True, but the scientific concept of human need not be identical to the Christian concept of human. That is, science might conclude that the first Homo sapiens evolved 200,000 years ago, while God may have created the first In-God’s-Image Homo sapiens 8,000 years ago.
The scientific method can examine the genetics of living organisms from insects to plants to animal anatomies. Science categorizes humans as animals based on genetic studies. It decides on relationships between animals based on their genetics. Evolutionary biology uses the Cladistic system to chart these relationships.
:yup: That explains everything!THIS IS NOT NEWS:
Girls have always known guys were Neanderthals
Could the Nephilim have been Neanderthals?
Its an interesting idea, but probably not. I don’t think the average Neanderthal was taller than the average Homo sapiens of that era. And I don’t think there is any sound anthropological reasons (popular mythology aside) to regard Neanderthals as more cruel, violent or lustful than Homo sapiens
Oh no. That would actually be Germans, wouldn’t it? (Joking, guys. Just couldn’t resist)
You are correct. The Neanderthals were shorter than the Cro Magnons:source: bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Neanderthal
But the biblical verses don’t use the words “cruel, violent, or lustful”. Those words came from a footnote to those verses. The biblical verses speak of the Nephilim being “mighty”, which, compared to the strength of Homo sapiens, the Neanderthals apparently were.
I agree that it is very pointless and unnecessary.
Is this official Church doctrine? If not, then it’s possible Adam lived way before 6,000 years ago.
Dude, I added up the years in the Bible from Adam to the Fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians myself. Adam lived a little over 6,000 years ago.
If the years mentioned between the various events in the Bible are literally true, then Adam lived just a little over 6,000 years ago. I have added them up myself.
Adam living 6,000 years ago is not Catholic doctrine. It may be a doctrine of some other religions.
Neanderthals lived in parts of the Middle East and central Asia, as well as Europe. That would put them in biblical regions.
Actually, no, there doesn’t have to be.
My mistake, thank you for the correction.
Good to see you. Three colleges! I can’t keep three threads straight.Actually, no, there doesn’t have to be.
Hi granny, it’s nice to see see your posts again. I catch up on your nitty-gritty thread when I have the chance, which isn’t so much anymore, I’m afraid. I’m playing the adjunct game again, working at three colleges, which doesn’t leave much time for anything other than lecture prep and commuting.
I think the Catholic church has painted itself into a corner on this one by backing the historicity of Adam and Eve, and even more so by insisting on them as a unique pair of progenitors. These aren’t spiritual matters; they’re physical, and the evidence doesn’t motivate that conclusion.
The other thing I have noticed about older research compared to the present is the semantics. What used to be pre-human is now human ancestors. Part of this is due to the realization that science cannot account for humans’ rational functions such as intellect and will. So now there is an evolutionary cultural emergence or an epiphenomenon that comes about in populations which takes the place of the spiritual principle in humans. The question is now which population did one come from. If it is from a Neandertal population in western Europe, is one more human or less human than one descending from another Homo species? This upsets the basic unity of humanity.
I’m not sure your comparison of skulls tell us very much. Here’s a comparison of an australoid skull and a caucasoid skull. stormfront.org/forum/t712936/Actually, no, there doesn’t have to be.
Hi granny, it’s nice to see see your posts again. I catch up on your nitty-gritty thread when I have the chance, which isn’t so much anymore, I’m afraid. I’m playing the adjunct game again, working at three colleges, which doesn’t leave much time for anything other than lecture prep and commuting.
I think the Catholic church has painted itself into a corner on this one by backing the historicity of Adam and Eve, and even more so by insisting on them as a unique pair of progenitors. These aren’t spiritual matters; they’re physical, and the evidence doesn’t motivate that conclusion.
Apologists can’t paper over the coalescence times for markers off the mitochondria and Y chromosome by looking at these two, minor genetic regions exclusively. Population genetics will keep on looking at the rest of the evidence. The coalescence with the neanderthals predates the appearance of anatomically modern humans by hundreds of thousands of years. If some of us carry their code, and some do not, that means our common ancestors, as humans, were not anatomically modern. In simpler terms, they wouldn’t look human. They’d be a more primitive and apelike predecessor of humans and neanderthals:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.jpg
It’s not useful to presume a campaign against Adam and Eve. It’s not likely to be true, and meaningless even if it were. The evidence exists objectively; it is what it is, independent of our wishes. If we follow the evidence, it’s with the motivation to explain what we see here in the physical world. If that just so happens to align with a sacred text of some religion, it’s bound to do so at the cost of contradicting another. There’s no scientific benefit in taking such considerations into account.
As ever, Jesse
