Neanderthals & Adam & Eve

[Herman]

In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formed Adam
from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
worked with him day by day and over the years formed his mind to
think about other people besides himself and the man became a living
soul. This would explain how Adam knew what a father and mother was
and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
build a city with just a few people?
There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point to Neanderthals if
you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
understanding so what ever works will be just fine.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:43:44 -0700 (PDT), in article
<2b464c58-3242-47e2...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, Herman
stated..."

Check out the concept of "Pre-Adamite" (in Wikipedia, for example).


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[timoth...@gmail.com]

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” Thomas Jefferson.

Replace "trinity" with "God took a Neanderthal and worked with him day by day and over the years formed his mind to think about other people besides himself and the man became a living soul" and you have my opinion of your proposal.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 6:54 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:43:44 -0700 (PDT), in article

> <2b464c58-3242-47e2-8486-ed892c32b...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, Herman

> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> >and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> >understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> >of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> >means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> >rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> >from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> >of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> >God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> >man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> >worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> >think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> >soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was

> >and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> >named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> >build a city with just a few people?
> >   There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> >you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> >around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> >feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> >understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>
> Check out the concept of "Pre-Adamite" (in Wikipedia, for example).
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"

> (1999)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you be a little
more detailed. As far as I know, there are no wizards around this
house and I do not know of any in the first chapter of Genesis, so
what are you talking about?

[Steven L.]

"Herman" <Dusty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2b464c58-3242-47e2...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

> In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formed Adam
> from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> worked with him day by day and over the years formed his mind to
> think about other people besides himself and the man became a living
> soul.

The Vatican has always been opposed to the idea that the human soul
evolved.

Their view is that hominids evolved physically (including their brains).
And that when God saw that early Homo Sapiens was ready, He infused
him with a soul. Ensoulment was a sudden shift, not a gradual
evolution.




-- Steven L.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:02:08 -0700 (PDT), in article
<e4dd57c1-7bc2-4f70...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Herman
stated..."

What you are referring to is my "signature" file, which is
appended to all of my posts, irrespective of the substantive
content.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 7:07 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:43:44 PM UTC+10, Herman wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was

> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>
> “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” Thomas Jefferson.
>

> Replace "trinity" with "God took a Neanderthal and worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to think about other people besides himself and the man became a living soul" and you have my opinion of your proposal.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

My idea of the trinity is, 1. God the creator, his son, 2. Jesus our
sacrifice and mediator, 3. and the Holy Ghost, the understanding of
the Bible. … We need all three. … I really do not understand your
reply either so if you could reword it a bit it would be helpful. Your
opinion would be interesting too. Like.. How do you interpret what the
Bible says on that subject?

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Herman" <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote in message

That's sort of what I have here. I have no idea how life evolved on
the earth but the Bible does mention the seed in a few places. My
personal opinion is that God created the elementary particles from his
laws of nature, they created the atoms from quasars, and the atoms
created the galaxies and planets and the planets brought forth life
from the sea water. I have found out since then that it's not exactly
that simple but I have enough sense to realize that it was not that
hard for God to understand completely. I also know that it is not
necessary to try to understand it completely but the more that you do
understand, the better you can explain it to other people. I have an
album on Facebook that contains about 60 illustrations that will take
you step by step through the first chapter of Genesis.

http://www.facebook.com/Dusty55Art#!/media/set/?set=a.270302106319767.86765.100000199404281&type=3

If the link doesn’t work just type in Herman Dusty Rhodes and follow
the links to my face book page. My album is not 100% perfect but I
think that it’s a better understanding than the KJV that was written
over 400 years ago.
Sometimes other people have different thoughts and you might not
even agree with them, but at the same time it will set off a new
original thought in your head that will lead to new ideas. That’s sort
of like a think tank that they use in big business or at NASA one time
for the space shuttle. One thing for sure, if you don’t explore
anything you will not get answers. That’s why I’m here.

[jillery]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:13:22 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Herman" <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2b464c58-3242-47e2...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
>> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
>> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
>> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
>> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
>> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
>> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
>> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
>> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
>> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
>> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
>> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living
>> > soul.

Does this mean you're giving up on quasars?

Apparently not. :)

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

As has been hinted in other responses, and as
you may have thought already, the fossils of
not-exactly-human beings, and some paradoxes
in Genesis such as who married whom amongst
Aodam and Eve's descendants, have been wrestled
with by others before you.

I think you yourself have taken an unusual and
confusing reading of Genesis. I think it's more
usual to suppose that there are two separate
stories being told about the same set of creation
events - just as some bible stories are told twice
in the books of Kings and Chronicles. So,
Genesis 2:7 to 2:23, in which God makes Adam
and Eve, is happening on day six. However, in
Genesis 2:19, God makes animals and birds /after/
making Adam, whereas earlier, birds are on day five,
and animals came before Adam, as well. One interpretation
is that at least one of these stories is not telling
what actually happened. Another is that in 2:19
it ought to say that God /had/ made animals and
birds, previously, and is now bringing them out to meet Adam. However, apparently the original language
doesn't justify that interpretation. And then
there's your version: the /first/ time, God made
Neanderthals. (Although I think that doesn't help
you with the 2:19 problem, unless Adam is created
on day five but not mentioned - surely that isn't it.)

When scientists try to understand the history of
Neanderthal and other man-like beings that lived before
modern humans, they mostly don't expect it to have
any relationship to the Genesis stories whatsoever,
and they don't find a relationship, either.

As far as I remember and understand, there has been
uncertainty in scientific views recently on this
subject, but the favoured view at the moment is that
pre-Neanderthal humans - Homo heidelbergensis -
arose in Africa and migrated into Europe and then elsewhere, having become Neanderthal man, about
300,000 years ago, while back in Africa, homo sapiens
arose and also spread worldwide later on, with some
intermarrying (to be polite) with Neanderthals, while
separate Neanderthal communities died out.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

I haven't been reading the Seed thread, but
it is fairly conventionally accepted that atoms
except for hydrogen and helium are not the
product of the Big Bang itself, but of nuclear
fusion such as in stars earlier in the universe's
history, stars that exploded as supernovas
(as they do, above a certain size) and distributed
their matter through space. But I think it's a
confusion to talk about quasars, which now are
considered to be fantastically energy-radiating
entire galaxies in the early universe.
Galaxies rarely communicate with one another,
although small galaxies merging together are
a feature of the past and present Universe,
and I would assume that the matter of heavier
elements in our galaxy was formed in our galaxy,
or in one of any number of smaller galaxies that
now make up ours. Quasars are in the past;
there may or may not have been quasars in our
own neighbourhood long ago. But presumably
not all galaxies were quasars - and I think
their energy is to do with containing a large
black hole, anyway - and perhaps emitting a
"jet" of hot matter (that missed the black hole)
into space, although not necessarily into
other galaxies.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Herman" <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote in message

That's the view of the Vatican which is no more than the view of the
true story as anyone else's view. When you go into the cells of living
things it becomes a puzzle. You can't have oxygen when ... Here ...
read it for yourself.. I will post it for you.

Babu G. Ranganathan
Pravda.ru
NASA has stoked the imagination of millions by talking about
exploration of life on other planets because of the possibility of
other planets being able to sustain life.
However, just having water and the right conditions to support life is
not the same as what is required for life to come into
existence.
For example, we all know that oxygen is necessary for life. What many
don’t realize, however, is that although oxygen is necessary for
life’s processes, the presence of oxygen would actually prevent life
from coming into being.
This is because oxygen is destructive (i.e. it causes decay and rust).
For oxygen to be safe there must be mechanisms already in place to
control, direct, and regulate oxygen. All life forms have these
mechanisms.
Evolutionists must assume that the early earth had no oxygen. But,
then that would mean there was no ozone layer in the atmosphere to
protect from harmful radiation that would destroy life or even any
budding form of life. Ozone is made-up of oxygen. It’s a Catch-22
situation for evolutionists. In fact, there are numerous Catch-22
situations for evolutionists when it comes to the origin of life
issue.
The latest scientific evidence from geology shows that there, indeed,
was oxygen in the earth’s earliest atmosphere.
Stanley Miller, in his famous 1950′s experiment, made sure that there
was no oxygen mixed in the laboratory atmosphere he used to produce
amino acids, life’s building blocks. Miller also had a device to
protect the amino acids once they were formed or otherwise they would
have been destroyed by the very random energy that produced them!
In any case, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The millions of
various amino acids making up a cell would have to come together in
the right sequence (just like the letters in a sentence). Amino acids
can arise by chance but not protein molecules, which require that
amino acids be in the right sequence.
There’s no inherent chemical tendency for amino acids to come together
into a sequence. Amino acids can come together in any order. The only
reason why they come together in a sequence in our bodies is because
there is already a sequence in our DNA directing them to do so.
Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to
50th power or greater is impossible. The probability of just a single
average protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power!
Even the simplest cell has millions of protein molecules. And, the
cell would have to come into existence all at once. It could not have
gradually evolved. A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate
under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially
without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell
membrane.
A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to
make it complete and then become living! In fact, it couldn’t have
even reached the partially evolved state.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the code and
mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The problem
for atheists is how did the cell originate when there were no
directing code/mechanisms in nature. Natural laws may explain how a
cell or an airplane works but undirected natural laws cannot bring
about the existence of either.
Natural selection you say? Natural selection doesn’t create or produce
anything. It can only “select” from what is produced that has survival
value. Natural selection can only “select” from variations that are
possible. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that
survival is called “natural selection.” It’s a passive process.
There’s no conscious selection by nature, and natural selection only
operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it
could not have been any assistance in the origin of life.
Science cannot prove that we’re here by chance or design. Neither was
observed. Both are positions of faith. The issue is which faith is
best supported by science. Let the scientific arguments of both sides
be presented. No one is being forced to believe in God, so there is no
violation of separation of church and state.
Money from taxpayers on both sides of the issue is used to support
public schools. It is only fair that in public schools, at least, the
scientific arguments of both sides be presented.
There’s a good explanation for why life may exist on Mars. In the
Earth’s past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have
easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes into outer space
which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up
traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors.
A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this
possibility. “We think there’s about 7 million tons of earth soil
sitting on Mars”, says scientist and evolutionist Kenneth Nealson.
“You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it
could have come from the Earth” [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September
21, 1998, p.12].
NASA knows all of this but looking for life on other planets is a
powerful way to motivate people to want their government to give more
and more money to NASA. NASA, after all, is a business with hefty
salaries at stake.

So you see.. It's over our heads but God did not have a prtoblem with
it at all. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 9:07 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:43:44 PM UTC+1, Herman wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was

> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>
> As has been hinted in other responses, and as
> you may have thought already, the fossils of
> not-exactly-human beings, and some paradoxes
> in Genesis such as who married whom amongst

> Aodam andEve'sdescendants, have been wrestled

> with by others before you.
>
> I think you yourself have taken an unusual and
> confusing reading of Genesis.  I think it's more
> usual to suppose that there are two separate
> stories being told about the same set of creation
> events - just as some bible stories are told twice
> in the books of Kings and Chronicles.  So,
> Genesis 2:7 to 2:23, in which God makesAdam

> andEve, is happening on day six.  However, in

> Genesis 2:19, God makes animals and birds /after/

> makingAdam, whereas earlier, birds are on day five,
> and animals came beforeAdam, as well.  One interpretation

> is that at least one of these stories is not telling
> what actually happened.  Another is that in 2:19
> it ought to say that God /had/ made animals and

> birds, previously, and is now bringing them out to meetAdam.  However, apparently the original language

> doesn't justify that interpretation.  And then

> there's your version: the /first/ time, God madeNeanderthals.  (Although I think that doesn't help
> you with the 2:19 problem, unlessAdamis created

> on day five but not mentioned - surely that isn't it.)
>
> When scientists try to understand the history of
> Neanderthal and other man-like beings that lived before
> modern humans, they mostly don't expect it to have
> any relationship to the Genesis stories whatsoever,
> and they don't find a relationship, either.
>
> As far as I remember and understand, there has been
> uncertainty in scientific views recently on this
> subject, but the favoured view at the moment is that
> pre-Neanderthal humans - Homo heidelbergensis  -
> arose in Africa and migrated into Europe and then elsewhere, having become Neanderthal man, about
> 300,000 years ago, while back in Africa, homo sapiens
> arose and also spread worldwide later on, with some

> intermarrying (to be polite) withNeanderthals, while
> separate Neanderthal communities died out.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I know that there are a lot of different stories about the first
people on earth. I have had a preacher tell me that there are two
creation stories in Genesis. I never had that problem and have studied
it for years and years. I do believe that the animals were already on
the earth when Adam named them. It says that God formed them. I think
that the word Formed is misunderstood. The way I think that the Bible
means Formed is like taming. Like he formed Adam.. He worked with Adam
day by day till he became a living soul. He worked with the animals
day by day so that they would not eat Adam when God brought them
before him. The Hebrews have a hard time understanding the Bible too
and they know the Hebrew language. So.. It's not the language.. It's
first off, the translation, then being able to accept the fact that
the Bible was written for every generation, not just for us. Science
does not include the Bible in their study, but their study usually
always supports what the Bible teaches. We may not ever understand the
Bible completely but you don't have to. I always have told myself when
I read something that was not clear to me... "Well,... I don't
understand that yet but I will in time." The creation, Adam and Eve,
the flood, the seed of man, the sacrifice, etc. are all recorded in
the Bible and there is a way it all happened and just one way. Where
we ever understand it all or not is not that important. What's
important is what we turn out to be after it's all said and done. I
have always loved the old stories in Genesis and will always continue
to try to understand them. Where I ever do or not is another thing.
Not long ago a man came close to death and he said all that he thought
he knew was wrong. I've got a feeling we will all see the same thing
he did when the time comes. ... But I still love to try to understand
it.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<2af26d30-b217-4c24...@j14g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Herman <Dusty...@aol.com> writes

>Stanley Miller, in his famous 1950?s experiment, made sure that there

That's 6 times you've posted that now. That's verging on spamming.

It also isn't any less false for having been posted 6 times.

>
>So you see.. It's over our heads but God did not have a prtoblem with
>it at all. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Herman]

Apr 10, 7:25 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Herman" <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2b464c58-3242-47e2...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>

> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living
> > soul.
>

Stanley Miller, in his famous 1950′s experiment, made sure that there

So you see.. It's over our heads but God did not have a problem with

[Kermit]

Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended from
neanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some interbred
with neanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa
are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
little is known; they were another human species about as closely
related to us as the neanderthals were. The homo sapiens-neanderthal-
denosovan hybrids are the Melanesian peoples.

If the Garden of Eden story means anything, it may be a cultural
memory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer stage (walking
about, plucking fruit from trees) to agricultural civilizations (hard
work 12 hours a day, every day). For those who think that we can't
collectively remember that long (first agriculture to the Sumerian
myths probably encompassed 8000 years or more) I would remind them
that as late as my lifetime we've had stone age tribes transitioning
to farming or industrial lives. These myths could have been told and
later written down by folks who could see this process happening.

Cain may represent hunter-gathers (or nomadic shepherds) and Abel the
new farming communities.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is iffier. I'm going out on a
limb here: The original innocence represents the pre-linguistic state
of infants (or primitive cultures), when they lived their lives in
innocence, a state of intelligent but animal being as it were. When
they began to distinguish "this" from "that" (good from evil, left
from right, me from other) they lost that infant state of satori and
became tied up in concepts, ideas, labels, conflict, obsessions, and
other adult habits. Reading the Fall as a literal history would lead
one to think that we are being punished for the sins of our ancestors,
who disobeyed before they knew right from wrong. Which is evil and
unfair, as well as a story contrary to natural history. But reading
about the Garden as a story describing the state of everyman, every
one of us, might make it salvageable.

And of course, it might make it simply the picture one sees in a
Rorschach ink blot.

Kermit

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:56:34 PM UTC+1, Herman wrote:
> That's the view of the Vatican which is no more than the view of the
> true story as anyone else's view. When you go into the cells of living
> things it becomes a puzzle. You can't have oxygen when ... Here ...
> read it for yourself.. I will post it for you.
>
> Babu G. Ranganathan
> Pravda.ru

Dear Babu! Oh, he's so silly. In fact, there's
geological evidence that there /wasn't/ oxygen
in early Earth's atmosphere: there's rock that
cannot have formed in the presence of oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
points out that without an ozone layer, life would
still have been safe from ultraviolet light deep
under the sea.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 10:24 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:43 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was

> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>

> Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended fromneanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some interbred
> withneanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa

> are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
> traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
> little is known; they were another human species about as closely

> related to us as theneanderthalswere. The homo sapiens-neanderthal-

> Kermit- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This is my explanation. Adam was from the world wide tribe of Adam. If
you look up the hebrew definition of Adam, it means a man of low
degree, a mean red faced person. That was the man that God took and
formed him into a man of high degree. The man of high degree was
called Iysh which in Hebrew means a man of high degree, a champion, a
steward. But,.. He was not called Iysh until Eve was taken from him.
We have no idea what happened in the process of how God cloned Eve
from the rib of Adam, but Eve was not a Neanderthal. Adam said she is
bone of my bone and blood of my blood. Adam and Eve was the first Cro-
Magnon people on the earth.
Cain married into the Neanderthal people in the land of Nod. and
from his children the world became corrupt. That was the reason for
the flood to wipe out the Neanderthals. Adam and Eve had another son
named Seth that was Cro-Magon (Iysh) His sons and daughters was the
people that was saved on the ark of Noah. The Cro-Magnons was saved,
and the Neanderthals were wiped out.
The tree of knowledge was knowledge of Good and evil just like the
Bible said. Adam and Eve were smart enough to understand it but they
took of it anyway and did according to both Good and evil. That was
the first sin and that is how sin got into the world was through them.
Sin is doing what God tells you not to do. God knows how the kingdom
of heaven should be run. That's the positive way and that's the only
way eternal life will work.

[alextangent]

Are the pages of bibbles printed in the US impregnated with some kind
of hallucinogenic?

[jillery]

Herman is one of those people who filter their science through the
Bible. One result of that is both his science and his theology is, to
put it politely, unique. He claims Strong's Concordance to be his
primary tool, but I have my doubts.

[jillery]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:14:19 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<major snippage>

>That's 6 times you've posted that now. That's verging on spamming.
>
>It also isn't any less false for having been posted 6 times.
>>
>>So you see.. It's over our heads but God did not have a prtoblem with
>>it at all. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

Yeppers. God exists because Herman can cut-and-paste.

[John Vreeland]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty...@aol.com>
wrote:

He seems to be saying that it is all gobbledygook nonsense.

The Trinity makes no sense. Theologians accept that it makes no sense.
If you claim to understand the Trinity then you are both:
1. Incorrect
2. A herectic

Thomas Jefferson pointed out that "[The Trinity] is the mere

Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of

Jesus.” He made this point because it is nonsense to try to talk
rationally about nonsense.

Likewise, it is nonsense to try to rationalize Genesis in the way you
are doing. There are far, far too many problems with Genesis for you
to assume that it has any relationship with actual prehistoric events,
such as the existence of Neandertals, which a literal reading of the
book suggests did not exist.

The last neandertal was dead many millenia before the Bible claims the
world was even created. There were a great many events in the
world--some occurring only shortly before the Bible was written--which
the book seems to be oblivious of. The Ice Age is a big one. In fact,
the book of Genesis seems wholly ignorant of the larger world outside
Palestine and the fertile crescent.

It is easy to imagine that anything in Genesis matches up is some
possibly poetic way with what we know to be true, but with this
usually requires ignoring a lot of facts.

One unfortunate fact: we are not descended from neandertals.


--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.

[Boikat]

On Apr 10, 7:27 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:02:08 -0700 (PDT), in article

> <e4dd57c1-7bc2-4f70-aa0e-b7bdd0d61...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Herman

I haven't been following "Herman" posts. Is he really that dull
witted?

Boikat

[John Stockwell]

You can make up anything you want and make the Bible agree with it.
Such ideas are so bad that they are not even wrong.

-John

[TimR]

But in Genesis 6:4, angels came down from heaven, chose human women
who were "comely," (today we would call them hot) raped them, and
sired children by them. These children were giants called Nephilim,
which sounds suspiciously like Neanderthals.

Can we tie them into this soul evolution thing somehow?

[jillery]

It could be an act.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:39:20 PM UTC+1, nmp wrote:

> John Vreeland wrote:
>
> > One unfortunate fact: we are not descended from neandertals.
>

> Yes. I would have liked to be though.

Apparently we are a bit, according to DNA tests.
And of course there's a common ancestor.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:10:34 PM UTC+1, Herman wrote:
> This is my explanation. Adam was from the world wide tribe of Adam. If
> you look up the hebrew definition of Adam, it means a man of low
> degree, a mean red faced person. That was the man that God took and
> formed him into a man of high degree. The man of high degree was
> called Iysh which in Hebrew means a man of high degree, a champion, a
> steward. But,.. He was not called Iysh until Eve was taken from him.
> We have no idea what happened in the process of how God cloned Eve
> from the rib of Adam, but Eve was not a Neanderthal. Adam said she is
> bone of my bone and blood of my blood. Adam and Eve was the first Cro-
> Magnon people on the earth.
> Cain married into the Neanderthal people in the land of Nod. and
> from his children the world became corrupt. That was the reason for
> the flood to wipe out the Neanderthals. Adam and Eve had another son
> named Seth that was Cro-Magon (Iysh) His sons and daughters was the
> people that was saved on the ark of Noah. The Cro-Magnons was saved,
> and the Neanderthals were wiped out.
> The tree of knowledge was knowledge of Good and evil just like the
> Bible said. Adam and Eve were smart enough to understand it but they
> took of it anyway and did according to both Good and evil. That was
> the first sin and that is how sin got into the world was through them.
> Sin is doing what God tells you not to do. God knows how the kingdom
> of heaven should be run. That's the positive way and that's the only
> way eternal life will work.

Have you tried discussing this with other
religious people? You might be in agreement
about the tree.

When was Adam called "Iysh"?

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 10:24 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

Robert.. I looked up your link in the Wikipedia and found that
the author must have spent a lot of time and energy putting it
together. I saved the whole article to my computer and titled it
Wikipedia Funnybook. The reason that I saved it is because he has a
trainload of good info and I will be able to use it in time. However,
the pieces of the puzzle were put together with a nine pound hammer.
One "for instance" is, "Why do all the continents all fit together on
a smaller ball?" If you take a ball about 1/3 the size of your globe,
trace all the continents off on thin paper, they will all fit like a
puzzle on the smaller ball. That blows pretty much all the theory that
he has together in the Wikipedia Funnybook. I did not read it
carefully because it is such a long article but I will later on.
Thanks for posting that link and even though I did make fun of it
there is a lot of good info there all in one article. That page could
keep me busy for many a night until the wee hours of the morning.
To see a good animation on a small earth go to Neal Adams web page.
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 9:07 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:43:44 PM UTC+1, Herman wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was

> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>
> As has been hinted in other responses, and as
> you may have thought already, the fossils of
> not-exactly-human beings, and some paradoxes
> in Genesis such as who married whom amongst

> Aodam andEve'sdescendants, have been wrestled

> with by others before you.
>
> I think you yourself have taken an unusual and
> confusing reading of Genesis.  I think it's more
> usual to suppose that there are two separate
> stories being told about the same set of creation
> events - just as some bible stories are told twice
> in the books of Kings and Chronicles.  So,
> Genesis 2:7 to 2:23, in which God makesAdam

> andEve, is happening on day six.  However, in

> Genesis 2:19, God makes animals and birds /after/

> makingAdam, whereas earlier, birds are on day five,
> and animals came beforeAdam, as well.  One interpretation

> is that at least one of these stories is not telling
> what actually happened.  Another is that in 2:19
> it ought to say that God /had/ made animals and

> birds, previously, and is now bringing them out to meetAdam.  However, apparently the original language

> doesn't justify that interpretation.  And then

> there's your version: the /first/ time, God madeNeanderthals.  (Although I think that doesn't help
> you with the 2:19 problem, unlessAdamis created

> on day five but not mentioned - surely that isn't it.)
>
> When scientists try to understand the history of
> Neanderthal and other man-like beings that lived before
> modern humans, they mostly don't expect it to have
> any relationship to the Genesis stories whatsoever,
> and they don't find a relationship, either.
>
> As far as I remember and understand, there has been
> uncertainty in scientific views recently on this
> subject, but the favoured view at the moment is that
> pre-Neanderthal humans - Homo heidelbergensis  -
> arose in Africa and migrated into Europe and then elsewhere, having become Neanderthal man, about
> 300,000 years ago, while back in Africa, homo sapiens
> arose and also spread worldwide later on, with some

> intermarrying (to be polite) withNeanderthals, while
> separate Neanderthal communities died out.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

They have found a 400,000 year old tooth in Israel and a cave with
campfire ashes and cooked bones that was older than the tooth. All of
that is evidence of what is written in Genesis about the male and
female created during the 6th period of time (6th day KJV). Adam and
Eve lived about 5,000 years ago because they have recorded records of
the people from the ark and all the way back to Adam and Eve. To me it
makes that part of the Bible completely understandable and the more
doors you open to one thing, the more doors it will open to something
else.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 10:24 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:43 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was

> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>

> Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended fromneanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some interbred
> withneanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa

> are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
> traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
> little is known; they were another human species about as closely

> related to us as theneanderthalswere. The homo sapiens-neanderthal-

> Kermit- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

kermit.. If you study the Bible all the way through some of your
questions are answerd in other books like sin before the law.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed when there is no law.

This is another piece of evidence. I looked up the Greek word for
world is Kosmos. Here is the definition...

2889. kosmos, kos'-mos; prob. from the base of G2865; orderly
arrangement, i.e. decoration; by impl. the world (in a wide or narrow
sense, includ. its inhab., lit. or fig. [mor.]):--adorning, world.

the world (in a wide or narrow sense, includ. its inhab. That would be
an explanation for the Neanderthals before Adam.

[Herman]

> > This is my explanation.Adamwas from the world wide tribe ofAdam. If
> > you look up the hebrew definition ofAdam, it means a man of low

> > degree, a mean red faced person. That was the man that God took and
> > formed him into a man of high degree. The man of high degree was
> > called Iysh which in Hebrew means a man of high degree, a champion, a

> > steward. But,.. He was not called Iysh untilEvewas taken from him.

> > We have no idea what happened in the process of how God clonedEve

> > from the rib ofAdam, butEvewas not a Neanderthal.Adamsaid she is
> > bone of my bone and blood of my blood.AdamandEvewas the first Cro-

> > Magnon people on the earth.
> >     Cain married into the Neanderthal people in the land of Nod. and
> > from his children the world became corrupt. That was the reason for

> > the flood to wipe out theNeanderthals.AdamandEvehad another son

> > named Seth that was Cro-Magon (Iysh) His sons and daughters was the
> > people that was saved on the ark of Noah. The Cro-Magnons was saved,

> > and theNeanderthalswere wiped out.

> >    The tree of knowledge was knowledge of Good and evil just like the

> > Bible said.AdamandEvewere smart enough to understand it but they

> > took of it anyway and did according to both Good and evil. That was
> > the first sin and that is how sin got into the world was through them.
> > Sin is doing what God tells you not to do. God knows how the kingdom
> > of heaven should be run. That's the positive way and that's the only
> > way eternal life will work.
>
> Are the pages of bibbles printed in the US impregnated with some kind

> of hallucinogenic?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Alex.. Yes.. all translations are full of mistakes. But we have a
Strong's concordance to go with the KJV that gives each word used in
the Bible and it's definition in Hebrew or Greek so that we can look
up the original word and find it's definition. If you doubt that, you
can check the dead sea scrolls. A lot of us live in the woods but we
have computers now days.

[Dana Tweedy]

Except for anaerobic life forms....

http://glassbox-design.com/2010/anaerobic-life-not-just-for-dacteria-anymore/

> What many
> don’t realize, however, is that although oxygen is necessary for
> life’s processes, the presence of oxygen would actually prevent life
> from coming into being.

Not necessarily, but in any case, during early conditions on Earth there
was little free oxygen.

> This is because oxygen is destructive (i.e. it causes decay and rust).
> For oxygen to be safe there must be mechanisms already in place to
> control, direct, and regulate oxygen. All life forms have these
> mechanisms.
> Evolutionists must assume that the early earth had no oxygen.

No, they don't because the evidence shows there was little free oxygen
in Earth's atmosphere at the time.

> But,
> then that would mean there was no ozone layer in the atmosphere to
> protect from harmful radiation that would destroy life or even any
> budding form of life. Ozone is made-up of oxygen. It’s a Catch-22
> situation for evolutionists. In fact, there are numerous Catch-22
> situations for evolutionists when it comes to the origin of life
> issue.

Most recent ideas on abiogenesis having happening in deep sea vents,
where the water would protect from UV radiation. Therefore the ozone
layer is a non issue.

> The latest scientific evidence from geology shows that there, indeed,
> was oxygen in the earth’s earliest atmosphere.

No one claims there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere, but that the
oxygen there was was bound up in other compounds, meaning there was
little or no free oxygen, unlike today. See:

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/earth-s-early-atmosphere-an-update/

"The results do not, however, run contrary to existing theories on
life’s journey from anaerobic to aerobic organisms. The results quantify
the nature of gas molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur in
the earliest atmosphere, but they shed no light on the much later rise
of free oxygen in the air. There was still a significant amount of time
for oxygen to build up in the atmosphere through biologic mechanisms,"

> Stanley Miller, in his famous 1950′s experiment, made sure that there
> was no oxygen mixed in the laboratory atmosphere he used to produce
> amino acids, life’s building blocks. Miller also had a device to
> protect the amino acids once they were formed or otherwise they would
> have been destroyed by the very random energy that produced them!

What is the relevance here? The energy in Miller's experiment was not
"random".

> In any case, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The millions of
> various amino acids making up a cell would have to come together in
> the right sequence (just like the letters in a sentence).

Not necessarily, as no one claims the right combination came together
all at once, or only once.

> Amino acids
> can arise by chance but not protein molecules, which require that
> amino acids be in the right sequence.

Which is why hypotheses of abiogenesis tend to suggest some form of
scaffolding, such as clay.

> There’s no inherent chemical tendency for amino acids to come together
> into a sequence. Amino acids can come together in any order. The only
> reason why they come together in a sequence in our bodies is because
> there is already a sequence in our DNA directing them to do so.

Which is, again, why research into abiogenesis is looking for some other
molecule, perhaps RNA that would do the same thing.

> Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to
> 50th power or greater is impossible.

Which mathematicians? Please provide a reference.

> The probability of just a single
> average protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power!

which is why no one suggests that protein molecules came about by chance
alone.

> Even the simplest cell has millions of protein molecules.

the simplest cells now in existence are still the result of more than
3.5 billion years of evolution.

> And, the
> cell would have to come into existence all at once.

No, it would not. There are several ideas on how cells could have
developed over many generations of self replicating molecules.

http://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/deep-sea-bonanza-iv-abiogenesis-at-hydrothermal-vents/

> It could not have
> gradually evolved. A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate
> under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially
> without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell
> membrane.

Unless there was something else acting as a cell membrane...
see:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7200/edsumm/e080703-16.html

> A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to
> make it complete and then become living!

No one claims it did.

> In fact, it couldn’t have
> even reached the partially evolved state.

What exactly is a "partially evolved state"? (Florida doesn't count)

> Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the code and
> mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The problem
> for atheists is how did the cell originate when there were no
> directing code/mechanisms in nature.

Why would that be a problem for atheists, any more than for other
scientists who happen to believe in God? Cells originated through
chemical processes which are directing mechanisms.

> Natural laws may explain how a
> cell or an airplane works but undirected natural laws cannot bring
> about the existence of either.

Poor analogy. Cells are the result of chemical processes over time,
from self replicating precursors. Airplanes don't self replicate.

> Natural selection you say? Natural selection doesn’t create or produce
> anything.

It does produce a differential of reproductive success.

> It can only “select” from what is produced that has survival
> value.

provided by chemical processes already existing.....

> Natural selection can only “select” from variations that are
> possible.

which variations in chemical processes produce.....

> If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that
> survival is called “natural selection.” It’s a passive process.
> There’s no conscious selection by nature, and natural selection only
> operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it
> could not have been any assistance in the origin of life.

Wrong. Natural selection can operate as long as there are variations
and self replicating choices.

> Science cannot prove that we’re here by chance or design.

Science doesn't "prove" anything. However, evolution, and abiogenesis
are not chance processes.


> Neither was
> observed.

Neither have to be observed. One needs to observe the results, and
propose testable theories to explain the results. "design" is not
testable.

> Both are positions of faith.

Wrong again. Scientific investigation does not require faith.

> The issue is which faith is
> best supported by science. Let the scientific arguments of both sides
> be presented.

as soon as "design" proponents come up with a scientific argument, let
us know.

> No one is being forced to believe in God, so there is no
> violation of separation of church and state.

Which is why "design" isn't a scientific idea.

> Money from taxpayers on both sides of the issue is used to support
> public schools. It is only fair that in public schools, at least, the
> scientific arguments of both sides be presented.

Again, once design proponents come up with a scientific argument, it can
be presented. As it stands, all they have is arguments from
incredulity, which is just a logical fallacy.

> There’s a good explanation for why life may exist on Mars. In the
> Earth’s past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have
> easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes into outer space
> which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up
> traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors.

or, the other way around..... Life may, or may not exist on Mars, but
it's not likely any life form would survive in unprotected space for
that amount of time.

> A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this
> possibility. “We think there’s about 7 million tons of earth soil
> sitting on Mars”, says scientist and evolutionist Kenneth Nealson.
> “You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it
> could have come from the Earth” [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September
> 21, 1998, p.12].

On could consider such a possibility, but it's not very likely.

> NASA knows all of this but looking for life on other planets is a
> powerful way to motivate people to want their government to give more
> and more money to NASA. NASA, after all, is a business with hefty
> salaries at stake.

The salaries of the average NASA researcher is hardly "hefty".

>
> So you see.. It's over our heads but God did not have a problem with
> it at all. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

It may be over your head, but not everyone shares your handicap.


DJT




>

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:10:34 PM UTC+1, Herman wrote:

> > This is my explanation.Adamwas from the world wide tribe ofAdam. If
> > you look up the hebrew definition ofAdam, it means a man of low

> > degree, a mean red faced person. That was the man that God took and
> > formed him into a man of high degree. The man of high degree was
> > called Iysh which in Hebrew means a man of high degree, a champion, a

> > steward. But,.. He was not called Iysh untilEvewas taken from him.
> > We have no idea what happened in the process of how God clonedEve

> > from the rib ofAdam, butEvewas not a Neanderthal.Adamsaid she is
> > bone of my bone and blood of my blood.AdamandEvewas the first Cro-

> > Magnon people on the earth.
> >     Cain married into the Neanderthal people in the land of Nod. and
> > from his children the world became corrupt. That was the reason for

> > the flood to wipe out theNeanderthals.AdamandEvehad another son

> > named Seth that was Cro-Magon (Iysh) His sons and daughters was the
> > people that was saved on the ark of Noah. The Cro-Magnons was saved,

> > and theNeanderthalswere wiped out.

> >    The tree of knowledge was knowledge of Good and evil just like the

> > Bible said.AdamandEvewere smart enough to understand it but they

> > took of it anyway and did according to both Good and evil. That was
> > the first sin and that is how sin got into the world was through them.
> > Sin is doing what God tells you not to do. God knows how the kingdom
> > of heaven should be run. That's the positive way and that's the only
> > way eternal life will work.
>
> Have you tried discussing this with other
> religious people?  You might be in agreement
> about the tree.
>

> When wasAdamcalled "Iysh"?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Robert.. Yes I have.. I get on the Christian chat a lot to see what
the rest of the world are thinking. Some accept it and some don't, but
I'm not really interested in what people think. I'm more interested in
what the Bible says. On the chat, some people might post a scripture
that I have not considered sometimes a help and sometimes proves me
wrong. The chat has been a source of info since the year 2000. It's
really helpful in research.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 12:12 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:

> Herman wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male and
> > female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth.
>

> You are aware, aren't you, that the creation story of Genesis is a myth?

>
> > In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English means
> > a period of time). God created both male and female, then he rested for

> > a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdamfrom the dust

> > of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the
> > man became a living soul.... Some people think that God took a hunk of
> > clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the man lived. The way I
> > understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and worked with him day by day
> > and over the  years formed his mind to think about other people besides
> > himself and the man became a living soul.
>

> There is nothing in the Old Testament to support this story.
>
> More importantly it also is bad science.Neanderthalsdid not become
> modern humans by any means - they died out.
>
> > This would explain howAdam

> > knew what a father and mother was and how Cain found a wife in the land
> > of Nod and why there was a land named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son
> > built a city. How can you build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it.
>

> No, there isn't. When the stories of the Bible were conceived, people had
> no awareness ofNeanderthals.

>
> > So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>

> Here is some serious feedback: forget about this nonsensical story of
> turningNeanderthalsinto modern humans. Also forget about there ever
> having been an "Adam" and "Eve".
>
> Listen to science if you want to know more about the origins and
> evolution of humans. And if you still need the Bible in your life, read
> it as a collection of morality tales.

LOL...Nmp... Why?.. Because you like science? I happen to like both
the Bible and science and science has found a lot of evidence that
back up what the Bible teaches. I'll stick with both if you don't
mind.
And by the way, you need a lot more Bible study if you're going to
try and tell Christian people what the Bible says and what it don't
say.

[Herman]

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they
bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old,
men of renown.
The Hebrew word that the translators replaced with the English word
Giants, is Nephiyl.. the word meaning is...

5303. nephiyl, nef-eel'; or nephil, nef-eel'; from H5307; prop., a
feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

So these men could have been like Al Kapone, short chubby tyrants.

As far as the daughters of men go,..

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Cain's daughters were half Neanderthal and half Cro-Magnon according
to this assumption. Good looking with no brain.. Just what men were
looking for. They did not have to rape them, they probably got raped.

As far as the son's of God goes.. Here is the definition of the Hebrew
word that the KJV replaced with the English word Son's...

1121. ben, bane; from H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name),
in the widest sense (of lit. and fig. relationship, including
grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., [like H1, H251,
etc.]):-- + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite,
[anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-]
[Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, +
(young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X
of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid,
+ lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, +
robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, +
stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp,
worthy, young (one), youth.

Do you see Angels that came down from heaven within that
definition?... Nope... That is because you have been listening to your
buddies instead of having your own private Bible study. I never listen
to other people when it comes to the Bible... Bad mistake.. If it
sounds interesting, I will look it up in the Bible, then the
concordance. But I never take the word of any man because I know that
some people jump to their own conclusions. Even preachers.

You might have the last part right. If the women were part Neanderthal
then their children would have been too. Neanderthals were big boned
people with half a brain.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 3:44 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:43:44 AM UTC-6, Herman wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was

> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>
> You can make up anything you want and make the Bible agree with it.
> Such ideas are so bad that they are not even wrong.
>

> -John- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

John.. Your so right.. and that's exactly what we have been handed
down is made up stuff. People of long ago were hard working people
that studied the Bible at night by candlelight. They did a lot of
reading and here in the USA the Bible was the only book most of them
had. They did not have a concordance more than likely, even though it
had been written in the mid 1800's. Tradition is a good thing, but can
also be a bad thing. If you got up in church and told everyone that
Adam and Eve were not the first two people on earth, you might have
been burned as a witch. If they had any other thoughts I suppose they
kept them to themselves.
We are really lucky to be living in the generation that we live in.
Science has come a long way on some really good discoveries and now it
won't be long till the James Webb telescope will be in orbit and we
will learn a lot more. We also have the Grain satellites orbiting the
moon as we speak and the data they get will be made public. We have
the Strong's concordance in a computer program where we can look up
anything we need in a few seconds and it is a close as your Christian
book store.
But then again, they were simple people and the Bible was written
for every generation and every IQ. They got the most important part
right because they were hard working good hearted people and that's a
lot more important than people being here before Adam and Eve.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:01:40 AM UTC+1, Herman wrote:
> Thanks for posting that link and even though I did make fun of it
> there is a lot of good info there all in one article. That page could
> keep me busy for many a night until the wee hours of the morning.
> To see a good animation on a small earth go to Neal Adams web page.
> http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html

Expanding Earth! Surely you're joking.

What does Babu G. Ranganathan think about the
Expanding Earth idea? I'm not sure I want to
take responsibility for his hearing about it...
could go either way.

[Ron O]

On Apr 10, 3:39 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:

> John Vreeland wrote:
> > One unfortunate fact: we are not descended from neandertals.
>

> Yes. I would have liked to be though.

If you are descended from the modern humans that made it out of Africa
(Europe, Asia, and America) you have about 5% Neandertal DNA in your
genome.

Ron Okimoto

[Herman]

> http://glassbox-design.com/2010/anaerobic-life-not-just-for-dacteria-...

> http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/earth-s-early-atmosphere-an-upd...

> http://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/deep-sea-bonanza-iv-abiog...

The main point that I seen in the NASA article is that life could not
have evolved by chance. (Like the example I used in earlier post on
some of my old topics) A 2012 Lincoln Town car was designed (after
many years of evolution of different cars) by the auto designers at
Ford Motor Company to manufacture the 2012 Lincoln Town Car. The
chances would be impossible for it to evolve by chance but by design
it's not only possible but obvious. The odds are impossible either way
for it to turn out to be a Chevy.
The point is that life had to come by design and not by chance and
that each species had to have it’s own seed. The first chapter of
Genesis speaks of the seed being in the earth (sea water) and that the
seed produced each species according to it’s own kind. People love to
talk about mutations changing the DNA to produce freaks. That’s not
what we see. We don’t have a world full of freaks, we have a world
full of different species with their own characteristics and
personalities and language. They all eat different types of food and
have different habits that keep them alive till they get outfoxed. To
teach a gullible child that live evolved by chance is not only
unnecessary but evil. Thank God the child might see the Truth when he
gets older like there is no Santa. However, they have robbed him of
his childhood Bible study by making it confusing for him. Also, in
some cases, some kids don’t have parents to teach them about God.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 10:24 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:43 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was
> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>

> Kermit- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

We all have a free choice of what to accept as Truth. If you hate what
the Bible teaches you will not study it, that's common logic. If you
have a love for your creator, you will want to study all you can about
everything he did, especially the creation.
It's easy to spot people that don't want to give up their lifestyle.
Some people love sin and hate God. ... That’s obvious ... But if you
reject the Bible which means you will not study it, don't try to teach
people that love the Bible about the Bible. ... LOL ... That's like a
millwright trying to explain the electrical theory to an electrician.
Now if you are interested in what the Bible teaches, that's a lot
different. The electrician will sit down with a millwright and teach
him the basic theory of electricity one step at a time. Getting back
to the Bible Genesis is the first step.
God did not give a law to the every day Neanderthal. He waited a
whole age for the Neanderthal to be intelligent enough to be taught.
Then he worked with him a big part of his life with tests and trials
to form his mind to think about other people besides himself. Then he
cloned a mate for him so that she would not be a Neanderthal. They
were both Cro-Magnon people. THEN HE GIVE THEM BOTH THE LAW because
they had enough sense to know right from wrong. That's the concept
here, and that's what this topic is all about. The Bible teaches the
same thing if you read it that way and has evidence that there were
Neanderthals before Adam and Eve in different scriptures. The
Neanderthals were later wiped out in the flood of Noah.
I am going to have to cut this short because I have to get ready for
a Doctor's appointment but I hope you get what I am trying to show
you.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<b757a846-16d4-4e46...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Herman <Dusty...@aol.com> writes

>> > Stanley Miller, in his famous 1950?s experiment, made sure that there

What NASA article? The article that you have recently posted multiple
times was not from NASA; it was an attack on NASA.

> (Like the example I used in earlier post on
>some of my old topics) A 2012 Lincoln Town car was designed (after
>many years of evolution of different cars) by the auto designers at
>Ford Motor Company to manufacture the 2012 Lincoln Town Car. The
>chances would be impossible for it to evolve by chance but by design
>it's not only possible but obvious. The odds are impossible either way
>for it to turn out to be a Chevy.
> The point is that life had to come by design and not by chance and
>that each species had to have it’s own seed. The first chapter of
>Genesis speaks of the seed being in the earth (sea water) and that the
>seed produced each species according to it’s own kind. People love to
>talk about mutations changing the DNA to produce freaks. That’s not
>what we see. We don’t have a world full of freaks, we have a world
>full of different species with their own characteristics and
>personalities and language. They all eat different types of food and
>have different habits that keep them alive till they get outfoxed. To
>teach a gullible child that live evolved by chance is not only
>unnecessary but evil. Thank God the child might see the Truth when he
>gets older like there is no Santa. However, they have robbed him of
>his childhood Bible study by making it confusing for him. Also, in
>some cases, some kids don’t have parents to teach them about God.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:03:07 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty...@aol.com>
wrote:

[..]

>The main point that I seen in the NASA article is that life could not
>have evolved by chance. (Like the example I used in earlier post on
>some of my old topics) A 2012 Lincoln Town car was designed (after
>many years of evolution of different cars) by the auto designers at
>Ford Motor Company to manufacture the 2012 Lincoln Town Car. The
>chances would be impossible for it to evolve by chance but by design
>it's not only possible but obvious. The odds are impossible either way
>for it to turn out to be a Chevy.
> The point is that life had to come by design and not by chance and
>that each species had to have it’s own seed. The first chapter of
>Genesis speaks of the seed being in the earth (sea water) and that the
>seed produced each species according to it’s own kind. People love to
>talk about mutations changing the DNA to produce freaks. That’s not
>what we see. We don’t have a world full of freaks, we have a world
>full of different species with their own characteristics and
>personalities and language. They all eat different types of food and
>have different habits that keep them alive till they get outfoxed. To
>teach a gullible child that live evolved by chance is not only
>unnecessary but evil. Thank God the child might see the Truth when he
>gets older like there is no Santa. However, they have robbed him of
>his childhood Bible study by making it confusing for him. Also, in
>some cases, some kids don’t have parents to teach them about God.

Of course it's known that people designed these cars, and not your
"kinds". To argue that God designed "kinds" because "kinds" must be
designed, is called assuming your conclusion, a fact which ought to
make you realize the error of your argument, NASA articles
notwithstanding.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

So... Adam was born in a Neanderthal family,
and God decided to be friends with him?

Maybe you have confused the stories of Adam and
Abraham? Including the "changed his name" part.
Abraham of course used to be Abram.

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 7:38 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:03:07 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com>

> notwithstanding.  - Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If God didn't design the "Kinds", what or who do you think did?

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 8:49 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

> Abraham of course used to be Abram.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Being friends with God is not exactly what I tried to explain. In this
assumption, God already knew the blood line of this individual and
knew what he would evolve into. By total understanding of his laws,
God knew exactly what they would produce before solid matter was ever
created. He knew the blood line of this one individual and knew that
thousands of years later Jesus Christ would come from Adam's blood
line. That is why Adam was chosen, not because he wanted to be buddies
with him.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:20:57 -0700 (PDT), in article
<64fb50e8-6006-4f49...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Herman
stated..."
[...snip...]

>If God didn't design the "Kinds", what or who do you think did?
>

There is no such thing as a "kind". The concept is not well defined.
The word "kind" (in Hebrew, "min") as used in the Bible does not
refer to something (that would be an anachronism), but is only used
in the set phrase "according to his/their kind". The modern
coinage "kind" (or "baramin") is hopelessly vague, "something like
a taxonomic family", where "taxonomic family" (like all taxonomic
categories other than "species") itself has no objective definition.

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 5:06 am, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> Herman wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 12:12 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
>

> [..]

>
> >> Here is some serious feedback: forget about this nonsensical story of
> >> turningNeanderthalsinto modern humans. Also forget about there ever
> >> having been an "Adam" and "Eve".
>
> >> Listen to science if you want to know more about the origins and
> >> evolution of humans. And if you still need the Bible in your life, read
> >> it as a collection of morality tales.
>
> > LOL...Nmp... Why?..
>

> "LOL" all you want. Just watch out that it doesn't make you look like a
> fool.
>
> > Because you like science?
>
> Because I like reality.

>
> > I happen to like both the Bible and science
>

> No, you don't. You may think you do, but you understand nothing of either.

>
> > and science has found a lot of evidence that back up what the Bible
> > teaches.
>

> No, it hasn't.

>
> > I'll stick with both if you don't mind.
>

> I already told you I don't mind. Sure, read your Bible - but do not take
> it for something that it is not. Most specifically, it is not a science
> book.

>
> > And by the way, you need a lot more Bible study if you're going to try
> > and tell Christian people what the Bible says and what it don't say.
>

> I am telling you, not "Christian people", that the Bible does not mention
> Neanderthals. The process by which you arrived at the conclusion that it
> does is commonly known as "making shit up".
>
> Of course you are welcome to give chapter and verse if you find evidence
> that the Bible mentions Neanderthals.
>
> Chop chop, must get to work.

OK.. here is your answer to Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon people.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:26 . 'elohiym:H430 'amar:H559 . . 'asah:H6213 'adam:H120 . .
tselem:H6754 . . demuwth:H1823 . . . . radah:H7287 . . dagah:H1710 . .
yam:H3220 . . . 'owph:H5775 . . shamayim:H8064 . . . behemah:H929 . .
kol:H3605 . 'erets:H776 . . kol:H3605 remes:H7431 . . ramas:H7430 . .
'erets:H776

Here is the definition for the Hebrew word Adam…

120. 'adam, aw-dawm'; from H119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an
individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, +
common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

A mean man of low degree.. Science called him a Neanderthal, the bible
called him Adam. The word Neanderthal was not invented till 1861 and
the word meaning is a caveman.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Gen 2:24 'al:H5921 - ken:H3651 . . 'iysh:H376 'azab:H5800 .
'ab:H1 . . 'em:H517 . . dabaq:H1692 . . 'ishshah:H802 . . . .
'echad:H259 basar:H1320

Here is the Hebrew definition of the Hebrew word Iysh…

376. 'iysh, eesh; contr. for H582 [or perh. rather from an unused root
mean. to be extant]; a man as an individual or a male person; often
used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases
frequently not expressed in translation):--also, another, any (man), a
certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, [foot-,
husband-] man, (good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him
(that is), husband, man [-kind], + none, one, people, person, +
steward, what (man) soever, whoso (-ever), worthy. Comp. H802.

So Iysh was a man of high degree, a champion, a good great mighty
man. The writer of Genesis could not use the word Cro-Magnon because
it was not invented till 1869.. The definition is a modern day human.

There are over two billion people that will not agree that the bible
is a myth. It’s not just me.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 3:44 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:43:44 AM UTC-6, Herman wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formed Adam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living

> > soul. This would explain how Adam knew what a father and mother was

> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point to Neanderthals if
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>

> You can make up anything you want and make the Bible agree with it.

> Such ideas are so bad that they are not even wrong.
>
> -John- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well.. At leat you admit that they are not wrong.. That's a good
start. ... Keep on trucking.

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty...@aol.com>
wrote:

>If God didn't design the "Kinds", what or who do you think did?

Your question presumes "kinds" were designed. That's the same point I
just made. I don't say here that your conclusion is wrong or right.
But your argument itself is circular and therefore nonsense. You
*assume* God created "kinds", just as you *assume* natural processes
can't evolve living things.

You perceive certain features of living things as analogous to manmade
things. You then conclude living things are designed. You could as
easily and as wrongly conclude living things are manmade. Neither
conclusion follows from your perception.

[alextangent]

You ignorant ape, it's the name of the place where the first discovery
was made, a valley which happens to be named after a 17th century
pastor Johannes Neander (which, co-incidentally means New Man). Thal
(archaic) means valley in German. And the date of the find was 1856.

>
> Gen 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
> shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
>
> Gen 2:24  'al:H5921 - ken:H3651 . . 'iysh:H376 'azab:H5800 .
> 'ab:H1 . . 'em:H517 . . dabaq:H1692 . . 'ishshah:H802 . . . .
> 'echad:H259 basar:H1320
>
> Here is the Hebrew definition of the Hebrew word Iysh…
>
> 376. 'iysh, eesh; contr. for H582 [or perh. rather from an unused root
> mean. to be extant]; a man as an individual or a male person; often
> used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases
> frequently not expressed in translation):--also, another, any (man), a
> certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, [foot-,
> husband-] man, (good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him
> (that is), husband, man [-kind], + none, one, people, person, +
> steward, what (man) soever, whoso (-ever), worthy. Comp. H802.
>
> So Iysh was a man of high degree, a champion,  a good great mighty
> man. The writer of Genesis could not use the word Cro-Magnon because
> it was not invented till 1869.. The definition is a modern day human.

1868. What calendar are you using?

>
> There are over two billion people that will not agree that the bible
> is a myth. It’s not just me.

This is definitely all you. Made up from whole cloth.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<4942a491-af9e-4660...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> writes

I think that rather more than two billion people would agree that the
Bible is not a myth - it's a real book, and it's an anthology, not all
of which is myth.

OTOH, some Christians recognise the mythical nature of the various
stories in Genesis. And very few Christians agree with Herman's
interpretation. Argumentum ad populum is fallacious even when the
populace agrees with you; when the populace doesn't agree with you it's
laughable as well.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Herman]

> > OK.. here is your answer toNeanderthalsand Cro-Magnon people.

>
> > Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
> > likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
> > over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
> > and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>
> > Gen 1:26  . 'elohiym:H430 'amar:H559 . . 'asah:H6213 'adam:H120 . .
> > tselem:H6754 . . demuwth:H1823 . . . . radah:H7287 . . dagah:H1710 . .
> > yam:H3220 . . . 'owph:H5775 . . shamayim:H8064 . . . behemah:H929 . .
> > kol:H3605 . 'erets:H776 . . kol:H3605 remes:H7431 . . ramas:H7430 . .
> > 'erets:H776
>
> > Here is the definition for the Hebrew wordAdam…
>
> > 120. 'adam, aw-dawm'; from H119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an
> > individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, +
> > common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
>
> > A mean man of low degree.. Science called him a Neanderthal, the bible

> > called himAdam. The word Neanderthal was not invented till 1861 and

> This is definitely all you. Made up from whole cloth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Alex.. How's this from Webster?... I don't agree with the way Webster
spells, we spell different.. But his history is what we're up against
here.

Main Entry:Neanderthal
Pronunciation:n*-*an-d*r-*t*l, -*th*l; n*-**n-d*r-*t*l
Function:adjective
Date:1861

1 also Neandertal \-*t*l, -*t*l\ : being, relating to, or
resembling Neanderthal man
2 : suggesting a caveman in appearance, mentality, or behavior
–Neanderthal noun

[Rolf]

Herman wrote:
> In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formed Adam
> from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> worked with him day by day and over the years formed his mind to
> think about other people besides himself and the man became a living
> soul. This would explain how Adam knew what a father and mother was
> and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> build a city with just a few people?
> There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point to Neanderthals if
> you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> understanding so what ever works will be just fine.

You are back? Gotta offload some more crap?

Serious feedback? You must be joking.

[Rolf]

Herman wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:07 am, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:43:44 PM UTC+10, Herman wrote:
>>> In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
>>> and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
>>> understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6
>>> periods of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and
>>> English means a period of time). God created both male and female,
>>> then he rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he

>>> formedAdam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his

>>> nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living soul....
>>> Some people think that God took a hunk of clay and formed man then
>>> zapped him to life and the man lived. The way I understand it is,
>>> God took a Neanderthal and worked with him day by day and over the
>>> years formed his mind to think about other people besides himself
>>> and the man became a living soul. This would explain howAdamknew
>>> what a father and mother was
>>> and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a
>>> land named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can
>>> you build a city with just a few people?
>>> There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
>>> you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
>>> around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some
>>> serious feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens
>>> doors of understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>>

>> “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against
>> unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason
>> can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the
>> trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling
>> themselves the priests of Jesus.” Thomas Jefferson.
>>
>> Replace "trinity" with "God took a Neanderthal and worked with him

>> day by day and over the years formed his mind to think about other

>> people besides himself and the man became a living soul" and you
>> have my opinion of your proposal.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

> My idea of the trinity is, 1. God the creator, his son, 2. Jesus our
> sacrifice and mediator, 3. and the Holy Ghost, the understanding of
> the Bible. … We need all three. … I really do not understand your
> reply either so if you could reword it a bit it would be helpful. Your
> opinion would be interesting too. Like.. How do you interpret what the
> Bible says on that subject?

Interpret it any way you like, it doesn't matter.

[Rolf]

nmp wrote:
> John Vreeland wrote:
>
>> One unfortunate fact: we are not descended from neandertals.
>
> Yes. I would have liked to be though.

A lot of us have some of their genes though.

[Herman]

On Apr 10, 6:43 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> think about other people besides himself and the man became a living
> soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was
> and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> build a city with just a few people?
>    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> understanding so what ever works will be just fine.

Evidence in scriptures of the Neanderthals

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1. … How did Adam know what a mother and father was if there were not
people before him?

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the
mother of all living.

Gen 3:20 . 'adam:H120 qara':H7121 . 'ishshah:H802 shem:H8034
chavvah:H2332 kiy:H3588 . . . 'em:H517 . kol:H3605 chay:H2416

517. 'em, ame; a prim. word; a mother (as the bond of the family); in
a wide sense (both lit. and fig.) [like H1]:--dam, mother, X parting.

Main Entry:1mother
Pronunciation:*m*-**r
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English moder, from Old English m*dor; akin to Old
High German muoter mother, Latin mater, Greek m*t*r, Sanskrit m*t*
Date:before 12th century

1 a : a female parent b (1) : a woman in authority; specifically :
the superior of a religious community of women (2) : an old or elderly
woman
2 : SOURCE, ORIGIN *necessity is the mother of invention*
3 : maternal tenderness or affection
4 [short for motherfucker] sometimes vulgar : one that is
particularly impressive or contemptible
–motherhood \-*h*d\ noun
–motherless \-l*s\ adjective
–motherlessness noun
(Like a Catholic Mother)

2416. chay, khah'ee; from H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh
(plant, water, year), strong, also (as noun, espec. in the fem. sing.
and masc. plur.) life (or living thing), whether lit. or fig.:-- +
age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-
time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry,
multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

The definition of the Hebrew word Chay says it better…whether lit. or
fig.:-- + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation,
life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, +
merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

Does this make you think of a Neanderthal? This is not how modern men
act. … Well, … MOST modern day men.

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt
in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name
of his son, Enoch.

How did Cain build a city if there was no people in the land of Nod?
Why was it called the land of Nod if there were no people there? (If
there was no people, it would have been called the woods)

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that
God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called
their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Gen 5:1 zeh:H2088 . . cepher:H5612 . . towledah:H8435 .
'adam:H121 . . yowm:H3117 . 'elohiym:H430 bara':H1254 'adam:H120 . .
demuwth:H1823 . 'elohiym:H430 'asah:H6213 . .
Gen 5:2 zakar:H2145 . neqebah:H5347 bara':H1254 . . . barak:H1288 . .
qara':H7121 . shem:H8034 'adam:H120 . . yowm:H3117 . . . bara':H1254

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:13 . achri:G891 . nomos:G3551 hamartia:G266 . . .
kosmos:G2889 . hamartia:G266 . . ellogeo:G1677 . . . me:G3361
nomos:G3551

2889. kosmos, kos'-mos; prob. from the base of G2865; orderly
arrangement, i.e. decoration; by impl. the world (in a wide or narrow
sense, includ. its inhab., lit. or fig. [mor.]):--adorning, world.

This is just a few scriptures that I have found on the first people on
earth. There might be a lot more that describe it a lot better.

[Tim Johnson]

> > Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended fromneanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some interbred
> > withneanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa
> > are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
> > traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
> > little is known; they were another human species about as closely
> > related to us as theneanderthalswere.

We know what Neanderthals looked like now:

http://www.themandus.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs

and there is absolutely no way in the world any human ever interbred
with anything like that.Whatever Paabo is seeing is something other
than evidence of humans and Neanderthals breeding together, aside from
everything else there's an absolute logical conundrum in the picture.
Any Neanderthal/human crossbreeding would have to have been before or
after the human population bottleneck: Prior, and Africans would not
have been left out; after and excluding Africans as claimed, and the
genetic gap between Africans and others would be gigantic and not
minuscule as it actually is.

Danny Vendramini is making several fairly unrelated claims of which
just one, i.e. the claim of gracile hominids punk-eeking into Cro
Magnons, is not supported by evidence; his reconstructions of
Neanderthals are in fact completely believable. His thesis explains
the huge Neanderthal eye sockets and also why amongst the myriad
Neanderthal tools and toolkits, no Neanderthal needles have ever been
found: a creature with a 6" - 8" ice-age fur coat doesn't really need
clothing or needles...

For those willing to entertain complex explanations and versions of
stories, there is a web page which proposes splash saltation as an
alternative to punctuated equilibria both generally and as a potential
explanation for the origin of Cro Magnons on our planet:

http://bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Prehistory/Prehistory.htm

The claim is that Cro Magnons and Bible antediluvians constituted
separate saltations of the same genetic type, but in the form of two
groups which were culturally and technologically very different. For
that matter, AFAIK, there was never an instance of one of the older
(Cro-Magnon descended) ethnic groups on the planet ever giving up on
stone weapon points and tools and starting to use metal on their own
and, by the same token, there does not appear to be any sort of a
claim of metal tool/weapon making prior to the theoretical time of
Adam, Cain, Seth et. al. i.e. much prior to about 3000 BC.

But take a look at some of Vendramini's images and ask yourself how
much anybody would have to pay you to do it with something like
that.....

[John Harshman]

Tim Johnson wrote:
>>> Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended
>>> fromneanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some
>>> interbred
>>> withneanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa
>>> are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
>>> traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
>>> little is known; they were another human species about as closely
>>> related to us as theneanderthalswere.
>
> We know what Neanderthals looked like now:
>
> http://www.themandus.org
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs
>
> and there is absolutely no way in the world any human ever interbred
> with anything like that.

Why?

> Whatever Paabo is seeing is something other
> than evidence of humans and Neanderthals breeding together, aside from
> everything else there's an absolute logical conundrum in the picture.
> Any Neanderthal/human crossbreeding would have to have been before or
> after the human population bottleneck: Prior, and Africans would not
> have been left out; after and excluding Africans as claimed, and the
> genetic gap between Africans and others would be gigantic and not
> minuscule as it actually is.

Why the latter? If only a small percentage of the genome of non-Africans
is neandertal, it can't make much difference in the overall genetic
divergence.

> Danny Vendramini is making several fairly unrelated claims of which
> just one, i.e. the claim of gracile hominids punk-eeking into Cro
> Magnons, is not supported by evidence; his reconstructions of
> Neanderthals are in fact completely believable. His thesis explains
> the huge Neanderthal eye sockets and also why amongst the myriad
> Neanderthal tools and toolkits, no Neanderthal needles have ever been
> found: a creature with a 6" - 8" ice-age fur coat doesn't really need
> clothing or needles...
>
> For those willing to entertain complex explanations and versions of
> stories, there is a web page which proposes splash saltation as an
> alternative to punctuated equilibria both generally and as a potential
> explanation for the origin of Cro Magnons on our planet:
>
> http://bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Prehistory/Prehistory.htm
>
> The claim is that Cro Magnons and Bible antediluvians constituted
> separate saltations of the same genetic type, but in the form of two
> groups which were culturally and technologically very different. For
> that matter, AFAIK, there was never an instance of one of the older
> (Cro-Magnon descended) ethnic groups on the planet ever giving up on
> stone weapon points and tools and starting to use metal on their own
> and, by the same token, there does not appear to be any sort of a
> claim of metal tool/weapon making prior to the theoretical time of
> Adam, Cain, Seth et. al. i.e. much prior to about 3000 BC.

Are you willing to defend any of that?

> But take a look at some of Vendramini's images and ask yourself how
> much anybody would have to pay you to do it with something like
> that.....

Apparently we've settled on what you are and are only negotiating the price?

[Ernest Major]

In message
<466e68f0-d961-4a10...@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Herman <Dusty...@aol.com> writes

>On Apr 11, 11:44 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 4:07 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 11, 5:06 am, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
>>
>> > > Herman wrote:
>> > > > On Apr 10, 12:12 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
>>
>> > > [..]
>>
>> > > >> Here is some serious feedback: forget about this nonsensical story of
>> > > >> turningNeanderthalsinto modern humans. Also forget about there ever
>> > > >> having been an "Adam" and "Eve".
>>
>> > > >> Listen to science if you want to know more about the origins and
>> > > >> evolution of humans. And if you still need the Bible in your

You don't defend your definition of a word used as a noun by quoting a
dictionary definition of its use as an adjective. (It would also be
interesting to know which version of Webster you are citing; that second
definition is pretty dire.)

If you can use a dictionary properly why should we pay any heed to your
use of a concordance?
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <isPX90Ax...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes

>In message
><466e68f0-d961-4a10...@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>Herman <Dusty...@aol.com> writes
>>On Apr 11, 11:44 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 4:07 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 11, 5:06 am, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > Herman wrote:
>>> > > > On Apr 10, 12:12 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > [..]
>>>
>>> > > >> Here is some serious feedback: forget about this nonsensical story of
>>> > > >> turningNeanderthalsinto modern humans. Also forget about there ever
>>> > > >> having been an "Adam" and "Eve".
>>>
>>> > > >> Listen to science if you want to know more about the origins and
>>> > > >> evolution of humans. And if you still need the Bible in your
>>> > > >>

>>> > > >> it as a collection of morality tales.
>>>
>>> > > > LOL...Nmp... Why?..
>>>
>>> > > "LOL" all you want. Just watch out that it doesn't make you look like a
>>> > > fool.
>>>
>>> > > > Because you like science?
>>>
>>> > > Because I like reality.
>>>
>>> > > > I happen to like both the Bible and science
>>>
>>> > > No, you don't. You may think you do, but you understand nothing
>>> > >of either.
>>>
>>> > > > and science has found a lot of evidence that back up what the Bible
>>> > > > teaches.
>>>
>>> > > No, it hasn't.
>>>
>>> > > > I'll stick with both if you don't mind.
>>>
>>> > > I already told you I don't mind. Sure, read your Bible - but do not take
>>> > > it for something that it is not. Most specifically, it is not a science
>>> > > book.
>>>
>>> > > > And by the way, you need a lot more Bible study if you're going to try
>>> > > > and tell Christian people what the Bible says and what it don't say.
>>>
>>> > > I am telling you, not "Christian people", that the Bible does

Missing negative syndrome strikes again - s/can/can't/
--
alias Ernest Major

[alextangent]

On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <4942a491-af9e-4660-8d65-291c26fa3...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> writes

C'mon, the guy is making stuff up. This isn't about christianity or
the bible or evolution or science, this is Herman's spaced out
fantasies. Argumentum ad absurdum.

[Dana Tweedy]

No one claims that life evolved "by chance". That was the point I was
making. Evolution is not a chance process. Natural selection is a non
random force.

> (Like the example I used in earlier post on
> some of my old topics) A 2012 Lincoln Town car was designed (after
> many years of evolution of different cars) by the auto designers at
> Ford Motor Company to manufacture the 2012 Lincoln Town Car. The
> chances would be impossible for it to evolve by chance but by design
> it's not only possible but obvious. The odds are impossible either way
> for it to turn out to be a Chevy.

As with the airplane example you used earlier, it's a poor analogy, as
automobiles, like airplanes, aren't self replicating. Living things are.

> The point is that life had to come by design and not by chance and
> that each species had to have it’s own seed.

You are assuming your own conclusion here. Abiogenesis, and evolution
are not "chance", and no one claims that how life began was a chance
occurrence. There's also no reason a species has to have it's own

"seed".





> The first chapter of
> Genesis speaks of the seed being in the earth (sea water) and that the
> seed produced each species according to it’s own kind.

The first chapter of Genesis is not a scientific work. What it says is
irrelevant to how life actually began.

> People love to
> talk about mutations changing the DNA to produce freaks.

How is that relevant to how evolution works? Most mutations don't
produce 'freaks', but actually produce just very minor variations. Most
of those variations in a population are neutral. A few are beneficial,
and a few are detrimental. Natural selection weeds out the detrimental
ones, and gives a statistical edge to the beneficial ones.

> That’s not
> what we see. We don’t have a world full of freaks, we have a world
> full of different species with their own characteristics and
> personalities and language.

Which is what one would expect from random mutations in populations,
over many generations. All those different species derive from a
common ancestor.

> They all eat different types of food and
> have different habits that keep them alive till they get outfoxed.

and all of those different habits have derived from a common ancestor.

> To
> teach a gullible child that live evolved by chance is not only
> unnecessary but evil.

If one understands the real theory of evolution, not the creationist
strawman version, one would see that evolution is not a chance process.
You are attacking the strawman version.

> Thank God the child might see the Truth when he
> gets older like there is no Santa. However, they have robbed him of
> his childhood Bible study by making it confusing for him.

If the Bible study is confusing, it's not the fault of the theory of
evolution. Evolution is a description of how life has diversified over
the centuries. Whatever religious beliefs one might have, it is
irrelevant to the fact that life does indeed evolve.

> Also, in
> some cases, some kids don’t have parents to teach them about God.

Why would that be a reason to teach kids something false about biology?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

"kinds" don't exist. There is only one "kind" of life on Earth, and all
of it has evolved from a common ancestor.


DJT

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jm4fap$rva$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Neanderthals had jeans? I doubt they survived to the present day.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jm3l2f$goi$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, nmp <n...@mail.please>
wrote:

> Because I like reality.

Reality is going to *kill* you.

[Kermit]

On Apr 11, 10:49 am, Tim Johnson <redrolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended fromneanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some interbred
> > > withneanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa
> > > are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
> > > traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
> > > little is known; they were another human species about as closely
> > > related to us as theneanderthalswere.
>
> We know what Neanderthals looked like now:
>
> http://www.themandus.orghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs

Because a film director has the vision to see the truth, and not be
held back by testable models and empirical constraints.

>
> and there is absolutely no way in the world any human ever interbred
> with anything like that.

First, humans would have successfully interbred with dogs, sheep and
chickens by now, if it were biologically possible.

"Like that"...
Why are they black? Can't the film maker envision white monster
predators? These cousins of ours were not only living in the European
sunlight for 300,000 or so years, during the ice age, but (you say)
with a thick fur coat to boot. Surely they would have evolved white
skin? I see them looking more like Irishmen than a gorilla-Bantu
hybrid looking group of beasties.

>Whatever Paabo is seeing is something other
> than evidence of humans and Neanderthals breeding together, aside from
> everything else there's an absolute logical conundrum in the picture.
> Any Neanderthal/human crossbreeding would have to have been before or
> after the human population bottleneck:  Prior, and Africans would not
> have been left out;  after and excluding Africans as claimed, and the
> genetic gap between Africans and others would be gigantic and not
> minuscule as it actually is.

The 4% or so of neanderthal DNA doesn't necessarily show up a gross
body structure. It may be things like red hair and white skin; the
ability to digest grains better; better vascular responses to the
cold; that sort of thing.

>
> Danny Vendramini is making several fairly unrelated claims of which
> just one, i.e. the claim of gracile hominids punk-eeking into Cro
> Magnons, is not supported by evidence;

Are you confused here, or am I? Cromagnons were just prehistorical
modern humans. While homo erectus may have been gracile compared to a
gorilla, our ancestors for a million years and more before cro-magnons
were essentially identical to us from the neck down.

>  his reconstructions of
> Neanderthals are in fact completely believable.  His thesis explains
> the huge Neanderthal eye sockets and also why amongst the myriad
> Neanderthal tools and toolkits, no Neanderthal needles have ever been
> found:  a creature with a 6" - 8" ice-age fur coat doesn't really need
> clothing or needles...

Or they hadn't developed those fine tools yet.

>
> For those willing to entertain complex explanations and versions of
> stories, there is a web page which proposes splash saltation as an
> alternative to punctuated equilibria both generally and as a potential
> explanation for the origin of Cro Magnons on our planet:
>
> http://bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Prehistory/Prehistory.htm

Quote from that webpage:
"Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western
Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years.
This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies
the emergence of the first culture that observers today would
recognise as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention
and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone
tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to
differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to
region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two
of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology."

It is the general consensus that modern humans, with our later stone
age technologies (bow, firestarter kits, sewn clothing, baskets, nets,
etc.) showed up and killed off or out-competed our competitors, the
neanderthals. Why is this so hard to understand? It only took us a few
thousand years to cover Europe, and we spread our technology with us.
<shakes head>

>
> The claim is that Cro Magnons and Bible antediluvians constituted
> separate saltations of the same genetic type, but in the form of two
> groups which were culturally and technologically  very different.  For
> that matter, AFAIK, there was never an instance of one of the older
> (Cro-Magnon descended) ethnic groups on the planet ever giving up on
> stone weapon points and tools and starting to use metal on their own
> and, by the same token, there does not appear to be any sort of a
> claim of metal tool/weapon making prior to the theoretical time of
> Adam, Cain, Seth et. al. i.e. much prior to about 3000 BC.

And no evidence of electronics before the twentieth century. Is that
also saltation?

>
> But take a look at some of Vendramini's images and ask yourself how
> much anybody would have to pay you to do it with something like
> that.....

But suppose it was the other way around?
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2736888832/tt0060672

Kermit

[John Harshman]

Kermit wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:49 am, Tim Johnson <redrolle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Whatever Paabo is seeing is something other
>> than evidence of humans and Neanderthals breeding together, aside from
>> everything else there's an absolute logical conundrum in the picture.
>> Any Neanderthal/human crossbreeding would have to have been before or
>> after the human population bottleneck: Prior, and Africans would not
>> have been left out; after and excluding Africans as claimed, and the
>> genetic gap between Africans and others would be gigantic and not
>> minuscule as it actually is.
>
> The 4% or so of neanderthal DNA doesn't necessarily show up a gross
> body structure. It may be things like red hair and white skin; the
> ability to digest grains better; better vascular responses to the
> cold; that sort of thing.

There may indeed be a few adaptive features, which would help to explain
the introgression, but it's a good bet that the vast majority does nothing.

>> For those willing to entertain complex explanations and versions of
>> stories, there is a web page which proposes splash saltation as an
>> alternative to punctuated equilibria both generally and as a potential
>> explanation for the origin of Cro Magnons on our planet:
>>
>> http://bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Prehistory/Prehistory.htm
>
> Quote from that webpage:
> "Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western
> Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years.
> This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies
> the emergence of the first culture that observers today would
> recognise as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention
> and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone
> tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to
> differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to
> region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two
> of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology."
>
> It is the general consensus that modern humans, with our later stone
> age technologies (bow, firestarter kits, sewn clothing, baskets, nets,
> etc.) showed up and killed off or out-competed our competitors, the
> neanderthals. Why is this so hard to understand? It only took us a few
> thousand years to cover Europe, and we spread our technology with us.
> <shakes head>

Actually, anatomically modern humans seem to have used an Acheulian tool
kit for quite a while. Why that changed really is an interesting
question. But it doesn't coincide with any anatomical events.

[Herman]

> DJT- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

How about plankton? Did all of those tiny individuals evolve from one
common ancestor?

[Herman]

The reason science teaches false stuff is because they tried to put it
all together without reading the directions. Like when you put your
kids tricycle together Christmas Eve night with the handle bars on
backwards and one big wheel on the back and a small one on the front.

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 9:51 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:20:57 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <64fb50e8-6006-4f49-bf7e-c8e3aa854...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Herman
> stated..."
> [...snip...]

>
> >If God didn't design the "Kinds", what or who do you think did?
>

> There is no such thing as a "kind". The concept is not well defined.
> The word "kind" (in Hebrew, "min") as used in the Bible does not
> refer to something (that would be an anachronism), but is only used
> in the set phrase "according to his/their kind". The modern
> coinage "kind" (or "baramin") is hopelessly vague, "something like
> a taxonomic family", where "taxonomic family" (like all taxonomic
> categories other than "species") itself has no objective definition.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
> (1999)

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:11 . 'elohiym:H430 'amar:H559 . . 'erets:H776 dasha':H1876
dasha':H1876 deshe':H1877 . 'eseb:H6212 zara':H2232 zera':H2233 . .
periy:H6529 'ets:H6086 'asah:H6213 periy:H6529 . . miyn:H4327
'asher:H834 zera':H2233 . . . . . 'erets:H776 . . . ken:H3651

4327. miyn, meen; from an unused root mean. to portion out; a sort,
i.e. species:--kind. Comp. H4480.

Miyn = Kind, or species.

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 12:49 pm, Tim Johnson <redrolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended fromneanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some interbred
> > > withneanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa
> > > are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
> > > traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
> > > little is known; they were another human species about as closely
> > > related to us as theneanderthalswere.
>
> We know whatNeanderthalslooked like now:
>

> http://www.themandus.orghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs

>
> and there is absolutely no way in the world any human ever interbred
> with anything like that.Whatever Paabo is seeing is something other

> than evidence of humans andNeanderthalsbreeding together, aside from

> everything else there's an absolute logical conundrum in the picture.
> Any Neanderthal/human crossbreeding would have to have been before or
> after the human population bottleneck:  Prior, and Africans would not
> have been left out;  after and excluding Africans as claimed, and the
> genetic gap between Africans and others would be gigantic and not
> minuscule as it actually is.
>
> Danny Vendramini is making several fairly unrelated claims of which
> just one, i.e. the claim of gracile hominids punk-eeking into Cro

> Magnons, is not supported by evidence;  his reconstructions ofNeanderthalsare in fact completely believable.  His thesis explains

> the huge Neanderthal eye sockets and also why amongst the myriad
> Neanderthal tools and toolkits, no Neanderthal needles have ever been
> found:  a creature with a 6" - 8" ice-age fur coat doesn't really need
> clothing or needles...
>
> For those willing to entertain complex explanations and versions of
> stories, there is a web page which proposes splash saltation as an
> alternative to punctuated equilibria both generally and as a potential
> explanation for the origin of Cro Magnons on our planet:
>
> http://bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Prehistory/Prehistory.htm
>
> The claim is that Cro Magnons and Bible antediluvians constituted
> separate saltations of the same genetic type, but in the form of two
> groups which were culturally and technologically  very different.  For
> that matter, AFAIK, there was never an instance of one of the older
> (Cro-Magnon descended) ethnic groups on the planet ever giving up on
> stone weapon points and tools and starting to use metal on their own
> and, by the same token, there does not appear to be any sort of a

> claim of metal tool/weapon making prior to the theoretical time ofAdam, Cain, Seth et. al. i.e. much prior to about 3000 BC.

>
> But take a look at some of Vendramini's images and ask yourself how
> much anybody would have to pay you to do it with something like
> that.....

If Cain had to hide in the land of Nod, he might not have had a choice
of who to take for a wife. They were probably all Neanderthals. That
would explain a lot of things, like later on, the daughters of man
(Neanderthals) being taken by the sons of God, (Cro-Magnons)

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:2 . . ben:H1121 . 'elohiym:H430 ra'ah:H7200 . bath:H1323 .
'adam:H120 . . . towb:H2896 . . laqach:H3947 . 'ishshah:H802 .
kol:H3605 'asher:H834 . bachar:H977

120. 'adam, aw-dawm'; from H119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an
individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, +
common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Adam = Neanderthal ... The word Iysh was not used but the sons of God
were called Iysh (men of high degree, Cro-Magnon)

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 1:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Tim Johnson wrote:
> >>> Scientific evidence indicates that we are not descended
> >>> fromneanderthals, exactly. Modern humans left Africa and some
> >>> interbred
> >>> withneanderthals. Modern humans who have ancestors who left Africa
> >>> are part neanderthal (about 4% of the genetic code) and those who
> >>> traveled farther east interbred with the Denosovans, about whom very
> >>> little is known; they were another human species about as closely
> >>> related to us as theneanderthalswere.
>

> > We know whatNeanderthalslooked like now:

>
> >http://www.themandus.org
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs
>
> > and there is absolutely no way in the world any human ever interbred
> > with anything like that.
>
> Why?
>
> > Whatever Paabo is seeing is something other

> > than evidence of humans andNeanderthalsbreeding together, aside from

> > everything else there's an absolute logical conundrum in the picture.
> > Any Neanderthal/human crossbreeding would have to have been before or
> > after the human population bottleneck:  Prior, and Africans would not
> > have been left out;  after and excluding Africans as claimed, and the
> > genetic gap between Africans and others would be gigantic and not
> > minuscule as it actually is.
>
> Why the latter? If only a small percentage of the genome of non-Africans
> is neandertal, it can't make much difference in the overall genetic
> divergence.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Danny Vendramini is making several fairly unrelated claims of which
> > just one, i.e. the claim of gracile hominids punk-eeking into Cro
> > Magnons, is not supported by evidence;  his reconstructions of

> >Neanderthalsare in fact completely believable.  His thesis explains

> > the huge Neanderthal eye sockets and also why amongst the myriad
> > Neanderthal tools and toolkits, no Neanderthal needles have ever been
> > found:  a creature with a 6" - 8" ice-age fur coat doesn't really need
> > clothing or needles...
>
> > For those willing to entertain complex explanations and versions of
> > stories, there is a web page which proposes splash saltation as an
> > alternative to punctuated equilibria both generally and as a potential
> > explanation for the origin of Cro Magnons on our planet:
>
> >http://bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Prehistory/Prehistory.htm
>
> > The claim is that Cro Magnons and Bible antediluvians constituted
> > separate saltations of the same genetic type, but in the form of two
> > groups which were culturally and technologically  very different.  For
> > that matter, AFAIK, there was never an instance of one of the older
> > (Cro-Magnon descended) ethnic groups on the planet ever giving up on
> > stone weapon points and tools and starting to use metal on their own
> > and, by the same token, there does not appear to be any sort of a
> > claim of metal tool/weapon making prior to the theoretical time of
> >Adam, Cain, Seth et. al. i.e. much prior to about 3000 BC.
>
> Are you willing to defend any of that?
>
> > But take a look at some of Vendramini's images and ask yourself how
> > much anybody would have to pay you to do it with something like
> > that.....
>

> Apparently we've settled on what you are and are only negotiating the price?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I think everyone is forgetting about the world wide flood of
Noah. All the Neanderthals were wiped out during the flood. The only
people that were saved was the Cro-Magnons that was on the ark of
Noah. There were 7 seeds of man on the ark and we all sprang from
those 7 seeds.. (Cro-Magnons)

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 3:12 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> <466e68f0-d961-4a10-b285-2a6ebe7e4...@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> writes

> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I use the dictionary, the concordance and the Bible. I use the
dictionary when I need to use it... (If that's OK with you Sir
Earnest))

[Herman]

> 1. … How didAdamknow what a mother and father was if there were not
> people before him?
>
> Gen 3:20  AndAdamcalled his wife's nameEve; because she was the

> Gen 5:1  This is the book of the generations ofAdam. In the day that

> God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
> Gen 5:2  Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called

> their nameAdam, in the day when they were created.

>
> Gen 5:1  zeh:H2088 . . cepher:H5612 . . towledah:H8435 .
> 'adam:H121 . . yowm:H3117 . 'elohiym:H430 bara':H1254 'adam:H120 . .
> demuwth:H1823 . 'elohiym:H430 'asah:H6213 . .
> Gen 5:2  zakar:H2145 . neqebah:H5347 bara':H1254 . . . barak:H1288 . .
> qara':H7121 . shem:H8034 'adam:H120 . . yowm:H3117 . . . bara':H1254
>
> Rom 5:13  (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
> imputed when there is no law.
>
> Rom 5:13  . achri:G891 . nomos:G3551 hamartia:G266 . . .
> kosmos:G2889 . hamartia:G266 . . ellogeo:G1677 . . . me:G3361
> nomos:G3551
>
> 2889. kosmos, kos'-mos; prob. from the base of G2865; orderly
> arrangement, i.e. decoration; by impl. the world (in a wide or narrow
> sense, includ. its inhab., lit. or fig. [mor.]):--adorning, world.
>
> This is just a few scriptures that I have found on the first people on

> earth. There might be a lot more that describe it a lot better.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:2 . . ben:H1121 . 'elohiym:H430 ra'ah:H7200 . bath:H1323 .
'adam:H120 . . . towb:H2896 . . laqach:H3947 . 'ishshah:H802 .
kol:H3605 'asher:H834 . bachar:H977

120. 'adam, aw-dawm'; from H119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an
individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, +
common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Adam- Neanderthals
Iysh= Son's of God (Cro-Magnon)

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:43:44 -0700 (PDT), Herman
<Dusty...@aol.com> wrote:

> In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how god created both male
> and female

Actually no, it does not. Read it in Hebrew.


--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:07:46 PM UTC+1, Herman wrote:
> On Apr 11, 5:06 am, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> > Herman wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 12:12 pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > >> Here is some serious feedback: forget about this nonsensical story of
> > >> turningNeanderthalsinto modern humans. Also forget about there ever
> > >> having been an "Adam" and "Eve".
> >
> > >> Listen to science if you want to know more about the origins and

> > >> evolution of humans. And if you still need the Bible in your life, read

> > >> it as a collection of morality tales.
> >
> > > LOL...Nmp... Why?..
> >
> > "LOL" all you want. Just watch out that it doesn't make you look like a
> > fool.
> >
> > > Because you like science?
> >
> > Because I like reality.
> >
> > > I happen to like both the Bible and science
> >
> > No, you don't. You may think you do, but you understand nothing of either.
> >
> > > and science has found a lot of evidence that back up what the Bible
> > > teaches.
> >
> > No, it hasn't.
> >
> > > I'll stick with both if you don't mind.
> >
> > I already told you I don't mind. Sure, read your Bible - but do not take
> > it for something that it is not. Most specifically, it is not a science
> > book.
> >
> > > And by the way, you need a lot more Bible study if you're going to try
> > > and tell Christian people what the Bible says and what it don't say.
> >
> > I am telling you, not "Christian people", that the Bible does not mention
> > Neanderthals. The process by which you arrived at the conclusion that it
> > does is commonly known as "making shit up".
> >
> > Of course you are welcome to give chapter and verse if you find evidence
> > that the Bible mentions Neanderthals.
> >
> > Chop chop, must get to work.
>

> OK.. here is your answer to Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon people.

>
> Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
> likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
> over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
> and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>
> Gen 1:26 . 'elohiym:H430 'amar:H559 . . 'asah:H6213 'adam:H120 . .
> tselem:H6754 . . demuwth:H1823 . . . . radah:H7287 . . dagah:H1710 . .
> yam:H3220 . . . 'owph:H5775 . . shamayim:H8064 . . . behemah:H929 . .
> kol:H3605 . 'erets:H776 . . kol:H3605 remes:H7431 . . ramas:H7430 . .
> 'erets:H776
>
> Here is the definition for the Hebrew word Adam…
>

> 120. 'adam, aw-dawm'; from H119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an
> individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, +
> common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
>

> A mean man of low degree.. Science called him a Neanderthal, the bible

> called him Adam. The word Neanderthal was not invented till 1861 and

> the word meaning is a caveman.
>

> Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
> shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
>

> Gen 2:24 'al:H5921 - ken:H3651 . . 'iysh:H376 'azab:H5800 .
> 'ab:H1 . . 'em:H517 . . dabaq:H1692 . . 'ishshah:H802 . . . .
> 'echad:H259 basar:H1320
>
> Here is the Hebrew definition of the Hebrew word Iysh…
>
> 376. 'iysh, eesh; contr. for H582 [or perh. rather from an unused root
> mean. to be extant]; a man as an individual or a male person; often
> used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases
> frequently not expressed in translation):--also, another, any (man), a
> certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, [foot-,
> husband-] man, (good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him
> (that is), husband, man [-kind], + none, one, people, person, +
> steward, what (man) soever, whoso (-ever), worthy. Comp. H802.
>
> So Iysh was a man of high degree, a champion, a good great mighty
> man. The writer of Genesis could not use the word Cro-Magnon because
> it was not invented till 1869.. The definition is a modern day human.

No. This is a grosser misreading than failing to understand that
in a particular context, and solely, "The Man" in English means
a police officer. Or that the existence of a word "Ger-man" does
not mean that Adam became German. Sorry.

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 3:12 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <466e68f0-d961-4a10-b285-2a6ebe7e4...@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

> Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> writes

> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Main Entry:Neanderthal man
Function:noun
Etymology:Neanderthal, valley in western Germany
Date:1863

: a Middle Paleolithic hominid (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) known
from skeletal remains in Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia
–Neanderthaloid \-*t*-*l*id, -*th*-, -*t*-\ adjective or noun

The concordance is also a dictionary with just the words from the KJV
as a reference, with the Hebrew and Greek word meaning that King James
replaced with English words.

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 12:31 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:

> Herman wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how God created both male
> > and female and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. In my
> > understanding of the bible the 6 days of creation (KJV) were 6 periods
> > of time, not 24 hour days (the word Day in both Hebrew and English
> > means a period of time). God created both male and female, then he
> > rested for a period of time (7th day KJV). After that, he formedAdam
> > from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath
> > of life and the man became a living soul.... Some people think that
> > God took a hunk of clay and formed man then zapped him to life and the
> > man lived. The way I understand it is, God took a Neanderthal and
> > worked with him day by day and over the  years formed his mind to
> > think about other people besides himself and the man became a living
> > soul. This would explain howAdamknew what a father and mother was
> > and how Cain found a wife in the land of Nod and why there was a land
> > named Nod. It also says that Cain’s son built a city. How can you
> > build a city with just a few people?
> >    There’s a lot of things in the Bible that point toNeanderthalsif
> > you take the time to think about it. So I thought I would kick this
> > around a while here on Talk Origins to see if I could get some serious
> > feed back. Sometimes just trying to explain anything opens doors of
> > understanding so what ever works will be just fine.
>

> You are back? Gotta offload some more crap?
>
> Serious feedback? You must be joking.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Rolof, ... Are you following me?

[Herman]

On Apr 11, 8:18 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:43:44 -0700 (PDT), Herman
>

> <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In the first chapter of Genesis, it tells how god created both male
> > and female
>
> Actually no, it does not. Read it in Hebrew.
>
> --
> "Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie

Yea,.. Right, ... Like a singularity (that they have no evidence for)
that is impossible to exist, that was as small as an atom, exploded
and the universe expanded out of it along with all the laws of physics
and all the elementary particles... You're right, parents didn't know
that and still don't and nether does the ones that made it all up.
What I'm wondering, is how it got into text books in the first place?

[Tim Johnson]

On Apr 11, 6:22�pm, nmp <n...@mail.please> wrote:
> nmp wrote:
> > Tim Johnson wrote:
> >> We know what Neanderthals looked like now:
>
> >>http://www.themandus.org
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs
>
> > OK, I looked at the links. We need to keep an open mind of course, but I
> > am not convinced yet. This seems to be the work of a single person who
> > has a book. Have any scientists spoken out on this yet?

>
> >> and there is absolutely no way in the world any human ever interbred
> >> with anything like that.
>

> > But what about the Neanderthal genes that are said to have found their
> > way into the modern human population?
>
> I just read on the "Them and Us" website that he believes Neanderthals
> habitually raped our ancestors. Hmm. Still not convinced.

That's the part of the thing I don't buy either. They (Neanderthals)
no doubt raped LOTS of SQ hominids, but the part about SQ hominids
punk-eeking their way into Cro Magnonhood is not credible to my
thinking. More likely the SQ hominids died out, and then the Cro
Magnons got here via some other process, and they (Cro Magnons)
probably had to deal with Neanderthals just long enough to develop a
major case of the ass against them, but I can't picture a Neanderthal
viewing a woman as anything other than an exotic food item since the
primate sex keys simply weren't there.

[Herman]

Update.. Adam might not have been the first Cro-Magnon but he was the
first Cro-Magnon or modern day man, that was smart enough to know
right from wrong. The world around him might not have been
Neanderthals at the time Eve came along but they were still people of
low degree that could not tell the difference between right and wrong.
(and were once Neanderthals long, long ago). If this will help the
perfect people here, then so be it.

[John S. Wilkins]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <jm4fap$rva$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > nmp wrote:
> > > John Vreeland wrote:
> > >
> > >> One unfortunate fact: we are not descended from neandertals.
> > >
> > > Yes. I would have liked to be though.
> >
> > A lot of us have some of their genes though.
>
> Neanderthals had jeans? I doubt they survived to the present day.

Levi 501s will survive anything (except a paramedics' scissors I
discovered yesterday).
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Ernest Major]

In message
<2b464c58-3242-47e2...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Herman <Dusty...@aol.com> writes

>So I thought I would kick this around a while here on Talk Origins to
>see if I could get some serious feed back.

The problem with your claim here is that you have a record of rejecting
feedback. You've even ignored correction on the 92 elements thing, which
is totally non-essential to your conjectures.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<7f593943-8253-4899...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Herman <Dusty...@aol.com> writes

Your memory is failing you. That question was answered last time you
asked it. Plankton don't have a common ancestor EXCLUSIVE OF OTHER
ORGANISMS. (Pardon me shouting, but you seem to be hard of
understanding.)

It may not be possible to tell at this remove whether the latest common
ancestor of extant life was planktonic, but I suspect it was not.
--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty...@aol.com>
wrote:

The answer is obvious. They did it so you would have something to
complain about. You should be grateful to them for giving your life
purpose.

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:58:48 -0700 (PDT), Herman <Dusty...@aol.com>
wrote:

The relevant question is, when do you use the dictionary correctly?

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

If Adam was one of a large human population, but was the
only one who wasn't sinful, then why didn't God have
Adam build the Ark, instead of waiting for Noah?