(07-30-2024 10:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  There are still Neanderthals. I saw one today.

There are large numbers of them in the democrat party.

(07-31-2024 07:35 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Trolling? You are a kook. Shaky. lol

Neanderthals could have been mistaken for 900 year old humans? Really? That's what you had to offer? Seek help.

And here I thought of you as an open minded individual above denigrating someone for their religious beliefs. You're no better than Muslim radicals in that regard. At least you aren't advocating killing him over it, that's a plus in your favor I guess.

(07-31-2024 07:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:16 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 06:49 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-30-2024 09:33 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  There are people today with heads shaped like neanderthals. That 7 foot Russian boxer is just one obvious example.

The Bible also tells us man used to live to be over 900 years old, and a 900 year old mans bones would look very much like a neanderthal. The forehead and certain other bones would continue to grow and change and they would grow more and more hair on the back and nearly resemble a hunched over animal at the end.

There is so much guesstimation stacked on guesstimation stacked on guesstimation in this branch of science that its hard to take any of it serious.

Hard to take serious?

We may have one of those the earth is only 6000 years old nutters on our hands.

I get that your just trying to be a trolling prick but lets be honest about the topic.

You don't have to believe in the Bible at all to know how shaky the science is on stuff like this.

Its unproven hypothesis stacked on unproven hypothesis stacked unproven hypothesis, and they get enough scientists to agree with that stack of assumptions and suddenly its presented as settled science.

Its a stack of hypothetical models they have all agreed to accept as scientific fact for the moment. Much like "climate science".

Its extremely shaky and if were being honest we should be able to admit that.

Definitely a lot of hypothesis, but pretty solid for this sort of thing now that DNA analysis is so advanced. Its a lot more solid than the climate models.

No one is suggesting that there is not neanderthal DNA in our genes. There are a lot of different variations of DNA in our genes. But placing exact time frames and the exact genesis of it is still a very shaky science based on a lot of guesstimations and hypothetical models that frequently change.

(07-31-2024 07:49 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:45 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:16 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 06:49 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Hard to take serious?

We may have one of those the earth is only 6000 years old nutters on our hands.

I get that your just trying to be a trolling prick but lets be honest about the topic.

You don't have to believe in the Bible at all to know how shaky the science is on stuff like this.

Its unproven hypothesis stacked on unproven hypothesis stacked unproven hypothesis, and they get enough scientists to agree with that stack of assumptions and suddenly its presented as settled science.

Its a stack of hypothetical models they have all agreed to accept as scientific fact for the moment. Much like "climate science".

Its extremely shaky and if were being honest we should be able to admit that.

The study of human evolution is very shaky and basically pseudoscience in your eyes. Yet the quote below is iron clad and not to be questioned???

Quote:The Bible also tells us man used to live to be over 900 years old, and a 900 year old mans bones would look very much like a neanderthal. The forehead and certain other bones would continue to grow and change and they would grow more and more hair on the back and nearly resemble a hunched over animal at the end.

Point out the post where I said its "Ironclad" and "not to be questioned".

I obviously said no such thing.

True, you didn't say the statement was iron clad. But you imply it is. Your argumentation is basically Clintonesque. You are intentionally vague on some subject matters - like this - to intentionally give yourself wiggle room to weasel your way out of a speculative at best opinion to avoid the labels "wrong" and "incorect".

More BS from someone I wouldn't expect it from. Eric simply related what the Bible actually says on the subject, he never stated that he prescribed to it. And even if he does why the almost visceral reaction from you guys? Do you hear him trying to humiliate you for something you believe in?

Some of you guys here are starting to act like democrats. It's puzzling.

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...? Thank your cave man ancestors, not 900 year old humans. Lulz

Those genes apparently gave us some advantages against diseases in those times, otherwise we wouldn't have so much of it. Also contributes to red hair and our keratin in hair, skin and nails.

(07-31-2024 08:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...? Thank your cave man ancestors, not 900 year old humans. Lulz

Those genes apparently gave us some advantages against diseases in those times, otherwise we wouldn't have so much of it. Also contributes to red hair and our keratin in hair, skin and nails.

Link? I have Viking finger.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that ‘hybridisation’ between different human groups may have been crucial as our ancestors moved into new and challenging environments. Through hybridisation we were able to gain some rapid genetic benefits from human lineages that had been occupying these regions for millennia before. These benefits, along with other behavioural and technological adaptations that we see in the archaeological record, helped Homo sapiens to become a highly successful ‘invasive species’, moving into all parts of the planet and adapting to life there."

https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/nea...ing-or-two

This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

(07-31-2024 08:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...? Thank your cave man ancestors, not 900 year old humans. Lulz

Those genes apparently gave us some advantages against diseases in those times, otherwise we wouldn't have so much of it. Also contributes to red hair and our keratin in hair, skin and nails.

Red hair? Jeepers, no wonder my ex was from kookolandia. She had natural red hair and some of the other "traits". Pobrecita.

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

Oh, you mean the "Big Bang 'THEORY'?

The Bible doesn't talk about creation as a Theory.

(07-31-2024 08:23 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...? Thank your cave man ancestors, not 900 year old humans. Lulz

Those genes apparently gave us some advantages against diseases in those times, otherwise we wouldn't have so much of it. Also contributes to red hair and our keratin in hair, skin and nails.

Link? I have Viking finger.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that ‘hybridisation’ between different human groups may have been crucial as our ancestors moved into new and challenging environments. Through hybridisation we were able to gain some rapid genetic benefits from human lineages that had been occupying these regions for millennia before. These benefits, along with other behavioural and technological adaptations that we see in the archaeological record, helped Homo sapiens to become a highly successful ‘invasive species’, moving into all parts of the planet and adapting to life there."

https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/nea...ing-or-two

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/40/...ogin=false

(07-31-2024 07:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:35 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Trolling? You are a kook. Shaky. lol

Neanderthals could have been mistaken for 900 year old humans? Really? That's what you had to offer? Seek help.

And here I thought of you as an open minded individual above denigrating someone for their religious beliefs. You're no better than Muslim radicals in that regard. At least you aren't advocating killing him over it, that's a plus in your favor I guess.

I am open minded. At least I try to be but I am human. Speaking of humans...

Can we agree at a starting point that the skeletal/fossil archeological and DNA record of Neanderthals is not just science misidentifying modern humans who were 900 years old?

If you can't get to that baseline, there isn't much point in discussing it. Would be like discussing politics with a progressive.

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

(07-31-2024 01:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:23 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...? Thank your cave man ancestors, not 900 year old humans. Lulz

Those genes apparently gave us some advantages against diseases in those times, otherwise we wouldn't have so much of it. Also contributes to red hair and our keratin in hair, skin and nails.

Link? I have Viking finger.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that ‘hybridisation’ between different human groups may have been crucial as our ancestors moved into new and challenging environments. Through hybridisation we were able to gain some rapid genetic benefits from human lineages that had been occupying these regions for millennia before. These benefits, along with other behavioural and technological adaptations that we see in the archaeological record, helped Homo sapiens to become a highly successful ‘invasive species’, moving into all parts of the planet and adapting to life there."

https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/nea...ing-or-two

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/40/...ogin=false

There is no free lunch. Africans are much more resistant to malaria. The mutations for that make them prone to sickle cell disease.

(07-31-2024 01:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:59 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:35 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Trolling? You are a kook. Shaky. lol

Neanderthals could have been mistaken for 900 year old humans? Really? That's what you had to offer? Seek help.

And here I thought of you as an open minded individual above denigrating someone for their religious beliefs. You're no better than Muslim radicals in that regard. At least you aren't advocating killing him over it, that's a plus in your favor I guess.

I am open minded. At least I try to be but I am human. Speaking of humans...

Can we agree at a starting point that the skeletal/fossil archeological and DNA record of Neanderthals is not just science misidentifying modern humans who were 900 years old?

If you can't get to that baseline, there isn't much point in discussing it. Would be like discussing politics with a progressive.

That is the whole point, we can't fully scientifically"prove" any of this stuff. We can't fully prove or disprove the age of neanderthals, we can't fully "prove" that they came first or simultaneously or afterwards. We simply have some theories based on agreed upon theorized models based on skull shapes, pelvis shapes and some variations in DNA.

What we have are current classifications that we use today based on these hypothetical models using skull shapes and DNA variances that we still have examples of in people today.

To the OP, this has been the direction of scientific findings for awhile. There has not been true speciation within humans since the divergence from chimps*. Genetic research continues to push us toward the realization that we are all highly related and notions such as “race” are chronologically fleeting phenotypic markers.

*Paranthropus is the most likely exception. The exact nature of our speciation from chimpanzees and bonobos is not well understood because genetic information does not survive more than a few hundred thousand years; there are therefore fringe scientific theories that cannot be completely ruled out.

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

That's it in a nutshell. We all are looking at the same data, the difference is our starting points. Either in the beginning nothing and kaboom out popped everything from nothingness for no reason (that defies all logic and breaks many universal scientific laws), or in the beginning God created everything.

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

(08-01-2024 05:04 AM)Crayton Wrote:  To the OP, this has been the direction of scientific findings for awhile. There has not been true speciation within humans since the divergence from chimps*. Genetic research continues to push us toward the realization that we are all highly related and notions such as “race” are chronologically fleeting phenotypic markers.

*Paranthropus is the most likely exception. The exact nature of our speciation from chimpanzees and bonobos is not well understood because genetic information does not survive more than a few hundred thousand years; there are therefore fringe scientific theories that cannot be completely ruled out.

Well they believe Neanderthal-Human hybrid males were most likely infertile. Kind of like mules. Horses and donkeys are still different species.

Race is not a scientific concept. There can be more difference in DNA between neighboring tribes in Africa (compare pygmies and Watusi) than between a Swede and a Chinese.

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

Evolution as taught in modern science is absolutely incompatible with the God of the Bible. Even if you do some seriously selective cherry picking on evolution to try and shoehorn it in there you are still left with some totally incompatible key points Biblically.

Now if you throw the Bible out and just kinda make up our own view and version of God then yes, that is absolutely compatible with modern evolution as its taught. I could absolutely see that if that is a persons perspective on God.

So it would really come down to who your God is and what is the basis for belief in that God.