"hmmmmm...that explains a lot"
Posted on 09/30/2012 5:19:02 AM PDT by Renfield
Neanderthals may have lived side by side with early humans and possibly interbred with them, according to new research.
Stone axes and sharp flint arrowheads of both branches of the human race have been discovered in limestone caves in northern Israel.
The findings, reported in the Times, have led archeologists to believe the two sub-species found harmony in a coastal mountain range that today is in a state of war with its neighbours...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Ping
Some things never change.
But there's tons of Grant Money always available and "inventing questions" is how you get it.
Looks like someone has been reading “Clan of the Cave Bear”.
The Genesis account suggests before Noah’s Flood, that the Sons of God were marrying the daughters of men. Gensis 6 verse 2.....maybe these so called findings will give more understanding to this pasage.
The Genesis account suggests before Noah’s Flood, that the Sons of God were marrying the daughters of men. Gensis 6 verse 2.....maybe these so called findings will give more understanding to this pasage.
I disagree.
I view this passage in the same way that I see Christians marrying non-Christians, for the same various reasons that people marry.
Marrying a non-Christian compromises one’s ability to practice their faith freely, without compromises. It draws away people from their faith and, quite often, the children of mixed unions become non-believers.
Har. You gotta see this. Ah. Sweet vindication. Again.
I believe it, we see an example residing in the Whitehouse.
What were Progressive liberals doing there back then?
That is exactly how free trade got started, one culture knew how to make arrows to hunt with and went on hunts to kill meat.
The other culture knew how to make axes and chop wood so they started trading those things and they got by real good until a socialist came along and set up a college and started teaching that what they were doing was all wrong.
Now both of them are extinct.
The Genesis account suggests before Noah’s Flood, that the Sons of God were marrying the daughters of men.
Riiiight.
Because it’s so fun and easy to interbreed species.
Neanderthal were either people or critters, not some half n half thing.
I knew I was right
Waiting for Helen Thomas picture in 3-2-1....
"hmmmmm...that explains a lot"
I disagree.
I view this passage in the same way that I see Christians marrying non-Christians, for the same various reasons that people marry.
I’m convinced our high school football coach was part Neanderthal...
Neanderthals are human and always were, just as cro-magnon was human and fully human, too.
Sons of men were not followers of God. To me, the meaning seems clear. In a nutshell, God followers married nonbelievers.
It happens today and it’s that simple. Why is it necessarily so hard that it was that simple back then too?
Pretty women can get any man to turn his head, even dangerous women and many women will put up with bad men, provided that he is well off.
My favorite grant money is the flow of ketchup study.
"The new investigation also finds that Asians and South Americans possess more Neandertal genes than Europeans do"
This the welfare system for bad theory lazy scientists.
Or would that be the "live neanderthal found" thread?
I see a lot of that in the inner city.
Insert Tab A in Slot B.
But the reality is we were probably locked in a death-embrace as each species tried to kill the other.
When you see one representation of how Neanderthal might have looked, something in your deepest genetic material shrieks, "RUN OR KILL IT!!!"
Absolutely not, you need to read the book of Enoch. That were the meaning is.
They were both stuck in the cave [bomb shelter] together because it was raining hamas rockets outside.
Good point, I was taught in biology long ago that only members of the same species can produce fertile offspring. Two species may be able to produce offspring called hybrids but there is no third generation, the mule is the classic example, there are stories of mules giving birth to live offspring but if it happened there apparently was never a fourth generation. To say that Neanderthals passed down genes to the present day is to say that Neanderthals did not “interbreed with modern humans” it is to say that Neanderthals WERE modern humans, otherwise the offspring would have been infertile hybrids and no genes would have been passed down to the present. Nobody seems to have any desire to get the story straight these days.
Sons of men were not followers of God. To me, the meaning seems clear. In a nutshell, God followers married nonbelievers.
It happens today and it’s that simple. Why is it necessarily so hard that it was that simple back then too?
Pretty women can get any man to turn his head, even dangerous women and many women will put up with bad men, provided that he is well off.
The bible says nothing about sons of men in this particular scripture, it said the sons of God married unto the daughters of men.
You are right, pretty women can turn the heads of even godly men.
At any rate i still don,t get what your disagreement is.
The unibrows are still with us.
what a cute little boy being what little boys always wanted to be..a pirate or cowboy
probably wondering “where is my daddy or why do i look so different”
sad for him as a toddler or little kid
and all that is what created him
diversity does indeed bear strange fruit
and we are dealing with it
that pic of him with his momma tells you all you need to know with why he views the world as he does
That the interpretation of sons of men were Neantherdals. That I dont agree with.
Sons of men were not followers of God. To me, the meaning seems clear. In a nutshell, God followers married nonbelievers.
In gen it describes the creation where God makes every thing prior to the day he rested on the seventh day, every thing includes men and women.
These were the generations, which could mean that each day may have been thousands of years
It was after this that God made Adam, although he had already made man and woman there was still no one to till the earth because they did not know how.
Two creations, the first creation is where the daughters of men came from, the second creation, Adam and eve is where the sons of God came from.
That is why the scientists have not been able to find the so called missing link, because there is none.
The above is just my theory as the Bible does not tell us every thing and even if it did would we be any more apt to believe it? i think not.
That the interpretation of sons of men were Neantherdals. That I dont agree with.
Apparently they’ve found Mohammed’s ancestors...
There has been some suggestion that further South down the coast in the Philistine area, that Goliath of Gath lived in a small tribe of giants among the Philistines.
“Giant” is kind of relative, because at the time (5,000 to 3,000 B.C.) Homo Sapiens were of an average height of three and a half to four and a half feet tall, mostly because of pervasive malnutrition.
The latest known Neanderthal, dated from about 30,000 B.C. in Europe, averaged five and a half feet tall.
It is not hard to imagine that because of their size, and possibly better hunting skills, Neanderthal had grown considerably larger.
And there is another factor. Egypt was an almost unique empire because it had one huge growing season a year, following the annual flood of the Nile river. This meant that when the crops were brought in, the Egyptians had to store a years worth of food, and in this case, sell a lot of food to the Philistines. This meant that unlike the Hebrews, who frequently had food problems, the Philistines generally had an abundance of food.
Something that large, hungry giants would be very attracted to.
However, despite suggestions that they might have interbred with the Neanderthals, recent DNA evidence suggests that this was unlikely, as they were genetically too far apart.
And if Homo Sapiens is known for anything, it is prolific breeding.
They had the interbred back then? Wow! Sitting in their caves sending e-mails to each other.
Marrying a non-Christian compromises one’s ability to practice their faith freely, without compromises. It draws away people from their faith and, quite often, the children of mixed unions become non-believers.
Does that include Protestants marrying Catholics, or Catholics marrying Protestants?
I'm quite serious.
Careful, Laz, your agenda's showing. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.