Originally posted by RJHinds No we don't have enough evidence to say for a "fact".
Yes we do. You may not like the evidence, nor accept it, but anyone with a reasonable education who looks at the evidence will accept it. You however, have not looked at the evidence nor have much of an education so you are in no position to make any reasonable conclusion on the matter.
Originally posted by sonhouse You seriously think neandertals are ancestors of modern man?
From what I understand, they are a branch of the lineage that has led to humans. Meaning we are not descended from them, nor they from us, but rather we have a common ancestor. Is this correct?
Originally posted by Suzianne From what I understand, they are a branch of the lineage that has led to humans. Meaning we are not descended from them, nor they from us, but rather we have a common ancestor. Is this correct?
That is my take on it. I was trying to get Ron to say what he meant by 'fact'. Obviously we don't have a time machine to go back and factually settle the issues of evolution but I wondered where he was going with that statement.
What is amazing to me is the idea some folks can look at fossils like that and then come to the conclusion the entire Earth and all life on it is like 10,000 years old.
Originally posted by sonhouse That is my take on it. I was trying to get Ron to say what he meant by 'fact'. Obviously we don't have a time machine to go back and factually settle the issues of evolution but I wondered where he was going with that statement.
What is amazing to me is the idea some folks can look at fossils like that and then come to the conclusion the entire Earth and all life on it is like 10,000 years old.
I know. I myself have no problem squaring the Bible and science. Fundamentalists love to cling to the idea that God snapped His fingers and everything appeared in place. They love to constrain God into the little box of their little expectations of their little minds. They make all Christians look stupid and ignorant. My faith is a lot bigger than this.
Originally posted by Suzianne I know. I myself have no problem squaring the Bible and science. Fundamentalists love to cling to the idea that God snapped His fingers and everything appeared in place. They love to constrain God into the little box of their little expectations of their little minds. They make all Christians look stupid and ignorant. My faith is a lot bigger than this.
So when was having a PHD a prerequisite for being a Christian? All have their story to tell, yes both the dull and the ignorant.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie So when was having a PHD a prerequisite for being a Christian? All have their story to tell, yes both the dull and the ignorant.
The message of Christ is supposed to set us free, Robbie.
Yes, even from ignorance.
Christianity is very much a "thinking man's" religion. Those of ignorance who refuse to be set free usually end up tainting the message. Fundamentalists are not good for any religion, be it Christianity or Islam.
Originally posted by Suzianne The message of Christ is supposed to set us free, Robbie.
Yes, even from ignorance.
Christianity is very much a "thinking man's" religion. Those of ignorance who refuse to be set free usually end up tainting the message. Fundamentalists are not good for any religion, be it Christianity or Islam.
I am not condoning ignorance Suzianne, but the wisdom of the system is one type, the
wisdom of God another.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I am not condoning ignorance Suzianne, but the wisdom of the system is one type, the
wisdom of God another.
Howdy Rob. A question i've been meaning to ask you -
As someone who believes mankind has only been on the planet for 6,000yrs or so, how do you square the recent revelation that neanderthal DNA has been found in the human genome (or more precisely those humans outside of Africa) given that neanderthals died out 27,000yrs ago, or thereabouts?
Originally posted by Proper Knob Howdy Rob. A question i've been meaning to ask you -
As someone who believes mankind has only been on the planet for 6,000yrs or so, how do you square the recent revelation that neanderthal DNA has been found in the human genome (or more precisely those humans outside of Africa) given that neanderthals died out 27,000yrs ago, or thereabouts?
Yeah i read it in on the BBC websight. Don't know enough about it to be honest dear
Noobster. Don't know how the figure 27,000 years has been calculated or what dating
methods were used to obtain it. My understanding was that they are regarded as
humanoid, the New encyclopaedia Britannica stating that they are coming in at around
50,000 years or so ago (again i dont know what dating methods they have used or
how they arrive at that figure). This has been my understanding to date.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Yeah i read it in on the BBC websight. Don't know enough about it to be honest dear
Noobster. Don't know how the figure 27,000 years has been calculated or what dating
methods were used to obtain it. My understanding was that they are regarded as
humanoid, the New encyclopaedia Britannica stating that they are coming in at around
50,000 ye ...[text shortened]... they have used or
how they arrive at that figure). This has been my understanding to date.
Just answer the question, Robbie.
Yeeesh.
Or is that your answer, that obviously they have their numbers wrong?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Yeah i read it in on the BBC websight. Don't know enough about it to be honest dear
Noobster. Don't know how the figure 27,000 years has been calculated or what dating
methods were used to obtain it. My understanding was that they are regarded as
humanoid, the New encyclopaedia Britannica stating that they are coming in at around
50,000 ye ...[text shortened]... they have used or
how they arrive at that figure). This has been my understanding to date.
The figure of 27,000yrs, or thereabouts, is because that's when they disappear from the fossil record. As for you encyclopedia's estimate of 50,000yrs, i think you may have missed a zero from that number.
Originally posted by Suzianne Just answer the question, Robbie.
Yeeesh.
Or is that your answer, that obviously they have their numbers wrong?
naturally if you had known anything about it yourself you may have provided those
details and here you are hypocritically calling others out for being ignorant, jeesh indeed.
What is it with you you always gotta be condemning people that dont meet
your own self imposed expectations?
Originally posted by Proper Knob The figure of 27,000yrs, or thereabouts, is because that's when they disappear from the fossil record. As for you encyclopedia's estimate of 50,000yrs, i think you may have missed a zero from that number.
I thought you said it was based upon DNA evidence? As for the encyclopaedia Britannica, no i dont think so, in fact i went into the Library at Charring cross and looked it up, 50,000 was the figure that they gave. Again how they arrived at this figure, i have no idea. If i can find the reference online or elsewhere ill post it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I thought you said it was based upon DNA evidence? As for the encyclopaedia Britannica, no i dont think so, in fact i went into the Library at Charring cross and looked it up, 50,000 was the figure that they gave. Again how they arrived at this figure, i have no idea. If i can find the reference online or elsewhere ill post it.
That neanderthal DNA is in the human genome is based on genetic evidence. The figure given for the extinction date of neanderthals is based on the fact that no neanderthal remains have been found dated younger than 27,000yrs (or so).
The earliest neanderthal remains in the UK have been dated to around 230,000yrs ago, so i'm not sure where the encycoopedia Britannica got that figure from.
03 Sep '11 14:30
Neanderthals
Back to Top