Both neanderthals and humans mated with each other.What does your creation interpretation say?

[RickD]

ACB wrote:

I think we all know scientists are not looking at it from a biblical perspective or creation perspective,but they are looking at it from an evolution perspective and making it fit into that.Evolution is their religion even if they reject a biblical perspective. I know its not important to Audi but most creation perspectives have an answer when it comes to science and as more is discovered alot of times it validates more of God's word. Now based on the posts Kurieuo made I'm not so sure this is true now,obviously there are different interpretations of the data even in science. Still I think the ones who believe they did mate are the majority when it comes to evolution science.

First of all, scientists shouldn't be practicing science if they're looking at it from a biblical perspective, creation perspective, or an evolutionary perspective.

Letting the evidence speak for itself, is how scientists should perform their work.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:

I think we all know scientists are not looking at it from a biblical perspective or creation perspective,but they are looking at it from an evolution perspective and making it fit into that.Evolution is their religion even if they reject a biblical perspective. I know its not important to Audi but most creation perspectives have an answer when it comes to science and as more is discovered alot of times it validates more of God's word. Now based on the posts Kurieuo made I'm not so sure this is true now,obviously there are different interpretations of the data even in science. Still I think the ones who believe they did mate are the majority when it comes to evolution science.

First of all, scientists shouldn't be practicing science if they're looking at it from a biblical perspective, creation perspective, or an evolutionary perspective.

Letting the evidence speak for itself, is how scientists should perform their work.

I'm not sure I agree,however they are looking at it from an evolution perspective,they always do,it is clear in the link I posted and the links Kurieuo posted they are looking at it from an evolution perspective.But what I'm trying to get at,is how do the different creation interpretations answer this from a biblical perspective? And so far I think we've seen how YEC's address this issue,but not the others.

[abelcainsbrother]

We Gap Theorists have a Gap issue,we have to get around a Gap we believe happened.How could life in this world have DNA in them from life that was in the former world that died before God created life for this world? I think I have an answer but I'm wondering what other creation perspectives say about it.

[RickD]

ACB wrote:

I think we all know scientists are not looking at it from a biblical perspective or creation perspective,but they are looking at it from an evolution perspective and making it fit into that.Evolution is their religion even if they reject a biblical perspective. I know its not important to Audi but most creation perspectives have an answer when it comes to science and as more is discovered alot of times it validates more of God's word. Now based on the posts Kurieuo made I'm not so sure this is true now,obviously there are different interpretations of the data even in science. Still I think the ones who believe they did mate are the majority when it comes to evolution science.

First of all, scientists shouldn't be practicing science if they're looking at it from a biblical perspective, creation perspective, or an evolutionary perspective.

Letting the evidence speak for itself, is how scientists should perform their work.

I'm not sure I agree,however they are looking at it from an evolution perspective,they always do,it is clear in the link I posted and the links Kurieuo posted they are looking at it from an evolution perspective.But what I'm trying to get at,is how do the different creation interpretations answer this from a biblical perspective? And so far I think we've seen how YEC's address this issue,but not the others.

Are there scientists that allow their evolutionary beliefs to influence how they practice in their scientific field? Of course.

But the way you wrote it, seemed to be saying that all scientists, or even scientists in general, look at the evidence of Neanderthals and modern humans, from a evolutionary perspective. That's just not true.

Reasons.org has info on this topic at their website, if you're interested in their perspective.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:

I think we all know scientists are not looking at it from a biblical perspective or creation perspective,but they are looking at it from an evolution perspective and making it fit into that.Evolution is their religion even if they reject a biblical perspective. I know its not important to Audi but most creation perspectives have an answer when it comes to science and as more is discovered alot of times it validates more of God's word. Now based on the posts Kurieuo made I'm not so sure this is true now,obviously there are different interpretations of the data even in science. Still I think the ones who believe they did mate are the majority when it comes to evolution science.

First of all, scientists shouldn't be practicing science if they're looking at it from a biblical perspective, creation perspective, or an evolutionary perspective.

Letting the evidence speak for itself, is how scientists should perform their work.

I'm not sure I agree,however they are looking at it from an evolution perspective,they always do,it is clear in the link I posted and the links Kurieuo posted they are looking at it from an evolution perspective.But what I'm trying to get at,is how do the different creation interpretations answer this from a biblical perspective? And so far I think we've seen how YEC's address this issue,but not the others.

Are there scientists that allow their evolutionary beliefs to influence how they practice in their scientific field? Of course.

But the way you wrote it, seemed to be saying that all scientists, or even scientists in general, look at the evidence of Neanderthals and modern humans, from a evolutionary perspective. That's just not true.

Reasons.org has info on this topic at their website, if you're interested in their perspective.

Sorry bro,but every scientific article that I usually read is looking at everything from an evolution perspective,in all branches of science too. Thanks for the tip about Reasons.org.
but I really wish we could have a conversation about this from the different creation perspectives to maybe see which one has the best answer,etc.I'm not really trying to start a debate although it might could happen. I'm just really trying to understand this from the other creation perspectives.

[PaulSacramento]

The only scientists that MAY look at things from the evolutionary POV are evolutionary biologists.
Astronomers, physicists, Archaeologists and so forth wouldn't really carry that "bias" into their research.

[RickD]

ACB,

There's even articles on the home site. Just put "Neanderthal" into the search box, and articles pop up.

[Kurieuo]

Actual research in science is done without regard to "perspective", politics,
religion, or nationality, still less with regard to which cults favour this or that
outcome

That's a joke right?

How do you think research is done?

Research is done by people who are often paid or funded, have a nationality and opinions on politics, religion, the world.
This ideal that science can be objectively performed in a vacuum devoid of passion is something post-modernity debunked long ago. Also, I'd further argue one's passions aren't just impossible to leave aside, but they are actually a positive motivator and driver for research.

[Kurieuo]

ACB wrote:

I think we all know scientists are not looking at it from a biblical perspective or creation perspective,but they are looking at it from an evolution perspective and making it fit into that.Evolution is their religion even if they reject a biblical perspective. I know its not important to Audi but most creation perspectives have an answer when it comes to science and as more is discovered alot of times it validates more of God's word. Now based on the posts Kurieuo made I'm not so sure this is true now,obviously there are different interpretations of the data even in science. Still I think the ones who believe they did mate are the majority when it comes to evolution science.

First of all, scientists shouldn't be practicing science if they're looking at it from a biblical perspective, creation perspective, or an evolutionary perspective.

Letting the evidence speak for itself, is how scientists should perform their work.

I'm not sure I agree,however they are looking at it from an evolution perspective,they always do,it is clear in the link I posted and the links Kurieuo posted they are looking at it from an evolution perspective.But what I'm trying to get at,is how do the different creation interpretations answer this from a biblical perspective? And so far I think we've seen how YEC's address this issue,but not the others.

ACB I think you're broad stroking evolution.

The articles I referenced, sure, they're working within the ToE framework where life all share a common ancestor with some algae. This is very different though from say the "balance selection" spoken of in the first article.

As to us modern humans interbreeding neanders, well, the articles I referenced show the common segments seen can happen quite naturally and would be expected. Therefore, there is no reason to postulate interbreeding and hybrids. Not to mention the many other issues such a scenario needs to overcome including small neander population sizes, migration timings we're aware to, sterility and the like.

The only reason people gravitate to a "we swung with neader scenario", and let's not forget the Denisovans too btw, is because it carries like a nice juicy story to tell. Always makes headlines. Look at the study you quoted. It's like good gossip when so-and-so gets with so-and-so...

I'm more interested in listening to all sides in science, rather than the popular side. And I'll freely admit, the one I'm drawn to, is the one that best conforms with my beliefs on origins. So what? It doesn't mean I can't look at the evidence or do science any more or less than the next person.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:

I think we all know scientists are not looking at it from a biblical perspective or creation perspective,but they are looking at it from an evolution perspective and making it fit into that.Evolution is their religion even if they reject a biblical perspective. I know its not important to Audi but most creation perspectives have an answer when it comes to science and as more is discovered alot of times it validates more of God's word. Now based on the posts Kurieuo made I'm not so sure this is true now,obviously there are different interpretations of the data even in science. Still I think the ones who believe they did mate are the majority when it comes to evolution science.

First of all, scientists shouldn't be practicing science if they're looking at it from a biblical perspective, creation perspective, or an evolutionary perspective.

Letting the evidence speak for itself, is how scientists should perform their work.

I'm not sure I agree,however they are looking at it from an evolution perspective,they always do,it is clear in the link I posted and the links Kurieuo posted they are looking at it from an evolution perspective.But what I'm trying to get at,is how do the different creation interpretations answer this from a biblical perspective? And so far I think we've seen how YEC's address this issue,but not the others.

ACB I think you're broad stroking evolution.

The articles I referenced, sure, they're working within the ToE framework where life all share a common ancestor with some algae. This is very different though from say the "balance selection" spoken of in the first article.

As to us modern humans interbreeding neanders, well, the articles I referenced show the common segments seen can happen quite naturally and would be expected. Therefore, there is no reason to postulate interbreeding and hybrids. Not to mention the many other issues such a scenario needs to overcome including small neander population sizes, migration timings we're aware to, sterility and the like.

The only reason people gravitate to a "we swung with neader scenario", and let's not forget the Denisovans too btw, is because it carries like a nice juicy story to tell. Always makes headlines. Look at the study you quoted. It's like good gossip when so-and-so gets with so-and-so...

I'm more interested in listening to all sides in science, rather than the popular side. And I'll freely admit, the one I'm drawn to, is the one that best conforms with my beliefs on origins. So what? It doesn't mean I can't look at the evidence or do science any more or less than the next person.

I don't see how you got that based on my statements. I don't understand why it is so hard not to see how scientists look at everything from an evolution perspective.They were looking at it from an evolution perspective in the link I posted and the links you posted. Both for it and against it,is still looked at from an evolution perspective. It still means neanderthal DNA is in humans even if they did'nt breed.

But that is not really my point,it is getting away from my real point to argue over that. I really want to know what the other creation perspectives say about this from a biblical perspective,even if they reject Neanderthals bred with humans,I just wanted to know in order to compare to see which makes the most sense. I'm sure there are others that will wonder about it too,if it ever comes up.

[Kurieuo]

ACB, I'm finding you confusing.

May I ask "even if they reject Neanderthals bred with humans", what is there to then know regarding Neanderthals breeding with humans? Your question can't be answered, doesn't get started with such.

But, anyway, perhaps others can answer.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, I'm finding you confusing.

May I ask "even if they reject Neanderthals bred with humans", what is there to then know regarding Neanderthals breeding with humans? Your question can't be answered, doesn't get started with such.

But, anyway, perhaps others can answer.

Well some may believe they did breed,while others may not believe it. But whether they do or not we still have neanderthal DNA in humans so what do the different creation perspectives say or how do they address it biblically? I was just wondering. It's not really supposed to be about evolution and its influence in science.

[Kurieuo]

ACB, I'm finding you confusing.

May I ask "even if they reject Neanderthals bred with humans", what is there to then know regarding Neanderthals breeding with humans? Your question can't be answered, doesn't get started with such.

But, anyway, perhaps others can answer.

Well some may believe they did breed,while others may not believe it. But whether they do or not we still have neanderthal DNA in humans so what do the different creation perspectives say or how do they address it biblically? I was just wondering. It's not really supposed to be about evolution and its influence in science.

"we still have neanderthal DNA in humans" -- no, the two scientific studies I earlier referenced account for the common segments without attributing the DNA in humans to neanderthals.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, I'm finding you confusing.

May I ask "even if they reject Neanderthals bred with humans", what is there to then know regarding Neanderthals breeding with humans? Your question can't be answered, doesn't get started with such.

But, anyway, perhaps others can answer.

Well some may believe they did breed,while others may not believe it. But whether they do or not we still have neanderthal DNA in humans so what do the different creation perspectives say or how do they address it biblically? I was just wondering. It's not really supposed to be about evolution and its influence in science.

"we still have neanderthal DNA in humans" -- no, the two scientific studies I earlier referenced account for the common segments without attributing the DNA in humans to neanderthals.

Was'nt it because of a common ancestor though? It is just a different explanation than they bred. I guess the other creation perspectives do not address this biblically. Oh well,I was just wondering what they have to say about it.

[Audie]

All animals can trace back to common ancestors.