, I understand some neanderthal remains were found with evidence for a cannibalism, but there's been a lot of sites with none of that.

Also, I suspect hominids learned from each other, so that any extant hominid species that wasn't clever enough to invent something might steal the idea from a neighbor. Which is to say, I don't think a relict Neanderthal population would be degenerates. They'd be using metal, eating reasonable diets, not worshipping a paleolithic venus, and probably passing off as a weird-looking tribe of humans.

Don't talk smack about your uncle Neanderthal, is what I'm saying. Sorry Crichton didn't live to see these studies.

Oh, and a movie with neanderthal/human interbreeding:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082484/

Bonus: Naked Rae Dawn Chong!

Ntrsvic said: What I thought was great in the original paper was that they brought up all the diseases that are associated with all the genes that have experienced positive evolution since Homo Sapiens Sapiens split with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis (I am assuming that since they could interbreed, this is the correct naming now, where as if they couldn't, the name would be H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis). Most interesting of them was the disease (I am forgetting the name) that when people suffer from it they gain a barrel chest, recessed forehead and a protuding brow...you know, like a Neanderthal...

John Kwok said: No, just because some Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens could interbreed successfully doesn't mean that it is incorrect to refer to both as distinct species of Homo, especially when the ancestors of both diverged from each other hundreds of thousands of years earlier, probably sometime in the early Pleistocene, if not before:

Ntrsvic said: What I thought was great in the original paper was that they brought up all the diseases that are associated with all the genes that have experienced positive evolution since Homo Sapiens Sapiens split with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis (I am assuming that since they could interbreed, this is the correct naming now, where as if they couldn't, the name would be H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis). Most interesting of them was the disease (I am forgetting the name) that when people suffer from it they gain a barrel chest, recessed forehead and a protuding brow...you know, like a Neanderthal...

I get your point.

Apparently African lions and the Asian tiger can interbreed with viable offspring (tigon? liger?) yet one would hardly call them the same species.

I suppose if I were a creationist I would conclude that they must have come from the same "created kind" that was on the ark.

Dave Luckett said: Yes, I know about the Crichton and Jean Auel. I don't mean either one.

Stanton said: That, and, simply because some people develop deformities due to genetic defects or environmental causes that cause them to vaguely, vaguely resemble Neanderthal does not mean that those people are developing Neanderthal traits.

So the fact that some mutations can cause reversion to the ancestral condition is taken by creationists as somehow disproving evolution. Neanderthals are distinct from modern humans genetically, morphologically and culturally. Whether they are defined as a separate species or not, they are obviously related to modern humans, so evolution must be true. Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

John Kwok said: No, just because some Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens could interbreed successfully doesn't mean that it is incorrect to refer to both as distinct species of Homo, especially when the ancestors of both diverged from each other hundreds of thousands of years earlier, probably sometime in the early Pleistocene, if not before:

Ntrsvic said: What I thought was great in the original paper was that they brought up all the diseases that are associated with all the genes that have experienced positive evolution since Homo Sapiens Sapiens split with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis (I am assuming that since they could interbreed, this is the correct naming now, where as if they couldn't, the name would be H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis). Most interesting of them was the disease (I am forgetting the name) that when people suffer from it they gain a barrel chest, recessed forehead and a protuding brow...you know, like a Neanderthal...

Slightly off topic but does anybody know how many Old Earth Creationists there are? I've always thought that once you have caved in and gave up believing in a young earth it would be a slippery slope down to reality. Also I would imagine that there would be a huge divergence of views on whether life got created in one go, or whether life appeared as per the fossil record.

To be an Old Earth Creationist, you have to admit some of the evidence, which means that you'd have to have some notion of what evidence is. There can't be that many who can manage so delicate a balancing act. Far easier to simply wall all of it out, or operate on an even more basic level, by not knowing or caring what the evidence for evolution consists of, specifically, or what evidence is, in general.

So no, I don't know. I can find no data that bears directly on the question of what proportion of creationists accept an ancient earth. That's probably a different proportion from those who accept ancient life, which is in turn a different proportion from those who accept that life appeared in the order given by the fossil record. And so on.

Going on the small number of creationists I have seen here and elsewhere - and I caution that the sample is NOT significant - but I would guess that the vast majority are YEC, defined as believing that life was created by direct fiat of God, in its various "kinds", which remain essentially unchanged, on the order of ten thousand years ago.

The real sticking point seems to me to be universal common descent.

Michael J said: does anybody know how many Old Earth Creationists there are?

This is an interesting discussion, as a layman I am unqualified to make any arguments regarding the similarities of DNA between these two species. I can however, make qualified comments as to what the scriptures say about such matters. The Bible is clear that Angels bred with the daughters of men and the result was a hybrid which was called “Nephilim” Gen. 6:4. Further if one researches the root meaning of “Nephilim” in Hebrew, we understand the word to describe Fellers, as in Fellers of men, which was why the Earth became filled with violence and was corrupt Gen 6:12. It should not be surprising then, that we find evidence of the offspring of this joining and that there are similarities in the genetic code. As these offspring were not son’s of Adam, but rather the result of Angels "forsaking" their proper station in the cosmos, and choosing to cohabitate with a lower life form (Humans were created “a little lower” than angels) they would therefore be humanoid, but not human. As this was not part of God’s purpose regarding human creation, they would not be beneficiaries of the Ransom Sacrifice as provided by the Son of God, only the offspring of Adam are. The argument of whether or not they have souls then becomes irrelevant.

Dave Luckett said: To be an Old Earth Creationist, you have to admit some of the evidence, which means that you'd have to have some notion of what evidence is. There can't be that many who can manage so delicate a balancing act. Far easier to simply wall all of it out, or operate on an even more basic level, by not knowing or caring what the evidence for evolution consists of, specifically, or what evidence is, in general. So no, I don't know. I can find no data that bears directly on the question of what proportion of creationists accept an ancient earth. That's probably a different proportion from those who accept ancient life, which is in turn a different proportion from those who accept that life appeared in the order given by the fossil record. And so on. Going on the small number of creationists I have seen here and elsewhere - and I caution that the sample is NOT significant - one that but I would guess that the vast majority are YEC, defined as believing that life was created by direct fiat of God, in its various "kinds", which remain essentially unchanged, on the order of ten thousand years ago. Greetings Dave; As one who believe in Creation rather than Creationism and understands the earth to be in the billions (4.5 Billion) of years old, I can assure I spend a great deal of time educating myself on the facts of Bio-chemistry, Biology and understanding of cosmos. How numerous those might be that think the same as me is simply not relevant (at least to me, it is not relevant), as I do not feel compelled to belong to anyone’s club. Both Intelligent Design Institute and Reason to Believe group have many profound insights on matters relating to why the religion of Evolution is simply untenable from a scientific point of view, although I am not a member of either group. It is a matter of record that Christians do not always see eye to eye on matters, it is well known for example that the first century congregation had a decade’s long dispute regarding the matter of circumcision, which issue was resolved only when the generation who worried over the matter died out. We humans are not ordained as judges, though many Christians judge those not belong to their club in sometimes harsh terms, for my part I am content to leave the judging to Almighty God and do the best I can to make know to others what a Benevolent Creator the God of the Bible really is. </blockquote

SEF said: It depends on what you're including in that. All religious people who believe their god(s) had something to do with starting the world/universe are de facto creationists, whether they accept the term or not.

It's merely the who, when and how of the thing on which they differ.

Only atheists (and it's probably simpler to include agnostics here) and those (such as some buddhists) who consign gods to lesser roles are not creationists.

So the old earth creationists are all those who believe in powerful gods but who don't insist on a 6,000 to 10,000 year timescale (eg as "calculated" by Ussher). That would be most religious people, from all over the world, other than certain biblical literalists. So a huge number. Many of them would find their own way of reconciling the reality of neanderthals into their ancient myth systems. However, you might be intending to exclude the theistic evolutionists (the modern religionists who accept science but can't quite give up superstition altogether) because you were being human-centric and didn't really mean the "creation" part as such. You might also only be caring about the Abrahamic religions, or even just the Christian subset, who adhere to one particular myth but will allow it to have taken place over billions of years. In which case you should be asking something more like: how many day-age Christian creationists are there?

Mark In Durango implied that he thinks the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were Neanderthals, not a Hebrew myth, and then babbled nonsense. He also tells us that he knows what God's purposes were with human evolution. Uh-huh.

He believes in an old Earth. He also believes that the Theory of Evolution is religion, and not tenable from the "scientific" point of view.

So he's slightly more selective in his delusions than Ken Ham, but not a lot. Feh.

Mark In Durango said: This is an interesting discussion, as a layman I am unqualified to make any arguments regarding the similarities of DNA between these two species. I can however, make qualified comments as to what the scriptures say about such matters. The Bible is clear that Angels bred with the daughters of men and the result was a hybrid which was called “Nephilim” Gen. 6:4. Further if one researches the root meaning of “Nephilim” in Hebrew, we understand the word to describe Fellers, as in Fellers of men, which was why the Earth became filled with violence and was corrupt Gen 6:12. It should not be surprising then, that we find evidence of the offspring of this joining and that there are similarities in the genetic code. As these offspring were not son’s of Adam, but rather the result of Angels "forsaking" their proper station in the cosmos, and choosing to cohabitate with a lower life form (Humans were created “a little lower” than angels) they would therefore be humanoid, but not human. As this was not part of God’s purpose regarding human creation, they would not be beneficiaries of the Ransom Sacrifice as provided by the Son of God, only the offspring of Adam are. The argument of whether or not they have souls then becomes irrelevant.

Malchus said: Actually, Nephilim is more appropriately translated as "giants" and are considered to be creatures of great size and strength.

Mark In Durango said: This is an interesting discussion, as a layman I am unqualified to make any arguments regarding the similarities of DNA between these two species. I can however, make qualified comments as to what the scriptures say about such matters. The Bible is clear that Angels bred with the daughters of men and the result was a hybrid which was called “Nephilim” Gen. 6:4. Further if one researches the root meaning of “Nephilim” in Hebrew, we understand the word to describe Fellers, as in Fellers of men, which was why the Earth became filled with violence and was corrupt Gen 6:12. It should not be surprising then, that we find evidence of the offspring of this joining and that there are similarities in the genetic code. As these offspring were not son’s of Adam, but rather the result of Angels "forsaking" their proper station in the cosmos, and choosing to cohabitate with a lower life form (Humans were created “a little lower” than angels) they would therefore be humanoid, but not human. As this was not part of God’s purpose regarding human creation, they would not be beneficiaries of the Ransom Sacrifice as provided by the Son of God, only the offspring of Adam are. The argument of whether or not they have souls then becomes irrelevant.

Funny, henry, I thought the bloke you think was God told us that we are all sons and daughters of God. I seem to remember him telling us to address God as "our father", anyway.

Dave Luckett said: ... I believe the proportion of old-Earth creationists to young-Earth creationists is very small. ...

Do you always use a flamethrower on anyone who differs from you, however politely? Or are you just like this about religion?

Neither - and you misrepresent your post as being polite when, in reality, it was a fake version of that.

My responses are generally quite carefully pitched in proportion to the level of stupidity, ignorance, dishonesty or general scumminess of the person disagreeing (/posting). Someone who was genuinely civil and had a genuine point to make would have received a very different type of reply (eg recent posts about music and the post to Michael J that you leapt on) than someone who is setting out to be disagreeable (eg not reading and thinking properly before replying but instead deliberately misconstruing everything as far as possible) and refusing to recognise a previous gentle correction on the necessity of precisely specifying the intended question.

However, you might be intending to exclude the theistic evolutionists (the modern religionists who accept science but can’t quite give up superstition altogether) because you were being human-centric and didn’t really mean the “creation” part as such.

Dave Luckett said: Even you implied that there is a distinction to be made ...

SEF said: There you go being dishonest again - to follow on from what may merely have been mostly just very poor reading comprehension on your part initially.

Dave Luckett said: Even you implied that there is a distinction to be made ...

Misrepresentatively wrong. *I* was the one pointing out that the distinctions were important. I wasn't grudgingly conceding them at all but instead highlighting the very important thing which was apparently being missed.

Could you manage to stop being so insultingly idiotic all the time?

Going back to your post which was incompetently leaping on my reply to Michael J, and explaining more slowly for the hard of thinking:

Why exactly am I suppose to put up with your moronic stream of consciousness as you contrive to misconstrue my post piece by piece? When your brain finally starts to do a bit of catching up and gets an inkling of what I'm talking about (which looks to be happening a few blockquotes and insults down into your post), it credits that insight to itself instead of to me.

What you should have done was read the whole reply I'd posted and then make your genuinely best effort to comprehend the intent (as I do and any other genuinely polite rather than fakely polite person does), rather than to deliberately put the worst spin on each part of the cumulative argument that you could while your brain was still stuck in neutral.

If you really and truly can't think without typing out loud (perhaps your lips also move while you read), then you should have gone back and deleted your transparently disagreeable notes once you had realised that my point was both correct and extremely important. You could still have posted the tiny little bit about how you personally only care about some other specific subset of creationists (and what you'd like the rest of the world to call that, even if they don't do so).

When you stop behaving like scum, I'll stop treating you like scum.

I'll leave this to be judged by others, and give myself the pleasure of wishing you a very good day.

Dave Luckett said: Mark In Durango implied that he thinks the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were Neanderthals, not a Hebrew myth, and then babbled nonsense. He also tells us that he knows what God's purposes were with human evolution. Uh-huh. He believes in an old Earth. He also believes that the Theory of Evolution is religion, and not tenable from the "scientific" point of view. So he's slightly more selective in his delusions than Ken Ham, but not a lot. Feh.

What a charming position. Under fire from both sides at once.

Mark in Durango, you said that the theory of evolution was a religion. It is no such thing, because it has neither dogma nor ritual, metaphysical beliefs nor trancendental ones, says nothing of God or gods, teaches no rules of conduct and makes no appeal to authority, divine or otherwise. Like all science, it considers only material, physical evidence, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the divine, the ineffable, or the supernatural. To call it a religion in the face of these facts is grossly delusional.

You also said that the theory of evolution is not scientifically tenable. This also is delusional, demonstrated as such by the fact that about 99.8% of actual scientists not only think it tenable, but hold it to be demonstrated fact. Not only is it scientifically tenable, it is as well-proven an explanation for the diversity of life on earth as it's possible to have. Against it there is not one single piece of solid contrary evidence. Nothing. For it there are mountains. To say otherwise is simply to ignore reality.

You also said that you know why God created human beings. You don't, and to say you do is delusional. Not to mention hubristic to a nauseating degree.

One delusion can be misspeaking, two can be mistaken. Three times is delusional.

You're delusional.

Why is someone who disagrees with you on a religious matter a "Lib"? If you in fact accept an old Earth, doesn't that make you a "Lib" from the point of view of most creationists? As you used it there, what exactly does "Lib" mean, anyway?

Dave Luckett said: You also said that the theory of evolution is not scientifically tenable. This also is delusional, demonstrated as such by the fact that about 99.8% of actual scientists not only think it tenable, but hold it to be demonstrated fact.

henry said:

Mark In Durango said: This is an interesting discussion, as a layman I am unqualified to make any arguments regarding the similarities of DNA between these two species. I can however, make qualified comments as to what the scriptures say about such matters. The Bible is clear that Angels bred with the daughters of men and the result was a hybrid which was called “Nephilim” Gen. 6:4. Further if one researches the root meaning of “Nephilim” in Hebrew, we understand the word to describe Fellers, as in Fellers of men, which was why the Earth became filled with violence and was corrupt Gen 6:12. It should not be surprising then, that we find evidence of the offspring of this joining and that there are similarities in the genetic code. As these offspring were not son’s of Adam, but rather the result of Angels "forsaking" their proper station in the cosmos, and choosing to cohabitate with a lower life form (Humans were created “a little lower” than angels) they would therefore be humanoid, but not human. As this was not part of God’s purpose regarding human creation, they would not be beneficiaries of the Ransom Sacrifice as provided by the Son of God, only the offspring of Adam are. The argument of whether or not they have souls then becomes irrelevant.

Genesis 6:2, 4 state that the sons of God produced children with the daughters of men. It doesn't say that angels were involved. They couldn't be--only humans can have human offspring. Maybe, the sons of God should have married the daughters of God and the sons of men should have married the daughters of men.

Mark In Durango said: This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero. (my words, not his).

And we have now conclusively proven that there in fact is no life on Earth!

Just Bob said: And we have now conclusively proven that there in fact is no life on Earth!

Mark In Durango said:

henry said:

Mark In Durango said: This is an interesting discussion, as a layman I am unqualified to make any arguments regarding the similarities of DNA between these two species. I can however, make qualified comments as to what the scriptures say about such matters. The Bible is clear that Angels bred with the daughters of men and the result was a hybrid which was called “Nephilim” Gen. 6:4. Further if one researches the root meaning of “Nephilim” in Hebrew, we understand the word to describe Fellers, as in Fellers of men, which was why the Earth became filled with violence and was corrupt Gen 6:12. It should not be surprising then, that we find evidence of the offspring of this joining and that there are similarities in the genetic code. As these offspring were not son’s of Adam, but rather the result of Angels "forsaking" their proper station in the cosmos, and choosing to cohabitate with a lower life form (Humans were created “a little lower” than angels) they would therefore be humanoid, but not human. As this was not part of God’s purpose regarding human creation, they would not be beneficiaries of the Ransom Sacrifice as provided by the Son of God, only the offspring of Adam are. The argument of whether or not they have souls then becomes irrelevant.

Genesis 6:2, 4 state that the sons of God produced children with the daughters of men. It doesn't say that angels were involved. They couldn't be--only humans can have human offspring. Maybe, the sons of God should have married the daughters of God and the sons of men should have married the daughters of men.

Greetings Henry; I understand your point, however it is clear two different groups are being discussed in the context of Genesis 6:1-2, three actually if you count “the Daughters of men”. The first the scripture that “men began to multiply”, second that “the son’s of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them”. Hence the Nepilim are the offspring of this union. Further Jude 6 and 1 Peter 3:20 both refer to this reference as a historical occurrence. The point in my earlier comment is that it is not surprising that we find evidence of the offspring of this union as fossils and that there may be some similarities of genetic code. Of course the Bible in the Genesis account would not refer to these as Neanderthal, as that codification was millenniums in the future, those that would make such a comment are just silly. Given the sheer volume of recent works by Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and Fazale Rana to name only few, one wonders at the blind faith by adherents of evolutionary dogma display. They remind me of the Japanese soldiers on isolated islands who continued to fight because they never got the word the war was over, all that remains for these worshipers is bluff and arrogance as exhibited by responses to my comments. Below is a sample of a review I did on “Signature in the Cell”; This work begins with the concept of what is the best explanation possible for the origin of life based on “historical scientific reasoning”. To answer this question Meyers reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA. Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem, I will not bore you with the details of the competing theories. Meyer goes on to give a very detailed (and extremely interesting) probability analysis regarding the possibility for even one functioning protein to come into existence simply by chance at 10164, to put that number in some kind of perspective, there are only 1065 atoms in the known universe. Meyer further explains how at least two hundred different kinds of proteins are necessary for the simplest cell to exist, which would then put the probability of one cell existing by chance at 1041,000, this is an order of magnitude more than the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. He then quotes recent work by James Brooks and Gordon Shaw regarding geological and geochemical evidence for the prebiotic atmospheric conditions being friendly or not, for the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Their work is conclusive, there is no evidence in metamorphosed Precambrian sedimentary rocks that such conditions as envisioned by evolutionist ever existed. This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero. (my words, not his). Thanks for your time, I hope the above clarifies matters.

Another reason I was thinking about OECs is that Dembski is getting some flack from YECs about his latest book where he tries to reconcile the scriptures against an old universe

Mark In Durango said:

Dave Luckett said: Mark In Durango implied that he thinks the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were Neanderthals, not a Hebrew myth, and then babbled nonsense. He also tells us that he knows what God's purposes were with human evolution. Uh-huh. He believes in an old Earth. He also believes that the Theory of Evolution is religion, and not tenable from the "scientific" point of view. So he's slightly more selective in his delusions than Ken Ham, but not a lot. Feh.

Typical, Libs offer no substance to refute an argument, just derogation and ad-homonym attack, if that is all you have, I think your Mommy and Daddy need to get a refund from whatever school they sent you to.

Mark In Durango said: Given the sheer volume of recent works by Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and Fazale Rana to name only few, one wonders at the blind faith by adherents of evolutionary dogma display.

Michael J said: These guys write a book every year or so, most of it repetitive.

Mark In Durango said: Given the sheer volume of recent works by Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and Fazale Rana to name only few, one wonders at the blind faith by adherents of evolutionary dogma display.

They remind me of the Japanese soldiers on isolated islands who continued to fight because they never got the word the war was over, all that remains for these worshipers is bluff and arrogance as exhibited by responses to my comments.

Below is a sample of a review I did on “Signature in the Cell”; This work begins with the concept of what is the best explanation possible for the origin of life based on “historical scientific reasoning”. To answer this question Meyers reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA. Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem, I will not bore you with the details of the competing theories.

Meyer goes on to give a very detailed (and extremely interesting) probability analysis regarding the possibility for even one functioning protein to come into existence simply by chance at 10164, to put that number in some kind of perspective, there are only 1065 atoms in the known universe.

Meyer further explains how at least two hundred different kinds of proteins are necessary for the simplest cell to exist, which would then put the probability of one cell existing by chance at 1041,000, this is an order of magnitude more than the probabilistic resources of the entire universe.

He then quotes recent work by James Brooks and Gordon Shaw regarding geological and geochemical evidence for the prebiotic atmospheric conditions being friendly or not, for the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Their work is conclusive, there is no evidence in metamorphosed Precambrian sedimentary rocks that such conditions as envisioned by evolutionist ever existed.

This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero. (my words, not his). Thanks for your time, I hope the above clarifies matters.

Ha ha ha:

Ad homonym attack: "You sound like an idiot."

Michael J said:

Mark In Durango said: Given the sheer volume of recent works by Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and Fazale Rana to name only few, one wonders at the blind faith by adherents of evolutionary dogma display.

These guys write a book every year or so, most of it repetitive. If this is a large volume what would he call the thousands of papers created annually that depend on evolution? Not only that every piece of their work is soundly taken apart chapter-by-chapter by real scientists. Creationists have yet to finished their detailed dissection of Charles Darwin's 150 year old work. I find it strange though the question of God is such an important question that people like Mark aren't really interested in looking at the otherside rather than just relying on people like Meyer to misrepresent it to him.

Mark In Durango said: Sorry Michael, this theory has been forced down our collective throats for decades, so yeah I seen the other side up close. Which (so called) misrepresentations are you referring to??? You Libs really how nothing new in your play book do you?

Mark In Durango said:

Michael J said:

Mark In Durango said: Given the sheer volume of recent works by Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and Fazale Rana to name only few, one wonders at the blind faith by adherents of evolutionary dogma display.

These guys write a book every year or so, most of it repetitive. If this is a large volume what would he call the thousands of papers created annually that depend on evolution? Not only that every piece of their work is soundly taken apart chapter-by-chapter by real scientists. Creationists have yet to finished their detailed dissection of Charles Darwin's 150 year old work. I find it strange though the question of God is such an important question that people like Mark aren't really interested in looking at the otherside rather than just relying on people like Meyer to misrepresent it to him.

Sorry Michael, this theory has been forced down our collective throats for decades, so yeah I seen the other side up close. Which (so called) misrepresentations are you referring to??? You Libs really how nothing new in your play book do you?

Creationists and other evolution-deniers constantly whine about having evolution "forced down (their) throats," yet, when they open their mouths about evolution, they demonstrate they know absolutely nothing, nada, zilch about evolution or science beyond the lies and deliberate misinformation that infest creationist propaganda.

Mark In Durango said: Given the sheer volume of recent works by Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and Fazale Rana to name only few, one wonders at the blind faith by adherents of evolutionary dogma display.

Dave Luckett said: The scientific community produces research and papers that report the results of that research after they have been subjected to peer-review. Rather than half a dozen new books recycling long-exploded myths, the scientific literature, packed with new facts, amounts to tens of thousands of pages at least every year, every one of those facts consistent with evolution.

If abiogenesis or the development of a specific protein is considered to have a probability of 'exactly' zero, then what are the chances of a being existing, forever and eternal, with omnipotent powers and an omniscient vision that just happened to create the entire universe, in only 6 days, for no discernable purpose whatsoever other than to condem billions of sentient people to eternal damnation?

I'd say, given the first examples have evidence and theories to support them, and the latter relies on pure Faith, it's better to put your trust in the former.

It struck me as strange that any religiously inspired person neglects to consider that if God created the world and gave us free will, but the consequence of using that free will to do something he doesn't like is punishment forever, then in creating that world, he instantly condemned all those people he knew wouldn't do as they're told. Strange. He might as well of created 50 billion people, thrown most into hell, kept a few as his pets and not bothered with the whole 'Earth' thing.

At least with a view of the universe as being random and unintelligent all the deaths and 'suffering' over the millenia have some purpose and, in some small way, they contributed to genetic progress.

fnxtr said: Ha ha ha: Ad homonym attack: "You sound like an idiot."

Did anyone else note that he used Rana as one of his authorities after Jim thoroughly discredited him in his post? It just goes to show that many creationists don't even bother to read the topic before they comment on it.

Hello, RE: SF stories, The color of neanderthal eyes by Tiptree is also pretty good. Here's a review.

The gist:
Neanderthal=Good.
Homo sapiens= Bad.

Mark In Durango said:

henry said:

Mark In Durango said: This is an interesting discussion, as a layman I am unqualified to make any arguments regarding the similarities of DNA between these two species. I can however, make qualified comments as to what the scriptures say about such matters. The Bible is clear that Angels bred with the daughters of men and the result was a hybrid which was called “Nephilim” Gen. 6:4. Further if one researches the root meaning of “Nephilim” in Hebrew, we understand the word to describe Fellers, as in Fellers of men, which was why the Earth became filled with violence and was corrupt Gen 6:12. It should not be surprising then, that we find evidence of the offspring of this joining and that there are similarities in the genetic code. As these offspring were not son’s of Adam, but rather the result of Angels "forsaking" their proper station in the cosmos, and choosing to cohabitate with a lower life form (Humans were created “a little lower” than angels) they would therefore be humanoid, but not human. As this was not part of God’s purpose regarding human creation, they would not be beneficiaries of the Ransom Sacrifice as provided by the Son of God, only the offspring of Adam are. The argument of whether or not they have souls then becomes irrelevant.

Genesis 6:2, 4 state that the sons of God produced children with the daughters of men. It doesn't say that angels were involved. They couldn't be--only humans can have human offspring. Maybe, the sons of God should have married the daughters of God and the sons of men should have married the daughters of men.

Greetings Henry; I understand your point, however it is clear two different groups are being discussed in the context of Genesis 6:1-2, three actually if you count “the Daughters of men”. The first the scripture that “men began to multiply”, second that “the son’s of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them”. Hence the Nepilim are the offspring of this union. Further Jude 6 and 1 Peter 3:20 both refer to this reference as a historical occurrence. The point in my earlier comment is that it is not surprising that we find evidence of the offspring of this union as fossils and that there may be some similarities of genetic code. Of course the Bible in the Genesis account would not refer to these as Neanderthal, as that codification was millenniums in the future, those that would make such a comment are just silly. Given the sheer volume of recent works by Stephen Myer, Michael Behe, and Fazale Rana to name only few, one wonders at the blind faith by adherents of evolutionary dogma display. They remind me of the Japanese soldiers on isolated islands who continued to fight because they never got the word the war was over, all that remains for these worshipers is bluff and arrogance as exhibited by responses to my comments. Below is a sample of a review I did on “Signature in the Cell”; This work begins with the concept of what is the best explanation possible for the origin of life based on “historical scientific reasoning”. To answer this question Meyers reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA. Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem, I will not bore you with the details of the competing theories. Meyer goes on to give a very detailed (and extremely interesting) probability analysis regarding the possibility for even one functioning protein to come into existence simply by chance at 10164, to put that number in some kind of perspective, there are only 1065 atoms in the known universe. Meyer further explains how at least two hundred different kinds of proteins are necessary for the simplest cell to exist, which would then put the probability of one cell existing by chance at 1041,000, this is an order of magnitude more than the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. He then quotes recent work by James Brooks and Gordon Shaw regarding geological and geochemical evidence for the prebiotic atmospheric conditions being friendly or not, for the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Their work is conclusive, there is no evidence in metamorphosed Precambrian sedimentary rocks that such conditions as envisioned by evolutionist ever existed. This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero. (my words, not his). Thanks for your time, I hope the above clarifies matters.

henry said: Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

henry said: Angels apparently are sexless so how could fallen angels mate with men and produce children?

I must admit I never thought I'd see PT become the vehicle for two creationists to air their differences about the meaning of scripture. But by all means, gentlemen. We're tolerant here. Well, mostly.

So, how many angels is it again that can dance on the head of a pin? And does it take two to tango?

fnxtr | June 16, 2010 6:00 PM | Ha ha ha: Ad homonym attack: “You sound like an idiot.” Dave Luckett | June 17, 2010 8:25 PM | I must admit I never thought I’d see PT become the vehicle for two creationists to air their differences about the meaning of scripture. But by all means, gentlemen. We’re tolerant here. Well, mostly. So, how many angels is it again that can dance on the head of a pin? And does it take two to tango?

Oh yeah... Neanderthals was the topic. I bet everyone on this thread is part neanderthal. Any pure Africans talking? That being the case, respect your elders!