Neanderthal and Denisovan Genome

How Do Old Earth Creationists See Neandertals?
Bill Ludlow | 15.IV.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-LKOJ_Zi-g

I

You are aware that Young Earth creationists on the contrary agree with you Neanderthals were human?

• Hovind and Cuozzo maintain they were normal people with no genetic difference who look hunchbacked and low ridged bc of old age.
• CMI and most of AiG (but Anne Habermehl agrees with Cuozzo) consider them a post-Babel race.
• For my part, I consider them a pre-Flood race, represented via one or more of Noah's daughters in law (Mrs Japheth obviously fits with Europeans having lot of Neanderthal genome). Dito for Denisovans. Perhaps even same daughter in law - unless the Denisovan genome and the Neanderthal genome are incompatible ... in the sense of rivalising with each other of precisely one slot of the on-Ark genome.

On-Ark genome:

• Noah's Y chromosome, with its copy in three sons.
• Noah's wife's X chromosome being the X chromosome of the sons.
• Noah's and his wife's autosomic chromosomes variously represented in the three sons.
• Noah's mitochondriae not preserved directly.
• Noah's wife's mitochondriae those of their sons, but not preserved beyond them.
• Autosomic and X chromosomes of daughter's in law, combining with the Noahic ones.
• Mitochondriae exclusively from each of three persons: Mrs Ham, Mrs Shem and Mrs Japheth.

And Mrs Japheth was probably no pure Neanderthal, she probably had no Neanderthal mitochonchondriae, these are not found in today's human population. Which is not all of the post-Flood one, but all of which is post-Flood (unless Henoch has returned, which seems not to be the case).

II

7:21 Simple.

Cro-Magnon race (a k a Homo Sapiens, a k a majority race type on the Ark) are human and have souls created in God's image.

Neanderthal race was human and had souls created in God's image (some doubt if some were Nephelim, but it would have been possible to beget human children at some point, and probably Nephelim were also human, though very abnormal ones due to role of fallen angels in their begetting).

Denisovan race (a k a Antecessor, a k a Heidelbergian) was human and had souls created in God's image (similar question of Nephelim).

Btw, the Atapuerca skeleta of "Homo Antecessor" have been tested as genetically very close to Denisova, and we also know Neanderthal's lived in Spain, in El Sidrón, so arguably one or two of Noah's daughters in law came from pre-Flood Spain.

Updated

after below dialogue VIII, so I already knew Setekh as a prejudiced person.

Setekh

PFWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How does so much shit even fit in your ass? You're a real magician if you can pull that much shit from your ass and I have seen some amazing anal acrobats.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Setekh Nice showing off how prejudiced you are. Is your day job that of a janitor or that of a security guard?

Instead of insults, even if you don't have a single year on university (I have exams for five and spent more time there physically, even if I need to beg to survive while writing), how about trying to actually pin point one thing at a time (including possibly all, but one at a time) you think wrong and try (yes, I said try) to express whatever rational motive you may have for thinking it wrong?

III

8:03 I am troubled by the fact they are consistently using "coupled" and "bred" as opposed to conceived children in lawful matrimony.

Reminds me a bit of some Southron no longer rebels but Scientists considering around 1900 that a White and a Black person cannot be lawfully married. And being worried about their "breeding" or "coupling" or "miscegenation".

Obviously, first, Adam and Eve were the first married couple, they were ancestral to Denisovans and Neanderthals as much as to the Cro-Magnons, and as obviously, God never condemned "miscegenation" on racialist grounds. He never instituted "racial purity" as a condition for lawful marriage.

8:10 Marrying a Neanderthal or a Denisovan before the Flood would not have constituted bestiality.

That's like saying marrying a Jap or a Senegalese - I won't even say it, but you know how some racialist extremist would see it.

IV

As to Bill Ludlow's remarks that Theological Anthropology is not (Natural) Science, what is the point of that?

That they are not testable ... no, not any longer, we can't go to talk to a fullblood Neanderthal and see if he behaves like a man or a beast.

V

10:41 "about 700 000 years ago"

Dating is just off by a factor of less than 100.

Adam and Eve were created 7200 years ago.

And while science tells us we have a common ancestor with Neanderthals (genetics, both overall similarity and the divergence not preserved post-Flood proving they are not simply us), the date 700 000 years ago is not science.

Phatooine

There was a time that people really believed Zeus existed. It's no different in the modern times when it comes to Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Phatooine At least one Zeus did exist, a king of Crete who banished his father to Italy, and from that father descended King Latinus.

But the acts of Zeus while human do not warrant his being regarded as God, the acts of Jesus did. And do.

VI

12:26 Their model for "mating" with a "soulless" Neanderthal is indeed fairly absurd.

This is why I consider Neanderthals and Denisovans as Adamite humans.

Now, there are some guys (unfortunately some of them involved in calling themselves Catholic in a Vatican II sect, under which Notre Dame - both University and Paris Cathedral - have lately functioned), who consider Adam and Eve were created with souls and in a biological humanity that was so far soulless (but already Cro-Magnon, or as Cro-Magnon as it gets now).

One man gave on a forum a scenario for how it would work out, about like theirs, and I rejected it.

Here is my answer to the signature "rossum":

Creation vs. Evolution : Scenario impossible
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/01/scenario-impossible.html

VII

13:32 The stuff they push "about human evolution" is much worse than what Young Earth Creationism says.

It's extremely racist.

Here is Robert Carter on CMI saying Neanderthals are human and not just post-Flood but post-Babel:

Are Neandertals pre-Flood people?
Published: 2 February 2019
https://creation.com/neanderthals-pre-flood

Here am I answering why I think pre-Flood is a good idea:

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/02/answering-robert-carters-four-reasons.html

Still implying they were perfectly human.

Neither I nor Carter are as racist as Fazale Rana.

A man of Cro-Magnon race married to a Neanderthal if not using any kind of contraception would not have been the least depraved back then.

Noah wasn't preaching "stop breeding with Neanderthals" he was preaching "stop contraception and homosexuality, stop abortion, stop nuke wars, stop vampyrism and stop cannibalism".

Btw, cannibalism and Neanderthals. Neanderthals in Belgium did practise cannibalism as well as feasting on woolly rhino, but Neanderthals in Spain were veggies, like men were supposed to be up to Genesis 9:2.

How we know their diets? Dental calculus.

He was also speaking of not committing bestiality, but bestiality doesn't breed.

VIII

dialogue.

Pepper Bruce

Neanderthals appear to have been stronger and had larger brain capacity. They seem to have been fully human. One possibility is that they were pre-flood humanity. Darwinian evolution should be rejected by every serious thinker.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[linked here:]
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/04/neanderthal-and-denisovan-genome.html

Setekh

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Read the original publication, you blog copying monkey. Retards who think the earth is flat and global warming is a hoax are the ones who get their information from blogs and they're all wrong and most blogs are blindly copied from other wrong blogs.

I'm not even going to try and find the original source because I already know it doesn't say what the blog says, if it did, there would be no blog about it but a link to the article.

Pepper Bruce "Neanderthals appear to have been stronger and had larger brain capacity. They seem to have been fully human."

Confirming evolution.

"One possibility is that they were pre-flood humanity."

Which flood and what are the other possibilities?

"Darwinian evolution should be rejected by every serious thinker."

Doesn't follow and all evidence leads to the theory of evolution being correct, so are you perhaps suggesting that every good scientist is by definition not a serious thinker and all serious thinkers can never be a scientist without stopping to think seriously? How does that work?

Rich Pack

Are you really that stupid

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Rich Pack Whom are you talking to?

@Setekh "Read the original publication, you blog copying monkey."

What is that supposed to mean?

The link I gave is an original publication of my comments on this video. Did you miss that little detail?

"Retards who think the earth is flat and global warming is a hoax are the ones who get their information from blogs and they're all wrong and most blogs are blindly copied from other wrong blogs."

• 1) I am not a flat earther.
• 2) I think man made global warming may well be a scare, a hysteria.
• 3) I am writing blogs to give information to whoever wants to read, not just who agrees with me.
• 4) I do not blindly copy any other blog. The post I gave is where I republished my comments under this video and other posts by mine are also never just copy paste of someone else's work without acknowledging.
• 5) Your kind of prejudice against blogs neatly matches your prejudice about those who actually are flat earthers and who about man made global warming are willing to deny any and all global warming and about the "consensus" (or pretended such) are crying hoax rather than hysteria. These people are not retads, even if in detail wrong. Many of them are precisely like yourself into oversimplifying issues.

"I'm not even going to try and find the original source because I already know it doesn't say what the blog says, if it did, there would be no blog about it but a link to the article."

The original source to the link to this video is the link to this video. The original source to my comments under the video are my comments under the video. The original source to our dialogue (my comments and yours) is our dialogue. Check them out.

"Confirming evolution."

Neanderthals being fully human does not support us evolving from non-humans and does not support them evolving from non-humans.

"Which flood and what are the other possibilities?"

Flood of Noah, world wide.

The possibilities are, as to YEC ones, in chronological order of mediatic appearance:

• 1) pre-Flood humanity as a whole, with early post-Flood too, Neanderthal morphology depending on centuries of age (Cuozzo and Kent Hovind, the position Pepper Bruce considered worth mentioning, reached before the work of Pääbo on their genome);
• 2) post-Babel race, first to reach Europe from Tower of Babel (consensus on CMI, basically, which puts Babel earlier than carbon dated 40 000 BP, somewhat inconvenient if Flood, by definition earlier than Babel, occurred around carbon dated 50 000 - 20 000 BP, as per carbon dated dinosaurs, coal, diamonds, since that averages more recent than 40 000 BP);
• 3) one pre-Flood race among others (could be Nephelim as such, could be related to Nephelim, could even be unrelated to them - my own position, putting carbon date of Flood in 40 000 - 35 000 BP and putting carbon dated dinosaurs of 20 000 BP in early post-Flood conditions).

Position three is so far only available on individual blogs, not on institutional ones like the collective blog of CMI.

"so are you perhaps suggesting that every good scientist is by definition not a serious thinker and all serious thinkers can never be a scientist without stopping to think seriously?"

You are presuming without evidence the scientists on CMI and AiG are not good. I think they are wrong on a few items, like my position 3 on identity of Neanderthals contradicts CMI (position 2) and AiG (probably divided between positions 1 and 2, at least Anne Habermehl who was published there has strongly supported position 1). But being wrong and being a bad scientist are two different things.

Your estimate of all - good - scientists being Evolutionists is a neat prejudice in favour of the opposite group, after your prejudice against Creationists.

Rich Pack

@Hans-Georg Lundahl pepper Bruce

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Rich Pack OK, what was stupid about what he said?

A Conservative Stamping Me as a Cultist

I mean, here was have a youtube channel considering itself as answering to a description like "Conservative News":

Why Young Earth Creationism Is A Cult - Dr Jason Lisle, Ken Ham
Conservative News | 23.III.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkgAUOXL6mU

As you know I am YEC, you can bet I took issue with that:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Over the beginning again.

You mentioned an attitude of "you can be saved even if you believe an old universe but ..."

Here is the attitude of St Thomas Aquinas on this issue: if you are a normal regular faithful in the pew and have nothing in cathedra or pulpit to do, well, you need not read and you need not explicitly believe what you have not read. If on the other hand you have read, you do need to believe what you have read, and if you are a bishop, you need to have read too.

So, if you never heard of the issue at all, you haven't lost your faith because of being an old earther, but exactly how many people are in that position right now?

Fewer, I would say, than those who know the Biblical proofs of Catholicism and can without culpability presume they are Christians while outside it. Without culpability so far, that is.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:14 You somehow seem to imagine time can be directly measured after it has already past in objects having passed through that time.

No, a thing like 13 billion years, 4.5 billion years, 1 million years, 40,000 years, all of these are output data in calculations, where the input is NOT measured time, but other circumstances.

Time is not "measured", but recorded. Genealogies are fine as a record of time. Distant starlight for 13 billion years is not fine as a measurement of time, you have to argue that over x being 13 billion light years away, which you argue over other things, starting in Heliocentrism and Stellar Parallax (at least that is where it starts to get dubious, I do accept the distance from Earth to Sun, it is just not in a temporal triangle between a fixed Earth and a star in two positions).

Conservative News

In other words, you just came up with a fancy way to say, you have no scientific "record" for the age of the earth being 6,000 years. Yea, I've herd all of it and you can't answer the question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but you missed a vital point.

There is no scientific record for any age.

The distance to the Sun is a few light minutes. The distance to Pluto a few light hours. We already knew yesterday existed and that Earth and Universe were not created today.

The carbon 14 from Göbekli Tepe is c. 25 % of that of a recent sample. Even granting totally the halflife, that doesn't add up to it being two half lives old, since it could have had about 50 % modern carbon 14 in the atmosphere about one half life ago instead.

You are the one behind. You have no historic record for 13 billion years, no historic record for 4 point five billion years, no historic record for 40,000 years or even of 10,000 or 11,000 years.

Records of time are historic, not scientific. Grasp it. It is one basic fact of philosophy.

6:37 by the way you confirmed that you pretend to "observe" 13 point 8 billion years of time by "measuring" the distance to the "furthest" objects in the universe.

And since you are taking Hugh Ross' word for it, I take it you are not even enough of an astronomer to question Heliocentrism (or, if facing such questions) attempt to prove it - or would I be wrong there?

I am "still waiting" (to put it ironically) for solid scientific evidence for Heliocentrism.

I was also waiting for some mail to get answered which I adressed to Hugh Ross .... not even sure if it was the older or newer mail account ... some would be the newer one.

Conservative News

Are you a young earth creationist?

And are you also a flat earther?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A young earth creationist. Yes.

A flat earther. No.

How come you jump to "flat earther"?

Flat Earth and Heliocentrism are not the opposites that divide the game between them. There is also such a thing as considering the Earth round and fixed. Will also make a "parallactic measure" for 4 light years to alpha Centauri moot (and obviously also that Distant Star Light argument you used).

Conservative News

Hans-Georg Lundahl YECism is cult thinking, waiting for scientific evidence of heleocentrism is cult thinking, flat earthism belief just follows.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"YECism is cult thinking,"

Except it is Biblical and Patristic.

"waiting for scientific evidence of heleocentrism is cult thinking,"

Except that is what St Robert Bellarmine did.

"flat earthism belief just follows."

Or not. Because it logically doesn't.

One good piece of "cult thinking" if any is "guilt by association" and you just did that.

By the way, DO you have any scientific evidence for Heliocentrism? Oh, I don't mean for Earth being round, I don't contest that and also has no bearing on Distant Starlight problem you mentioned in the misleading terms (borrowed from Hugh Ross) "we can observe 13 point 8 billion years". Scientific evidence for Heliocentrism or lack of such has a bearing on it.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:00 The Sun issue and the salt in oceans issue could not by any chance have 6 or 7 millennia since Creation or 4 and a half to 5 millennia since the Flood as precisely the solution?

Did that possibility cross your mind?

I have noticed how you operate (5:44 into your video): if a certain empiric or from empiric evidence concluded (in itself of within Old Earth paradigm, in itself or within Heliocentric paradigm) fact points to a Young Universe or a Young Earth, that doesn't mean anything in favour of this, it only means it has to be studied further. But every time something points against the Biblical chronology, that is somehow evidence to you, no need to study that - distant starlight or long carbon ages - any further. There you are very comfortable with taking things at face value.

6:15 Oh, you are promoting the Hugh Ross cult.

One to which Neanderthal cannibals were not Adamites and depraved because of the Fall, just before the Flood, but instead pre-Adamites and part of what God created man from. For one problem with their stance and one which has nothing to do with ages.

Update

15.II.2018

Other video

by the same maker:

The Truth About Young Earth Creationism
Conservative News | 4.IV.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nggPFzeuWKc

I

Bill Ludlow

I went round and round with Ian Juby on this. I asked for a single scientific dating method that dates the earth 6000 years old and got lots of excuses but never a real answer.

Conservative News

They do have plenty of excuses, but no measurement, of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would alternative carbon calibration count as a method?

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:22 My case : Genesis seems to have a complete (sketchy, but not holed) history from creation to Abraham.

This means the generations in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 give us the time between Creation and Abraham.

Also, Abraham if you look at Genesis 13 and 14, seems to have lived at early dynastic period of Egypt and at a time when En Geddi was in Chalcolithic.

This means, he was alive at times where the remains are dated at c. 3000 or more BC. But from Biblical history, we know he lived rather 2000 BC. Joseph in Egypt lived less than 2000 years BC, and if he was Imhotep, he - or his Pharao Djoser - is dated to 2600 BC.

This means carbon dating is flawed in a manner best and easiest motivated by carbon 14 content back then having been lower - which ties in with a carbon 14 rising from Flood. Which in turn ties in with carbon dates 50 000 - 28 000 BP for dinos mainly suspected to be from the Flood.

yeoberry

Hans-Georg Lundahl :

• 1. In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation.
  
  
• 2. Genesis 1:1 reports the creation of the universe and earth at an unspecified time before day one.
  
  
• 3. Genesis 1:2, in three statements, describes first the condition of the earth created in 1:1 and then God's acting on it. Genesis 1:2c describes an action, “was hovering” (מְרַחֶ֖פֶת). This word evokes the image of a hen brooding over her chicks. It suggests nurturing, care, supervision (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:11, Jeremiah 23:9). It suggests movement. It also suggests a process over a period of time. How long a period of time? The passage doesn’t say.
  
  
• 4. The planet is described in 1:2 and thus was created in 1:1. Hence, 1:1 is not simply a summary statement or title. Besides, there is no other statement about the creation of the earth in the rest of the narrative.
  
  
• 5. All this occurs before the days begin with "And God said . . ." (וַיֹּאמֶר) (Genesis 1:3) and the verbs change from the "stage setting" perfect verbs of 1:1-2 to the wayyiqtol verbs of the main narrative in 1:3-2:4.
  
  
• 6. The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified.
  
  
• 7. So there is no way to specify from scripture how old the earth and universe is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• "1. In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation."
  
  It does.
  
  
• "2. Genesis 1:1 reports the creation of the universe and earth at an unspecified time before day one."
  
  It is later specified as less than 24 hours before day one's light. Exodus 20. It is also specified as insignificant compared to starting from day 6. Marc 10:6.
  
  
• "3. Genesis 1:2, in three statements, describes first the condition of the earth created in 1:1 and then God's acting on it. Genesis 1:2c describes an action, “was hovering” (מְרַחֶ֖פֶת). This word evokes the image of a hen brooding over her chicks. It suggests nurturing, care, supervision (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:11, Jeremiah 23:9). It suggests movement. It also suggests a process over a period of time. How long a period of time? The passage doesn’t say."
  
  Other passages do. If it started on "Saturday evening" 18:00 and ended on Sunday morning 6:00 or 9:00, this is perfectly consistent with Exodus 20. If it took any time extanding further back than Saturday evening 18:00 [one week before the one] after Man was made the day before and had enjoyed God's rest, it is in conflict with Exodus 20.
  
  
• "4. The planet is described in 1:2 and thus was created in 1:1. Hence, 1:1 is not simply a summary statement or title. Besides, there is no other statement about the creation of the earth in the rest of the narrative."
  
  Agreed.
  
  
• "5. All this occurs before the days begin with "And God said . . ." (וַיֹּאמֶר) (Genesis 1:3) and the verbs change from the "stage setting" perfect verbs of 1:1-2 to the wayyiqtol verbs of the main narrative in 1:3-2:4."
  
  Correct as far as it goes. [I am taking his word on the Hebrew, I am no Hebraist.]
  
  
• "6. The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified."
  
  At this point, but not from Exodus 20 or Marc 10:6 (same week, insignificantly compared to dating from day 6).
  
  
• "7. So there is no way to specify from scripture how old the earth and universe is."
  
  Indeed there is. Exodus 20:[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.
  
  Marc 10:[6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
  
  On a more pragmatic point. Suppose Göbekli Tepe, dated as extending from 9600 BC to 8600 BC is that old : is this part of when God's spirit was hoverin over the waters? Or do you pretend there are holes in the genealogies, as in more holes than closed series (making them comparable to Evolution)?
  
  Or do you find that perhaps Göbekli Tepe after all has to be after Adam and if so ill dated? That is my solution. And it clearly does away with any need to even put in doubt that the Universe is datable accoridng to Biblical genealogies.

yeoberry

Hans-Georg Lundahl :
Exodus 20:11 is about God “making” (not “creating”, different word) during the six days. The six days don’t start until Genesis 1:3. The universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one and then God hovered over the waters for an unspecified time prior to day one. So there is no way to date the earth from the Bible.

The genealogies only date man, not the earth.

• 1. The Bible does not say there was no animal death prior to the fall. It makes no statement of that whatsoever any where. Romans 5:12 speaks of death coming on man as a consequence of the Fall, not on the entire creation. Claiming the Bible teaches there is no death prior to the fall is eisegesis.
  
  
• 2. If there were no animal death, animals would reproduce, over-populate and eventually not have enough plants to eat. Infinitely reproducing animals -- following the mandate to "reproduce after their kinds" -- with no death, is simply impossible.
  
  
• 3. Plant life is life and plant death is death. Because of the mandate to eat vegetation, the meaning of "life" has to be reinterpreted protect the doctrine that there is no death prior to the Fall. Plants must be excluded from being alive, even though we know, with modern biology, that plants and animals are both similarly alive, with cells and DNA. At the chemical level the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape and are made from the same four chemical building blocks, called nucleotides. The claim that the Bible excludes plant life from being life makes the Bible to teach an absurdity. It's a claim that brings disrepute onto the Word of God.
  
  
• 4. The Bible does not exclude plants from being considered living things:
  
  
  • a. Genesis 1 has the plants reproducing “according to their kinds”, on day three, in exactly the same way as the sea creatures and birds do in 1:21 and as the livestock, creeping things and beasts do in 1:24-25. That both plants and animals are said to reproduce “after their kinds” (three times on both days three and six), suggests that plants were understood to be living.
  • b. the Hebrew word for “alive, living” (chay, חי) is used of vegetation (thorns) in Psalm 58:9 (translated as “green” in ESV), being the same word as used of cattle in Gen. 1:24 and of Adam in Gen. 2:8.
  
  
  
• 5. The Genesis narrative itself suggests there was death before the fall:
  
  
  • a. Adam and Eve are warned that “in the day that you eat of [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you shall surely die” (2:17). Does not the warning imply some knowledge of what they were being threatened with?
  • b. The Tree of Life suggests there was death prior to the fall. If there was no death prior to the fall, then why is there is a “tree of life” in the garden? The purpose of the “tree of life”, in 3:22, is so that they would “live forever”. If they were already inherently immortal, then what is the purpose of a tree of life that grants immortality?

Answered twice

A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your point on Exodus 20 answered on the other thread.

[Further down.]

Here you have answered a claim I have not actually made here.

"The Tree of Life suggests there was death prior to the fall. If there was no death prior to the fall, then why is there is a “tree of life” in the garden? The purpose of the “tree of life”, in 3:22, is so that they would “live forever”. If they were already inherently immortal, then what is the purpose of a tree of life that grants immortality?"

In fact, Catholics do not claim Adam and Eve were immortal by nature before the fall. We claim they were so by a special grace, which would have involved no doubt eating from the tree of life to become fully operative.

"Adam and Eve are warned that “in the day that you eat of [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you shall surely die” (2:17). Does not the warning imply some knowledge of what they were being threatened with?"

Confer what you said earlier:

"Plant life is life and plant death is death. Because of the mandate to eat vegetation, the meaning of "life" has to be reinterpreted protect the doctrine that there is no death prior to the Fall. Plants must be excluded from being alive, even though we know, with modern biology, that plants and animals are both similarly alive, with cells and DNA. At the chemical level the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape and are made from the same four chemical building blocks, called nucleotides. The claim that the Bible excludes plant life from being life makes the Bible to teach an absurdity. It's a claim that brings disrepute onto the Word of God."

So, we can assume Adam and Eve could have seen a plant die.

Or God could have revealed the meaning of death to them.

Your equality between plants and animals as both being life won't hold. Tomatoes don't fear getting picked.

Even if one could show some tremor about a plant being uprooted, it is not quite the same as an animal fleeing from a hunter in terror.

Now, was there animal death before the Fall?

Church Fathers are divided.

The very least one can say is, there was no wasteful animal death. If a rabbit would have been eaten by a wolf, it would have been Adam making sure the wolf got what it needed, as he ordered over both.

"If there were no animal death, animals would reproduce, over-populate and eventually not have enough plants to eat. Infinitely reproducing animals -- following the mandate to "reproduce after their kinds" -- with no death, is simply impossible."

While animals do reproduce after their kinds, there are two scenarii possible here:

• 1) Adam could have ordered it and his descendants could have ordered it, up to when it was supposed to be enough, ordering animals about procreation as he was perhaps doing so on carnivorousness;
  
  
• 2) the maximum of animal reproduction could have been fulfilled exactly in time to coincide with men being reproduced and remaining just had arrived at the number required for all being raptured.

So, there is in fact no real necessity of animals even dying before the fall.

It is certain there was no evil and cruel death even among animals before the fall.

I have argued about Neanderthal cannibals that they cannot be pre-Adamite animals, partly because Neanderthal genome has the human version of the FOXP2 gene, they had the genetic prerequisite to talk, and partly because cannibalism in organisms higher than plants is cruel and impossible in a not yet fallen creation.

yeoberry

Hans-Georg Lundahl :
That’s just stupid. Whether or not something fears being eaten does not determine whether it is life. If you’re really denying that plants are alive, you’re totally unreasonable and it’s a waste of time trying to talk to you.

You’re real problem is that you don’t know the gospel, that you belong to a self-serving, idolatrous religion that makes void the Word of God for the sake of its traditions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That’s just stupid. Whether or not something fears being eaten does not determine whether it is life. If you’re really denying that plants are alive, you’re totally unreasonable and it’s a waste of time trying to talk to you."

It did not occur to you that "absolutely no death of any kind at all" is not anything more than a strawman on the YEC case about "through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death"?

It did also not occur to you to read through my answer and see that I have a somewhat more nuanced reading of it, since bound by Patristics, than certain YECs, not saying they are wrong about fact of no animals dying before Adam, but they could still very well be wrong about the Bible unequivocally and dogmatically saying so.

"You’re real problem is that you don’t know the gospel, that you belong to a self-serving, idolatrous religion that makes void the Word of God for the sake of its traditions."

I recall my teens. There were among the Lutheran youth group people arguing against my Creationism and there were such arguing against my Catholic sympathies.

I have remained a Creationist and a Catholic convert.

What you mean by me not knowing the Gospel is beyond me ...

yeoberry

+Hans:
You’re real problem is that you don’t know the gospel, that you belong to a self-serving, idolatrous religion that makes void the Word of God for the sake of its traditions.

Stop trying to deal with any part of the Bible until you get the gospel right. See: The Roman Catholic Church and the Gospel (Dr. James White): [link omitted, HGL]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, James White may be a Doctor in some university, but he is not a Doctor Ecclesiae and he is definitely not sent as a preacher by the successors of the apostles, very unlike what Romans 10:14-15 requires.

That passage being the reason why the confirmation godfather of my confirmation godfather converted.

[I omitted the link for now, but going there for some refutation work. Look at yeoberry and me, who's the cultist? Actually, can't see it here, since it lacks subtitles.]

yeoberry

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: You belong to an idolatrous, self-serving organization that lies about being the true church and tries to make void the Word of God for the sake of its man-made traditions. You don't know the gospel and if you really believed the Word of God you wouldn't be part of an organization that denies it.

Romans 10:14-15 says nothing about the so-called "successors of the apostles":

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[a] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”"

You need to repent and believe the Word of God.

Andwered twice

C and D

C

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Romans 10 certainly does say sth about successors of apostles.

How could Peter preach or Andrew or James and John and so on?

They were sent by Jesus.

How could Paul preach?

He was sent by Jesus too.

B U T ... how could Titus and Timothy preach? They were sent by Paul - they were not apostles themselves, but successors to one. THEN they were to send others after them.

And so on, which means that up to Doomsday either someone is sent by Jesus, His Apostles, their immediate successors and their successors in turn and so on, or Jesus keeps coming in apparitions like to Paul with new starts. Except Paul himself was not a new start, he was confirmed by apostles and received imposition of hands either from them or from successors of them.

The latter option has two problems apart from Paul not really being a model : Mormons and Charles Taze Russell were as sent by documented successors of apostles as your own "Church" namely not at all, and the other problem is, a new start means somehow the series Jesus-Paul-Titus-successor of Titus-successor of successor of Titus would end before there was any need for a new start.

But such an ending contradicts Matthew 28:20 and specifically the words "all days".

yeoberry

+Hans-Georg Lundahl:
You belong to a false "church" that denies the Word of God for the sake of it's tradition. You don't understand the gospel. If you did, you wouldn't be in an organization that denies it.

You show again that you are incapable of even the simplest Bible interpretation. Romans 10:14-15 says NOTHING about the a so-called apostolic succession. You have to read that tradition into the text in order to make void the gospel that is taught in Romans. It says that a preacher of the gospel needs to be sent. It doesn't say that we know someone is preaching the gospel simply by who sent them. You've totally twisted the passage by inserting a false doctrine into it. We know a preacher has the true gospel by whether it matches what the scriptures teach:

"even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8).

You believe a false gospel because you've not bothered to check the Word of God for what the gospel is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Romans 10:14-15 says NOTHING about the a so-called apostolic succession. You have to read that tradition into the text"

I didn't.

A preacher needs sending. Father sent Jesus. Jesus sent apostles. Apostles (like Paul) sent others (like Timohty and Titus) who then (as Paul instructed Timothy and Titus) sent even others after due preparation.

Who, exactly who is the first preacher who does NOT need a visible sending by someone else after receiving due preparation?

Nowhere, if you notice what verse 15 says. There isn't any. There wasn't any then and cannot be to this day, see Matthew 28:20.

"to make void the gospel that is taught in Romans."

We are not making void any Gospel that is taught in Romans. You are.

You are reading into this or that or other verse on a "Romans' road" a presumed refutation of the Catholic way of getting saved (see for instance John 3:3-5).

You are even doing so by reading your Protestant traditions into certain ones of these verses.

"It says that a preacher of the gospel needs to be sent. It doesn't say that we know someone is preaching the gospel simply by who sent them."

No, we knew that Luther was sent by Jerome Schultz on April 3 1507 and that bishop Jerome Schultz had apostolic succession.

We also know that Luther did not remain a preacher of the Gospel, but he invented his own one.

"We know a preacher has the true gospel by whether it matches what the scriptures teach:"

The Scriptures, or the succession of teachers?

"even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8).

Oh, saint Paul did not say "wrote" but "preached". Guess it is the successor of teachers, unless a divergence from Scriptures is very blatant as in not believing a Young Earth.

"You believe a false gospel because you've not bothered to check the Word of God for what the gospel is."

I spent years of my teens checking, so you lie.

The one who has not bothered checking is you.

D

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Furthermore, you considered Catholicism "self serving".

What is aomin.org then? Here is the contact form:

"By submitting this contact form, you, the sender, acknowledge that any or all of this correspondence becomes the property of Alpha and Omega Ministries and may be used in public. Further, if you, the sender, have any notice of claim of copyright, such claim is nullified by your submission of this form."

So, if I also want to use any or all of this correspondence in public, I can't, since it is AOMin's property?

That is self serving. I suspect they would be less interested than I in publishing all of the correspondence, namely.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I also see you still have no answer on Göbekli Tepe.

You admitted - verbally - that genealogies date man.

Now, the carbon dates for GT are older than any genealogy derived date for man.

Man could be 4000 BC according to Masoretic text or 5199 or 5500 BC according to Septuagint. GT is dated as one tousand years, between 9600 BC and 8600 BC.

You choose:

• 1) do you take GT as built by pre-Adamites? Were they just animals?
  
  
• 2) do you take GT as ill dated, and if that dating method is off, why do you need a creation older than man anyway?
  
  
• 3) or do you not even admit genealogies correctly date man?

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:32 You know, you seem to think that oldness of things is more like a scientifically measurable quality than a historic fact ...

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3:08 I happen to be a Young Earth Creationist myself.

I also happen to have been around a page with Kent Hovind affiliations some. just recently, I get some opposition over being a Catholic.

I happen to think, if you show you have been abused verbally (or someone else has), context is a bit better than just a snapshot usually.

I made an exception lately in French Quora over being called jokingly by implication drug addict, but I also published the apology I got.

Back to this FB group, and my debates on Catholicism, here they are:

HGL's F.B. writings : With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/12/with-ivan-shiek-on-continuity-of-church.html

HGL's F.B. writings : With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/12/with-ivan-shiek-and-glenda-badger-on.html

Doesn't work so good on a video, but you could use such a thing as script for a theatre about the debate, at least with some brushing up like this:

What kind of editing I did ... and what kind of copy-pasting [This blog.]
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2008/11/what-kind-of-editing-i-did-and-what.html

I have used it for some debates, but not exactly (yet) those two.

yeoberry

Hans-Georg Lundahl :

• 1. In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation.
  
  
• 2. Genesis 1:1 reports the creation of the universe and earth at an unspecified time before day one.
  
  
• 3. Genesis 1:2, in three statements, describes first the condition of the earth created in 1:1 and then God's acting on it. Genesis 1:2c describes an action, “was hovering” (מְרַחֶ֖פֶת). This word evokes the image of a hen brooding over her chicks. It suggests nurturing, care, supervision (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:11, Jeremiah 23:9). It suggests movement. It also suggests a process over a period of time. How long a period of time? The passage doesn’t say.
  
  
• 4. The planet is described in 1:2 and thus was created in 1:1. Hence, 1:1 is not simply a summary statement or title. Besides, there is no other statement about the creation of the earth in the rest of the narrative.
  
  
• 5. All this occurs before the days begin with "And God said . . ." (וַיֹּאמֶר) (Genesis 1:3) and the verbs change from the "stage setting" perfect verbs of 1:1-2 to the wayyiqtol verbs of the main narrative in 1:3-2:4.
  
  
• 6. The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified.
  
  
• 7. So there is no way to specify from scripture how old the earth and universe is.

[I substituted above occurrence, since he copy pasted from one same source. The real answer differs by not beginning with an adress to my name.

yeoberry also completely ignored that I was in a friendly way telling Conservative News about a way to really document a debate, rather than just snapshot a highlight from one particular line of the adversary. As he had done on the video.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have forgotten that the time of brooding can be very clearly pinpointed to how many hours maximally, from Exodus 20.

If Light was created corresponding to 6 o'clock Sunday morning, or perhaps even later, 9 o'clock am, nevertheless, the initial creation must have taken place at the earliest on Saturday evening at 6 pm.

Since, the Sabbath Adam and Eve held lasted Friday to Saturday on each evening 6 pm, and since God Himself in Exodus says He created Heaven and Earth and all that is in them in six days, and rested on the seventh.

"The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified."

The text does say so in Exodus. It is not left unspecified for the rest of the Bible.

"In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation."

But we do have this.

Also, @yeoberry - the comment you answered happened to be about simple manners on internet. Not on the issue.

Here is a video, where I actually debate some:

Why Young Earth Creationism Is A Cult - Dr Jason Lisle, Ken Ham
Conservative News | 23.III.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkgAUOXL6mU

The comment which I debated the video owner under seems to have been displaced behind a few others, on the "top of comments" rating. But it is very well visible, so far, if you use "latest on top". Here is how its beginning looks, there are nine responses to it:

4:14 You somehow seem to imagine time can be directly measured after it has already past in objects having passed through that time.

yeoberry

Hans-Georg Lundahl :
You’ve completely ignored the first two verses of the Bible. There we’re told the universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one. Exodus 20:11 is not about the original creation (“bara’”). The text uses a different word, “made” (‘asah), showing it is about making out of preexisting material. Exodus 20:11 is only about the days but the days do not go back to the original creation.

In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God hovers over the waters for an undisclosed amount of time. Day one doesn’t begin until Genesis 1:3, at an unspecified time after the original creation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There we’re told the universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one. Exodus 20:11 is not about the original creation (“bara’”). The text uses a different word, “made” (‘asah), showing it is about making out of preexisting material."

Would figure if there were no precision about "heaven and earth AND all that is in them", and 'asah or make would be a more general term and therefore include if context appropriate bara or create.

"There we’re told the universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one. ... In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God hovers over the waters for an undisclosed amount of time. Day one doesn’t begin until Genesis 1:3, at an unspecified time after the original creation."

We are not specifically told that the time is and remains undisclosed, it is just that the time is not disclosed then and there.

There is no "only the Father" type of "remains undisclosed" about it.

We are told Heaven and Earth is created and that the Spirit hovers over the waters. I have not ignored that information if I have specified that God later disclosed for how long we can imagine up to Genesis 1:3 as being a matter of hours, see Exodus 20.

We can also find it disclosed that the time from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:27 is negligible compared to the time from Genesis 1:1 to Jesus speaking in Mark 10:6.

And if you want to bring up "creation" as perhaps only meaning human such by parallelling "the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation" confer the fact that [Colossians 1:23] continues "that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister."

While Gospel is preached in all mankind, and this is initially specified as "all creation", this "all the creation" is actually a specified subset, namely specified as under heaven (no doubt angels are preaching the Gospel up in the Heavens above too, but not as a hope, since those arriving there have all their hope fulfilled) and of which St Paul is the minister, which he certainly is not so far of crying Holy Holy Holy in God's throne room when speaking or writing those words to Colossians.

In Mark 10:6 we do not find any similar limit on "the creation".

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:29 If you want sth more polite, except if you are Geocentric and on that one - not generally, there is for instance Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com

Their feedback articles are way more polite than what you showed.

[Here yeoberry did get, I was adressing the complaint by Conservative News on being met with less than perfect courtesy by Creationists, rather than posing some particular creationist claim.]