Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[RachelBibleStudent]

Hey Tintin…..did you know that you are part Neanderthal…?

Moreover, you like it, Rachel said so!



Hey Angela…..did you know that you are part Neanderthal…?

Moreover, you like it, Rachel said so!

more immature trollish behavior...just step aside and let the adults talk already...


but for anyone who unlike bowman actually -is- following along with the discussion in good faith...

the majority view of young earth creationists is that neanderthals are fully human descendants of noah...no less than any other human alive today... and young earth creationists accept the scientific finding that the majority of people groups on earth have neanderthal genes in their DNA due to ancient interbreeding between neanderthals and europeans and asians... to young earth creationists having a neanderthal contribution in your DNA is no more surprising or offensive than having any other ethnic group in your ancestry...

 

[JackH]

the majority view of young earth creationists is that neanderthals are fully human descendants of noah...no less than any other human alive today... and young earth creationists accept the scientific finding that the majority of people groups on earth have neanderthal genes in their DNA due to ancient interbreeding between neanderthals and europeans and asians... to young earth creationists having a neanderthal contribution in your DNA is no more surprising or offensive than having any other ethnic group in your ancestry...

From the Smithsonian:

Homo neanderthalensis is the first extinct human species to have its DNA decoded. Scientists mapped the Neanderthal genome from fragments of DNA taken from three Neanderthal fossil bones, each from different individuals. The fossils come from Vindija Cave, Croatia, and are around 44,000 years old. We can now compare the Neanderthal DNA with the genome of living humans to try to figure out how the modern human species (Homo sapiens) is genetically unique.

The research shows that many living European and Asian people have a small number of Neanderthal genes—about 1% to 4% of the genome. None have been found so far in a small sample of living Africans. As the earliest populations of Homo sapiens spread from Africa to Asia and Europe around 60,000 years ago, they met and rarely interbred with Neanderthal groups. Homo sapiens populations that stayed in Africa would never have met Neanderthals.

| The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Do you have some scientific evidence that the 44,000 years if off by almost 40,000 years?

Why would you accept the evidence on Neanderthal DNA in modern humans but not the rest of it?

 

[JackH]

well pat robertson also says God tells him who is going to win presidential elections in the united states...and i think he also was the one that said the earthquake in haiti was because the haitian people had made a deal with the devil to practice voodoo or something like that...

so he isn't exactly in a position to challenge anyone's beliefs...

That is exactly my point.

Tintin, based upon his posts in these forums, isn't exactly in a position to call Hugh Ross an absolute moron.

 

[JackH]

um actually it isn't...in fact i didn't know the institute for creation research even had an article mentioning the allentoft study...i found that study by looking up 'dna degradation rate' on google because i knew i would need a empirical data if i was going to do anything other than say 'there is no way DNA can last that long' over and over...

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that you made the stretch that you did without help from ICR, or AIG or CMI, who also have articles on the subject.

Although I am going to have much more to say on this subject of these YEC propaganda machines distorting science specifically on this issue and in general, let me just cut to the chase.

No DNA has been found in dinosaur bones.

 

[Tintin]

more immature trollish behavior...just step aside and let the adults talk already...


but for anyone who unlike bowman actually -is- following along with the discussion in good faith...

the majority view of young earth creationists is that neanderthals are fully human descendants of noah...no less than any other human alive today... and young earth creationists accept the scientific finding that the majority of people groups on earth have neanderthal genes in their DNA due to ancient interbreeding between neanderthals and europeans and asians... to young earth creationists having a neanderthal contribution in your DNA is no more surprising or offensive than having any other ethnic group in your ancestry...

Yes, exactly! Preach it, sister! Good on you mate.

 

[flob]

extinct human species

Isn't that phrase a contradiction in terms?

I hope it isn't the same work as the Eviloutionists do, changing the meaning of words to deceive the simple.

 

[JackH]

Isn't that phrase a contradiction in terms?

You are referring to "extinct human species" in the Smithsonian article.

I don't see where that statement is inaccurate.

Homo neanderthalensis is an extinct species within the genus Homo.

 

[flob]

so 'genus' is the one that is defined by reproduction?
Which one is the one that is our kind, lol,
where only we can reproduce reproducing offspring.
This sounds like Evolution fantasy to me.....where all
life is an actual biologic family

 

[JackH]

so 'genus' is the one that is defined by reproduction?
Which one is the one that is our kind, lol,
where only we can reproduce reproducing offspring.
This sounds like Evolution fantasy to me.....where all
life is an actual biologic family

Some say Neanderthal were fully human.

Some say Neanderthal were not human.

What do you say?

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

you insist that 'bara' is used to refer to the creation of something brand new...

This is the lexical definition.

genesis 5:2 uses 'bara' to refer to the male and female creation of humans...

by the time humans were created male and female are not something brand new...

Gen 5 is a recap of Gen 1.

Only Adam & Eve were created in the image and likeness of God.

The Gen 5 genealogy then lists out the males BEGOTTEN in the image and likeness of fallen Adam.

Study up...

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

actually i haven't referred to answers in genesis all through this entire debate...i didn't even know they -had- an article on the use of 'bara' versus 'asah'...

Your replies follow the YEC information available at their website, to the T...

your insistence that two different terms used in close proximity -must- indicate two entirely different events is absolutely ridiculous...no sane literary critic would ever demand such a thing...-especially- not one versed in hebrew literature...use of different terms and phrasings in synonymous parallelism to express the same meaning is a -key feature- of hebrew style...

Show us ANY Hebrew Lexicon or grammar which supports your assertion.

Good.

Luck.

 

[Bowman]

are you -kidding- me?

is isn't like this hasn't already been stated over and over and over in this thread or anything...

You have yet to even state the prediction....let alone where it 'fails'.

 

[Bowman]

the majority view of young earth creationists is that neanderthals are fully human descendants of noah...no less than any other human alive today... and young earth creationists accept the scientific finding that the majority of people groups on earth have neanderthal genes in their DNA due to ancient interbreeding between neanderthals and europeans and asians... to young earth creationists having a neanderthal contribution in your DNA is no more surprising or offensive than having any other ethnic group in your ancestry...

Then, by extension, you MUST also accept that your relatives are tens of thousands of years old.

Again..imploding your YEC worldview.


Try thinking your 'arguments' through....

 

[flob]

Some say Neanderthal were fully human.
Some say Neanderthal were not human.
What do you say?

I say the Father is the Son is the Spirit,
but NOT in the way of Modalism,
Isa 9:6; 2 Cor 3:17; Jn 20:22.
They are relating Persons, distinct,
but never separate.

Where was I? o yeah---------I was asking, what are Neanderthals?
Just because stuff has DNA doesn't mean it's related. Like all life, virtually,
probably, has dna. Also, I've heard tell that there's major problems with
carbon-dating? is that true? is it that unreliable? It wouldn't surprise me
that 'scientists' credit (other) fictions as fact. So yes, i'm still considering what
Neanderthals are, if anything

 

[JackH]

I was asking, what are Neanderthals? Just because stuff has DNA doesn't mean it's related. Like all life, virtually,
probably, has dna.

So yes, i'm still considering what Neanderthals are, if anything

That's what I asked.

Are Neanderthal fully human, not human, or what, exactly?

YECs say Neanderthal are fully human.

You possibly have Neanderthal DNA.

You should get yourself tested.

If you have Neanderthal DNA, what does that make you?

 

[flob]

I dunno either what 'neaderthals' are supposed to be, or what 'their dna' is spose to be.
It seems a basic, moronic, tenet of Evolution I think I've heard, is that 'because all life has dna, therefore
all life has a common biologic ancestor.' There are no frozen Neanderthals--------those are all real guys.
If you're saying some big bones, or a big jaw bone, = Neanderthals, then I may be kinda dumb, cuz I see people
like that all the time.

I do know that a 'prime tenet' of mine as a GOEC (Gap, old earth, creation), is that Lucifer and all God's angelic hosts, both those who rebelled and those who did not, were not created minutes, or even days, or weeks, before Adam and Eve.
In that that sounds................ridiculous.
I also can see plainly from the Bible that demons are not angels. But that they are 'land-locked' so to speak, land-based,
and that they are disembodied, and were judged by water, and that they're like human beings in some way-----they can speak and know English, or Aramaic, or whatever, maybe because they would inhabit a person. And that they are therefore
the souls or so, of a race, a man-resembling thing, extant before Adam. I mean it's just basic. Obvious.
It's not Evolution, it's not myth, it's not my invention---maybe I wish there were no such things---but there are. Both in the Bible and, of course, the world. As a Christian, I know I've personally encountered one in my life, and I know a brother who cast out several

 

[dcontroversal]

That's what I asked.

Are Neanderthal fully human, not human, or what, exactly?

YECs say Neanderthal are fully human.

You possibly have Neanderthal DNA.

You should get yourself tested.

If you have Neanderthal DNA, what does that make you?

A star in Quest for Fire 2

 

[JackH]

A star in Quest for Fire 2

You might want to get tested for Cro-Magnon DNA.

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

exodus 20:11..."For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

this verse uses the term 'asah' to refer to the making of...
the heavens...
the earth...
the sea...
all that is in them...

however in genesis 1:1 it says the heavens and earth were 'bara' created...the sea creatures which would be included in the 'all that is in them' of exodus 20:11 were also said to be 'bara' created in genesis 1...and as we already know the humans are said to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1:27...

so several things that were reported to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1 are now said to have been 'asah' made in exodus 20:11...proving that the two terms can mean the same thing...

which shows that your artificial distinction you insist on between 'bara' and 'asah' is refuted by scripture's own usage of these two words...


...and to defame your character you would need to have had character to begin with!

Fact is, there are numerous creation verbs utilized within the '6 days' of Gen 1.

Selecting one does not infer that it is synonymous with the others.

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

you keep saying 'and?' as if you have forgotten your own claim that was being systematically refuted...

Posting scripture without explaining it, is not refuting anything at all.

We realize that this is what they do at AIG, but that does not work here...

you insisted that i cannot use genesis 2:4 without making all of the creation days of genesis 1 into a single day...which i -disagree- with...contrary to your knowingly false claims otherwise...

i pointed out that genesis 2:4 uses the phrase 'in the day' which is a hebrew idiom that only conveys general 'around that time' information... i also pointed out that this is different from numbered days which indicate a specific time...

So...

Your reasoning just does NOT seem to fit with the 197 OT instances of the term...like, right here, for example... 1 Sam 20:34...'on the second day of the new moon'.....which is quite specific....not your 'around that time'....

Get a grip...