How do christians explain the neanderthals and how they constituted a clearly different species from homo sapiens?

Probably, Neanderthals were more muscular than Sapiens, were better adapted to cold climes and had larger brains

Attached: 9d325957d49765ae1c63f2db80d866d8.gif (440x258, 18.65K)

You didn't get my point.

Both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis, different species, can be human, because humanity is something that needn't be constrained to only one species; humanity can consist of several different biological species, like H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis.

H. sapiens would then be just one more species of humans, not anymore special than other species of humans.

Oh….this thread will be GLORIOUS like all the others
[-]

Attached: 1527103891316.png (672x577, 471.21K)

Chimps and bonobos share 99% of DNA with humans, can they become humans as well? If yes at which point?

Attached: 931CFF1D36583B34.png (790x1578, 795.92K)

The traditional, Scholastic definition of a "human" is "any rational (i.e. it has intellect and will) animal". Anything that fits this definition is a human, anything that doesn't isn't.

No matter how similar some animal is to us, as long as it's not rational it's not a human. There are two components in the definition I posted, chimpanzees and bonobos don't fit one of them so by definition they aren't human. Neanderthals, on the other hand, probably do.

Mentally retarded/down people are not humans?

They are, and that's precisely why we consider their lack of rationality a disorder. It's in the essence of a human to be rational, so when someone lacks that, it's a handicap, a defect, a lack of something that by nature of humanity should be there.

How do you know they are without having a genetic definition? The fact that some races are more rational than others would also be a point for racism

(And that's also why we don't consider lack of rationality in a chimpanzee, or a giraffe, or a snail to be a disorder - it's not in the nature of these organisms to be rational like in the case of humans. However, if a giraffe doesn't have a tail or one ear, this is a defect, because it's in the nature if a giraffe to have a tail, two ears, etc.)

Or the first human was the neanderthal and h. sapiens cross-breed… and all the ones without the micro-amount of neanderthal DNA aren't human…

In the same way I know that a person without a right eye is a human with a defect in one of the natural characteristics of humans (said characteristic being having a right eye) rather than non-human.

You either have intellect and will and are rational, or you don't and consequently are not rational. "Rationality" is something that you either have or not, not something that comes in degrees.

...

While I do find his use of wikipedia to be bit laughable, they do often use sources that can be easily tracked if one knows where to look. Researchgate would probably yield more credible info

Reminder that the father of modern taxonomy, a devout Christian, postulated that there were no distinct anatomical differences between man and his fellow primates, and that they were practically the same thing.

Attached: lossy-page1-1200px-Carl_von_Linné,_1707-1778,_botanist,_professor_(Alexander_Roslin)_-_Nationalmuseum_-_15723.tif.jpg (1200x1446, 360.29K)

God created them. How do atheists explain them?

But to answer your question accurately, we must understand what your "Adam" is. That is, what's your baseline for what man is at his core? Is he an artist, a philosopher, a prophet, a hunter, or a worker. Each will give you a drastically different outlook on his place in nature.

Attached: homo2.jpg (414x433 25.62 KB, 39.3K)

millions of years of random gene mutation through breeding

Why do you think this would bother us?

Because more often than not the ones raising hell over it are creationists (young and/or old)

The same way I explain negroes which a clearly a different species from Homo Sapiens considering the numerous biological differences.

Attached: e6a8cb7eb4c3a583f22e2f88976f33530823c670684c35d8c78e1ffe66e8ff0f.gif (720x404, 1.12M)

What's the point in being sapient if it's wasted on trying to make us on equal ground with unaware animals?

Attached: 1528027071110.jpg (983x499, 64.6K)

...

Yep. They were the nephilims

/thread

At the end of the day "species" is a nebulous term used by humanists and progressives, one that I consciously avoid.

I stick to Biblical terms here. You have man and beast, sons of God and abominations, one kind and another kind. Out of kind comes the term kindred, and Scripture is everywhere explicit to tell us that all beasts, birds and fish comprise kinds and that, of all these mentioned, kind brings forth "after his kind." The only exception is that this property is never explicitly stated about "mankind," rather Adam is created immediately after all this was mentioned. You don't see such a statement applied to Man. I believe this was for a good reason. Basically, if man were to instantiate an abomination that was NOT created by God, therefore not a son of God, we could call such a thing a daughter of man, yet such a thing would not be a man itself, being related to a beast. The closest claim to fame it would have is that it has a man for a parent, thus a daughter of man, but in that case would it necessarily be mankind?

I think this is why it was relevant for the Bible to include the statement that Noah was "perfect in his generations," meaning all of his ancestors were sons of God and not abominations. Contrast that to Cain who took a "wife" and went to the land of Nod to corrupt his seed.

Attached: Emma_Watson_Hermione_Granger_HD_Wallpaper-Vvallpaper.Net.png (1600x1000, 2M)

What would even lead one to this conclusion? More importantly, what of other more peculiar forms?

Attached: 83mnpfi18i04wc (1)

Attached: -_-.jpg (425x292, 38.89K)

If the Neanderthals were a different species, a.k.a. a different kind of animal, then we couldn't interbreed.
If it was possible to interbreed with Neanderthals, they were nothings else than another kind of Asian/Negro/Caucasian/whatever and nothing special about it.

That's some top-tier quality bullcrap if I ever read one.
The traditional, scholastic definition of a human is any animal specimen belonging to Homo sapiens.

Triggered.

Why does everyone forget THIS important part? It was solomons personal thought when he had faith crisis. It goes well with book "wisdom of solomon", where same thing is stated BY UNBELEVERS!
We are not "blessed beasts", we are unique creation and I am reporting you for this garbage you are posting.

Human races are ecotypes and clines, you imbecile.

How do stormcucks manage to ruin taxonomy, when it ends up so fuzzy and subjective at times, is beyond me.

OP, this may not directly answer your question, but hopefully it will help explain some things.

Either way we are given status and responsibility above all beasts, but we should not forget where we come from. Humility is key, do not confuse hubris with God's word.

Attached: be471f11005adb614f6e62857e2d8b78.jpg (1600x928, 313.38K)

...

500 years before modern taxonomy? Very doubtful.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism

...

He said that "men are beasts" before posting scripture that clearly distinguishes between the two. Nothing banworthy over, but don't pretend he was right.

No beast is a man, they are exclusive categories. You can only be looking at one or the other. See 1 Corinthians 15:39 as if I even had to give you a reference for that. The entire Bible already reaffirms the separation of man and beast, as plain as day.

In terms of his responsibility and purpose, yes they are separate.

I'd say this begs the question of where one would draw the line between them. The supposed gap between man and beast seems to have been bridged by the fossil record.

Attached: Homo Baramin.jpg (1884x1714, 1.56M)

You again huh? Still posting fossils as if I never got you to admit there must be some level of uncertainty in identification. And every little bone fragment can't be placed into one mathematically proven category with absolute certainty as if we had a living specimen on our hands. Nope, you're still just posting fossils as if they were live specimens.

And that's where stone tools come in handy. They at least show (roughly) the level of cognition these beings are working on. The more sophisticated the technique used the shape these tools, the more intelligent the beings associated with them can be inferred to be.

But of course you're going to act like we will never have a clue what they were like, and that you win by default.

I'm only interested in correctly identifying living beings correctly. If you're looking at the remains of something, what problem does it solve to figure out what it was, and how would you ever verify that categorization scientifically. Well, that is never necessary to do because all they are doing is creating categories, so they fit them by default.

So since they never verify any of these things, all of these "scientific" categorizations are arbitrary. You can define what you want and create whole system that make it look like you know what you are talking about when it comes to bone fragments, but without any concrete proof you are just treading water

So basically you're going to continue saying that man and beast are separate and claim that none of this fossil evidence goes against it because they're dead?

ITT: Same shit, different day. There are multiple threads up for this same subject.
Mods need to get to pruning.

God do I hate these threads. Data wise we don't actually know shit about them, so no point arguing about them until we do. What we do know is the little Neanderthal DNA thats survived into some modern human genomes is found in noncoding DNA regions, or at best gave us a few coding genes that are practically useless. Reason for why its like that should be obvious if you got an elementary grasp of how natural selection works.

That implies that homo sapiens aren't the sons of Cain. Cain was the farmer, Abel was the Shepard. Only Sapiens farm.

There's a simple answer, there are two creation accounts of man. The first being on the 6th day Genesis 1:26 in which they're given a paleolithic diet Genesis 1:29-31 and were charged with filling the earth. Genesis 1:28 The second was the creation of Adam and through him Eve. He was taught farming and other things that will be used to build civilization. The people that Cain is afraid of in Genesis 4:14-15 are the hunter gathers from the first creation account. And it removes the stupid need for incest.

Reminder evolution is just a theory and is neither proved by repeatable experiments nor from a mathematical model.
It's just third grade science, merely built upon clues and hypothesis by observing fossils and similarities between species.

Why do I need to?

WHATTHEACTUALWINNIETHEPOOH?!?!?!

being wrong was a bannable offence now?!
what manner of retardation is this?

Attached: dafuq-jigglin.jpg (200x156, 9.01K)

And what? Devil used bible verse to tempt Jesus. That degenerate filth deserved what he got.

But they weren't done with their discussion! How are we supposed to debate people and change their minds if we just wontonly ban them from speaking? Thats seems counter-productive to the command Love thy neighbor that Jesus relays to us.

Instead of just banning him one vould have rebuked him, as he may have been taking verses out of context. Now christians look cowardly as they can't have productive discourse with people they don't agree with.

So what about negros

Attached: dumb.jpg (530x495, 32.36K)

It's as if you don't know our hafizposting friend and his retarded heresies he spouts on these boards. What is heresy, is heresy and should be banned. Period… And quoting bible verses to support this trash doesn't change the fact. I can use all the quotes from the bible that calls humans "gods" and "children of God" and use it to justify Mormonism.

No, traditional definition of "human" is being descendant of Adam. In fact, "Adam" or "Descendant of Adam" is how humans are called in numerous languages. Everything else, that is characteristic for humans, like being made in image and likeness of God and so on is inherited from Adam.

I think it's quite accurate though that the Father, who is formless, would make us in His image by granting us that gift of reason- that which animals do not have. This is what makes us human. I also believe that the form which we currently hold was the most fitting form He thought to put us in- after He had made it He said "it is good." Granted I am an old earth creationist and I believe it entirely possible that the 7 days God created the world in could have been any number of our years or even minutes as a day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day to Him. By this I also mean that "Let the Earth produce" related to some possible directed evolution and this is how God made our current forms, which were pleasing to him. At some point he decided to breathe the Life of reason into that form and make us truly us- made in his image and unique beings, though we still have this animal shell (until eternity, that is.)
That's my current take on it. It makes sense to me at least because God could have continued on simply existing and being without creating us or anything but he chose to- so it seems reasonable that he could have directed evolution because it was fun. We are made in his image, after all. I hope somewhere in my spewing drivel you get a point out of it.

Attached: thonk.png (2688x2688, 173.26K)

I'm also Old Earth, I just stated that his definition of "human" is wrong according to Christian perspective. We dont know at the end what "makes human". well, we do, its being made in Image and likeness of God that is an unique human trait, but the meaning of it is not really defined in the scripture, so it was always shrouded with mystery. Yes, rationalism IS part of that, but there are more to it, such as free will, dominance and so on. Only thing we know about it that we inherited it from Adam. Now if God formed Adam from literal dirt or already developed specie (I think that St. Theophan the Recluse had such opinion) doesnt really matter to me, but at the end we are descendants of Adam and through him, we inherited Image and likeness of God.
Or perhaps I didnt really understood what you said and just posted a wrong thing…

No, no, that makes sense to me though I am a prot no relation to VITAMIN K
I still have to wonder though, shitposting about negroids aside, how much human are they? I have videos on another hard drive of them simply delighting in evil deeds and it disgusts me. I've grown up with them and many times they act just like animals, in both smell and behavior. I don't want to say salvation is denied to them, but I also find them physically revolting. Is their animal simply too strong for their will or is their will too weak for their animal? I say this in contrast to whites, asians, and pre-islamic arabs who contributed greatly to math before islam had them inbreeding themselves into a genetic stupor.

I said it was not banworthy, dude. I've been banned for posting Bible verses also and it's wrong, but that doesn't put me on the same team with that guy. Plus he said in his own words that men are beasts. It's not like his post was pure Bible (mine that got banned were).

bump for further consideration of this interesting post and the potential for discussion to be borne from it

no it isnt. Every human is descendant of Adam. And stop bumping dead and retarded threads

(OP)

Neanderthals were the first men, the Adomic Bloodline, a fair race of strong tall intelligent people being very zealous and blonde, these were created 700 000 years ago by God with Adam & Eve

Going on let us continue

The Negroe race came from a racemix between Eve & Satan, It is said in the bible that Satan beguiled Eve ( Seduced ) This created Cain, the allfather to the Black race, God cursed Cain and sent him away for killing his brother, The Curse or the Racemix might have given him black skin, but the key note here is that When afraid of being driven exile he proclaims to God, that OTHER PEOPLE will kill him, hinting at the humanoid races of the earth, these humanoids like Erectus and Homo Sapiens had no Souls.

Cain went on and race mixed with these And created the black race, Adding to them a soul from the Adomic race.

The Case of the ASIAN races is a tale of Neanderthal Adomic bloodline race mixing with the Denisovan once, and the australiopiclus (Not all) Creating them,

When it comes to the WHITE RACE It's a different tale, Now today there are very few racially pure Whites with an Unbroken Adomic bloodline Just like Jesus, but you can tell these people by their Blonde hair, Neanderthal skull, Being tall, Intelligent and Brave, They are typically found these days in Scandinavia due to the more civilised places of the world like southern Europe allways had a large influx of people race mixing. This is where Brown hair comes from, & Red hair comes from Nephilim maitings, including the RH Negative bloodline, There are races on earth like the Askenazi jews that have alot of Nephilim blood, you can tell these people like Jacob Rothchild for having a Tall head'

More info here boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/176165466/are-the-rothschilds-aliens

/// Thread

Attached: 50be02f714c6a557adf271252e61f6cd.png (600x400 769.97 KB, 51.37K)

The same way tiggers do

I miss seeing posts like these on Zig Forums. The internet has become pussified lately.

...

White Sumeria isn't even controversial.

Don't false flag.

I made a thread on Zig Forumsabout this come &Join
boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/176445874

The line of Negroid races is well-documented in the Bible, they are descendants of Ham who migrated south of the Sahara. Your post is brainlet-tier.
Man I hate Mormons.

Attached: Generations of Ham.gif (1024x1058, 93.7K)

No this post is brainlet tier, i am older than you i think i know this beter

When the people referred to themselves as the "Unsagiga" ("black haired") then it essentially torpedoes the "muh ancient aryan" crap.

Classic evolutionist fallacy of engaging with data with all his a priori naturalist biases. You have come to your conclusion simply because you had already PRESUPPOSED that such a fusion must have occurred, and so such a similarity must mean such a 'fusion' happened. This does not follow.

When you point out this mistake, evolutionists will inevitably bombard you with more 'evidence' ('muh chimps!'), not realizing that it is their presupposition of naturalism and evolutionary theory that fills in the blanks when they observe natural phenomena.

Lol, isn't this what mormons believe, that darker skinned races are "cursed" by God?

Intense heresy