Evidence for God from Science

Blessed wrote:Scientists say Neanderthals evolved in Europe and were displaced or made extinct ancestors of modern day humans.

If proven Neanderthals had capacity for clothing, farming, tools and weapons etc., this would disqualify Neanderthals from being classified as a monkey's.

There's no evidence Neanderthals farmed but they do have lots of evidence for the others.
DNA extracted from their bones show that they have a variant of the FOXP2 gene which is called the "language gene". It is found in Homo Sapiens Sapiens as well.
For those interested, look up the Mousterian culture. Neanderthals mostly used that culture.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

Blessed wrote:Scientists say Neanderthals evolved in Europe and were displaced or made extinct ancestors of modern day humans.

If proven Neanderthals had capacity for clothing, farming, tools and weapons etc., this would disqualify Neanderthals from being classified as a monkey's.

There's no evidence Neanderthals farmed but they do have lots of evidence for the others.
DNA extracted from their bones show that they have a variant of the FOXP2 gene which is called the "language gene". It is found in Homo Sapiens Sapiens as well.
For those interested, look up the Mousterian culture. Neanderthals mostly used that culture.

Can't say I would place too much faith in a language gene - even if it were true. Almost every living organism has language or way of communicating. Just listen to the birds each morning.

Blessed wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

Blessed wrote:Scientists say Neanderthals evolved in Europe and were displaced or made extinct ancestors of modern day humans.

If proven Neanderthals had capacity for clothing, farming, tools and weapons etc., this would disqualify Neanderthals from being classified as a monkey's.

There's no evidence Neanderthals farmed but they do have lots of evidence for the others.
DNA extracted from their bones show that they have a variant of the FOXP2 gene which is called the "language gene". It is found in Homo Sapiens Sapiens as well.
For those interested, look up the Mousterian culture. Neanderthals mostly used that culture.

Can't say I would place too much faith in a language gene - even if it were true. Almost every living organism has language or way of communicating. Just listen to the birds each morning.

I see what you mean.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... egene.html
FOXP2 is a "language gene" in humans that aid in verbal communication.

More evidence that supports the notion that Neanderthals were not subhuman ape-men but truly human.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... bones.html
This was thought to be only a Homo Sapien Sapien thing-usually Cro-Magnons to my knowledge made them.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:More evidence that supports the notion that Neanderthals were not subhuman ape-men but truly human.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... bones.html
This was thought to be only a Homo Sapien Sapien thing-usually Cro-Magnons to my knowledge made them.

Some thoughts...

When you say "truly human"... what does that really mean?
Were Neanderthals species homo sapiens sapiens?
No

Did Neanderthals exhibit some behaviors that were also exhibited by species homo sapiens sapiens around 200,000 years ago?
Probably

Did Neanderthals exhibit some behaviors that were also exhibited by species homo sapiens sapiens around 50,000 years ago?
Possibly, but that is still up in the air.

Did Neanderthals ever exhibit the behaviors that were exhibited by species homo sapiens sapiens during the Neolithic Revolution around 10,000 years ago?
No, and Neanderthals became extinct tens of thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution and the beginning of human civilization.

So genetically I do not think we can equate Neanderthals and Humans (species homo sapiens sapiens).
And behaviorally I do not think we can equate Neanderthals with Humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) at the time of the Neolithic Revolution... Which corresponds to the time of Adam and Eve when they became the first humans to come into personal relationship with God, to know good and evil, and through whom sin and spiritual death passed to all men.

I'm still trying to work through this myself...
But the Scriptural evidence seems to indicate that Adam was the first human (species homo sapiens sapiens) to become a "living soul" (Gen 2:7)
(this is an indication... not a certainty)
However, Scripture also indicates that mankind was created as an "image bearer of God" (Genesis 1:26) prior to the historical Adam becoming a "living soul" (Gen 2:7)

So what does it mean to be truly human
1. Is any hominid that is a sub-species of Homo Sapiens truly human?
2. Is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens truly human?
3. Does one have to be an image bearer of God to be truly human (Gen 1:26)?
4. Does one have to be a "living soul" to be truly human (Gen 2:7)?

If we accept the premise that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual humans, then it is impossible for Neanderthals to have been spiritual beings because they went extinct long before the time of Adam and Eve.

Still working through the implications of all this, but that is where I'm leaning at the moment.

DBowling wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:More evidence that supports the notion that Neanderthals were not subhuman ape-men but truly human.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... bones.html
This was thought to be only a Homo Sapien Sapien thing-usually Cro-Magnons to my knowledge made them.

Some thoughts...

When you say "truly human"... what does that really mean?
Were Neanderthals species homo sapiens sapiens?
No

Did Neanderthals exhibit some behaviors that were also exhibited by species homo sapiens sapiens around 200,000 years ago?
Probably

Did Neanderthals exhibit some behaviors that were also exhibited by species homo sapiens sapiens around 50,000 years ago?
Possibly, but that is still up in the air.

Did Neanderthals ever exhibit the behaviors that were exhibited by species homo sapiens sapiens during the Neolithic Revolution around 10,000 years ago?
No, and Neanderthals became extinct tens of thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution and the beginning of human civilization.

So genetically I do not think we can equate Neanderthals and Humans (species homo sapiens sapiens).
And behaviorally I do not think we can equate Neanderthals with Humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) at the time of the Neolithic Revolution... Which corresponds to the time of Adam and Eve when they became the first humans to come into personal relationship with God, to know good and evil, and through whom sin and spiritual death passed to all men.

I'm still trying to work through this myself...
But the Scriptural evidence seems to indicate that Adam was the first human (species homo sapiens sapiens) to become a "living soul" (Gen 2:7)
(this is an indication... not a certainty)
However, Scripture also indicates that mankind was created as an "image bearer of God" (Genesis 1:26) prior to the historical Adam becoming a "living soul" (Gen 2:7)

So what does it mean to be truly human
1. Is any hominid that is a sub-species of Homo Sapiens truly human?
2. Is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens truly human?
3. Does one have to be an image bearer of God to be truly human (Gen 1:26)?
4. Does one have to be a "living soul" to be truly human (Gen 2:7)?

If we accept the premise that Adam and Eve were the first spiritual humans, then it is impossible for Neanderthals to have been spiritual beings because they went extinct long before the time of Adam and Eve.

Still working through the implications of all this, but that is where I'm leaning at the moment.

The main deal we have, is the definition of human, and when A&E lived. Would human be including different subspecies, or just one? When did Adam and Eve live too is another that is answered differently by different people. You'll hear A&E were around 6000 years ago and some will say 200000 yrs ago, when our subspecies came about. Others will say other dates like 1 million yrs 600K yrs etc. A&E and some others mentioned could've been farmers and worked with metals long before the neolithic revolution, and were the exception than the rule. After all there was a curse on the ground which would make it reasonable that most people were nomads, probably using stone tools since that was the easiest stuff to find and was easy to use.
To question 1, it has been found that Neanderthals and Denisovans have interbred with modern humans successfully at least somewhat. Most modern people today are technically hybrids, though I don't like to say that. So then question 1-3 can be answered, yes one could say they were truly human, all sapiens sapiens were truly human (well possibly, unless A&E lived later, but we have spirituality in cultures that go back 50K with Aborigines so I'd say at least then they were around). 3&4 are answered by yes. Good replies people, including you DBowling.

Since we have evidence of Neanderthals having a spirituality aspect to their culture, it's also possible they were fully human, but somewhat different looking than us.
I'm not sure about Denisovans.

Should liberals be called their own species, or a subspecies of Homo sapiens?

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Since we have evidence of Neanderthals having a spirituality aspect to their culture, it's also possible they were fully human, but somewhat different looking than us.
I'm not sure about Denisovans.

I guess that depends on how you define the word 'spiritual'.

Species homo sapiens sapiens began to exhibit 'modern human behavior' around 50,000 years ago.
Does 'modern human behavior' = spirituality?
I don't know.

Does 'modern human behavior' = relationship with the one true God?
I think not

If relationship with the one true God = true spirituality, then that brings me back to the historical Adam.
And I think finding the time and location for the historical Adam establishes some parameters for some of the questions we are looking at here since according to Scripture...
Adam and Eve were the first humans to know good and evil, to have relationship with the one true God, and through whom sin and spiritual death passed to all mankind.

Books by David Rohl (a non Christian) and Richard Fischer (a Christian) made me aware of extraScriptural references to historical characters like Adam, Enoch, and Noah in ancient Mesopotamian history/legend which correspond to the same times and locations that we find in Scripture.
The timing of Cain building a city in Genesis 4 also corresponds chronologically to around the time that the 'first' known city of Eridu was built in Mesopotamia around 4000-5000 BC.
And then there is the fact that the culture described in Genesis 4 is a Neolithic culture.
All of which places Adam and Eve in Neolithic Mesopotamia at the time and location of the beginning of human civilization.

With all the above, I think we can pin down a couple of key chronological markers.
Adam lived somewhere between 5000 and 6000 BC
Noah lived somewhere around 3000 BC

Once we have identified the time and location of the historical/Scriptural Adam and the Fall of mankind, then we can begin to examine the implications this has for 'spiritual' status of pre-Adamic humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) and other hominid species.
And like I said earlier, I am still working through those questions myself.

One more quick thought that I had this morning...
In Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to fill the earth and subdue it.

Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to actually fulfill that directive.
All other hominid species are extinct.

DBowling wrote:One more quick thought that I had this morning...
In Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to fill the earth and subdue it.

Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to actually fulfill that directive.
All other hominid species are extinct.

True, though in a way, one could say the other two human subspecies or species I mentioned fulfilled that too, but by trace DNA in the larger Sapien Sapien subspecies. Not as a subspecies as a whole. So that wouldn't in itself mean the other two weren't image bearers of God.

RickD wrote:Should liberals be called their own species, or a subspecies of Homo sapiens?

I'm not a liberal. Is RickD the last Neanderthal, just in hiding?

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

DBowling wrote:One more quick thought that I had this morning...
In Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to fill the earth and subdue it.

Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to actually fulfill that directive.
All other hominid species are extinct.

True, though in a way, one could say the other two human subspecies or species I mentioned fulfilled that too, but by trace DNA in the larger Sapien Sapien subspecies. Not as a subspecies as a whole. So that wouldn't in itself mean the other two weren't image bearers of God.

I'm not following you here.

100% of the humans on the planet today can trace their genetic ancestry back to a mitochondrial eve and y-chromosome adam (not to be confused with the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve) who were species homo sapiens sapiens and lived in Afrca 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

In contrast, trace fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA do not exist in all humans, and there are humans on the planet today who do not have trace fragments of either Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.

So species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species who has fulfilled the directive to fill the earth and subdue it and therefore be identified as image bearers of God.

What does the bible say? I know that ya'll are old earth creationists who like reading young earth creationist bible translations.But if you read the KJV bible which is an old earth translation,it would maybe help you better understand.

Genesis 1:27-28 "So God created man in his image,in the image of God created he him;male and female created he them.

So we see the word created and in hebrew this word is bara which means new creation that had never been created before.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them,and God said unto them, Be fruitful,and multiply,and REPLENISH the earth and subdue it:and have dominion over the fishes of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over every living thing that moveth upon the face of the earth."

Do you see the word replenish? Well we know there were pre-Adamite races before man based on this and that they were not man because they had never been created before.

abelcainsbrother wrote:What does the bible say? I know that ya'll are old earth creationists who like reading young earth creationist bible translations.But if you read the KJV bible which is an old earth translation,it would maybe help you better understand.

Genesis 1:27-28 "So God created man in his image,in the image of God created he him;male and female created he them.

So we see the word created and in hebrew this word is bara which means new creation that had never been created before.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them,and God said unto them, Be fruitful,and multiply,and REPLENISH the earth and subdue it:and have dominion over the fishes of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over every living thing that moveth upon the face of the earth."

Do you see the word replenish? Well we know there were pre-Adamite races before man based on this and that they were not man because they had never been created before.

ACB,

Are you serious? We went over this "replenish" issue ad nauseam.

THE WORD "REPLENISH" IN OUR ENGLISH BIBLES MEANS "FILL".