Carnivorous animals before the fall...

[Legatus]

Exactly how did God subject the creation to our sinful influence? Did anything change in plants, what? How about animals, did they change physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually?

How does that relate to the stated curse, thorns, thistles, hard work to grow food, pain?

I trying to find out what you are talking about here. You seem to disagree with me but I cannot find out how, since you also seem to agree with me.

[Legatus]

My point about God changing Pharaos heart is that, for God to make Pharoa sin, God would have to tempt Pharao, which the bible clearly states God never does. The bible also states that mankind is naturally sinfull, and that no one wants to be redeemed unless the spirit draws them. therefor if God simply stops "tempting" Pharao to do the right thing, Pharoa will do the wrong thing. Therefore God did cause Pharao to take certain actions, not by what God did, but by what God did not do. To believe otherwise is to believe that God can force someone to sin, and then damn them for it, which the bible clearly states is not ever done.
This is why it both says that God changed Pharaos mind, and Pharao changed his own mind (if it ment only God did it, it would have said only that).

However, what I am talking about is this. The stated effects of the curse are largely physical. Other than the man ruling over the woman Gen 3:16 , which is a simple result of their changed attitudes to each other, and not caused by God (directly, God made the man have greater physical strength because he needs it to hunt and work), the stated effects are physical. The other stated effects of the curse on mankind are thorns and thistles Gen 3:18 , hard work if you want to eat Gen 3:19 , and pain Gen 3:16 (in childbirth and from the thorns). These are all physical effects, and all are practically identical to, and made nessisary by, the fact that this universe is a closed system, and thus we are not immortal, and thus need pain to keep us from injury. I have already explained above why thorns go only with entropy, as well as hard work.

You agree that thorns, carnivores (the animal equivilent of thorns) and entropy (and therefor pain, including n childbirth) existed before the fall. Yet. somewhow, you cannot see that the very clearly stated effects in genesis are entropy. Do you beleive that the curse was something else besides the stated thorns, pain, etc? If so, what, exactly?

Do you understand what the word "garden" means, in genesis? Why was that specific word used? Do gardens have thorns? Why not? So if gardens don't have thorns, and the man and woman were removed from the garden, would they then encounter thorns, something they had not encountered before? Would that be why God included thorns in the curse? Since gardens are often planted with food, and this garden was specifically said to be planted BY GOD with fruit trees, if the man and woman were removed from the garden, would they not then have to do their OWN planting if they wanted to eat, and does not the curse say specifically that? We therefore see that, as you agree, entropy existed before the fall, that the garden was different from the wold outside it (gardens always are), and that God therefore could bring the curse on mankind by simply removing them from the garden Gen 3:23 .

Your idea seems to be that this current universe can only operate as a closed system. Let me repeat that, THIS CURRENT UNIVERSE. It is stated that this universe will not last forever, and is slated to be completly replaced. The stated properties of the new heavens and new earth are those consistant with an open system, non entropy, universe, with different natural laws. Can you understand the idea of a physical universe with different natural laws than this one? Perhaps why you cannot understand me is because you have never tried to imagine a universe different than this one.

This new universe will only come about after the ressurection, which is before the last judgement. This is why it is stated in Rom 8:21
that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. The stated effects in Romans include groaning, of the creation. That can only be a result of physical pain, since animals cannot sin, and certainly plants can't, therefor it cannot be said to be only a spiritual effect, animals and plants don't have spirits. Romans also talks about spiritual effects, on people only, but also specifically mentioning physical effects like pain, as seen here Rom 8:23 , bodies can only be ressurected, the exact opposite of entropy, if entropy ends (or partially ends, say for the people in those bodies only). Therefore, Rom 8:19 "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed", since if they are not, God will not bring about the new heavens and new earth, since that is stated to come after the ressurection (possibly "a thousand years" after, but definatly after).

Therefore, my point is that what God did, in the curse, is exactly what God did, "to" Pharao. It is not what God did, it is what God did not do. God did not anymore weed the area around Adam and Eve of thorns and thistles. God did not anymore do their planting of fruit trees for them. And God did not maintain their bodies as open systems, where pain would not be nessisary since they could not be hurt (God may not have done that before the fall, the creation of a safe comfey garden my have had the same effect). Therefore, if you can understand what God did with Pharao, you can understand what God did with Adam and Eve.

And for the world, and universe, at large, he did it from the beginning of time, as the physical evidence overwhelmingly shows, something you have stated you believe God can, and in some cases did, do.

[Legatus]

I already agree that the flood was reginal, since it was aimed at mankind, and they lived only in that one area, as seen by the netherdal fossils, which only extend over a limted area of the middle east, eastern europe, and southern europe. The fossils of homo saptians extend over a much wider area, which would take a lot more than a regional flood to kill.

The flood killed them, whether by direct drowning or indirectly, by other after effects, is not stated. All that is stated is that the flood killed them, it need not go into any detail of exactly how each of them died. The area effected seems a bit large for them to have all drowned (unless as some have suggested the mediterranean was an inland sea at the time and overflowed over some hills, but the evidence of that is scant or contradictery). Thus the bible states that the flood killed them, and the fossil and genetic evidence agrees, I really don't care HOW it happened for each of them, I only need to know that it DID, and why.

Yes, netherdals are not human, AS WE ARE, but thats just it, Adam was not human, AS WE ARE. Do we live to be over 900 years old? Would that not result in slow growth of bone, as it does for us now, over that time? Are you aware that if WE lived that long, the current pattern of slow growth over time would end up with us looking like nentherdals after 900 years of life? If Adam lived to be over 900 years old, isn't it obvious that he had to have a different genetic structure than us? Isnt it further obvious that, if there were only 3 total human females left after the flood of childbearing age, that that would result in severe genetic drift? Therefore, can it not be seen that our genes, from the time of Adam till now, have greatly changed? We can see the effect of that in the logarithmic decrease of lifespans clearly shown in the bible. Clearly, that must have included a great change in genetics, to go from super strong people (with bigger brains) who could live to be over 900, to what we are today. Therefore, to say that netherdals genes are not like ours is not exactly suprising, is it? In short, if you believe the flood in the bible, and you beleive in genetics and the reality of genetic drift, then you believe that it is quite possible, even certain, that "netherdals" is simply our name for pre flood mankind.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Did-Earl ... 9036.shtml
http://news.discovery.com/human/neander ... d-dna.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ecies.html
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=netherda ... afe=images and many more...

And then there is the half netherdal, half cro magnon fossils they keep finding, which I have seen on the front pages of major newspapers of different finds at least twice. In short, this is direct evidence that all netherdals did NOT clump together seperate from humans, the only clumping is because, after the flood, the rapid genetic drift ment that they largly and eventually completly changed from being netherdals to being like us today, therfore after the flood, the "netherdals" on the ark spread out in a different pattern than they had previosly (quite possibly most ending up first in africa), rapidly changed genetically, and left mostly or completly modern type, rather than netherfal type, fossiles over this new, larger area (larger because with decreesed lifespand they bred faster).. Since netherdals lived, as we know, in one specific area (which just happens to be the flood area) if they are different species, how could they be half human and half netherdal, how could they even breed? In fact, it fits the evidence from the bible of decreesing lifespans, if they lived less long, there would be less bone groth over time due to less time, hence less looking like netherdals. And if they lived less long, their genes must have changed considerably, so that is another reason for their changing appearance.

In short, 'scientists believe" that they were different species, but the genetic and especially fossile evidence says different. The gene hunters need to get out of their office and find out what the fossil hunters have found. The scientists are, in this case, simply wrong. Maybe they should crack open a bible and look to see what the evidence in there is.

And yes, the netherdals went extinct, well, all but 8 of them.

[Legatus]

More evidence of the severe genetic drift after the flood http://news.discovery.com/human/x-woman ... estor.html
After the flood, different clans drifting apart would have diverged signifigently genetically. Some may have died out, some eventually migrating and interbreeding with the now different, due to genetic drift, other post flood clans, after what may be many thousnads of years, even tens of thousands. This is all from the basic idea, which is, WHAT IF THERE REALLY WAS A FLOOD OF NOAH? If there was, and there were only 3 woman who could have children, what follows, genetically? See also "founder effect" ("The difference in gene frequencies between the original population and colony may also trigger the two groups to diverge significantly over the course of many generations").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift Quote: "The effect of genetic drift is larger in small populations, and smaller in large populations." 8 people total is a very VERY small population, thus the genetic drift must be a very VERY large one.
More:
A population bottleneck is when a population contracts to a significantly smaller size over a short period of time due to some random environmental event.[28] In a true population bottleneck, the odds for survival of any member of the population are purely random, and are not improved by any particular inherent genetic advantage. The bottleneck can result in radical changes in allele frequencies, completely independent of selection. And its impact can be sustained, even when the bottleneck is caused by a one-time event such as a natural catastrophe. Even when the allele frequency of the original population is carried forward in the surviving population, a radical reduction in population size increases the likelihood of further allele fluctuation from drift in generations to come.


Oh, one thing, those netherdals "we all know" were not intelligent, incorrect, see http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -art-human

[dayage]

Neanderthals are not humans

Neanderthal's DNA is too different. It is that difference that allowed scientists to determine that humans may have interbred with Neanderthals. The amount of nuclear DNA that non-Africans have received from Neanderthals is only 1-4%. This agrees with the findings from mtDNA studies, which, because of its smaller size, could not detect any interbreeding.

Africans show no signs of Neanderthal interbreeding. They do not have Neanderthals in their blood. This rules against Neanderthals as being our ancestors. If they were our ancestors, we should have lots of evidence for interbreeding (lots of their DNA in ours). If Noah was a Neanderthal, his genes should be in all human genomes and at high levels.

This information fits well with the Biblical account. Humans originated and stayed in the Mesopotamian/Arabian areas until after the Tower of Babel. At that point, most of the descendants of Japheth and Shem seem to have moved northward and most of Ham's descendants seem to have moved toward Africa.

Some of Japheth and Shem's descendants may have committed bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23, 20:15-16) with Neanderthals and given birth to viable children. As the nuclear DNA study stated, it would only take a few of these incidents to give the 1-4% Neanderthal signature that we see across European and Asian populations.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Gree ... l_2008.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0002700
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593.long


Neanderthal morphology and development differ from humans.

Neanderthal Birth canals differ from humans
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/20/8151.full

Baby Neanderthals differ from human babies
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Neanderth ... a014916153

Neanderthals had a different face
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/5/1147. ... c2eac1888a

The Neanderthal's overall skeleton differed from humans in many ways
http://www.illustrationsource.com/stock ... o-sapiens/

Human brains develop differently than did Neanderthal brains
http://www.eurekalert.org/images/releas ... io8442.pdf
Also, listen to the 11/10/10 podcast about their brains
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/science ... d265539001

Neanderthals developed faster than humans. This, along with the fact that their babies had the same thick bones and other anatomical features, rules against these features being caused by living much longer than modern humans. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf

By the way, bones do not grow stronger and thicker with age. Here are some sights.
http://seniorliving.about.com/od/health ... 1part2.htm
http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00191


Neanderthal "arts" compared to human art. With Neanderthal, it is always guess work.

Neanderthal "carving" 35,000 years old
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm

Neanderthal "flute"
http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_room/ba ... hal_flute/
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d ... 314-09.pdf

Neanderthal "painting." It's the white shell that may have pigments. 50,000 yrs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -art-human

Human carving 30,000+ yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_man_o ... ein_Stadel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2679675.stm

Human painting 30,000 yrs
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehist ... ntings.htm

Human flute 40,000 and 30,000 yrs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ument.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm

Human clothes 30,000+ yrs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142352.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 233037.htm

Genetic drift can not account for the differences between humans and Neanderthals. The case for Denisova is even worse.
http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Na ... _et_al.pdf

Don't read headlines, read research papers.

[zoegirl]

More evidence of the severe genetic drift after the flood http://news.discovery.com/human/x-woman ... estor.html
After the flood, different clans drifting apart would have diverged signifigently genetically. Some may have died out, some eventually migrating and interbreeding with the now different, due to genetic drift, other post flood clans, after what may be many thousnads of years, even tens of thousands. This is all from the basic idea, which is, WHAT IF THERE REALLY WAS A FLOOD OF NOAH? If there was, and there were only 3 woman who could have children, what follows, genetically? See also "founder effect" ("The difference in gene frequencies between the original population and colony may also trigger the two groups to diverge significantly over the course of many generations").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift Quote: "The effect of genetic drift is larger in small populations, and smaller in large populations." 8 people total is a very VERY small population, thus the genetic drift must be a very VERY large one.
More:
A population bottleneck is when a population contracts to a significantly smaller size over a short period of time due to some random environmental event.[28] In a true population bottleneck, the odds for survival of any member of the population are purely random, and are not improved by any particular inherent genetic advantage. The bottleneck can result in radical changes in allele frequencies, completely independent of selection. And its impact can be sustained, even when the bottleneck is caused by a one-time event such as a natural catastrophe. Even when the allele frequency of the original population is carried forward in the surviving population, a radical reduction in population size increases the likelihood of further allele fluctuation from drift in generations to come.


Oh, one thing, those netherdals "we all know" were not intelligent, incorrect, see http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -art-human

I always find it rather bizarre that those that believe in a young earth and a global flood then insist upon a rapid speciation that even most evolutionists wouldn't support, requiring rather high numbers of mutations and selection.

[Legatus]

"I always find it rather bizarre that those that believe in a young earth and a global flood then insist upon a rapid speciation that even most evolutionists wouldn't support, requiring rather high numbers of mutations and selection."

Just a note, I am talking here about an old earth and a local flood, and "speciation" caused by the biblically mentioned flood causing inevitable genetic drift of the human race, resulting in us no longer living to be 900, thus certainly being a result of quite a LOT of genetic drift, since MANY changes, genetically and otherwise, would need to happen to accomplish this. Also, there would be genetic drift of the animals on the ark, though I don't know exactly what kind of animals they were, it might have been mostly domesticated ones, or local types.

[Legatus]

Neanderthals are not humans

Neanderthal's DNA is too different. It is that difference that allowed scientists to determine that humans may have interbred with Neanderthals. The amount of nuclear DNA that non-Africans have received from Neanderthals is only 1-4%. This agrees with the findings from mtDNA studies, which, because of its smaller size, could not detect any interbreeding.

Africans show no signs of Neanderthal interbreeding. They do not have Neanderthals in their blood. This rules against Neanderthals as being our ancestors. If they were our ancestors, we should have lots of evidence for interbreeding (lots of their DNA in ours). If Noah was a Neanderthal, his genes should be in all human genomes and at high levels.

This information fits well with the Biblical account. Humans originated and stayed in the Mesopotamian/Arabian areas until after the Tower of Babel. At that point, most of the descendants of Japheth and Shem seem to have moved northward and most of Ham's descendants seem to have moved toward Africa.

Some of Japheth and Shem's descendants may have committed bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23, 20:15-16) with Neanderthals and given birth to viable children. As the nuclear DNA study stated, it would only take a few of these incidents to give the 1-4% Neanderthal signature that we see across European and Asian populations.

Don't read headlines, read research papers.

First, the last, "read research papers". Well, research papers tend to be "peer reviewed", that means, that they only get published IF the "peers" agree with it. Thus, it tends to be the nice, safe, "consensus view". Consensus is NOT the way to do science! Did Galileo stick with the "consensus" that the sun went around the earth? "Consensus" is not science, and science is not consensus. REAL science happenes when sumone says "now thats funny..." and sees something new, and publishes it (when they are allowed to). It is then apposed by all right thinking people everywhere, often only years, or even decades later, being accepted as true. I have a choice, accept consensus, or stick with real science. When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?

Albert Einstein’s response to the 1931 pamphlet "100 authors against Einstein," commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, said, "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the
other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.. . . And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein (wo)men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by.
-Francis Bacon,

"If academic research is not devoted to finding the truth, it is a form of propaganda, and not necessarily to be preferred to other forms, much cheaper and perhaps more persuasive." (Russell 1993) Harry Erwin

As Thucydides wrote, men will accept without argument conclusions they find agreeable; but will bring all the force of logic and reason against those they do not like.

Peer review means that now, if there is something that Satan want's you to believe, or not know about, he no longer need watch every scientist to make sure none of them mention the forbidden knowledge, simply control the "peers" and it is all taken care of. All those unwanted ideas just go away, the idea holders are denied publication, funding, often are fired and blackballed and can no longer do science. Controlling the "peers" is becoming increasingly easy now to, it has become bureaucratic, and bureaucrats tend toward just the kind of people Satan find most usefull.

As Upton Sinclair once said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

The "headlines" were about half cro magnon, half netherdal skeletons found, a LOT of them. They were in the newspaper, on the front page, numerous times on numerous dates (due to numerous different finds) due to the fact that it changed how scientists viewed things to such an extent that it was deemed newsworthy. In short, they looked at it and said "now thats funny...". In other words, the facts had changed, so it was time for minds to change.

As for netherdal DNA being "too" different, that is a matter of opinion, and thus, likely to be infuenced by "peer review" and "consensus". They tell us that the "nuclear" DNA is different, why do they only mention this "nuclear" DNA? How do we really know it is "nuclear"? What about the rest of the DNA? They like to say we are related to apes because say 97% of our DNA is similar, what about if they compared our DNA to netherdals in THE EXACT SAME WAY, what would it show then? Why has this not been done, or not been mentioned?

As for bestiality, first, whatever netherdals were, they were made that way by God, why would God do that? What would they do with those big brains of theirs, and why would God give them those big brains? If they buried their dead, sometimes with many flowers, or ritual objects, is that the sort of thing animals, "beasts", do? Doesn't it sound like they believed in an afterlife? So, then, did they have souls? Why would God make big brained, afterlife believing animals, that were interfertile with humans? I mean, if netherdals are not humans, than WHAT ARE THEY? They look like us, act like us, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

If you do bestiality, you have to do it with a beast. If you can have children from it, that says that there was such a genetic similarity that they were NOT beasts. And some scientists agree, see this "Adherents to the regional continuity model consider Neanderthals a subspecies or population of Homo sapiens, which contributed significantly to the evolution of early modern Europeans." Thus, you must choose, beasts, and no children, or children, and NOT BEASTS. Facts, CHILDREN, conclusion: NOT BEASTS. And note that one of the links you provided said that the netherdal skeleton was found in Israel, ie near Eden.
The most lilely scenerio is thus this, Hamms decendants moved south, due to the genetic drift of the very low post flood number of survivors, they changed, eventually ending up like us, living 70 years, not 700. That involves a rather dramatic change genetically, so it is no wonder our genes are different than netherdals (or should I say, our "nuclear" genes, anyway). Hamms decendants, due to their shorter lifespan, had children when they were 20, instead of 200, result, a lot more generations in the same sime span (and thus faster genetic change as well, compared to the old race), and a population boom. They filled africa, and then migrated out and up. Since they could outbreed the old line, they crowded, pushed out, or bred out of exisatance the old line. In sort, Hamms decendants won the genetic contest, the old race went away, just like the dinosaurs lost and were replaced by others, or the mastadons were replaced by elephants and no longer are. Thus, we live to be 70, not 700.

[dayage]

Legatus,

First, the last, "read research papers". Well, research papers tend to be "peer reviewed", that means, that they only get published IF the "peers" agree with it. Thus, it tends to be the nice, safe, "consensus view".

The "headlines" were about half cro magnon, half netherdal skeletons found, a LOT of them. They were in the newspaper, on the front page, numerous times on numerous dates (due to numerous different finds) due to the fact that it changed how scientists viewed things to such an extent that it was deemed newsworthy. In short, they looked at it and said "now thats funny...". In other words, the facts had changed, so it was time for minds to change.

As for netherdal DNA being "too" different, that is a matter of opinion, and thus, likely to be infuenced by "peer review" and "consensus".

Like I said, you are reading what "news headlines" write about. They are looking for a big story, so anything that sounds new is what they write about. Hawking was in the news recently, because he said that physics shows that we do not need God. This was and is still bull, but there it was on the front page of all kinds of news journals. You have to read the research to see what was actually discovered.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.. . . And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein (wo)men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by.
-Francis Bacon,

Did he have you in mind?

As for netherdal DNA being "too" different, that is a matter of opinion, and thus, likely to be infuenced by "peer review" and "consensus". They tell us that the "nuclear" DNA is different, why do they only mention this "nuclear" DNA? How do we really know it is "nuclear"? What about the rest of the DNA?

Had you been at all familiar with DNA, you would not have to ask these questions. Heck, if you read the papers I linked to, you would not have to ask them.

[dayage]

Legatus,

They like to say we are related to apes because say 97% of our DNA is similar, what about if they compared our DNA to netherdals in THE EXACT SAME WAY, what would it show then? Why has this not been done, or not been mentioned?

Here is where reading headlines gets you confused. Research shows that the parts of our DNA that are similar to chimp DNA are 98-99% the similar. Our total DNA is about 90% similar. I have not seen a research paper on this, yet, but the similarity between us, neanderthals and chimps is discussed here. Remember, it is only the parts that match that are being compared.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141555.htm

As for bestiality, first, whatever netherdals were, they were made that way by God, why would God do that? What would they do with those big brains of theirs, and why would God give them those big brains? If they buried their dead, sometimes with many flowers, or ritual objects, is that the sort of thing animals, "beasts", do? Doesn't it sound like they believed in an afterlife? So, then, did they have souls? Why would God make big brained, afterlife believing animals, that were interfertile with humans? I mean, if netherdals are not humans, than WHAT ARE THEY?

What are you going to do with Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Hiedlebergensis, ect? These where all upright walking primates which used tools, maybe even fire, had similar bodies to us and had brain sizes that fall within our normal brain size range. But, they lived as long ago as 1.8 million years.

Other animals (elephants and gorillas) mourn for their dead and even "bury" them and others.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3818833.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -baby.html
http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/BOOKS/bid1385.htm

If you do bestiality, you have to do it with a beast. If you can have children from it, that says that there was such a genetic similarity that they were NOT beasts. And some scientists agree, see this "Adherents to the regional continuity model consider Neanderthals a subspecies or population of Homo sapiens, which contributed significantly to the evolution of early modern Europeans."

Do you understand what the multiregional model is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregio ... ern_humans

[dayage]

Many of these subjects are addressed on this podcast.
"Ancient DNA shows...." Date 5/10/10
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/science ... d265539001

[Legatus]

About the multiregional model, if the bible is true, then both the multiregional model and the out of africa model may be partially true. Specifically, mankind started in Eden, basically the middle east. Then there was a flood (mitochondrial etc evidence supports these two bottlenecks) and mankind basically had to start over again. Some went one way, some another, the africans eventually won, genetically speaking, outbreeding the other remnents who remained after the flood, and all of them had serious genetic drift from their pre flood origins, as they would with only so few people. Thus, if we look at the bible, which says that mankind used to be genetically very different (as they must be to live 900 years), and that there was a flood which would produce genetic drift, and read the bible and see that mankind gradually changed so they eventually lived to be only 70, a great genetic change, we would expect that anciant man looked and was genetically different than we are, right? And the fossile and such genetic evidence as we have (we only have 1/3 of the netherdal evidence) says exactly that, and also says that there was some sort of genetic drift, since netherdals looked and acted like us, were interfertile with us (as they could only be if there was a common ancester, say Noah, or Eve), but are gone now, as are the early models of (pre flood or earlier post flood) humanity. In short, if we believe the bible, and see also that the evidence supports what it says, then certain things logically follow, like, say, genetic drift. So follow the logic.

And then ask these questions:
If the bible is true and the flood is true, what logical consequences follow?
Did God create mankind?
Did God create critters other than mankind?
If netherdals are critters other than mankind, why would God give them big brains, have them act like us and look like us, and especially, why would God make them interfertile with us? Does that sound like the God of the bible?
Why do it?
What logical consequences follow from the flood, human gentically speaking?
Would there be genetic changes if we used to live 900 years, and now live 70, how much genetic change, and why would it happen, could the flood and genetic drift have anything to do with it?
How could you reduce humanity to 8 individuals and NOT have genetic drift?
If hnmanity split up after the flood, how could you NOT have different branches drifting genetically, especially if the groups splitting off were related, say, to 3 brothers (say, the african tribe of Hamm)?
What kind of human could live to be 900, what would the genetic and skeletal differences be, anyway?
If we can't live to be 900, or even come close, must we not be very different genetically and thus in other ways from ancient pre flood mankind?
Do you REALLY think they must have been JUST LIKE US and STILL could live to be 900, which we cannot even come CLOSE to??
Then to say that netherdals are not JUST LIKE US does not contradict the idea that they are like pre flood, or early post flood, mankind, does it?

And why, oh why, if they are SO genetically different than us, are they interfertile with us? The conclusion from that is simple, they were NOT so genetically different from us at all, they MUST NOT BE if they are to be interfertile. To be interfertile with us, they MUST be related to us, or more likely, BE us. Therefore, if scientists say both that they are not us, and that we have netherdal DNA, they are contradicting themselves.

Frankly, the idea that netherdals are either pre flood mankind, or a genetically drifting post flood mankind, fits both the evidence and the bible a lot more than any idea that they are not mankind. Otherwise, I need to ask the simple question of you:
WHY DID GOD MAKE NETHERDALS?

As for those other Homo verious critters, that was covered on this site here http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=15 . Frankly, a lot of that is a few small bone fragments and a lot of pre conceptions and imaginations. In paleantology, if you want it to be an ancient hominide, it is, regardless of how small or few the bone framgents are (or even if they are human, or belong to the same indivudual, or sometimes even if they are not found in the same place). Most of the argument for "ancient hominids" is based around concealing the sparsity of the actual evidence, and using "argument from authority".

And those animals "burying" isn't the same thing, did they bury them in actual graves, include flowers or ritual objects, like netherdals did? What the animals did makes sense from an animal standpoint, what the netherdals did does not. If I were an animal stuck in a zoo with a dead crow, I would want to bury it to, it starts to stink. I would not bury it with flowers or ritual objects however, only humans do that, that takes abstract reasoning and language, especially if you do it regularly as netherdals did.

BTW, your sciencedaily link says things like "initial analysis suggests" (they are nowhere near finished yet, hardly started), in fact, they use the word "suggests" a lot about just about everything in this article. maybe it should be called "speculation daily". Their modern sample size, only 5 people, hardly a large enough sample for real science, speculation, or better speculation which they can "suggest" matches their preconcieved ideas, yes. And it does not say exactly how much DNA they have from netherdals, is it all from the same one, or different ones, how much do they match each other if different, etc. Ocording to your wikpedia article, they only have 1/3 of the total netherdal DNA, is that article now obsolete? Frankly, there is simply to much "suggests" and 'scientists believe" in the whole "ancient hominides" thing to come to a real conclusion on ancient DNA or ancesters or family trees. This explains how there can still be two camps, the out of africa camp, and the multiregional camp, there simply is not enough evidence to support either once conclusivly (and if we believe the bible, we can believe both, as I stated at the start of this post).

As for really ancient man, well, do we really know the DATE of the creation of man? What about the flood? The answer is, no, we don't Thus it is always possible that IF these are really human (or hominide if you prefer) fragments, and IF they actually reconstructed them right from the few small gragments they have (they have been found wrong before, often by a lot), and IF they got the dates right, then these really could be pre flood man remains. Or they could be another small skull fragment from an extinct gibbon and a lot of imagination and wishfull thinking (everyone wants to find that revelationary ancient hominide, so there is a lot of wishing, and a lot of money riding on it). So your idea that there may have been humans with our size brains 1.8 million years ago doesnt really change much.

Your reasons to believe podcast link says that you are simply following their party line, the podcast presented no new evidence, simply their belief. They seem to think that just because netherdal brains were shaped somewhat different than ours, that they must think different. As you can see by this link http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h5L0bq0pIhY/S ... rigine.jpg that aint nessissarily so. This was discussed here http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 79&start=0 and as you can see, the fully modern human aborigine had a brain shape similar to netherdals. This seems to be their sole "evidence" that netherdals are not intelligent like us, their other evidence is sadly out of date (they need to look up the actual evidence of netherdal burial customs), they appear to be cherry picking evidence to support there pre concieved ideas (just like the evolutionists). They simply have not followed the logical questions I asked above that if the bible is true, and the flood is true, what does that mean genetically? They are stuck in the idea that people who could live to be 900 years old MUST be JUST LIKE US, an idea that is patently absurd if you even think about it for a second.

In short, the bible talks about Adam and Eve, and later a flood, if you take that to it's logical conclusion, genetically and fossil wise, you must come to the conclusion that netherdals are either pre flood humans, or a genetically drifted branch of post flood humans. Biblically, and genetically, nothing else makes sense.

[kmr]

About the whole Pharaoh issue, of course God didn't tempt Pharaoh, for Pharaoh had already believed that. I think God just secured his position so that the might of God could be shown (in the ten plagues) and unite the Hebrews as a people.

[carpentersson]

I'm new here, so forgive me for trying to stay on subject.
The "fall" was "spiritual" death and not physical. Physical man could not understand spiritual death without the example of physical death in his environment. That's how Eve was deceived as are many still today, not understanding what God was really meaning.
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they did not die literally and physically on that same day, did they? No, but they were instantly separated from God by their willful disobedience, spiritual death.
Nothing physically changed, the animals still lived and died as before, eat or be eaten, the same laws of nature.
The creation was "very good"...that is, having no sin. The curse came to mankind in that they acquired the knowledge that separated them from God...they sinned.

[RickD]

carpentersson,

The creation was "very good"...that is, having no sin.

If the "creation" had no sin, how was satan able to tempt eve, in the garden? Satan rebelled against God, and he was in the garden. Satan would actually be the first sinner, so the earth already had sin, before Adam. I'm not sure "very good", means without sin. I just think it means very good for God's purpose in this temporary creation.