So what's the consensus here on these things? Abnormalities, normal variation, or are any of these even human?
"Fossil Man"
Gavin Brown
Other urls found in this thread:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com
express.co.uk
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
paranormalpeopleonline.com
twitter.com
Gavin Long
If by human you mean our specific species, then no. They are precursors to us, but the closer they are the more likely they had a moral and spiritual life like us. I'd love to engage one of them in theology.
Christopher Fisher
I just know many prefer to work in absolutes with this. Always man or always animal, with some major misdirection for either position.
I mean we have some anatomical evidence of speech in beings as divergent as this.
William Hernandez
This is obligatory read:
Josiah Jenkins
This feels needlessly complicated tbqh. I personally don't think the exact details of man's spiritual origins can be answered, but I do think we can at least speculate on what specimens we've found thus far could be considered kin to us.
Angel Brown
Man is animal, species and evolution as I know it calls for somewhat a lack of absolute distinction. In the evolving of our species, what do you call the person who was just the slightest step from being human as we know it? What is the limit, where are you going to draw theline? Stuff like that. We still have the DNA of other species in some of us, so there is no absolute.
The spiritual origins of the human are shrouded in ancient history that is only known through concepts like "evolution" "infusion" "imago dei" " fall" and so on. Out of these we came, it's honestly not half as important as the end of all creatures as worshipping God eternally
Joseph Ortiz
To me the biggest marker was advanced tool use, but even that has a gradual development from more rudimentary forms seen in extant apes. As of now, I don't know when such things would've begun, or if they even have a definitive "beginning." I've even considered that perhaps forms like the australopithecines may have some semblance of humanity in them.
Dominic Cox
"""""pre""""-homo sapiens" and humans look similar because of congruent evolution and epigenetics. It's as simple as that, folks-in fact, virtually all observable evidence of evolution is explained by epigenetics, which means that all animal only change within according to their order.
Caleb Ortiz
This documentary shows the spiritual process behind evolution (from a Christian perspective). If the principles are true, then there probably wasn't a definitive beginning beyond life being born
Jose Evans
...
Jacob Green
Baraminology is a meme.
It can't do proper, scientific taxonomy, just vague anecdotes.
Jace Parker
Feel like this could use a slight update, the human evolution portion is so off even by the time it was made. Linearity was always a bad idea with this stuff.
If you've got a better idea, I'm dying to hear it
Colton Price
God did not lie in His inspired word, and humanists are desperate for an explanation of how we got here without God, angry boneposter.
Jayden Ward
The Church allows for evolution, therefore we can safely discard such fundy views of the word. These are literally the most basic objections that have been beat to death a million and one times.
Colton Phillips
Fedoralord detected, opinion discarded.
Thomas Phillips
So you have nothing, and can only resort to insulting me and questioning my character? Good to know
Kevin Gutierrez
I made no insult. I stated a fact. You are a snarky individual.
Ian Bennett
Not really, I just don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm some atheist with a chip on my shoulder about something or other involving God. I was taught to praise Him from a young age, but was also allowed if not encouraged to investigate subjects that I found interesting. I will admit my interest grew primarily when introduced to more traditional ideas about the natural world firsthand, intrigue drove me more than any resentment ever could.
Kayden Wilson
Evolution is absolute bullshit. Even Darwin himself said that his theory would have to be proven by extensive evidence in the fossil record. Still looking for that missing link? Keep looking, it isn't there. If you want a more detailed explanation, see attached.
Adam Butler
Cameron Thomas
let's not forget cases like the paracas skulls as well.
Anyways, my money is on pre-flood hybrids:
Wyatt Hughes
Oh hey what do ya know, we have an explanation that doesn't involve perverting Scripture with pseudoscience. Artificial deformation and birth defects, both happening at a tender age when the skull is malleable.
Xavier Robinson
I believe in the nephilim, or at least the message of the Enochian stories, to not do the sins they did (witchcraft, wamaking, fornication, sinning against animals, eating the blood, etc, etc), this has nothing to do with it. These literally aren't even giants.
Brayden Cox
you realize the paracas skulls have been recently dna tested and they didn't match up with homo sapiens right? and that they don't have the fissures in the same places as humans, nor share the same skull volume as humans, right? Cranial deformations don't affect those things.
Bentley Murphy
Genesis only says there existed giants in those times, not that all the Sons of God/Nephilim were giants, much less the hybrid children born to them. The scriptures say nothing about how those hybrid children would've looked.
Elijah Brown
express.co.uk
Looks like he changed his tune, but still wants to keep up appearances with some other fabricated controversey. I wouldn't be sure with cranial volume, but I think ancient Peruvians have some rather large skulls on their own, especially from the time period these elongated ones are from, so I'm going to call shenanigans on that.
Thomas Jones
Read first Enoch, the hybrids would've at least been big.
Josiah Edwards
So, no actual scientists involved in the "debunking" process here. Yeah, that's reassuring…
"appears" is the key weasel word here, because this article is literally admitting to inserting its own opinionated and distorted interpretation of the facts. Foerster never "changed his tune", because he never said what the article claims he said in the first place. You can cross check his actual videos for yourself:
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
Notice how he never mentions aliens/ufos in any of them, unlike what that piece of tabloid fake news would have you believe. The article also seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a haplogroup is, considering that its basing its entire "debunking" argument/speculation on it. His latest videos on it clearly have him stating what has been his position the entire time, which is that the skulls are "more likely not 'homo sapien sapiens', but rather 'homo sapien paracas'".
Anyways, even IF there wasn't a lot of genetic difference, or a whopping 25% volume difference wasn't a big deal, the fissures in the skulls not matching up with humans, and the spinal column placement not matching up with humans, are a much bigger deal.
Sebastian Ramirez
About as reassuring as him not revealing the identity of the geneticists who conducted these tests.
Why attend a UFO conference then? Seems more like the only reason he doesn't mention it is because he doesn't want to scare any of his followers off.
youtu.be
I'd wonder if these shady genetic tests were conducted under the best conditions. Can't rule out contamination
Michael Rogers
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder because you get angry at the inspired word, and get snappy with any who disagree. I recognize your posts because they always have an angry and condescending tone.
Christian Bennett
He openly cited all the labs involved. If anyone were really determined enough, I'm sure it wouldn't be much trouble to call those labs up to see which of their limited staff of researchers were involved. You're making it sound like he sent the samples to area 51, as if it would be impossible to track down such minutia.
Who the heck cares what he does in his free time? What next, are you going to tell me he has some weird kinky fetish next, as if that would be relevant to anything? The silly article you naively believed, said he attributed the dna results to alien origins, when he demonstrably didn't, and never proposed any scientific hypothesis about those results relating to aliens ever.
So on the one hand he's a ufo nut that panders to other ufo nuts (even going so far as to attend their conferences, oh no!), but yet he's afraid that mentioning aliens will scare off those same ufo nut followers of his? Are ufo chasers inexplicably allergic to aliens now? Talk about mental gymnastics. At least try getting your story straight before posting about it.
which is why it would've been helpful if actual scientists were the ones trying to debunk his work. Until then, we're still left with what we have. But one would think small things like that would've been eliminated just from the sample size and by delegating the analysis to multiple independent labs.
>
Parker Brown
All you did was go on about materialism and such without addressing the specified topic.
You've given no alternative as to what these things are or where they fit into our world. If you give me an alternative, we can discuss it in a civilized manner.
Only to those who wish to preach rather than discuss.
My point was that he seems to promote the more ambiguous claims outright, and could leave the more outlandish concepts for later on. I've seen no reason to call those things anything other than regular humans with some form of deformity, be it natural or artificial. The fact you even consider the possibility that angels, fully spiritual beings, could mate with humans is quite frankly disgusting.
paranormalpeopleonline.com
Xavier Murphy
you assert that so confidently, as if you actually watched any of his videos which I linked here. The real moral of the story here, is that you should stop falling for fake news clickbait articles online that misrepresent everything they're reporting on.
First of all, that's basically already asserted by the definition of a haplogroup (which tracks lineages of mutations). Secondly, what exactly do you think it means to say they're a sub-classification of "homo sapien"? The important part is that they're distinct enough to not be homo sapien sapiens.
You realize that "angel" just means "messenger", right? and that those entities in Genesis aren't referred to as "angels" anyway, and that the bible even says God himself was disgusted at these creatures (hece the flood)? All of this is perfectly scriptural user, if you have a problem with that, it's more likely due to your own biases in interpreting the scriptures. If on the other hand you don't see the scriptures as being relevant at all, then you're on the wrong board my friend.
Colton Cook
Like ones that keep claiming that these clearly human skulls are something else?
Morphology doesn't lie, user. It looks about the same as any other person that's suffered from a cranial deformity of this sort. They are homo sapiens sapiens, not some genetically distinct offshoot, and most ceratinly not the result of some "angel," or whatever you wish to call it, breeding with humans in this one obscure portion of the world.
Jace White
You mean the sources conducting the only research on this subject at all, spearheaded by actual scientists? If anything makes Christians look like a joke, it's wilfully ignoring research like what you're doing right now. I've provided nothing but primary sources with the people on the ground conducting the actual studies. Meanwhile, you keep linking to obscure opinion blogs that have no qualifications whatsoever. Be honest, your problem isn't with the science, it's with the fact that this information isn't mainstream knowledge.
And the morphology shows their fissures, spinal placement, and volume are all highly abnormal for homo sapien sapiens, and couldn't have been produced by mechanical means like head binding. Facts which you keep conveniently ignoring and hand waving away.
And my peach faced lovebird parrot looks almost exactly like a masked lovebird parrot, despite those being totally separate species. The fact that you think you can just lazily eyeball genectic branches like this is ridiculous.
The bible says what it says user. If you belive the bible contains any historical truth to it whatsoever, then it shouldn't be a stretch to imagine that some remnants of those events might still be left behind somewhere. It's also not confined to Peru, as even your trash article stated the relation between the Paracas skulls and skulls from other locations around the world. If you're just skeptical because they haven't been found all over the place, then you're making a lot of assumptions about how well remains can survive intact for that long, not to mention assumptions about what the distribution of peoples was like during those times.
Tyler Baker
You know what, you're absolutely right. I've been such a fool for not listening to one practically amatuer archaeologist who has credentials only vaguely related to his research. As of now I reject all of the scientific intelligentsia and all of their well documented findings, and vow to show the truth of angels breeding with humans to make conehead children all over the world that's only discussed in Youtube videos. You've shown me the light user, your interpretation of the Bible is true and I was blind.
Carson Morales
Drop the Paracas skulls bullshit. Those are post-flood bones anyway.
Levi Wood
Undeniably you've only listened from your teachers talking about outdated creationists sources (which they picked and chose obviously) of the pre-2000's.
Just influencing the genetic expression of IGF-1 can drastically change an animal's physical appearance without changing their genetic structure. This is obvious if you understand and recognize how epigenetics works.
Gabriel Moore
Dear GOD:
Please let me win the $8 million Powerball jackpot on Wednesday (July 3).
I will use the money to set up my own research lab and find the cures for cancer and aging.
I will release the cures into the public domain.
Everyone, no matter how rich or poor will no longer need to suffer!
Childhood cancer will also be history!
Thank you!
- CHAUL JHIN KIM
Please pray for me!!
Isaiah Martin
So how drastic of a "purely morphological" change can be yielded from this? And how does one account for the obvious genetic differences between us and our closest fossil relatives?
Charles Thomas
Does the theory of pre-Adamic humans explain it? LIke maybe there was a species of humans that evolved, and then God created Adam as the first man to be made in God's image? It would seem to gel with Cain's concerns about being murdered out in the world, as well as his taking a wife and founding a city.
Ryan Hill
...
Tyler Reed
Oop, forgot the pic
Cooper Bell
Mfw I'll never engage in theological debates with Elves and Dwarves in the Tolkien-esque antediluvian, pre-Ice Age world when multiple humanoids were still running around.
Noah Bennett
Feel like neanderthals and denisovans would be the only ones that you'd have a decent convo with, classic erectus and the hobbits might get it. Ergaster and habilis could speak, but I doubt anything relating to belief systems would be feasible to them.