Scientists in the Czech Republic have recently uncovered bones of
pre-historic Cro-Magnon that have indication of Neanderthal features.
This was reported in one of those short side bar blips in August Discovery
Magazine.
It seems to indicate that the two races may have actually intermarried.
Cro-Magnon with Neanderthal Features
19 posts •
Page 1 of 1
-
mitsuki lover - Posts: 8486
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:00 pm
If your a believer of evolution I'd recomend not opening threads like this, As its a breeding grounds for flaming.
-
Solid Ronin - Posts: 1700
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 4:00 am
- Location: Houston
uhm... you are well aware of the fact that there is only one race of humans, right?
--------
The Answer Book Chapter 18(Pages 220 - 223)
There is really only one race--the human race. The Bible teaches us that God has "made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). (frwl: Italices mine) Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical features. Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin color) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these "people groups" rather than "races," to avoid the evolutionary connotations associated with the word "race."
All peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the "races" are not very great. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the world would tipically differ by just 0.2 percent. {Footnote: J.C. Gutin, "End of the Rainbow," Discover November 1994, p. 71-75} Of this, only 6 percent can be linked to racial categories; the rest is "within race" variation.
"This genetic unity means, for instance, that white Americans, although ostensibly far removed from black Americans in phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than are other black Americans." {Footnote: Ibid.}
Anthropologists generally classify people into a small number of main racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or "white") {Footnote: However, people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent are mainly Caucasian and their skin color ranges from light brown to quite dark. Even within Europe, skin color ranges from very pale to brown.} Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo, and Native Americans), the Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines). Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups.
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most people believe that there are such vast differences between groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences arise from some people having unique features in their hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but incorrect idea. Let's look at skin color, for instance. It is easy to think that since different groups of people have "yellow" skin, "red" skin, "black" skin, "white" skin, and "brown" skin, there must be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
However, we all have the same coloring pigment in our skin, melanin. This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different amounts in special cells in our skin. If we had none (as do people called albinos, who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce melanin), then we would have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produced a little melanin, we would then be European white. If our skin produced a great deal of melanin, we would be a very dark black. And inbetween, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments. {see endnote}
In summary, from currently available information, the really important factor in determining skin color is melanin--the amount produced.
This situation is true not only for skin color. {frwl: Italices mine} Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is essentially different from that possessed by any other. For example, the Asian, or almond, eye differs from a typical Caucasian eye in having more fat. Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat--the latter simply have less.
What does melanin do? It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If you have too little melanin in a very sunny enviroment, you will easily suffer sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it will be harder for you to get enough vatamin D (which needs sunshine for its production in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could cause a bone disorder such as rickets.
We also need to be aware that we are not born with a geneticlally fixed amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to sunlight. For example, you may have noticed that when your Caucasian friends (who spent their time indoors during winter) headed for the beach at the beginning of summer they all had more or less the same pale white skin color. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than others.
How is it that many different skin colors can arise in a short time? Remember, whenever we speak of different "colors" we are referring to different shades of one color, melanin.
If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very white group, their offspring (called mulattos) are midbrown. It has long been known that when mulattos marry eachother, their offspring may be virtually any "color," ranging from very dark to very light. Understanding this gives us the clues we need to answer our question {frwl: That question being "How did all the different "races" arise from Noah's Family?" The next section is omitted just because I don't want to type the whole chapter}...
Endnote: Other substances can in minor ways affect skin shading, sucha s the colored fibers of the protein elastin and the pigment carotene. However, once again we all share these same compounds, and the principles governing their inheritance are similar to those outlined here. Factors other than pigment in the skin may influence the shade perceived by the observer in subtle ways, such as the thickness of the overlying (clear) skin layers, the density and positioning of the blood c apillary networks, etc. In fact, "melanin," which is produced by cells in the body called melanocytes, consists of two pigments, which also account for hair color. Eumelanin is very dark brown, phaeomelanin is more redish. People tan when sunlight stimulates eumelanin production. Redheads, who are often unable to develop a protective tan, have a high proportion of phaeomelanin. The have probably inherited a defective gene which makes their pigment cells "unable to respond to normal signals that stimulate eumelanin production." See P. Cohen, "Redheads Come Out of the Shade," New Scientist 147(1997):18, 1995.
--------
Sorry if that was a bit much or too scientific from some CAA members, but I am convinced that these types of issues are of vital importance to the entire mesage of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Understanding that the creation and early-humanity stories (Geneis 1-11) are 100% true is key to understand why Jesus even came to earth.
--------
The Answer Book Chapter 18(Pages 220 - 223)
There is really only one race--the human race. The Bible teaches us that God has "made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). (frwl: Italices mine) Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical features. Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin color) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these "people groups" rather than "races," to avoid the evolutionary connotations associated with the word "race."
All peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the "races" are not very great. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the world would tipically differ by just 0.2 percent. {Footnote: J.C. Gutin, "End of the Rainbow," Discover November 1994, p. 71-75} Of this, only 6 percent can be linked to racial categories; the rest is "within race" variation.
"This genetic unity means, for instance, that white Americans, although ostensibly far removed from black Americans in phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than are other black Americans." {Footnote: Ibid.}
Anthropologists generally classify people into a small number of main racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or "white") {Footnote: However, people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent are mainly Caucasian and their skin color ranges from light brown to quite dark. Even within Europe, skin color ranges from very pale to brown.} Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo, and Native Americans), the Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines). Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups.
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most people believe that there are such vast differences between groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences arise from some people having unique features in their hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but incorrect idea. Let's look at skin color, for instance. It is easy to think that since different groups of people have "yellow" skin, "red" skin, "black" skin, "white" skin, and "brown" skin, there must be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
However, we all have the same coloring pigment in our skin, melanin. This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different amounts in special cells in our skin. If we had none (as do people called albinos, who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce melanin), then we would have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produced a little melanin, we would then be European white. If our skin produced a great deal of melanin, we would be a very dark black. And inbetween, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments. {see endnote}
In summary, from currently available information, the really important factor in determining skin color is melanin--the amount produced.
This situation is true not only for skin color. {frwl: Italices mine} Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is essentially different from that possessed by any other. For example, the Asian, or almond, eye differs from a typical Caucasian eye in having more fat. Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat--the latter simply have less.
What does melanin do? It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If you have too little melanin in a very sunny enviroment, you will easily suffer sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it will be harder for you to get enough vatamin D (which needs sunshine for its production in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could cause a bone disorder such as rickets.
We also need to be aware that we are not born with a geneticlally fixed amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to sunlight. For example, you may have noticed that when your Caucasian friends (who spent their time indoors during winter) headed for the beach at the beginning of summer they all had more or less the same pale white skin color. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than others.
How is it that many different skin colors can arise in a short time? Remember, whenever we speak of different "colors" we are referring to different shades of one color, melanin.
If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very white group, their offspring (called mulattos) are midbrown. It has long been known that when mulattos marry eachother, their offspring may be virtually any "color," ranging from very dark to very light. Understanding this gives us the clues we need to answer our question {frwl: That question being "How did all the different "races" arise from Noah's Family?" The next section is omitted just because I don't want to type the whole chapter}...
Endnote: Other substances can in minor ways affect skin shading, sucha s the colored fibers of the protein elastin and the pigment carotene. However, once again we all share these same compounds, and the principles governing their inheritance are similar to those outlined here. Factors other than pigment in the skin may influence the shade perceived by the observer in subtle ways, such as the thickness of the overlying (clear) skin layers, the density and positioning of the blood c apillary networks, etc. In fact, "melanin," which is produced by cells in the body called melanocytes, consists of two pigments, which also account for hair color. Eumelanin is very dark brown, phaeomelanin is more redish. People tan when sunlight stimulates eumelanin production. Redheads, who are often unable to develop a protective tan, have a high proportion of phaeomelanin. The have probably inherited a defective gene which makes their pigment cells "unable to respond to normal signals that stimulate eumelanin production." See P. Cohen, "Redheads Come Out of the Shade," New Scientist 147(1997):18, 1995.
--------
Sorry if that was a bit much or too scientific from some CAA members, but I am convinced that these types of issues are of vital importance to the entire mesage of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Understanding that the creation and early-humanity stories (Geneis 1-11) are 100% true is key to understand why Jesus even came to earth.
-
Slater - Posts: 2671
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:00 am
- Location: Pacifica, Caliphornia
Guys, does this really warrant such responses? O_o
"Nationality" or "ethnicity" is a better term than "race". Still, that's sort of irrelevant to the topic >.> It's certainly an interesting find.
"Nationality" or "ethnicity" is a better term than "race". Still, that's sort of irrelevant to the topic >.> It's certainly an interesting find.
fightin' in the eighties
-
ShiroiHikari - Posts: 7564
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 12:00 pm
- Location: Somewhere between 1983 and 1989
also to be noted is the fact that Cro Magnon man and Neanderthal man were identical to modern day humans and coexisted with modern people-groups, even if their people groups did die out. We have seen this even in recent history (such as with tribes of Native Americans), so it isn't something unacceptable.
-
Slater - Posts: 2671
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:00 am
- Location: Pacifica, Caliphornia
Ronin of Kirai wrote:If your a believer of evolution I'd recomend not opening threads like this, As its a breeding grounds for flaming.
uhh... dude... this isn't dealing with evolution...
-
Mr. SmartyPants - Posts: 12541
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:00 am
mitsuki lover wrote:Scientists in the Czech Republic have recently uncovered bones of pre-historic Cro-Magnon that have indication of Neanderthal features. This was reported in one of those short side bar blips in August Discovery Magazine. It seems to indicate that the two races may have actually intermarried.
I hand't seen the article, but doing some digging I found an older article as well:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/neanderkid.html
In this case though there are several possibilities including simple neotany. There is a bit of a discussion here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6948/full/424490a.html
In the case of Neanderthals, we really can't be certain of where they stood genetically with respect to humans, or if they did indeed (or were capable) of interbreeding. The mtDNA data that has thus far been acquired from two specimens does not support interbreeding, but some have questioned how well modern European populations genetically reflect those of the Cro-Magnon people of the Upper Paleolithic. However, there are also very few indications of cultural contact between the two.
We can't immediately classify Homo neaderthalensis as being closely related to ourselves given the very significant and very well-documented morphological differences. Because of this, questions regarding modern racial differences between humans can't readily be applied to our understanding of Neanderthal man. There is also a reasonably good review article in Science that might be worth reading.
Richard Klein, "Whither the Neanderthals?", Science, Vol 299, Issue 5612, 1525-1527 , 7 March 2003
The full article can be accessed by this link
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
-
Technomancer - Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
- Location: Tralfamadore
of course they were capable of breeding... they were 100% human and could interbreed with any people group if they were still around today. This is accepted generally throughout the scientific community today: by both creationists and evolutionists.
-
Slater - Posts: 2671
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:00 am
- Location: Pacifica, Caliphornia
The problem is that there is a complete absence of any indication of Neanderthal ancestry as evidenced by the mtDNA data. Contrastingly, we do see evidence of descent from Cro-Magnons, who were anatomically modern humans. So either Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons simply didn't interbreed, or that interbreeding couldn't produce fertile offspring (the hallmark of speciation). Given human nature and the long period in which such interbreeding could have taken place, it seems unlikely that we would find no evidence of interbreeding without some kind of strong barriers (probably biological). On the other hand, in light of the significant anatomical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans there is considerable justification for understanding that we are two separate species- the DNA results add further confirmation.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/13/cro_magnnon030513
The above news article discusses some more recent research. More Neanderthal specimens have been used in this study than in the one that I previously mentioned.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/13/cro_magnnon030513
The above news article discusses some more recent research. More Neanderthal specimens have been used in this study than in the one that I previously mentioned.
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
-
Technomancer - Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
- Location: Tralfamadore
I was not trying to start any controversy along Creation vs. Evolution.I was simply
passing along what I found to be a rather interesting discovery as related in
Discovery Magazine.It was just a little blip on one page.I used Race in place of
Species since both Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal would have been subspecies of
the Homo species.This is proved by their ability to intermarry.
I find it sad that there are times when even science ends up causing unnecessary
controversy among Christians.
Wheter we are Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists we ought to stick to Sergeant
Friday's moto from Dragnet:"JUST THE FACTS MA'AM."
passing along what I found to be a rather interesting discovery as related in
Discovery Magazine.It was just a little blip on one page.I used Race in place of
Species since both Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal would have been subspecies of
the Homo species.This is proved by their ability to intermarry.
I find it sad that there are times when even science ends up causing unnecessary
controversy among Christians.
Wheter we are Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists we ought to stick to Sergeant
Friday's moto from Dragnet:"JUST THE FACTS MA'AM."
-
mitsuki lover - Posts: 8486
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:00 pm
My apologies for any appearance of argument. While I'm interested in the topic in general, my remarks should be taken as asserting that the issue of intermarriage of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis is not currently a settled issue, and in fact remains source of controversy among anthropologists. Any theory must recognize new data, and the (maybe) hybrid skeletons are one piece of the puzzle, as are the recent mtDNA results.
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
-
Technomancer - Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
- Location: Tralfamadore
The point that there were some differences in mitochondrial DNA isn't much of a problem. Mutations of such genes is what we would expect to see in a fallen world, and what we see happening all over the place today. See this article for the problems of that mtDNA comparison. Even evolutionists can see the large margin of error that is in that test.
Besides, to say that there are different breeds or species of human is totally antichristian, rejecting the message of Jesus. How is the question you'll ask and one that I asked when I first heard it because it sounded a bit far-fetched to me too. But the truth of the matter is this: in numerous sections of the New Testament, we see that the salvation from sin is only to the decendants of Adam, that is the "race" of humans which has Adam at the very base of the family tree. (See Romans 5, notably verse 5; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; Acts 17:26 is very important, claiming that all men are related or of "one blood"; Heb. 2:11-18 amplifies how Jesus took upon himself the nature of a man to save mankind)
Now, that's just some of the New Testament examples of this. If that isn't enough, it's also written all over the Old Testament story. Genesis 2:7 tells us that God only made one man in the beginning. This is naturally the exact opposite as the idea that God made a group of men. Genesis 3:20 says that there was also one mother to the human race, that is, the entire human population is directly related to her and his husband Adam. In Genesis 2:20, we see the proof that man has forever only been able to find a mate in the human species; not in other life-forms outside of the human species.
Now, looking at all of this, the implications are obvious. If there were multiple species of human in the past, then which race is salvation to? It can only be to that one which came from Adam, so that would mean that certain humans wouldn't be eligible for cleansing by Jesus blood. This idea, of course, is absolute foolishness! The Bible does say that salvation is for all men, and also says that all men came from the seed of Adam, the first man. These two points combine perfectly to make the clear and undeniable point which is this: there is only one race of humans on the earth, there always has been only one, there will forever be only one, and all men are decendants of one man and one woman. It's what the Holy and Inerrant Word of the Most High God says. To us as Christians, it needs to be the ultimate source since its writer is the One who has always been there. Otherwise, the Bible itself falls apart and all we stand for with it.
Besides, to say that there are different breeds or species of human is totally antichristian, rejecting the message of Jesus. How is the question you'll ask and one that I asked when I first heard it because it sounded a bit far-fetched to me too. But the truth of the matter is this: in numerous sections of the New Testament, we see that the salvation from sin is only to the decendants of Adam, that is the "race" of humans which has Adam at the very base of the family tree. (See Romans 5, notably verse 5; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; Acts 17:26 is very important, claiming that all men are related or of "one blood"; Heb. 2:11-18 amplifies how Jesus took upon himself the nature of a man to save mankind)
Now, that's just some of the New Testament examples of this. If that isn't enough, it's also written all over the Old Testament story. Genesis 2:7 tells us that God only made one man in the beginning. This is naturally the exact opposite as the idea that God made a group of men. Genesis 3:20 says that there was also one mother to the human race, that is, the entire human population is directly related to her and his husband Adam. In Genesis 2:20, we see the proof that man has forever only been able to find a mate in the human species; not in other life-forms outside of the human species.
Now, looking at all of this, the implications are obvious. If there were multiple species of human in the past, then which race is salvation to? It can only be to that one which came from Adam, so that would mean that certain humans wouldn't be eligible for cleansing by Jesus blood. This idea, of course, is absolute foolishness! The Bible does say that salvation is for all men, and also says that all men came from the seed of Adam, the first man. These two points combine perfectly to make the clear and undeniable point which is this: there is only one race of humans on the earth, there always has been only one, there will forever be only one, and all men are decendants of one man and one woman. It's what the Holy and Inerrant Word of the Most High God says. To us as Christians, it needs to be the ultimate source since its writer is the One who has always been there. Otherwise, the Bible itself falls apart and all we stand for with it.
-
Slater - Posts: 2671
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:00 am
- Location: Pacifica, Caliphornia
frwl wrote:See this article for the problems of that mtDNA comparison.
Were you to have read the articles that I did post, you would see that the possible problems are in fact discussed. As with any scientifc article, possible sources of error are identified and argued about by the various scientists involved. However, the fact of the observations remains a problem for the interbreeding hypothesis. If the samples were contaminated by DNA from H. sapiens, we would expect to find greater correspondance not less. The sample size is one source of error that does need to be given serious consideration, but it is not quite as limited as some would suggest, since even if all four of the neanderthals died childless similarities would still be evident from their relatives on their mother's side (brothers, cousins, grandparents, etc, etc). Other arguments can be made against the issues raised by other scientists. My point is, and has been, that this is not a settled issue within the scientific community]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html[/url]
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
-
Technomancer - Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
- Location: Tralfamadore
I am a scientist, and so are many of those at AiG. Yes, I did read the articles you posted and I was simply providing an extra source of information on the issue. Also, it is still admitted that these findings do have a margin of error that is not bridged by the final step of the scientific method at this point; that is repetition... analizing more samples of data, etc.
Besides, the articles that are cited will all have some religions bias to them. The scientists who first looked at this went in there with a bias favoring the religion of evolution. It is in fact a myth that any scientist is impartial to his beliefs.
Anyways, The Bible has it's limmits as for how much a prophet of God is supposed to say in any argument, and I'm pretty sure that my toes have probably bumped even farther than that line goes, so now I'm going to have to kick the dust off my sandals in this thread and leave it to say no more. In closing, I will just say that you all have the option to believe the truth as it's spelled out in God's word, or you could chose not to. You can chose to listen, or you can chose to ignore. I can't influence that, but I've spelled it out for you as it is my duty which comes with what God wired me with. I recommend that those of you in here who still think of evolution and such topics as fact to turn from that 100% anti-Christian religion and chose to follow the truth that is found in Jesus Christ... Otherwise, us Christians are just going to fall into more of the type of embarasment that we showed before the world durring the Scopes Trial. 1 Pet 3:15...
I'm done here.
~Nicholas Byrd, a prophet of Jesus Christ.
Besides, the articles that are cited will all have some religions bias to them. The scientists who first looked at this went in there with a bias favoring the religion of evolution. It is in fact a myth that any scientist is impartial to his beliefs.
Anyways, The Bible has it's limmits as for how much a prophet of God is supposed to say in any argument, and I'm pretty sure that my toes have probably bumped even farther than that line goes, so now I'm going to have to kick the dust off my sandals in this thread and leave it to say no more. In closing, I will just say that you all have the option to believe the truth as it's spelled out in God's word, or you could chose not to. You can chose to listen, or you can chose to ignore. I can't influence that, but I've spelled it out for you as it is my duty which comes with what God wired me with. I recommend that those of you in here who still think of evolution and such topics as fact to turn from that 100% anti-Christian religion and chose to follow the truth that is found in Jesus Christ... Otherwise, us Christians are just going to fall into more of the type of embarasment that we showed before the world durring the Scopes Trial. 1 Pet 3:15...
I'm done here.
~Nicholas Byrd, a prophet of Jesus Christ.
-
Slater - Posts: 2671
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:00 am
- Location: Pacifica, Caliphornia
frwl wrote:I am a scientist,
Really, where did you do your degrees?
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov
-
Technomancer - Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:47 am
- Location: Tralfamadore
Sfsu
Technomancer wrote:Really, where did you do your degrees?
frwl: SFSU
------------ My own notes----------
Science is - Observable, Testable, Repeatable.
Faith is Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
What a person believes is the truth, is what he or she lives by. Whether that is Scripturally founded, or not. Consider the Bible, and take it outward. They believe that Neanderthal is a missing link, they are looking for evidence to support it. But see here a person who believed God's Word, and see what he found!
Matthew Fontaine Maury: Pathfinder of the Seas believed the bible as written - his tombstone stands testament to that -
Matthew Fontaine Maury
. . . Pathfinder of the Seas . . .
The Genius Who First Snatched from the
Ocean and Atmosphere the
Secret of their Laws
HIS INSPIRATION, HOLY WRIT
Psalms 8 and 107, verses 8, 23 and 24
Ecclesiastes, chap. 1, verses 6 and 7
Is it constructive to consider if we came from apes when the Bible tells us already where we come from and where we are going?
Your arms are too short to box with God.
-
SonicRose - Posts: 107
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:27 pm
- Location: Somewhere on Mobius
Wow, thanks for ignoring my post folks. Try that logic next time a cop pulls you over and tells you to slow down. Try speeding from the side of the road and see what happens. Take your petty bickering and fighting to PMs. This thread is done. The thing that cracks me up, is people still ask why threads are locked. Threads like this stand as a testament to why.
-
Stephen - Posts: 7744
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:00 am
19 posts •
Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests