It seems that if someone insults you by calling you a Neanderthal, they may actually be up to 4% correct if you are of Eurasian origin, according to this report: Neanderthal genes ‘survive in us’. How does this impact our understanding of the Genesis narrative? Might Genesis 6:1-4 have some relevance?
Friday, May 7, 2010, 7:53 AM
May 7th, 2010 | 12:21 pm | #1
Well…I’m not sure what you are getting at in Gen. 6. Do you mean that the “non-Neanderthals” were the sons of God and the daughters of man were Neanderthals?
The sons of God must have dug big eyebrow ridges.
May 7th, 2010 | 2:06 pm | #2
“Praise to the Lord, the Almighty” is one of my favorite hymns.
Does that make me a Neanderthal?
May 7th, 2010 | 2:22 pm | #3
Oh, very good, David. You’re on top of things today, no?
Yes, I too love Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, of which I can scarcely imagine growing tired. Neander was a Reformed Christian as well.
May 7th, 2010 | 2:22 pm | #4
It’s pretty clear what happened that caused this news. The old theory that the genes of “Neanderthals” were supposed to be very different from those of modern man was blown to pieces by the discovery that you can find the same sort of genetics in human beings today. This embarrassment forced them to invent a new spin, which is that modern humans and Neanderthals must have interbred at some point.
Even setting aside the whole evolution/Creation issue, I marvel at the self-important ease with which science makes definitive declarations of knowledge about a past they’ve never seen and that, by their own account, has produced no historical record. As often as they end up changing their explanations, you’d think they’d become more humble.
May 11th, 2010 | 5:50 am | #5
Go to the web site http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com for C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen etc. Dinosaurs are 2000 times younger than what main stream scientists claim based on a reliable report from National Research Council of Italy in a book entitled. “Evolution: the decline of an hypothesis.” Neanderthal bone collagen from several caves in Eurasia have also been been C-14 dated in the same range of 23,000 to 40,000 RC years. I’d like someone to ask these evolutionary scientists why they have NOT C-14 dated the ape like bones from Africa instead of using faulty radiometric dating methods of rocks many miles from the bones. Also it is common klnowledge amongst chemists like myself who have worked in a C-14 lab that C-14 dating theory gives up to 3-5 times way to old ages beyond 5000 years. That means all their ages are way too old. Maybe old Moses got it right afterall.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact