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

[Audie]

DNA code just created itself?

Your non-response is loaded with tendentious vocab.

I do not accept your use of the word "create", deliberately chosen as "craeted" things must perforce have a creator.

Can you just say "DNA" without inserting the word "code" with it, so that you can imply more than you can deliver?

Given the abundance of self assembling molecules of divers sorts, I dont think it unreasonable to believe it possible for DNA to be the end product of a number of
steps that took place entirely without any intelligent intervention.

Now, as for my question that you sidestepped, do you think human beings were
just "created", like poof, here they are, fully assembled?

Just asking, I wont press you to defend the indefensible with the evidence that I asked for, knowing you do not have any.

did you pick that photo because you cant find an image to go with "that went over my head"?

Dang it! Clicked the like by accident.

I picked that photo, because after reading your post, neither a single nor double face palm did your post any justice.

Inarticulate, you?

[Audie]

there is science for the big bang, tho its not a topic that much interests me.

Yeah, I can see why it doesn't interest you, as it cannot be scientifically explained - which would be too much of a binary type of thinking. You'd rather ignore that all of your talk about random things without an intelligent Cause behind them because you know there is no scientific explanation to them. Really, Audie, you must admit that all your code word "non-binary" means is the answer is lies somewhere BEFORE science and within the realm of unexplained metaphysics. Saying science explains the Big Bang - um, where did you read where science EXPLAINS it???!!! It talks about the PROCESSES, but only theorizes as to whatever unknown cause. And that FIRST cause could not have been created - not the ULTIMATE and first cause. And that first cause must be infinite, else it could not have always existed, as it must be and always was independent of ALL other and subsequent things. It must be unfathomably intelligent and powerful - which is obvious, considering what immediately came into physical existence, the design and functionality of it all, immediately apparent, on such an astonishing scale, of such immense power. These things are as far from what you would describe as "random" as one could possibly imagine! And failing to admit it, asserting there are scientific explanations - these won't make them so. "Pop Metaphysics" is not science! It's not only not science, but if defies all known logic. How can this be? Unless...

Let's be clear: BINARY thinking is using logic and belief in science and processes, that all things must have a cause. NON-Binary thinking is belief that some untold aspects of metaphysics are possible, in which some key source could/must self-exist with great power and intelligence. So, while I believe in the laws and processes of science, order, design, and functions consistently and redundantly proven, I realize that it all must have a cause. It's just that I realize that binary processes are all dependent on something beyond all binary things (yes, ultimately, NON-binary). Of course, Audie does as well - she just doesn't know who or what that is and won't accept that it is God. So, non-binary thinking is belief that metaphysical things are possible without a cause - that it or they can self-exist, uncreated, unsustained, can build and harness intelligence and power, randomly, without cause. Wow! And it ultimately doesn't matter - that is, UNLESS she is wrong.

Sorry Phil, but I just didnt read it all. I see the word "metaphysics" scattered all thru, and
you made a bad start with three major fails in the first sentence.

And of course, your ongoing creative process with facts about me.

You are seemingly obsessed with metaphysics and first cause. No loss that I didnt read it all, I have seen this same presentation enough times already.

All it is, is talk for people in black turtlenecks sitting with a drip candle stuck in a wine bottle, at 2 am.

It does not remotely answer my question: What evidence?

One way of looking at the evidence is that mankind (created well BEFORE Adam and Eve

I will take it that you are entirely unable to provide any of the evidence that I asked for,
and the clouds of metaphysics are akin to the ink a squid discharges as it darts away.

[Philip]

Audie: Sorry Phil, but I just didnt read it all. I see the word "metaphysics" scattered all thru, and
you made a bad start with three major fails in the first sentence.

Sorry, Audie - instead of metaphysics, I guess you prefer the words "non-binary thinking" - although you have freely admitted that term has nothing to do with known science or discernment using what CAN be known (concerning things and processes totally dependent, that CAN be seen, measured or quantified), but rather with something preceding science that cannot be known. So, I would say that "non-binary thinking"= metaphysics, simply because it deals with mysterious answers that cannot be known or quantified. Such thinking is firmly rooted within the the realm of philosophy - and is precisely the realm you entered when you began to surmise that there are non-physical, non-scientifically determinable answers, as to the origins of things, that you insist must exist, even though you have no idea what they might be - or even whether such things actually exist. Just don't call your "non-binary" thinking "scientific," as you know not one bit of what they entail.

So, whatever term you feel more comfortable with, you are in the very same philosophical category as ALL non-theists - a world of unsubstantiated and irrational possibilities, in which random, non-living things can self-exist and gain and wield incredible power and intelligence, can self-organize, and can compel organization upon entities outside itself. That's a philosophical belief simply because it is not something you can explain with logic or any known scientific explanations. I think you like the words "non-binary thinking" because it sounds open-minded and confident, AS IF you know with certainty about things you insist exist and are possible, yet of which you have no proof of. And so, you don't let a lack of proof stop your belief in their existence (or in your own non-theism/unbelief).

[Audie]

Audie: Sorry Phil, but I just didnt read it all. I see the word "metaphysics" scattered all thru, and
you made a bad start with three major fails in the first sentence.

Sorry, Audie - instead of metaphysics, I guess you prefer the words "non-binary thinking" - although you have freely admitted that term has nothing to do with known science or discernment using what CAN be known (concerning things and processes totally dependent, that CAN be seen, measured or quantified), but rather with something preceding science that cannot be known. So, I would say that "non-binary thinking"= metaphysics, simply because it deals with mysterious answers that cannot be known or quantified. Such thinking is firmly rooted within the the realm of philosophy - and is precisely the realm you entered when you began to surmise that there are non-physical, non-scientifically determinable answers, as to the origins of things, that you insist must exist, even though you have no idea what they might be - or even whether such things actually exist. Just don't call your "non-binary" thinking "scientific," as you know not one bit of what they entail.

So, whatever term you feel more comfortable with, you are in the very same philosophical category as ALL non-theists - a world of unsubstantiated and irrational possibilities, in which random, non-living things can self-exist and gain and wield incredible power and intelligence, can self-organize, and can compel organization upon entities outside itself. That's a philosophical belief simply because it is not something you can explain with logic or any known scientific explanations. I think you like the words "non-binary thinking" because it sounds open-minded and confident, AS IF you know with certainty about things you insist exist and are possible, yet of which you have no proof of. And so, you don't let a lack of proof stop your belief in their existence (or in your own non-theism/unbelief).

I have never said "non- binary thinking". That and so much more here falsely attribute to me -creativity on your part- are not even an attempt to provide this "evidence" you earlier pretended to have.

Im not finding much honesty or credibility. Just squid ink.

If you cannot attempt an on- topic response or stop saying outlandish things about me personally,
plz refrain from saying anything at all.

[Philip]

Audie: I have never said "non-binary thinking".

Your own words: "Among my observations concerning religious folks is that they are so often absolutist, binary thinkers. Either black or white, no shades of grey. No third, 4th, 5th possibilities. Straight either / or."

Audie, you have repeatedly asserted that those insistent upon there must causes for all that exist as being "binary" thinkers. So, does that not mean you consider yourself a NON-binary thinker - that is, one who believes in possibilities that are beyond binary necessities for what came into existence? You love to talk about science, evolution, causes, processes - why, because you insist you believe in tangible things and causes, and not mysticism. But then you also say you believe in unknown causes and things that are beyond the observable, testable, tangible - which is belief in things that are META-physical - inexplicable, without visible or known causes. This is philosophy! And it transcends the physical - thus the term (metaphysical). It perfectly describes you belief that "binary" explanations are insufficient.

So, put a term to the above, if you don't like the term "non-binary" thinking. What is the opposite term? "Extra-binary thinking? There either is an ultimate first cause for the universe or not. And if one is open to other "possibilities," then obviously that must include that there is a first cause/a Creator. But whatever term you prefer, it's not of science, it's philosophy in the belief of unknown things/unknown possibilities - but not certainties. So whatever term you use, if it accurately describes your position, it must be rooted, not in explainable science (the study and analysis known processes and their causes), because it is 1) NOT known, 2) nor is it explainable, but it IS a belief - and THAT is a philosophical belief!

So, Audie, what open-minded/NOT "binary," philosophical term would you prefer that best describes your belief?

[Audie]

Phil, an odd behaviour of this tablet blanks out your post unless I come around to it in an odd way
that does not allow for quoting it.

Hence answering this way.

Not that its is a big deal really, but your actually quoting me there does
nothing to support your contention about "non- binary". I did not ever say
"non-binary". Withal, this is much like the run in I had with another modulator
just days ago, who insisted I'd said something I had not, and likewise
produced the real quote, still saying it contained words and meaning
that was not there. Eventually he accepted his mistake, for which I respect him.

I didnt ever say "non-binary" till I quoted you. Quit pretending I did in any way shape or form.

Youvmight consider asking what I have in mind rather than
indulging in invidious fantasies of what I said and meant.

Here it is, asked for or otherwise: Christians have a great tendency toward
absolutism and its evil doppleganger, binary thinking.
God / devil, moral absolutes, GWB with his hey, world, "you are either with us or against us", or,
let's see, your earlier statement that seems to paraphrase as Either theist OR irrational.
If I am a point or two off compass in my reading of that, do tell me how.

I contrast binary thinking to the way of those among us who look for nuance
and possibilities not considered in the either / or scenarios.

Now, I did ask that you quit making this about me, voiced my discontent
with fabricated quotes, and asked for your evidence about humankind being "created".

That was my initial question, and you clearly are most averse to responding, as often as I
remind you, you jet some more ink.

RSVP to the evidence q., or quit now. I will ignore anything else

[Philip]

Audie: Either theist OR irrational

OK, Audie - let's move beyond our mutually, perhaps misperceived definitions. You are not some enemy, btw. But what I mean by irrational is to believe that what exists does not require a prior source of immense intelligence, power and purpose - or that it, in ANY way, could be called "random." Whatever you call that prior/first/ultimate source is a different issue. But it HAD to have, at the very least, those attributes. AND, that first source had to also be eternal - it could not have been self-created. But I am NOT saying that the options are only the God of the Bible or nothing else. But I am saying that some of the key attributes I've mentioned were totally necessary for whatever that first cause you might think possible. To believe those attributes were unnecessary, I do believe to be irrational, as that defies every logical understanding we have concerning everything we know. And it contradicts the attributes of what came into being at the universe's beginning.

Hard parameters that cannot be ignored, as to the ultimate source of the universe (I don't find it rational to disagree with):

A) A first cause of the universe had to be eternally existing - it could not create itself.

B) A thing either must eternally exist or it comes from some prior thing.

C) The universe that emerged from the ultimate source of all things reveals great intelligence and design, in both individual and interactive functionality, perfectly and instantly adhering to sophisticated and complex locked parameters - with the exact opposite of randomness being displayed from the very first moment the universe emerged from the Big Bang.

D) That all of the universe and it's mass emerged from a point so tiny as to not be understood, and is a point of reference more than a physical thing - as how could all massive matter and objects of the universe come from some metaphorical dot at the end of a sentence? So, a physical universe immediately comes into existence, where, moments before, it did not exist - and the building block elements, attributes and functionality necessary for our present universe and world are immediately there.

E) That first source had to be breathtakingly powerful - emitted and demonstrated with the universe's first breath, vast scale, and speed of spread.

If one disagrees with the hard parameters above, please state which and why you disagree.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: I think we still have time to deal with time depending on which interpretation we go by though and I'm not sure how it addresses the human/neanderthal DNA evidence.

One way of looking at the evidence is that mankind (created well BEFORE Adam and Eve) was intermixed with animal blood - IF, or course - Neanderthals are not human. I'm not convinced they were not, despite some apparent variations. And so, subsequently totally independently, Christ's line - is (instantly) created, starting with Adam and Eve - which would not have had the Neanderthal blood. And so this would explain the range of man's spread, and account for how civilization would appear to be FAR older than theorized dates for Adam and Eve's creation. It also is non-problematic for the geologic evidences of great ages for the earth - which are whatever they are. In the Genesis sequence, the animals are completed first - independent of and before man. I'd encourage everyone thinking about this possibility to go back and read the two Genesis accounts while trying to block out what each does NOT say, as well as try to ignore what you know that the church has traditionally thought on this subject. What you'll see is that the collective texts could support Adam and Eve being independently created sometime (maybe a VERY long time) after God initially created mankind.

I don't think one can do much more than theorize about the above. But I also don't think anyone can definitely say the scenario I bring up is definitely untrue. It's a mystery. But my proposed scenario eliminates all of the archaeological gymnastics necessary to explain the "apparent" spread of mankind beyond its parameters typically tossed about - especially in regards to supposed dates for Adam and Eve, or those asserting "the archaeological record merely APPEARS as it does due to flood dynamics." So much about the Bible, when it comes to man, he's gotten wrong. All those rabbis and others so diligently poured over Scripture, what they surmised about the Messiah to come - what He would do, what His immediate mission would be. Jesus shows up, confounds everyone's expectations - even those sincerely immersed in the OT. God creates the truth of things, man interprets what he thinks he understands from the partial facts given. It's a pattern! And whether we look backward or forward into details unknown, the results usually reveal how clueless we can be.

What you say is possible biblically. I realize there are those who think that we cannot really know but I tend to think that it might be true at certian times but God's word is revealed more true as time goes on and more discoveries are made and in this instance I'm trying to find the most believable theory we have as Christians when it comes to the bible. The bible teaches us to seek things out in many places and so I try to do that. I realize that for others it may not be that important to them but for others we discover more as time goes on and this is a way of trying to discover more.

Even if we cannot say for sure now I think we can decide which theory/interpretation makes the most sense biblically and then work from there. I think we have already had several different possibilities that might could help explain how we have both humans and neanderthals sharing DNA from a biblical perspective and I think we can figure out which one makes the most sense biblically if we put out bible thinking caps on and in an honest brother in Christ way try to figure this out.

We know that in science when they look at everything from a no-God/creator perspective they almost never have an answer as to the how these things happened and they have there theories too. We as Christians can offer an answer as to the how and I think we can in this instance also from a biblical perspective.

Like for instance I brought up Cain and Abel earlier for a possible explanation instead of believing that humans and neanderthals mated before Noah's flood,but I think that theory is out the window because the only thing we have to work with are Nephilim who married human women and had children with them producing a hybrid race in order to prevent the birth of Jesus by contaminating the human blood-line so God flooded the earth in an attempt to dwindle their numbers,I'm aware that it appears there were hybrids also even after Noah's flood also and so Satan kept messing with human DNA .

But I don't see how this could apply to neanderthals and humans sharing DNA. A better possible explanation is that it had to do with Cain and Abel,remember that after Cain killed Abel God put a mark on Cain so that no man would mess with him in revenge for Abel's death and Neanderthals were more of a brute than humans and would probably scare a human just based on how mean they looked.A human would be afraid of a neanderthal. But see secular scientists who don't know the bible or consider God's word are looking at it from an evolution perspective and since evolution trumps everything else they are making up a theory that humans and neanderthals mated to explain how/why they share DNA. God changing Cain when he put a mark on him would explain why they share DNA also without thinking they mated.

But the evidence does not really suggest that they mated because humans would be afraid of Neanderthals and would've kept their distance.And they died in Noah's flood and this is why they don't match with hominids. However Neanderthals were more like hominids than humans were. What say ya'll? This is just another possible way to explain this biblically.Feel free to agree,disagree or offer other biblical possibilities.

[crochet1949]

Isn't the world of Neanderthals simply what a field of science says existed before 'we' came to be? Why not simply take Scripture on it's own merit. Why can't Adam and Eve Be the first people on this earth? Genesis IS the book of beginnings. And THAT puts Adam and Eve as the 1st.

[B. W.]

Here is the latest...

Who among us has Neanderthal, Denisovan DNA?

...guess that this maybe why some politician has a squirrel head hair cut...
-
-
-

[Audie]

Isn't the world of Neanderthals simply what a field of science says existed before 'we' came to be? Why not simply take Scripture on it's own merit. Why can't Adam and Eve Be the first people on this earth? Genesis IS the book of beginnings. And THAT puts Adam and Eve as the 1st.

All available data indicates both species of humans existed simultaneously for tens of thousands of years.

[Kurieuo]

What Audie said, they're simply another species that lived around humans. I'm sure we would have taken advantage of them like slaves, pets even, like hunter dogs and the like. Good boy for helping me hunt and kill *throws a slab of meat to the Neander*

[PaulSacramento]

Evidence is pointing to the neanderthal being assimilated and "breed out".
In short, as homosapien and neanderthal inter-breed, the dominate traits and genes of homosapien "over ruled" those of the neanderthal and as children were born they were more and more human and less and less neanderthal until there was no more neanderthal.

[Audie]

What Audie said, they're simply another species that lived around humans. I'm sure we would have taken advantage of them like slaves, pets even, like hunter dogs and the like. Good boy for helping me hunt and kill *throws a slab of meat to the Neander*

I read someone's analysis of the bone structure of Neander and how it shows
the powerful physique.. "even the women would have had arms to rival those of the mightiest blacksmith".

Slaves and pets, maybe not so much?

Oh, bigger brains, too.

[Audie]

Evidence is pointing to the neanderthal being assimilated and "breed out".
In short, as homosapien and neanderthal inter-breed, the dominate traits and genes of homosapien "over ruled" those of the neanderthal and as children were born they were more and more human and less and less neanderthal until there was no more neanderthal.

That is probably part of it.

Another possible detail is that the Neander physiology was expensive to operate.
Took a lot of food.