Jump to content


Photo

Neanderthals And Racial Origins


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#1 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 11 December 2005 - 02:42 PM

Hello, I am new here and would like to discuss Lubenow's contention that all theories of human evolution are inherently racist and that Christians (creationist are not) may claim Neanderthal descent from Noah's three sons and their wives. I am aware that neo-Darwinist race theorists have already decided upon Neanderthal Man's fate by proclaiming his mass extinction but that only further serves to show that neo-Darwinist theory can not only be inherently racist but capable of theoretical genocide as well.

I welcome all comments in hopes of further discussion and debate.

#2 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 11 December 2005 - 04:07 PM

Here's a link to some background on Neanderthal people. Keep in mind that where evolutionists theorize that modern humans migrated out of Africa into Europe, the modern Noahic Neanderthal theory maintains that the 'new' form of anatomically modern humanity appearing throughout the world as "H. sapiens" were just the modern descendents of Neanderthals whose own life spans were diminishing with each passing generation of Noah's three sons and their wives, who, if they resembled Noah at all, must have also lived close to 900 years during their life spans on earth. Rather than having Neanderthals and H. sapiens both evolving from Heidleberg Man, the Noahic Neanderthal hypothesis posits Heidleberg Man as being mid-generational as the life spans of Noah's Neanderthal descendents gradually decreased to modern man's life span of 120 years over a period of 12 generations. This intergenerational difference in life spans accounts for the morphological differences within one race and species of human beings living together until the life spans of the generations of Noah had all been reduced to less that 120 years.

http://www.athenapub.com/8zilhao1.htm

#3 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 December 2005 - 07:04 PM

Hello, I am new here and would like to discuss Lubenow's contention that all theories of human evolution are inherently racist


Can you post a link so that I can read the reasoning behind that statement, and where the ‘racist’ angle is used. Perhaps you are actually inferring that individuals used Darwinian theory to promote existing ideologies.

Nevertheless, I need some clarification as there is only one ToE, not one for each species and especially not one for each class of hominid. Perhaps you mean the hominid time line and dispute where each fits into which branch.



and that Christians (creationist or not) may claim Neanderthal descent from Noah's three sons and their wives.

There is significant morphological differences to be certain that Neanderthal is a separate lineage of the Hominid tree and not a descendant of homo-sapiens. If a Neanderthal was walking around NYC he most certainly would not go un-noticed.
Neanderthal pre dates homo-sapiens.


I am aware that neo-Darwinist race theorists have already decided upon Neanderthal Man's fate by proclaiming his mass extinction but that only further serves to show that neo-Darwinist theory can not only be inherently racist but capable of theoretical genocide as well.


Current ideas on Neanderthal extinction favour a gradual petering out not a sudden extinction like the dinosaurs. I don’t get what is racist about it, or would that be a species-ist :D

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 December 2005 - 07:21 PM

Here's a link to some background on Neanderthal people. Keep in mind that where evolutionists theorize that modern humans migrated out of Africa into Europe,


From memory current thinking is that Neanderthal evolved in Europe after being separated at the Homo heidelbergensis branch. Still out of Africa.


the modern Noahic Neanderthal theory maintains that the 'new' form of anatomically modern humanity appearing throughout the world as "H. sapiens" were just the modern descendents of Neanderthals

Some what confusing – are you implying that Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthal and Neanderthal was a son of Noah, which makes Noah a Neanderthal.


<snip life span info> Rather than having Neanderthals and H. sapiens both evolving from Heidleberg Man, the Noahic Neanderthal hypothesis posits Heidleberg Man as being mid-generational as the life spans of Noah's Neanderthal descendents gradually decreased to modern man's life span of 120 years over a period of 12 generations. This intergenerational difference in life spans accounts for the morphological differences within one race and species of human beings living together until the life spans of the generations of Noah had all been reduced to less that 120 years.


Where does Adam and Eve fit into this, are they also Neanderthals? Sorry but I’m terribly confused about the time line you are proposing, is it:

Adam and Eve – homo-sapiens
The fall
Homo-sapiens 'devolve' into Neanderthal,
The flood
Neanderthal evolve into Heidleberg Man
Heidleberg Man evolve back into homo-sapiens

#5 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 11 December 2005 - 10:39 PM

From memory current thinking is that Neanderthal evolved in Europe after being separated at the Homo heidelbergensis branch.  Still out of Africa.


That's the neo-Darwinist theory.

Some what confusing – are you implying that Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthal and Neanderthal was a son of Noah, which makes Noah a Neanderthal.


Precisely.

Where does Adam and Eve fit into this, are they also Neanderthals?


They must have been, based on their longevity. Of course, they didn't look quite as bad as neo-Darwinist race theorists have painted their picture as. As a matter of fact, they must have looked quite stunning.

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 December 2005 - 01:30 PM

Precisely.

( Noah, Adam and Eve ) must have been (Neanderthal), based on their longevity. Of course, they didn't look quite as bad as neo-Darwinist race theorists have painted their picture as. As a matter of fact, they must have looked quite stunning.

View Post

my brackets.

Never having encountered this view before I am somewhat at a loss as how to respond.

Can you post a link where these views are detailed, please.





Any other readers known about this claim? The best I could find was some references in AiG where they claim Neanderthal as being a descendant of Noah (not sure how recent), with rickets blamed for the difference in morphology.

#7 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 12 December 2005 - 05:42 PM

Hi Chance,

I don't believe there is any need to try to classify Adam and Eve according to an evolutionary-scale classification system. Simply put, Adam and Eve were the first of what we call the human race. All others, including you and me, are their descendents.

If Neanderthals are considered human, then they are descendents of Adam and Eve (with a provisio noted below). If they are considered primates, or apes, or what-have-you, then they are merely descendents of original animal kinds dispersed from the ark which then became extinct.

Now, having said that, there are some controversies around who the "Sons of God" were that are mentioned in Genesis 6. They intermarried with daughters of men and their offspring are described as "mighty men," and "giants."

One of the reasons for the flood in the first place was to wipe out these hybrids that had corrupted the human race. "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." -Gen 6:3. Exactly 120 years later, the flood did indeed wipe out what are called the Nephilim. (For a time, anyway.)

If you want to look into that it makes a fascinating, fascinating study, and might lend some new variety to your studies of evolution. See if you can find correlations between current thinking about Neanderthals and their relation to homo sapiens, and these hybrids and their relationship to God's created humans. I think you'll find the study very rewarding from a secular, evolutionary point of view. And, I also believe it could lead you to a better understanding of the veracity of the Bible.

I hope this helps.

Dave

#8 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 12 December 2005 - 07:01 PM

Never having encountered this view before I am somewhat at a loss as how to respond. 

Can you post a link where these views are detailed, please.


Hi chance: I don't have a specific link to it but the book I am basing my hypotheses on is "Bones of Contention," 2004 edition, by Marvin L. Lubenow.

Maybe you can reference it on google. I think there are a few book reviews.

#9 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 12 December 2005 - 07:49 PM

Can you post a link so that I can read the reasoning behind that statement, and where the ‘racist’ angle is used. 


There are a lot of websites referring to 'evolutionary racism.' I am using Marvin Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of contention" as a reference text for my posts. After studying the human fossil record for the last 35 years he finds all theories of human evolution to be inherently racist. He also provides extensive documentation on the human fossil record showing how neo-Darwinists need Neanderthal extinction in order to replace Asian and Caucasian ancestors with African ones in order to trace everyone's ancestry back to Africa where they claim human evolution from monkey and ape ancestors occurred.

Perhaps you are actually inferring that individuals used Darwinian theory to promote existing ideologies.


Yes, both in the past and present also.

Nevertheless, I need some clarification as there is only one ToE, not one for each species and especially not one for each class of hominid. Perhaps you mean the hominid time line and dispute where each fits into which branch.


As creationists we reject theories of human evolution and the taxonomic classification and nomenclature created by neo-Darwinists in which humans are subsumed in some family of Hominidae under a superfamily of Hominoidea apes. We only use the term 'Human' to classify ourselves as a species, genus and family in the order of Human Primates.

For instance: I classify myself as Neanderthal Wise Man - not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

There is significant morphological differences to be certain that Neanderthal is a separate lineage of the Hominid tree and not a descendant of homo-sapiens.


First of all, we don't call Human beings like Neanderthals, "homonids." Thats what we call a neo-Darwinist racist term. Second, we don't claim Neanderthals descended from H. sapiens - modern wise men descended from Neanderthals like Noah.

If a Neanderthal was walking around NYC he most certainly would not go un-noticed.


Dress any old Neanderthal up in a suit, hat and tie, wearing a pair of Armani sunglasses and he wouldn't look that much different from me.

Neanderthal pre dates homo-sapiens.


What you call "homo sapiens" are descended from one of Neanderthal Noah's three son's and their wives.

Current ideas on Neanderthal extinction favour a gradual petering out not a sudden extinction like the dinosaurs. 


Current ideas on Neanderthal extinction are a result of genetic discrimination based on neo-Darwinist racism concerning human evolution out of Africa.

I don’t get what is racist about it, or would that be a species-ist :)

View Post


Calling the ancestors of Asian and Caucasian racial groups, Africans, is racist.

Denying my Caucasian origins and ancestry from one of Neanderthal Noah's sons and imposing a false African origin from ape ancestors on me is both fraudulent and racist.

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 December 2005 - 09:55 PM

Hi Chance,

I don't believe there is any need to try to classify Adam and Eve according to an evolutionary-scale classification system. Simply put, Adam and Eve were the first of what we call the human race. All others, including you and me, are their descendents.


Understood that would be difficult genisis is somewhat at odds to evolution. But there is considerable interest in what it is proposed they look like, i.e. a Neanderthal or Homo sapiens.

If Neanderthals are considered human, then they are descendents of Adam and Eve (with a provisio noted below). If they are considered primates, or apes, or what-have-you, then they are merely descendents of original animal kinds dispersed from the ark which then became extinct.


Interesting - seems two different possibilities are available to YEC then.

Now, having said that, there are some controversies around who the "Sons of God" were that are mentioned in Genesis 6. They intermarried with daughters of men and their offspring are described as "mighty men," and "giants."


If Neanderthal is a child of a human and a “Sons of God”, one can only imaging what a pure breed Neanderthal would look like – I’m thinking shorter than a Neanderthal, even stronger and stockier, bigger face, and bigger brow ridges.

One of the reasons for the flood in the first place was to wipe out these hybrids that had corrupted the human race. "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." -Gen 6:3. Exactly 120 years later, the flood did indeed wipe out what are called the Nephilim. (For a time, anyway.)


Can’t say that I am familiar with the Human/’full’ Neanderthal hybrid story you have proposed. I assume Nephilim is a Neanderthal, yes? It might be interesting for Fred William, Admin3 or 92g to comment upon this, as it’s a bit out of my league. But a quick google reveals

The Biblical Giants , Human/Angel Half breeds, Human/Alien Half breeds, Fallen Angels, Demons, or all of the above ?
"Nephilim" is a Hebrew word meaning whose basic meaning is "those who have fallen." .

Alternate Translations dependant upon the context in which it is used "those who fall upon," in the sense of invaders or hostile and violent men;
In the Book o Eziekel> Ezk. 32:20

Unnaturally begotten men or bastards from "abortion" or "miscarriage".

The subject of the Nephilim is a complicated matter, and one of the great puzzles of the Bible. The same general theme is found throughout ancient writings of many peoples and is not confined exclusively to the Bible.
They were obviously a race of impressive physical stature compared to the smaller Hebrews, from Numbers 13:33. This particular reference is glossed by a statement which implies that the offspring of Anak in Canaan were descended from the renowned Rephaim or Nephilim


So there is scope that Nephilim can range between a bad man and a fallen Angel.

If you want to look into that it makes a fascinating, fascinating study, and might lend some new variety to your studies of evolution. See if you can find correlations between current thinking about Neanderthals and their relation to homo sapiens, and these hybrids and their relationship to God's created humans. I think you'll find the study very rewarding from a secular, evolutionary point of view. And, I also believe it could lead you to a better understanding of the veracity of the Bible.


Given the definition if found in the google search I’m not sure what would be the correct way to narrow down the definitions. But I admit it is interesting.

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 December 2005 - 10:01 PM

chance> Can you post a link so that I can read the reasoning behind that statement, and where the ‘racist’ angle is used. 

jcrawford> There are a lot of websites referring to 'evolutionary racism.' I am using Marvin Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of contention" as a reference text for my posts. After studying the human fossil record for the last 35 years he finds all theories of human evolution to be inherently racist.

chance> Perhaps you are actually inferring that individuals used Darwinian theory to promote existing ideologies.

jcrawford>  Yes, both in the past and present also.


Racism is a definition of one who hates other races. Perhaps you could quote some relevant text from the book to discuss.

Evolution describes the path that humans evolved from Australopithecine to homo-sapiens. Unfortunately there are those that use the basic premise that evolution produces ‘progress’ and then to label blacks as ‘less evolved’ and somehow less human.


He also provides extensive documentation on the human fossil record showing how neo-Darwinists need Neanderthal extinction in order to replace Asian and Caucasian ancestors with African ones in order to trace everyone's ancestry back to Africa where they claim human evolution from monkey and ape ancestors occurred.


I don’t follow this at all, Neanderthal’s have their roots in Africa also. Current thinking on the matter puts Neanderthal’s as cousins to homo-sapiens existing concurrently for much of our history, so I don’t understand this perceived need for Neanderthal extinction.


As creationists we reject theories of human evolution and the taxonomic classification and nomenclature created by neo-Darwinists in which humans are subsumed in some family of Hominidae under a superfamily of Hominoidea apes. We only use the term 'Human' to classify ourselves as a species, genus and family in the order of Human Primates.

For instance: I classify myself as Neanderthal Wise Man - not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.


OK I did not know this, is this the ‘authorised’ YEC stance i.e. that humans are “Neanderthal Wise Man”

There is significant morphological differences to be certain that Neanderthal is a separate lineage of the Hominid tree and not a descendant of homo-sapiens.

First of all, we don't call Human beings like Neanderthals, "homonids." Thats what we call a neo-Darwinist racist term. Second, we don't claim Neanderthals descended from H. sapiens - modern wise men descended from Neanderthals like Noah. <moved> What you call "homo sapiens" are descended from one of Neanderthal Noah's three son's and their wives.


I understand your POV, but for the sake of being able to discuss such matters we need a convention, while using the current scientific/evolutionary descriptions and classification may invoke some resentment, treat it only as convenient for discourse. Much like when discussing geologic layers, YEC maintain the layers were all formed in the flood, but it impossible to discuss such matters without referring to the standard conventions of naming them, Devonian, Jurassic etc. In other words it is not admitting that you believe in such matters just because you use the terminology.

Do I interpret your statement that referring to Neanderthals by that name, and thus inferring that they are not homo-sapiens is a racist insult? Because if feel there will be some communication problems if we cant talk without becoming offended.

If a Neanderthal was walking around NYC he most certainly would not go un-noticed.

Dress any old Neanderthal up in a suit, hat and tie, wearing a pair of Armani sunglasses and he wouldn't look that much different from me.


hmmmmmmmm. Describing a Neanderthal you would get something like (on average): 5’5”, 10% larger face, much larger nose, prominent brow ridges, elongated skull towards the rear, shorter legs, say 10% more robust in physical construction,


Current ideas on Neanderthal extinction favour a gradual petering out not a sudden extinction like the dinosaurs. 

Current ideas on Neanderthal extinction are a result of genetic discrimination based on neo-Darwinist racism concerning human evolution out of Africa.


How so, we find Neanderthal during X times but not at Y, there is no hatred in such statements.


Calling the ancestors of Asian and Caucasian racial groups, Africans, is racist.

Denying my Caucasian origins and ancestry from one of Neanderthal Noah's sons and imposing a false African origin from ape ancestors on me is both fraudulent and racist.


From your POV it may be fraudulent (if there was intent to deceive) or erroneous if just mistaken, but I don’t see how such statements can be interpreted as racist (thus implying hatred). Do you feel insulted that you are descendant from an African human as opposed to a Caucasian human?

#12 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 12 December 2005 - 10:22 PM

I’ve often wondered if Neanderthals seeded the beginnings of many mythological humanoid creatures that cultures have adhered to now and in the past. Neanderthals would have been shorter in stature than modern humans – but they were probably as tough as nails and really ugly by our standards (I know, I know I am being superficial – everyone’s beautiful in their own way *snicker*).

The word Nephilim means “fallen one” not “giant” and in the bible they were the sons of Anak. I believe that it is thought that some of the last surviving groups of Neanderthals existed in the Middle Eastern region – so you never know.

What I think is interesting about the Nephilim is that they are mentioned before the flood (Gen 6:4) and again after the flood (Numbers 13:33). How did they survive? Genesis 7:23 basically says that every living thing (perhaps excluding aquatic life) was destroyed unless on the ark with Noah.

#13 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 13 December 2005 - 09:25 AM

Chance and St_Dissent,

Chance, you said: "Interesting - seems two different possibilities are available to YEC then."

Well, sure. God made all the animals, and he made man. I'll leave it to the learned ones to determine if Neanderthals, or any other collection of bones found in rock, were animals or human. My understanding from my readings is that Neanderthals are considered fully human. If so, they could rightly call Adam and Eve "Gramps," and "Gramma." :)

Chance, you said: "So there is scope that Nephilim can range between a bad man and a fallen Angel."

Yes, there is a lot of controversy about that subject. There's a saying that if you put three Rabbis in a room together and asked them a question they would have four opinions. Same with Bible scholars. Or scientists, for that matter, eh?

The thing I would claim is not disputed among Bible-believing Christians is that they were merely "bad men." Genesis 6 clearly states they were hybrid humans. So, the one thing we know for sure is that the human race was corrupted at one point by intermixing with "Sons of God," who many consider were fallen angels or demons, and that God had to cleanse the world of them. The Neanderthal conjecture is purely my own notion, but one that might explain the "nearly human, but not quite human" description that some give to Neanderthals.

St_Dissent, you said: "What I think is interesting about the Nephilim is that they are mentioned before the flood (Gen 6:4) and again after the flood (Numbers 13:33). How did they survive? Genesis 7:23 basically says that every living thing (perhaps excluding aquatic life) was destroyed unless on the ark with Noah."

They existed before the flood, but were wiped out. However, fallen angels are a persistent lot, yes? Active even today. So they attempted to reinfect the human race again beginning shortly after dispersal from the ark. Goliath of Gath, for example, was a Nephilim: 9 feet tall, six fingers and toes. That's one reason why God insisted that the peoples living in the land he had given to the Israelites all be wiped out.

Jesus in Luke 17:26 says, "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Many take that to mean the obvious line that man will again be irredeemably sinful, but many also take that to mean that the Nephilim will be living among us again.

It's a fascinating study. Nothing you'd want to hang doctrine on, or your salvation, but you'd be amazed at how much it could tie in with what you know about "evolutionary" history.

Dave

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 December 2005 - 02:34 PM

Chance, you said: "Interesting - seems two different possibilities are available to YEC then."

Well, sure. God made all the animals, and he made man. I'll leave it to the learned ones to determine if Neanderthals, or any other collection of bones found in rock, were animals or human. My understanding from my readings is that Neanderthals are considered fully human. If so, they could rightly call Adam and Eve "Gramps," and "Gramma."


If by fully human you mean Homo-sapiens then no, that is not the scientific view at all, there are significant differences in morphology for that to be possible, in addition to new DNA evidence. from the link:
DNA

These results do not rule out the possibility that Neanderthals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the results support the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.



Chance, you said: "So there is scope that Nephilim can range between a bad man and a fallen Angel."

Yes, there is a lot of controversy about that subject. There's a saying that if you put three Rabbis in a room together and asked them a question they would have four opinions. Same with Bible scholars. Or scientists, for that matter, eh?


I think the analogy breaks down with the scientist as consensus is eventually reached with experiment and reason, else it would be impossible to make any scientific progress, which is self evident.

The thing I would claim is not disputed among Bible-believing Christians is that they were merely "bad men." Genesis 6 clearly states they were hybrid humans. So, the one thing we know for sure is that the human race was corrupted at one point by intermixing with "Sons of God," who many consider were fallen angels or demons, and that God had to cleanse the world of them. The Neanderthal conjecture is purely my own notion, but one that might explain the "nearly human, but not quite human" description that some give to Neanderthals.


Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. (Interesting reply you made to St_Dissent also).

#15 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 13 December 2005 - 07:52 PM

Racism is a definition of one who hates other races. 


Or feels superior, as in neo-Darwinist attitudes towards Christians who claim ancestral descent from Noah.

Evolution describes the path that humans evolved from Australopithecine to homo-sapiens.  Unfortunately there are those that use the basic premise that evolution produces ‘progress’ and then to label blacks as ‘less evolved’ and somehow less human.


Or to label Neanderthal descendents from Noah as an extinct 'species.'

I don’t follow this at all, Neanderthal’s have their roots in Africa also.


No Neanderthal fossils have ever been found in Africa.

Current thinking on the matter puts Neanderthal’s as cousins to homo-sapiens existing concurrently for much of our history, so I don’t understand this perceived need for Neanderthal extinction.


Neanderthal theorists like myself hold that all humans since the time of the flood and the Ice Age it caused, are descended from Noah's three sons and their wives. Since it is a plausible scientific theory which contradicts neo-Darwinist Out of Africa theories of common ancestry with monkeys and apes, neo-Darwinist geneticists are bound to theoretically proclaim our Neanderthal ancestors as an extinct 'species.'

Since there is fossil evidence of modern generations of Neanderthal descendents of Noah living contemporaneously throughout Eurasia and the Middle East, Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews have a fundamental right to claim modern descent from Neanderthal Noah's successive generations whose Shemitic descendents are enumerated in Christ's own genealogy. Those of us who choose to trace our racial ancestry back to Noah's other familial descendents may do likewise.

OK I did not know this, is this the ‘authorised’ YEC stance i.e. that humans are “Neanderthal Wise Man.” 


It is certainly "authorized" by me as a choice form of religious, racial, political and scientific self-identification since the neo-Darwinist label of Homo sapiens implies that some descendents of Adam and Eve after Noah were a less than human 'species.'

I understand your POV, but for the sake of being able to discuss such matters we need a convention, while using the current scientific/evolutionary descriptions and classification may invoke some resentment, treat it only as convenient for discourse.

Much like when discussing geologic layers, YEC maintain the layers were all formed in the flood, but it impossible to discuss such matters without referring to the standard conventions of naming them, Devonian, Jurassic etc.  In other words it is not admitting that you believe in such matters just because you use the terminology.


I agree, although it doesn't hurt to develop our own nomenclature regarding our ancestral origins from Noah, in order to counter ingrained neo-Darwinst labels like Homo sapiens, since they call all men 'sapiens' like we call all men sinners.

Do I interpret your statement that referring to Neanderthals by that name, and thus inferring that they are not homo-sapiens is a racist insult?


It is more of a racial insult when Neo-Darwinist race theorists label us as decendents of Homo sapiens rather than Neanderthal descendents.

Because if feel there will be some communication problems if we cant talk without becoming offended. 


Why can't we talk about what offends us and why?
-----------
Describing a Neanderthal you would get something like (on average): 5’5”, 10% larger face, much larger nose, prominent brow ridges, elongated skull towards the rear, shorter legs, say 10% more robust in physical construction,
-----------
Those were the original classic Neanderthals. As generations passed and their life spans shortened, they looked more like Heidleberg Man until the life span of modern mankind was limited to 120 years.
-----------
From your POV it may be fraudulent (if there was intent to deceive) or erroneous if just mistaken, but I don’t see how such statements can be interpreted as racist (thus implying hatred).
-----------
Neo-Darwinist supremacy theory tends to express or exhibit contempt for creationist accounts of human origins and descent from Noahic Neanderthals, if not outright hatred.

Do you feel insulted that you are descendant from an African human as opposed to a Caucasian human?

View Post

Only when that African human (African Eve) is theorized by neo-Darwinist race theorists to have originated from common ancestors of African monkeys and apes, and not one of Noah's three sons.


Note: The forum program only allows 10 quotes per post. Not something we can change because it's written into the program code that way. So if you go over 10 quotes, the quotes won't work. I took two of the quotes and made them into bold letters instead.

Admin3


#16 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 13 December 2005 - 08:42 PM

Those were the original classic Neanderthals. As generations passed and their life spans shortened, they looked more like Heidleberg Man until the life span of modern mankind was limited to 120 years.

View Post


Are you suggesting that Neanderthals began to look like homo Heidelbergensis as time passed on? You are aware that the mainstream belief is that Neanderthals were descendents of Heidelbergensis right?

Heidelbergensis - 600,000 to 250,000 years ago.

Neanderthalensis - 230,000 to 29,000 years ago.

It is believed by some anthropologists that Homo antecessor (an ancestor of Heidelbergensis) was the last common ancestor shared by Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

So I believe the prevailing view is that the Antecessor split off into the Heidelbergensis and Archaic Homo Sapiens. Heidelbergensis became Neanderthalensis while archaic Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens.


Posted Image
This is Heidelbergensis

Posted Image
This is Neanderthalensis

As you can see the differences are distinct.

These images were sourced from Wikipedia
Neanderthal
Heidelbergensis

#17 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2005 - 07:05 AM

...For instance: I classify myself as Neanderthal Wise Man - not Homo sapiens  neanderthalensis....

View Post


Let me get this right...you're telling us you're a neanderthal?

#18 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 December 2005 - 02:33 PM

chance> Racism is a definition of one who hates other races.

jcrawford> Or feels superior, as in neo-Darwinist attitudes towards Christians who claim ancestral descent from Noah.


Logically impossible - you and I are both white (assumption) such a discussion is to debate how we got to where we are, the fact that we are the same race (either via Noah or ‘out of Africa’) precludes racism as a factor. Our discussions are about the correctness of each others interpretation of origins.


chance> Evolution describes the path that humans evolved from Australopithecine to homo-sapiens. Unfortunately there are those that use the basic premise that evolution produces ‘progress’ and then to label blacks as ‘less evolved’ and somehow less human.

jcrawford> Or to label Neanderthal descendents from Noah as an extinct 'species.'


There is no evidence (Biblical notwithstanding) to support your position, the time line is quite clear about the emergence of Neanderthal and Homo-Sapiens. For the position you have taken I would expect to se a different order in the fossil record.

chance> I don’t follow this at all, Neanderthal’s have their roots in Africa also.

jcrawford> No Neanderthal fossils have ever been found in Africa.


Correct, they evolved in isolation in Europe, descended from Homo heidelbergensis, which came from Africa.

chance> Current thinking on the matter puts Neanderthal’s as cousins to homo-sapiens existing concurrently for much of our history, so I don’t understand this perceived need for Neanderthal extinction.

jcrawford> Neanderthal theorists like myself hold that all humans since the time of the flood and the Ice Age it caused, are descended from Noah's three sons and their wives. Since it is a plausible scientific theory which contradicts neo-Darwinist Out of Africa theories of common ancestry with monkeys and apes, neo-Darwinist geneticists are bound to theoretically proclaim our Neanderthal ancestors as an extinct 'species.'


My bold - Is this a scientific theory’ you have read? because to me it seems as if it’s a Biblical interpretation. For your position to be accepted by mainstream science (it is the YEC claim, i.e. that evidence exists proving the Bible correct) you will need some evidence, the Bible may be your starting point but it won’t convince anyone in scientific circles.

to be continued

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 December 2005 - 02:45 PM

PART 2

Since there is fossil evidence of modern generations of Neanderthal descendents of Noah living contemporaneously throughout Eurasia and the Middle East, Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews have a fundamental right to claim modern descent from Neanderthal Noah's successive generations whose Shemitic descendents are enumerated in Christ's own genealogy. Those of us who choose to trace our racial ancestry back to Noah's other familial descendents may do likewise.


yes there is confirmed evidence of Neanderthal and Homo-Sapiens living contemporary, this is not an isolated case by the way, we also lived alongside Homo heidelbergensis, Homo-Erectus, and the recently discovered Homo floresiensis see http://www.talkorigi...s.html#timeline


chance> OK I did not know this, is this the ‘authorised’ YEC stance i.e. that humans are “Neanderthal Wise Man.”

jcrawford> It is certainly "authorized" by me as a choice form of religious, racial, political and scientific self-identification since the neo-Darwinist label of Homo sapiens implies that some descendents of Adam and Eve after Noah were a less than human 'species.'


Ok I have no problem with what you choose to believe, you have that right enshrined in law, provided you are not claiming it as factual and equal in standing to the current scientific explanation. Personal belief is not science and that is what position I assumed you were going to argue from.


chance> I understand your POV, but for the sake of being able to discuss such matters we need a convention, while using the current scientific/evolutionary descriptions and classification may invoke some resentment, treat it only as convenient for discourse.

Much like when discussing geologic layers, YEC maintain the layers were all formed in the flood, but it impossible to discuss such matters without referring to the standard conventions of naming them, Devonian, Jurassic etc. In other words it is not admitting that you believe in such matters just because you use the terminology.

jcrawford> I agree, although it doesn't hurt to develop our own nomenclature regarding our ancestral origins from Noah, in order to counter ingrained neo-Darwinst labels like Homo sapiens, since they call all men 'sapiens' like we call all men sinners.


I suppose you could, actually might be a very good idea. Just need some consensus and an agreed place to source such information.

chance> Do I interpret your statement that referring to Neanderthals by that name, and thus inferring that they are not homo-sapiens is a racist insult?

jcrawford> It is more of a racial insult when Neo-Darwinist race theorists label us as decendents of Homo sapiens rather than Neanderthal descendents.


I see this as an ‘origins insult’ not a racial one as were obviously the same race.

chance> Because if feel there will be some communication problems if we cant talk without becoming offended.

jcrawford> Why can't we talk about what offends us and why?


none, provided the discourse is done with mutual agreement and conducted in a gentlemanly manner, I rather enjoy a good philosophic discussions on such matters.

chance> Describing a Neanderthal you would get something like (on average): 5’5”, 10% larger face, much larger nose, prominent brow ridges, elongated skull towards the rear, shorter legs, say 10% more robust in physical construction,

jcrawford> Those were the original classic Neanderthals. As generations passed and their life spans shortened, they looked more like Heidleberg Man until the life span of modern mankind was limited to 120 years.


You will need to post some evidence to convince me of such a hypothesis.

chance> From your POV it may be fraudulent (if there was intent to deceive) or erroneous if just mistaken, but I don’t see how such statements can be interpreted as racist (thus implying hatred).

jcrawford> Neo-Darwinist supremacy theory tends to express or exhibit contempt for creationist accounts of human origins and descent from Noahic Neanderthals, if not outright hatred.


Neo-Darwinist supremacy theory! What is that?


chance> Do you feel insulted that you are descendant from an African human as opposed to a Caucasian human?

jcrawford> Only when that African human (African Eve) is theorized by neo-Darwinist race theorists to have originated from common ancestors of African monkeys and apes, and not one of Noah's three sons.


I can only state that my opinion and subsequent explanations are not intended as personal in any way, but as you initiated the discussion I would have to presume you are willing to discuss such matters and aware of current scientific opinions.

#20 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 14 December 2005 - 04:35 PM

Let me get this right...you're telling us you're a neanderthal?




:lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users