It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Neanderthals have been the Nephilim?

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

People respect the Kardassians? Since when?

As always prove that my science is afaith. As I keep saying I have a faith, and I have a day job. Science is the day job.




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

No neighbour, I've actually done research into evolution during my Bioinformatics work. So I've done the grunt work thanks.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

It's not grammar Pete, it's what I believe is mislabeling a society of humans

It's not disagreeing with definitions of words in a dictionary, it's disagreeing with what some boffins somewhere have decided a human being should be labeled to justify their confirmation bias of evolution

Neanderthal should be accepted as fully human and that's not about grammar

I don't need a university degree to see that.
And by the way, what I have suggested isn't my own opinion, many scientists who study this field have helped form my opinion


So not grammar and no, not my own opinion



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

People respect the Kardassians? Since when?

As always prove that my science is afaith. As I keep saying I have a faith, and I have a day job. Science is the day job.


Sadly Noindie, I think many more people are more interested in tv celebrities, the Kardashians included over anything worth putting thought into

Anyway, it's not my job to prove your science is a faith, I am not the one claiming I am a scientist and I am not you
Maybe you should be proving the Neanderthal is not a human if you want to establish a valid position



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:01 PM
link   
hmmmmm....
Over my lifetime I have had MANY thought on this subject. Alas, if I only knew Hebrew.

My thoughts often go two the first few chapters of Genesis (KJV).

It would seem that God made man (male and female he made them) on the 6th day. He told them to go forth, multiply and replenish the earth.

Chapter two tells us about Adam, his mate Eve and how they were set aside in the garden of Eden from the rest of the Creation. I think they may have been the first Neanderthals.

IMHO, God created man then he created a form of man a little closer to his image. A man with a living soul.

So men were wandering the face of the earth multiplying and replenishing. Adam and his crew are kicked out of Eden.

Cain kills Able and moves to Nod where he meets his wife (where did she come from?).

Chapter 5 tells us that the Sons of God (the line of Adam, Neanderthals) look apon the daughters of men, find them beautiful and take of them wives. Daughters of men being modern day humans.

I have read papers that speak of the Neanderthals robust features being caused by their long lifespans. The bones never stop growing.

I don't know. Just some more fuel for the fire, so to speak.
Quad



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

That in no way shows people "respect them". Fascinated by, sure. Watching the manufactured drama. Yep. Respect? Nah

Actually neighbour. YOU claimed that science (its not mine, it just IS) is faith. thus the burden of proof is in your onus, not mine.

Neanderthals are Humans, but not Homo sapiens. Learn to use the words.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I believe in the existence of race so therefore, I am a racist and a nazi. Is that your point?

I am neither one. I am only a realist. Pretty much the entire world recognizes the existence of race including members of all the different races. Only a small group has recently begun to assert there is no such thing. You're basically saying everyone in the world is wrong except you and your friends. My viewpoint is at least equally as valid as yours.

Do you think having those quotes hides the fact that all you are doing is name calling and attempting to smear me? It is not evidence. Aside from that, you are being rude.

I haven't called you names. Just because we don't agree is no reason to go to that level. I am not calling anyone inferior or tried to deny anyone's humanity.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: toms54

No neighbour, I've actually done research into evolution during my Bioinformatics work. So I've done the grunt work thanks.


So what are you saying? You are employed as a Bioinformaticist? Or was that a class you took in school?

I am not trying to allege anything beyond the existence of race and the fact that there are some physical differences. I am not saying there isn't wide variability among, say, the inhabitants of black Africa or even that all of them are black. I am saying different groups who have been physically isolated for a couple thousand years can develop differently in some ways than people located on the other side of the world. How can you believe in Darwin's finches yet reject my statement? It's not as if I said they were a different species.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

What I am saying is that I have worked as a Bioinformaticist yes. I'm now back to doing Process Development in the Pharma industry. But I got paid, to do bioinformatics, as its one of my post graduate qualifications.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I claim constantly that the science of evolution is a pseudo science and believed by faith

I don't have issues with gravity, the shape of the earth and countless fields of science.
Evolution, not sold on it and until I see the repetable observable testable evidence I am skeptical

Interesting, recently it was brought to my attention that lead can be turned to gold, something I would never have believed but the evidence seems valid.
I can change my opinion if the science is valid

Neanderthal are homo sapien sapiens , human just like Tasmanian Aboriginals were, just like pygmies are
Just different

Please believe what you want to believe, I will disagree and question your faith in evolution, every step



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Good show



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Text Who decides what Hominidae is and why they are Hominidae, whats the criteria Some one is telling me what I have to believe, because its a boffin I am expected to just accept it

Quite right Raggedy. Yo have hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

That is why one cannot argue with secular science that is taught today. Actually what you are disagreeing with here is the religion of evolution that is taught in most all universities. If your mind is trying to connect that nonsense with the Hebrew or Greek bibles then it is a lost cause.

The atheistic view must be shown in that manner in order to propagate the theory of evolution. The great apes and humans are the family of hominidae [in their books] but then they also must have a subfamily to cover the reason that they believe other evolved species have either branched off or were lacking the evolutionary ability of being a hominidae. In other words they must cover for their evolutionary failure. I commend you for seeing this for what it is.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You claim but you do not show that it is so. You can claim all sorts of things with out proof. However the burdon of proof is the intellectually honest route.

A couple of points:

The Tasmanian aborigional people still exist. They did not go extinct. As you are implying by using the past tense.


Pigmy is not very descriptive anture. One assumes you mean one of the affrican tribes. If that is the case they are not significantly (genetically) different to be called "different" in the manner you are inferring. You are using old science based on appearance not genetics.

So no Neandethals are (based on the genetics) most certainly a distinct species (thus Homo neanderthalensis as opposed to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) which we could breed with, though how well is unknown, we don't have the ability to test that). But there is clear evidence we did breed with them.

We did not evolve from them or into them. We breed with them (and denisovians) and they diverged from a common ancestor of ours. SO unless you are a proponent for mutliregional co-evolution, you can't call them the same species as we are.

So all this is based on the data, which you can't seem to understand (chances are you do not read it)



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Neigbour, what atheistic view? Science has nothing to do with gods but is not atheistic, its a tool. Like a hammer, or a gun. Thus there are many religious scientists, such as myself. I know of at least one devout Christian scientist and Jewish one posting on here. So that makes a Pagan, a Christian and a Jew that disagree with you lot.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You claim but you do not show that it is so. You can claim all sorts of things with out proof. However the burdon of proof is the intellectually honest route.

A couple of points:

The Tasmanian aborigional people still exist. They did not go extinct. As you are implying by using the past tense.


Pigmy is not very descriptive anture. One assumes you mean one of the affrican tribes. If that is the case they are not significantly (genetically) different to be called "different" in the manner you are inferring. You are using old science based on appearance not genetics.

So no Neandethals are (based on the genetics) most certainly a distinct species (thus Homo neanderthalensis as opposed to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) which we could breed with, though how well is unknown, we don't have the ability to test that). But there is clear evidence we did breed with them.

We did not evolve from them or into them. We breed with them (and denisovians) and they diverged from a common ancestor of ours. SO unless you are a proponent for mutliregional co-evolution, you can't call them the same species as we are.

So all this is based on the data, which you can't seem to understand (chances are you do not read it)




You claim but you do not show that it is so. You can claim all sorts of things without proof. However the burden of proof is the intellectually honest route. Show me evidence "neanderthal" is not homo sapien sapien, skull size is not indicative of anything


Yes there are Tasmanian aboriginals, no pure blood Tasmanian aboriginals
originalpeople.org...

as for the rest, You are always right Noindie, always, be secure I believe everything you say, never wrong, a scientist who knows everything and can never be questioned because you know everything and are always right


originally posted by: Noinden

The Tasmanian aborigional people still exist. They did not go extinct. As you are implying by using the past tense.




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Cain kills Able and moves to Nod where he meets his wife (where did she come from?).

I always wonder the same thing about Cain's wife. Argue about it quite a lot too. At some point, I wonder if there are other hominid creation beside the Adams. If there were, then the union between Cain and his non-Adam's gene wife could possibly breed nephilim/Netherlands ancestors. But up to now, I have no luck with the bible to figure out Cain's sister origin. Something is missing from creation account.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ElGoobero

Neanderthal? Nope,/ Heidelberg man is a better choice. In South Africa, a number have been found taller than 7 feet.

I saw a section of a femur that had to be from an individual that was taller that that and very robust.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden



Neigbour, what atheistic view? Science has nothing to do with gods but is not atheistic, its a tool. Like a hammer, or a gun. Thus there are many religious scientists, such as myself. I know of at least one devout Christian scientist and Jewish one posting on here. So that makes a Pagan, a Christian and a Jew that disagree with you lot.

Actually a atheistic view, in my understanding, is a acceptance of the lack of belief in a god. One cannot believe Torah and also believe the teachings of paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists in their teachings concerning the evolution of man.

You infer that you know of a Jew who subscribes to the secular teachings of the origins of man as is taught in your understanding? That is possible. There are probably thousands of Jews and Christians who also will agree with you but those who are so inclined are not believers in Torah and are atheistic minded. If one is inclined to profess that mindset then he/she is double minded and confused. It is impossible to believe the foundations of Judaic and/or Christianity and believe the science of your understanding.

That is not to say that there are not Jewish and Christian scientists because there most certainly are. But in this realm of this discussion it is impossible and reflects the lack of faith in the creation of man as taught in Torah. The truth of this matter will probably remain argumentative in our life times.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: EasternShadow


I always wonder the same thing about Cain's wife. Argue about it quite a lot too. At some point, I wonder if there are other hominid creation beside the Adams. If there were, then the union between Cain and his non-Adam's gene wife could possibly breed nephilim/Netherlands ancestors. But up to now, I have no luck with the bible to figure out Cain's sister origin. Something is missing from creation account.

It is in the book of Adam V Chuah Ri'shon from the Cepher Ezra Reviy'iy [4 Ezra] that we learn additional life of Adam and (Chuah) Eve.

The first children were a boy named Qayin and the twin daughter Luluwa. The second children were also twins and the boy was named H'avel and the twin girl named Aklia. When Qayin was seventeen and a half years old and H'avel was fifteen and a half years old was when Qayin slew H'avel. After the mourning of the death of H'avel is when Qavin took his sister Luluwa and was banned from the family. Through these twins were the procreated seed of Cain [Qayin] propagated. It was seven years later that another son was born and named Sheth.

This is the accepted account of the first family of the children of Adam and Chuah [Eve] as was recorded by Ezra the scribe and priest.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I have a slightly different take on this. Science is an atheistic discipline not because the scientist himself is a atheist but because the scientific method relies upon logic, reason, and empirical data rather than supernatural explanations.

Science is only one aspect of life. Art, religion, etc. are different aspects. Even if one attempts to inject elements of one into the other, to scientifically prove something in the Bible, e.g., they are still not the same. 1 + 1 = 2 because it can be objectively demonstrated not because God makes it so through miraculous agency. So, yes, science is only a tool, not a life philosophy. It is quite possible to be a scientist and still profess to believe in a faith.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join