Neanderthals

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes for its an interpretation based on scant evidence at best. Creationists have been calling into question the validity of dating techniques for years, carbon 14 etc etc

Well, not really. There are at least ten different dating techniques I can think of off the top of my head, and these are all regularly used in different combination and come out largely in agreement. None of these techniques provide a single perfect solution (apart from, perhaps, dendrochronology) but nobody relies on a single dating technique if more are available anyway. I don't understand how you can reject them all as being based on 'scant evidence' if they support one another.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who cares? They were killed in the flood of Noah's day anyway and are
of no importance to us today.

So Noah's flood happened almost 30,000 years ago?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, not really. There are at least ten different dating techniques I can think of off the top of my head, and these are all regularly used in different combination and come out largely in agreement. None of these techniques provide a single perfect solution (apart from, perhaps, dendrochronology) but nobody relies on a single dating technique if mo ...[text shortened]... d how you can reject them all as being based on 'scant evidence' if they support one another.

If they seem plausible to you after having researched the basis of their accuracy and the assumptions on which they are based (carbon 14 is a good example of a dating technique which has as its basis certain assumptions), then that is fine.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Noah's flood happened almost 30,000 years ago?

No. That is ridiculous. The earth didn't even exist 30,000 years ago.
I already told you the earth is no more than about 10,000 years old.
There is scientific evidence to that fact but I have forgotten where I
read about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. That is ridiculous. The earth didn't even exist 30,000 years ago.
I already told you the earth is no more than about 10,000 years old.
There is scientific evidence to that fact but I have forgotten where I
read about it.

hehehe. try looking through creationist magazines and websites. that's where you'll find such "evidence."

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
hehehe. try looking through creationist magazines and websites. that's where you'll find such "evidence."

That might be where I saw it, but still, it was good evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That might be where I saw it, but still, it was good evidence.

where do you get your date of 10,000 years from?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Our official position is that they are regarded as humanoid, that is a branch of humans. It is therefore no great surprise that they are found within the realms of human DNA genetic pattern. This is rather factual, it relies not on speculation, not on the interpretation of scientific data or such scant evidence evidence as a couple of teeth. Never ...[text shortened]... emit, we are dispensers of spiritual truths, not speculative interpretations based on scan data.

Never the less, this is not our remit, we are dispensers of spiritual truths, not speculative interpretations based on scan data.

That made me laugh on a Monday morning.

Robbie Carrobie, the man who admits to being 'closed minded', but then bizarrely claims to be in search of the truth.

So your position is that - 'the dates are wrong'?! Also, not all humans have neanderthal DNA in their genome.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Never the less, this is not our remit, we are dispensers of spiritual truths, not speculative interpretations based on scan data.

That made me laugh on a Monday morning.

Robbie Carrobie, the man who admits to being 'closed minded', but then bizarrely claims to be in search of the truth.

So your position is that - 'the dates are wrong'?! Also, not all humans have neanderthal DNA in their genome.[/b]

well if it brings a smile, its all worth it.

As for the dates and how they are ascertained this is where the discrepancy with
Biblical truth (or at least our understanding of it, exists). Perhaps one could look at it
this way, how open minded would one be if we simply accept those dates without
questioning and how they were achieved? Its easy to say that a fossil is 'around',
200,000 years old, but for the sake of accuracy how was that figure arrived at? To give
the impression that its solely based on empirical science is simply not true, much of it
relies upon interpretation with other elements which themselves are interpretations, is
it not the case?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well if it brings a smile, its all worth it.

As for the dates and how they are ascertained this is where the discrepancy with
Biblical truth (or at least our understanding of it, exists). Perhaps one could look at it
this way, how open minded would one be if we simply accept those dates without
questioning and how they were achieved? Its ...[text shortened]... interpretation with other elements which themselves are interpretations, is
it not the case?

The dating of objects doesn't involve someone sitting in their shed in the garden with a bunsen burner and a few other apparatus from the school science department. There are numerous dating techniques which are cross referenced and constantly refined as our understanding of the natural world increases.

how open minded would one be if we simply accept those dates without questioning and how they were achieved?

But your not being open minded. Your starting from a position ie - 'humans have been on the planet for 6,000yrs because that's the interpretation of the Bible i've chosen to believe' - and will not deviate from that. That is the 'immovable' position you start from.

Sure you can question the dates, that's what the scientists involved in this field do, and lets face it they know a lot more about this than you or me. As i said above constant revaluation of dating techniques always takes place when new scientific evidence is discovered.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who cares? They were killed in the flood of Noah's day anyway and are
of no importance to us today.

"Who cares?" Are you intellectually dead?

I've heard the theory that the Nephilim were Neandertals. I don't buy it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. That is ridiculous. The earth didn't even exist 30,000 years ago.
I already told you the earth is no more than about 10,000 years old.
There is scientific evidence to that fact but I have forgotten where I
read about it.

Come on, man! When are you going to stop making Christians look like idiots?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
where do you get your date of 10,000 years from?

I can't remember. It may have been a creationist magazines or website
like VoidSpirit said that I got the evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I can't remember. It may have been a creationist magazines or website
like VoidSpirit said that I got the evidence.

ok, how do you arrive at the date, 10,000 years.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Never the less, this is not our remit, we are dispensers of spiritual truths, not speculative interpretations based on scan data.

That made me laugh on a Monday morning.

Robbie Carrobie, the man who admits to being 'closed minded', but then bizarrely claims to be in search of the truth.

So your position is that - 'the dates are wrong'?! Also, not all humans have neanderthal DNA in their genome.[/b]

If you ever heard of the O.J. Simpson case, you should know that DNA
can get contaminated easily. The state tried to use DNA to convict
Mr. Simpson and could not do it due to the possibility of contamination.
And that DNA doesn't even come close to the possibility of deterioration
and contamination that would result from and DNA they could possibly
obtain from a Neanderthal man which is several thousand years old. I
don't know if there is any evidence they tried to test any DNA of the
Neanderthal man. But even if this was possible, it certainly could not
give a reliable result.