3 edits
" What, then, are we to do with these human fossil remains which seem to challenge the biblical record of man's early history at almost every point? To reject the evidence is to commit intellectual suicide. Is there an alternative interpretation? " Authur Custance
I do not know much about Neanderthals. But we jump to the conclusion that we are looking at evolved humans.
Maybe we are looking at de-evolved humans subject to some kind of degeneration. Maybe what they represent is a step down rather than a step up.
And possible alternative explanations may be considered.
Genesis and Early Man by Arthur Custance
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/index.html
Originally posted by jaywillThey are not going to pay any attention to this. They will claim it is from
" What, then, are we to do with these human fossil remains which seem to challenge the biblical record of man's early history at almost every point? To reject the evidence is to commit intellectual suicide. Is there an alternative interpretation? " Authur Custance
I do not know much about Neanderthals. But we jump to the conclusion that we ar ...[text shortened]... rly Man by Arthur Custance
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/index.html[/b]
some creationist website as they usually do and ask if you can't come up
with something that has scientific authority. (i.e. something that agrees
with them)
Originally posted by RJHindsLikely, yes.
They are not going to pay any attention to this. They will claim it is from
some creationist website as they usually do and ask if you can't come up
with something that has scientific authority. (i.e. something that agrees
with them)
If you go to that webites read that article on Who Taught Adam to Speak ?
Originally posted by jaywillnot likely that they devolved since there is some evidence suggesting they were more advanced than humans when it came to certain things, like burying their dead along with their possessions suggesting they believed in some kind of afterlife. it's quiet possible that they taught their religion to humans. these discoveries are still controversial and remain contested, but future discoveries may change our opinion of neanderthals even more.
" What, then, are we to do with these human fossil remains which seem to challenge the biblical record of man's early history at almost every point? To reject the evidence is to commit intellectual suicide. Is there an alternative interpretation? " Authur Custance
I do not know much about Neanderthals. But we jump to the conclusion that we ar ...[text shortened]... rly Man by Arthur Custance
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/index.html[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI do not know much about Neanderthals.
" What, then, are we to do with these human fossil remains which seem to challenge the biblical record of man's early history at almost every point? To reject the evidence is to commit intellectual suicide. Is there an alternative interpretation? " Authur Custance
I do not know much about Neanderthals. But we jump to the conclusion that we ar ...[text shortened]... rly Man by Arthur Custance
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/index.html[/b]
Why didn't you stop at this sentence then?!
Originally posted by jaywillYes, I read it. It is clear we have no other explanation for the beginning of
Likely, yes.
If you go to that webites read that article on [b]Who Taught Adam to Speak ? [/b]
speech than from God. However, this is not a satisfactory answer for the
atheists, who will still wait for men of science to give them another source.
Originally posted by RJHindsMan invented language and continues to do so.
Yes, I read it. It is clear we have no other explanation for the beginning of
speech than from God. However, this is not a satisfactory answer for the
atheists, who will still wait for men of science to give them another source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poto_and_Cabengo
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat language did god speak before he invented man?
Yes, I read it. It is clear we have no other explanation for the beginning of
speech than from God. However, this is not a satisfactory answer for the
atheists, who will still wait for men of science to give them another source.
Originally posted by jaywillIn science, conclusions are not jumped to. That is a religious thing.
But we jump to the conclusion that we are looking at evolved humans.
In science we make hypothesis and only make a conclusion when evidence is significant enough to warrant a conclusion.
We do however have enough genetic evidence to say conclusively that Neanderthals are not descended from humans.
Originally posted by jaywillI think it makes more sense that God created the Neanderthals as humanoid animals on the day He created all of the animals, and that the Neanderthals are not descendants from Adam & Eve. Granted, the Neanderthals subsequently interbred with descendants of Adam & Eve.
" What, then, are we to do with these human fossil remains which seem to challenge the biblical record of man's early history at almost every point? To reject the evidence is to commit intellectual suicide. Is there an alternative interpretation? " Authur Custance
I do not know much about Neanderthals. But we jump to the conclusion that we ar ...[text shortened]... rly Man by Arthur Custance
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/index.html[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThanks for the interesting link.
I suspect they might have been the Nephilim.
http://nephiliman.com/ancient_giants_neanderthal.htm
http://nephiliman.com/ancient_giants_neanderthal.htm
Neanderthal, an extinct race of man, who quite possibly could be the "heroes of old, men of renown" of which Genesis speaks. . . .
They were bigger, stronger, and intellectually superior to their Homo Sapien counterparts, with whom they co-existed for many thousands of years. The last known surviving pockets of Neanderthal are from the Middle East, The Biblical regions. In the written legends handed down to us in the Bible, as well as non Biblical accounts, the Neanderthal/Nephilim were a race which our ancestors held in both great fear and respect.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo we don't have enough evidence to say for a "fact".
In science, conclusions are not jumped to. That is a religious thing.
In science we make hypothesis and only make a conclusion when evidence is significant enough to warrant a conclusion.
We do however have enough genetic evidence to say conclusively that Neanderthals are not descended from humans.