Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
Yes, that is a rather silly idea. But, I suppose anything is better than accepting science might have genuine answers. :p
i was just kidding  with you....ubove.....

Science knows alot due to God's wisdom ,,,, im not against science .........Christ has Risen ...rejoice ....<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0">i also believe the written word that we kiss before holy liturgy begin's on sunday ........have good night it's late here....
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
stashko said:
if God Created another Race beside humans  he would of mentioned it
Besides what Peter said, Neanderthals are humans. They are homo sapiens neanderthalensis; modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens. Both are the same species, homo sapiens, but different subspecies. We are about as different from homo sapiens neanderthalensis as a Labrador retriever is from a poodle.

stashko said:
iim not against science
No, you just reject the parts of it you don't understand. Your fantastic theories about demons and the Tower of Babel prove that those who do not wish to believe will go to great lengths to avoid it.

stashko said:
im all for science ..and all for it's discoveries as long as it doesn't deny God or his written word
Science cannot deny God. Science is only concerned with the physical world and physical processes. Science explains what it can without even considering the divine; not that the divine is not present in the world, but that it cannot be verified scientifically, by observation and experimentation. Who can reverse the rotation of the Earth, as God did for Joshua to help him in a battle? Who can part a sea for hundreds of thousands of pilgrims? Who can cause earthquakes and rip the Temple curtain in two?

Miracles simply aren't scientific. That's what makes them miracles. It's like trying to use a ruler to measure your weight. The ruler won't tell you you don't weigh anything; in fact, it won't tell you your weight at all, because it is incapable of doing so. In the same way, it's not that science says miracles don't happen or that God does not exist; it's that they cannot be proven scientifically.

Again, your false dichotomy of science v. religion is not only inaccurate, it's anti-intellectual--and will only serve to drive away those who can see through such a fallacy.
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
That's certainly an interpretation of the Tower of Babel narrative I've never seen before.  Where did you come up with this?
i read the Word a few times  ..i would meditate on what i read ...there is depth to the  written word....the word mentions the milk of the word and the meat of the word...surface and depth...since the people gathered at the tower of babel .it was the entire human race how many enough to build the tower...if they continued to go real high what do think would of happen to them you tell me...God confused the languages and scattered the people across the earth as he comanded earlier subdue the earth and be fruitful and multiply...Christ Has Risen ..Rejoice...<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0">
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
Of course Science and Religion/Faith/God can be reconciled. The question is whether or not the scientific community as awhole, and broadly, science as a discipline, will accept that God created everything.

Right now, there is really two camps. The first believes that the universe was always here and the second that is was not.

If you believe is was, the you might still believe in a finite universe. Only philosophy can determine whether or not sometime that is finite can plausibly exist with or without a beginning and/or end.

If you believe it was not, then the universe was created. Of course some would say it was created by an impersonal cosmic force. Some say God.

Personally, I believe the universe was created by God and He holds all things in existence at all moments of its existence.

As for evolution, I do not deny changes or adaptations. I deny evolution in man. It is ironic that the more and more scientists actually study pre-"homo sapien" man, the more intelligent they become. *Warning: Exaggeration ahead*
30 yrs ago we all descended from mindless apes. Nowadays, our pre-homo sapien ancestors buried thier dead, made jewlery (a clear sign of self-consciousness) and the like.

The debate over macro vs. micro is silly. Science has not and cannot determine what constitues a human being. Why? Because science cannot prove the existence of the soul. Science takes a very materialistic very of the human being. They ask questions like "How big is his brain? How tall was he? What was the shape of his skull". Last time I checked, Christianity does not consider materialism as a the definitive qualifier for what makes a human being human.

Also regarding "ensoulment", God created man in His Image and Likeness. Of Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals are our biological ancestors, but didn't have a soul, then God would have inserted a soul into an pre-existing animal species. Lame.

Bottom line: If Cro-Mag's and Neanderthals aren't human, then they were animals without a soul. IMHO, they were less advanced in skills and technology, but were still humans with a soul.

In the end, I reject an evolutionary understanding of man. I have not problem using evolution to explain animals and plant life. I believe that our human ancestors contained within them the genetic possibility to become what we are today. Due to adaptations and same changes (not controlled by natural selection) that happened at the appointed times, we became more of what we were to continue as a creation according to God's Plan and with His direct guidance.
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
The whole issue of Science as a discipline disregarding Theology as a discipline is the real false dichotomy. Does science disregard Math? Does Science disregard Sociology?

The crux of the issue is that Theology takes a definitive stand on the existence of God. Science as a discipline shouldn't be concerned with disproving that. In fact, is should be considered.

The existence of God only colors the rationale of creation. However, it is not up to Sciecne to explain why things exist, only the origins. Now, if God created thes things, that would be boring, right? Wrong. Science should instead be fixed more on the processes of function and interaction and after creation. Once something is dicovered, Science takes for granted THAT said thing exists. WHy it was created or where it comes from is really of little relevence because causality, properly speaking, is a philosophical and ultimately theological question.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
stashko said:
i read the Word a few times  ..i would meditate on what i read ...there is depth to the  written word....the word mentions the milk of the word and the meat of the word...surface and depth...since the people gathered at the tower of babel .it was the entire human race how many enough to build the tower...if they continued to go real high what do think would of happen to them you tell me...God confused the languages and scattered the people across the earth as he comanded earlier subdue the earth and be fruitful and multiply...Christ Has Risen ..Rejoice...<img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0">
So you came up with this on your own, without any direction from any knowledgeable person. I see.

By the way, the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat:


Ziggurats are large stone structures that are designed in an almost pyramidal form, so that its weight is distributed evenly. Ziggurats had to be roughly as tall as they were wide for proper balance; therefore, any ziggurat that reached space (about 900km) must of necessity be about 900km at the base. Notwithstanding that they did not have the technology to survive 900km above the Earth's surface, just how do you suppose they got enough stone to fill that much space. We know that the volume of a pyramid is equal to bh/3; therefore, they would need 270,000 km3 of stone to build such a ziggurat.

All this doesn't even take into account that a stone structure can really only be built to about 120m before the weight of the stone becomes too heavy for the structure to support itself. Steel is needed to build any structure taller than this.

See? Science helps us to understand the physical world, which in turn helps us to understand the accounts in Scripture (or any other ancient text) of those who came before us. When the hermeneutic used to interpret Scripture is your own interpretation, you have circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is bad business in both religion and science.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
It is not so clear that animals in fact do not have souls.

In the Septuagint, Leviticus 17:11 gives the reason why consuming blood is forbidden by Jewish Kosher laws:
"ή γαρ ψυχή πασης σαρκας αιμα αυτοι εστι..."
This is most commonly translated into English as:
"For the life of all flesh is in the blood..."

However, the word translated as "life" here is ψυχή ("psyche"), which is actually used as the Greek word for "soul". The Greek word for "life" is "ζωη" ("zoe").


If we look at Psalm 25:9 in the Septuagint it has these two words ("psyche" and "zoe") in the same sentence:
"μη συναπολεσης μετα ασεβων την ψυχην μου και μετα ανδρων αιματων την ζωην μου"
"do not take my soul("psyche") away with the impious nor my life("zoe") with the bloodthirsty."

So, Leviticus 17:11 could actually be read as:
"For the soul of all flesh is in the blood..."
 

LakaYaRabb

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Website
www.oca.org
I believe animals do have souls. I believe that they also have consciousness. They act and react on more than just pure instinct. THey, like us, can advance and grow with thier environment. However, they will never reach our capacity because that is not the way God created them.

On distinction is that while animals can be taught things by humans (like apes who brush thier teeth and paint and sign language), they didn't teach us that they created these things. RAther, mankind, who developed these things taught animals that these are "good' and "bad" responses. It is really just another way of domestication and bonding with animals.

When an animal looks in the mirror, he will see his reflection. If he is advanced enough by human interaction, he might have some vague-conscious response that allows him to indicate that the reflection is not of another animal. However, when man looks in the mirror he sees himself. NOt only this, but he sees himself seing himself. MAn alos reflects to himself and thinks to himself "I am me looking at me". Simply states, man thinks of himself, thinking of himself.
 

Heracleides

Elder
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kona, Hawaii
ytterbiumanalyst said:
So you came up with this on your own, without any direction from any knowledgeable person. I see.

By the way, the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat:

Ziggurats are large stone structures...
Actually, Ziggurats were buit from mud/clay bricks (stone being scare as hens teeth on the mesopotamian plain).
.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Heracleides said:
Actually, Ziggurats were buit from mud/clay bricks (stone being scare as hens teeth on the mesopotamian plain).
Interesting. Other civilizations, such as the Mayans, did build them of stone, though. Chichen Itza is a good example of a stone ziggurat.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jnorm888 said:
Much of it is pure imagination.
Yes, much of what the "experts" in those videos are saying is pure imagination.
Here's the other side of this argument: ]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html.  A Ph.D. and a British accent do not the truth make.

By the way, we're talking here about homo sapiens neanderthalensis, not homo erectus or homo erectus pekinensis. They're two different species. It's like trying to say that if there are no tigers in this field, there must not be lions either. Bad logic.

And seriously, Godtube? This sort of blatant plagiarism is going to give us even worse credibility than we already have. If this is Christianity, I want nothing of it. Nothing at all.

But I did enjoy the Romanian subtitles in the video.
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Yes, much of what the "experts" in those videos are saying is pure imagination.
Here's the other side of this argument: ]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html.  A Ph.D. and a British accent do not the truth make.

By the way, we're talking here about homo sapiens neanderthalensis, not homo erectus or homo erectus pekinensis. They're two different species. It's like trying to say that if there are no tigers in this field, there must not be lions either. Bad logic.

And seriously, Godtube? This sort of blatant plagiarism is going to give us even worse credibility than we already have. If this is Christianity, I want nothing of it. Nothing at all.

But I did enjoy the Romanian subtitles in the video.
I thought Lions and Tigers were of the same species. Have you ever seen a "liger" before? I have. Micro-evolution is true. All cats are cats.....its MACRO-evolution that dwells in fantasyland.

BC v7
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=89669f9741e047487eb3

BC v8
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=7653eeadf29596708c94

BC v9
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=94f37b938d340d5d0223




and in regards to homo-Sapiens:


If we are homo-Sapien then all Homo Sapiens are human, and all humans have souls. But if you don't have the whole skeleton then you will always have "imagination" involved.



And what's wrong with Godtube?






JNORM888
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jnorm888 said:
I thought Lions and Tigers were of the same species. Have you ever seen a "liger" before? I have. Micro-evolution is true. All cats are cats.....its MACRO-evolution that dwells in fantasyland.
Creationist Claim CB902:
Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
Source:
Wallace, Timothy, 2002. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp

Response:
Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.


There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.
Further Reading:

Wilkins, John, 1997. Macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Macro-Evolution is the evolution of one species to another.


We do know what we mean when we say "Macro-evolution". If you want to know what Creationists think, don't go to noncreationist websites. They don't know what they are talking about when it comes to creationism.


Get it straight from the horses mouth.......go to creationist websites if you want to know what creationists mean and the terms we use.





JNORM888
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jnorm888 said:
Macro-Evolution is the evolution of one species to another.

We do know what we mean when we say "Macro-evolution". If you want to know what Creationists think, don't go to noncreationist websites. They don't know what they are talking about when it comes to creationism.

Get it straight from the horses mouth.......go to creationist websites if you want to know what creationists mean and the terms we use.
JNORM888
Macroevolution is a scientific term. It's not up to anyone to decide to make up a definition as they go along. It's simply not a question of what "macroevolution" means to creationists, but what it means means to science. 

What is macroevolution?

First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.


The rest of the article is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution is found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
If the definition can change over time then it doesn't matter if we look at it in terms of one species changing into another one.

In regards to big changes, that is the only big change we care about. All the other things that they call "Macro-evolution" are nothing more than "Micro-evolution" (to us). And we already believe that. They try to change the meaning of things to fool people. The issue is with what Darwin tried to prove. They know what the issue is. they can't fool anyone.

If Macro-evolution can mean more than one thing then it shouldn't matter if creationists only want to stick to the meaning of "the change of one species to another".

That is what we stick to. Many of them know what we mean by it.......that is why they keep changing it's definition. But we are not going to change. How they view things will be re-interpreted according to our system. Some of the things they call MACRO are nothing more than MICRO to us.


If they want to use a new term....like "Super-Macro" to talk about the change of one species to another then that's fine by me. They know what we mean by the term "Macro", and we know what they mean.


But this is from creationwicki:

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution

quote:
"Macroevolution in general terms means large genetic change, but the precise meaning varies depending on who is using the word, and some creationists recommend not using the term at all.

Contents [hide]
1 Common meaning
2 Creationist Perspectives
2.1 Macroevolution Never Happened
2.2 Macroevolution Describes the Kind History
2.3 Avoid Using These Terms
3 History and use
4 Related References
5 See Also


Common meaning
A common definition for macroevolution is, "the evolution of higher taxa". In other words, it is long-term evolution that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. The process of evolution, given enough time, will eventually lead to the development of groups above the species level (i.e new genera). Macroevolution is distinguished from microevolution, which is the lesser quantity of change that occurs within a population.

Macroevolution describes a complex evolutionary history, which includes many speciation events and extinctions. For example, macroevolution is used when describing the theoretical evolution of all arthropods from some ancient ancestral species. In contrast to this position, the creationists believe that there are many baramin or created kinds within the Phylum Arthropoda.

Evolutionists use macroevolution to propose an evolutionary relationship between organisms that are vastly different, and in fact claim that the process is responsible for the common descent of all organisms on Earth. In other words, the fairy tale of a frog turning into a prince is reality (albeit stretched over a long period of time). Furthermore, they rely upon a non-catastrophic interpretation of the fossil record as their only real evidence for macroevolution. Evolutionists remain unable to provide any empirical evidence that a new plant or animal species has ever originated as a result of the gradual accumulation of DNA through natural selection, producing new types of beneficial structures or functions which are totally lacking in the ancestral species.

Creationist Perspectives
There are at least three perspectives regarding the use of the term within the creation community.

Macroevolution Never Happened
It is frequently claimed by creationists that microevolution happens, but macroevolution does not. The quantity of evolution creationists agree with is frequently called "variation within a kind", which is believed to be synonymous with the term microevolution. The claims of evolutionists that all life on earth has descended from a single ancestral cell is frequently equated with the term macroevolution further adding to this view.

Macroevolution Describes the Kind History
Some argue that based on the common meaning of the word macroevolution, this term more accurately describes the history of each Biblical kind. Macroevolution in this context describes the entire evolutionary history of each created kind, which includes speciation and adaption after the Fall, the extinctions caused by Noah's flood, and then further diversification over the last few thousand years.

Most creationists agree that the created kinds are most closely synonymous with the Family level of the taxonomic hierarchy. It is also readily accepted that only a single species, from some kinds, was spared from the flood. Each species from the ark has evolved since the flood into a great many distinct genera, each with many new species. It is said that this history is best described as macroevolution.

With such a complex history in mind, it may indeed be more accurate for creationists to state that all organisms have undergone macroevolution since the creation. It is also highly arguable that evolutionists would describe the evolutionary history of a created kind as macroevolution.

Avoid Using These Terms
While either use of microevolution or macroevolution by creationists might be true for some specific examples, as a general rule, the use of these terms should be done with care. Many creationists caution against using either term on the grounds that they detract from the real issue, the gain or loss of information, and are misleading in talking about the size of the change instead of the direction of the change.

History and use
According to Talk.Origins, the terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a German-language book in 1927, and were introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko's former student Theodosius Dobzhansky. They have continued to be used by evolutionists, although many evolutionists argue that there is no real difference between the two terms. However, the terms appear to be used much more by creationists than evolutionists, probably leading to the false belief held by many evolutionists that creationists invented the term."
hmmm, I learned something new. I didn't know that there were creationists that used the term "Macro-evolution" differently. Most creationist I know...use the term in the way that I used it. This is interesting. I never knew that.






JNORM888
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Neanderthal

http://creationwiki.org/Neanderthals

quote:
"Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), an extinct hominid, lived throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa. At first, Neanderthals represented somewhat of an enigma for evolutionists and creationists alike. However, whilst the vast majority of creationists now agree that Neanderthals were simply genetically isolated humans, some evolutionary circles have been slow to abandon the misconception that Neanderthals were stooped "apemen." Nevertheless, since the mid 1950s, studies have revealed that Neanderthal features fell within the accepted range of human anatomy.

Contents [hide]
1 Contention
2 Newer discoveries
3 Cuozzo’s angle
4 Dating Errors
5 Related References
6 See Also


Contention
There has been disagreement about whether the Neanderthals should be considered a subspecies (i.e. homo sapiens neanderthalis) or their own species. The recent sequencing of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA seems to point towards a separate species designation because of the substantial differences found compared to modern humans, and the apparent lack of breeding between sapiens and Neanderthals [1].


Reconstructing the face of the Gibraltar 2 (Devil's Tower) Neanderthal child.Yet, the 1998 discovery of a Neanderthal-human "hybrid" skeleton at Abrigo do Lagar Velho in Portugual indicates that humans were indeed capable of interbreeding with Neanderthals [2]. Moreover, critics of the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA data have noted that the sample size of Neanderthals is extremely small, resulting in underrepresentation.

“  Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans.
However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range. (Neanderthals are Still Human! Dave Phillips, Impact Vol. 323, May 2000)
” 

It is possible that Neanderthals contributed to modern human populations, but their mitochondrial DNA sequence disappeared as a result of the loss of genetic diversity. As Kahn and Gibbons write: "Living humans are strangely homogeneous genetically, presumably because ... their ancestors underwent a population bottleneck that wiped out many variations." [3] The mt DNA differences are at mutational hotspots where substantial mutational change can occur in short periods of time, resulting in rapid genetic shifts within a population. One Neanderthal mt DNA study concluded: "The separate phylogenetic position of Neanderthals is not supported when these factors are considered [i.e. the high substitution rate variation at these hotspots]." [4] Hence, recent mt DNA findings are not in conflict with the conclusion from the evidence of fossil hybrids and artifacts that Neanderthals were fully human.

Newer discoveries
In 2006, news was released that scientists had found Neanderthal DNA to be as much as 99.9% identical to modern humans.[5] However, this does more than shorten the gap between Neanderthals and humans, since it is recognized by the mainstream scientific community that any two humans on earth have genes that are 99.9% identical to each other.[6] Such recognition of modern genetic divergence also serves to acknowledge Neanderthals as fully human genetically.

Cuozzo’s angle
Jack Cuozzo, who was the first to radiograph Neanderthal fossils in modern times, postulated that the unusual skeletal structures may actually be the result of extreme longevity. This conclusion was reached following his comparison between his Neanderthal skull radiographs and human growth patterns. A charge which might be brought to bear against this idea is the existence of Neanderthal children. Such individuals would not have had the time to show the characteristic traits of the adults. Cuozzo has stated that in his firsthand research with the Engis 2 child fossil there are lacking the pronounced brow ridges and elongated skull cited in evolutionist articles. In addition to long life, however, Cuozzo believes that the Neanderthals aged slower than modern humans, and secular studies have suggested that they were also superior in strength and dexterity. Moreover, Neanderthals had larger cranial capacities than modern humans, hinting at the possibility of greater intelligence. In all, the Neanderthals may be evidence for the biblical account of early people, such as Adam, Noah, and Methuselah, reaching great age. They were individuals closer to the Creation, and therefore possibly less degenerate from the effects of the Fall of Man.

Dating Errors
In 2000, newspapers reported on the dating flaws of Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, whose carbon dating results had been used to date such specimens such as Hahnhofersand Man and Binschof-Speyer Woman (actually a man).

The Hahnofersand specimen was estimated by von Zieten to be around 36,000 years old. Independent Oxford research found the specimen to be less than 7,500 years of age -- long after evolution says the neanderthals went extinct. (The age is still outside the estimates of most young-earth creationists, but a drastic reduction nonetheless.) According to the Herne Anthropological Museum in Germany, the remains still exuded an odor when the skull was cut open for further review.

Binschof-Speyer was estimated at 21,300, but independent research dated it at around 3,000 years of age.

According to Chris Stringer, the head of the Human Origins department at the Museum of Natural History, "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."[7]

von Zieten's claims to Prussian ancestry were also disproved (he was actually the son of a former Nazi party member), and he was accused of trying to sell a collection of chimpanzee skulls to an American collector. He was suspended in 2004, and forced to retire in early 2005.

Related References
Neanderthals are Still Human!
Making monkeys out of man
Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: an evaluation
Neanderthal DNA "Almost" Identical to Human's ..(Oops!)...
Jack Cuozzo homepage

Browse



See Also
Paleoanthropology
Paleoanthropology quotes
Intermediate fossils
Evolution myths
Paleontology
Retrieved from "http://creationwiki.org/Neanderthal"




JNORM888
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jnorm888 said:
I thought Lions and Tigers were of the same species.
Shows how much you really know about all this. Lions are panthera leo; tigers are panthera tigris. Same genus, different species--just like homo sapiens and homo erectus!

Have you ever seen a "liger" before?
No, but I've heard they're bred for their skills in magic--sort of like creationists.

And what's wrong with Godtube?
The fact that it's blatantly plagiarising Youtube. Posting a video on the Internet is one thing, and even having a site for Christian videos is totally okay with me. But to steal someone else's idea for your own personal gain is not only un-Christian, it could very well be criminal. Godtube looks exactly like Youtube; the only difference I saw is that there was only a couple of comments instead of the usual hundreds. At least people have the good sense to stay away from the horrid site.

This ridiculous notion of creating a "Christian version" of everything that's already been done makes Christianity laughable. Please, for the sake of the Gospel, let's have Christian artists and inventors who create real, original works--not copycats. The world will hate us; Christ Himself said so. But please, if they will hate us, let him hate us because we are followers of Christ, and not because we are thieves.
 
Top