RJ, what about Neanderthals?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who ever wrote that article show their extreme ignorance by stating neaderthals are not human. Neanderthals are just as human as negros and caucasians that have adapted different physical types from each other.

Those who believe that Neanderthals were a subspecies of human call them Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, while those who believe they were a separate species call them Homo neanderthalensis.

Modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, so I think it is clear that Neanderthals are NOT the same as modern humans.

As far as your "missing link" comment, it is fairly established that the latest Neanderthals lived c. 30,000 years ago. There is some evidence that they may have lived as recently as 24,000 years ago, but this evidence is circumstantial, not being direct physical evidence (tools and fire methods vs. bones or DNA).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Those who believe that Neanderthals were a subspecies of human call them Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, while those who believe they were a separate species call them Homo neanderthalensis.

Modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, so I think it is clear that Neanderthals are NOT the same as modern humans.

As far as your "missing li ...[text shortened]... circumstantial, not being direct physical evidence (tools and fire methods vs. bones or DNA).

The 30,000 and 24,000 years are obvious exaggerations to suit the evolutionists' claim. Neanderthal is just a term like Caucasian or Mongolian that divides humans into physical categories. It is really no different from the many terms used to divide wolves and dogs which are all of the same kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

Originally posted by RJHinds
The 30,000 and 24,000 years are obvious exaggerations to suit the evolutionists' claim. Neanderthal is just a term like Caucasian or Mongolian that divides humans into physical categories. It is really no different from the many terms used to divide wolves and dogs which are all of the same kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

No. Neanderthal is either a separate species or a subspecies of humans. It is NOT merely a race of humans.

And oh, by the way, don't worry your head over people calling Neanderthals a "missing link" or anything else. The Neanderthal line is an evolutionary dead-end. Nothing evolved from it. Cro-Magnon man (or Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved on a parallel track, not evolved from Neanderthals.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. Neanderthal is either a separate species or a subspecies of humans. It is NOT merely a race of humans.

And oh, by the way, don't worry your head over people calling Neanderthals a "missing link" or anything else. The Neanderthal line is an evolutionary dead-end. Nothing evolved from it. Cro-Magnon man (or Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved on a parallel track, not evolved from Neanderthals.

Humans are not divided up into species. They are called races instead of species. 😏

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today scientists question even the concept of race itself. Certain issues in human taxonomy remain topics of debate today.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Humans are not divided up into species. They are called races instead of species. 😏

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today scientists question even the concept of race itself. Certain issues in human taxonomy remain topics of debate today.

So you conveniently ignore the fact we KNOW a LOT about Neanderthals, including DNA. It turns out we share less than 4% of the genes between us and them.

We have more in common with chimps DNA wise and I doubt you call chimps human.

So why do you insist on calling Neandertals human? We competed for the same territory at times and food but we won and they lost.

There were in no way human, even their brain was different, a lot bigger than ours, indicating real intelligence but in different ways that we will most likely never know just what that difference really is.

So once again you poo poo science because it doesn't agree with your personal dogma. Neandertals aren't even MENTIONED in the bible so what is your beef with not calling them human? They were not humans suffering from rickets or any of that crap. The first ones found and the last ones found, their fossils, were very close physically, they would have died out a lot earlier if a generation thousands of years older was identical with humans with rickets or other degenerative diseases.

They were on a different line of the tree than us but shared a common ancestor from an even earlier time. Go back far enough and you find the branch that connects us with chimps but that is a lot further back in time than the branch that separated humans and Neanders.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Humans are not divided up into species. They are called races instead of species. 😏

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today scientists question even the concept of race itself. Certain issues in human taxonomy remain topics of debate today.

Ok, I'm done beating my head against a brick wall.

Feel free to continue on in your ignorance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you conveniently ignore the fact we KNOW a LOT about Neanderthals, including DNA. It turns out we share less than 4% of the genes between us and them.

Did you mean to write this? 4%?

The fact is that Neanderthals and modern humans share more than 99.5% of their genes. Some estimates are as high as 99.9%.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/#.UK0Ds9fNl8H

Another interesting read on Neanderthal genome sequencing, with links to related articles:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061116083223.htm

Originally posted by Suzianne
Did you mean to write this? 4%?

The fact is that Neanderthals and modern humans share more than 99.5% of their genes. Some estimates are as high as 99.9%.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/#.UK0Ds9fNl8H

as one of the few lady posters in spirituality can i ask you to offer your perspective on whether ladies should be allowed to become elders in the church, i know not what your stance is, but it doesn't matter your comments might be insightful regardless - thanks in advance - Robbie.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you conveniently ignore the fact we KNOW a LOT about Neanderthals, including DNA. It turns out we share less than 4% of the genes between us and them.

We have more in common with chimps DNA wise and I doubt you call chimps human.

So why do you insist on calling Neandertals human? We competed for the same territory at times and food but we won and ...[text shortened]... mps but that is a lot further back in time than the branch that separated humans and Neanders.

Where do you come up with all this crap?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as one of the few lady posters in spirituality can i ask you to offer your perspective on whether ladies should be allowed to become elders in the church, i know not what your stance is, but it doesn't matter your comments might be insightful regardless - thanks in advance - Robbie.

I belong to the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has allowed female ordination since 1974, and the church I go to currently has a female priest.

According to Wikipedia:

The Episcopal Church ordains women to the priesthood as well as the diaconate and the episcopate. The current Presiding Bishop (elected 2006) of the Episcopal Church is Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first female Primate in the Anglican Communion.

Of course I believe in the value of women as elders in the church.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I belong to the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has allowed female ordination since 1974, and the church I go to currently has a female priest.

According to Wikipedia:

The Episcopal Church ordains women to the priesthood as well as the diaconate and the episcopate. The current Presiding Bishop (elected 2006) of the Episcopal Church is Katharin ...[text shortened]... in the Anglican Communion.

Of course I believe in the value of women as elders in the church.

The Episcopal Church is the Church of England in America.

"The Church was organized shortly after the American Revolution when it was forced to separate from the Church of England, as Church of England clergy were required to swear allegiance to the British monarch, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_(United_States)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Episcopal Church is the Church of England in America.

[b]"The Church was organized shortly after the American Revolution when it was forced to separate from the Church of England, as Church of England clergy were required to swear allegiance to the British monarch, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_(United_States)[/b]

Singing to the choir, my friend.

Or did you really think I did not know this?

My point is that The Episcopal Church ordains women and has a woman as their current Presiding Bishop, while the CoE does not.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Singing to the choir, my friend.

Or did you [b]really think I did not know this?

My point is that The Episcopal Church ordains women and has a woman as their current Presiding Bishop, while the CoE does not.[/b]

The Episcopal Church is much more liberal and suits your psychology.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Episcopal Church is much more liberal and suits your psychology.

I can only take this as a compliment, regardless of how you may have meant it.

Isn't Christianity as a whole much more liberal than, say, Islam?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Episcopal Church is much more liberal and suits your psychology.

the espiscopal church for suizanne....and the westboro baptist church for you r.j.






we all know you keep a picture of shirley phelps in your wallet.