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?