Evidence for God from Science

DNA Results For The Nephilim Skulls In Peru Are In And The Results Are Absolutely Shocking

How can we explain elongated skulls that are thousands of years old that contain genetic material “unknown in any human, primate or animal known so far”?

For months, many of us have been eagerly awaiting the results of the first DNA tests to ever be performed on the famous Paracas skulls. The results for one of the skulls are now in, and the scientist that did the testing is declaring that this skull represents a “new human-like creature” unlike anything that has ever been discovered before.

More

Interesting... but, don't be too quick to jump on it.

Found this which casts reasonable suspicion: http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-calm- ... ngs-102258

I never knew about these skulls though.

Its very simple:
IF the DNA does not conform to any know human or primate species, then the skulls are not of any human or primates ever recorded by science.
That is exactly ALL it means, nothing more and nothing less.
The rest is 100% speculation.

Is there a responsible source on any of this?

Audie wrote:Is there a responsible source on any of this?

No. Stories with fanciful explanations are usually fake.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:Is there a responsible source on any of this?

No. Stories with fanciful explanations are usually fake.

FL

The tabloid style of presentation of something not to be sourced in any
scientific literature is one of those subtle clues of fakery.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:Is there a responsible source on any of this?

No. Stories with fanciful explanations are usually fake.

FL

You think fallen angels are fake?

Audie wrote:Is there a responsible source on any of this?

No. From K's link:

• That brings us to the strange nature of the announcement. Foerster announced the results personally, via internet, rather than through a scientifically reputable source.
  
  There are a number of problems with the way he announced the preliminary results. Speaking to Discovery.com, science promoter and skeptic Sharon Hill said “This is an unconventional way of making ‘groundbreaking’ claims.” . . . Exciting news is one thing, but scientific credibility is another. “cience doesn’t work by social media,” said Hill. “Peer review is a critical part of science and the Paracas skulls proponents have taken a shortcut that completely undermines their credibility. Appealing to the public’s interest in this cultural practice we see as bizarre — skull deformation —instead of publishing the data for peer-review examination is not going to be acceptable to the scientific community.”
  
  There’s also the matter of the testing itself. According to Foerster, the geneticist who discovered the allegedly never-before-seen DNA, wants to remain anonymous. If that’s not a red flag for the credibility of your research, I don’t know what is.

Stu wrote:You think fallen angels are fake?

When "fallen angels" are taken as the nephilim and/or as beings that procreated with human women, I, for one, do think that they are fake.

Audie wrote:The tabloid style of presentation of something not to be sourced in anyscientific literature is one of those subtle clues of fakery.

Well said! I'll remember that clue the next time I see fruitcake science.

Stu wrote:You think fallen angels are fake?

You think fallen angels have cone heads and lived in Peru?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:The tabloid style of presentation of something not to be sourced in anyscientific literature is one of those subtle clues of fakery.

Well said! I'll remember that clue the next time I see fruitcake science.

Stu wrote:You think fallen angels are fake?

You think fallen angels have cone heads and lived in Peru?

FL

No but their offspring might have.

Stu wrote:No but their offspring might have.

Wow...you are actually serious!

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:The tabloid style of presentation of something not to be sourced in anyscientific literature is one of those subtle clues of fakery.

Well said! I'll remember that clue the next time I see fruitcake science.

Stu wrote:You think fallen angels are fake?

You think fallen angels have cone heads and lived in Peru?

FL

Its terrible subtle but if you try hard.....

Audie wrote:
Its terrible subtle but if you try hard.....

Dearest Chinadoll, are you suggesting that I'm not subtle enough? Should I be insulted and spend all evening crying?

FL

I forced myself to read the article. The skulls only date back to about 3,000 years ago. So we're supposed to believe that these creatures were roaming around earth in 1,000 BC? It seems to me that the people who hold the fallen-angels-had-human/angel-half-breed-monster-babies view are YECs and who hold to a global flood. Even if you hold that the earth is only 6000 years old and you say that the flood happened 2348 BC (per AiG), then you have these angel/human babies wondering the earth some fourteen centuries after Noah's flood wiped everything out. So . . . what . . . MORE fallen angels came and impregnated MORE women a full millennium AFTER the flood? Really?!?

At that point, we aren't talking fantastic, sensationalistic biblical interpretation. Now we're just in the realm of the silly. And, of course, the completely unwarranted.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Stu wrote:No but their offspring might have.

Wow...you are actually serious!

FL

Guess you're not a fan then of Steve Quayle, Tom Horn, Cris Putnam, Doug Hagmann, LA Marzulli, Paul Mcguire, Stan Deyo, Greg Evensen, etc.