Theology journals

[juliod]

I don't know much about theology. But I do know that there is a field of academic, high-end, serious journals for that subject.

Why don't creationists publish there?

They certainly could. Any evidence that reveals something about god, the creator, or whatever, would certianly be welcome there. Creationism, properly considered, is a sub-field of theology.

So why don't they do it?

My personal suspicion is that the only thing creationists know less about than science is theology. Is suspect that they get an even greater whipping than they do in science when they try to infiltrate theological circles.

DanZ

[Chimp]

Here. Living tissue found in 70 scientific million years old dinosaur.

Soft tissue...not living. In spite of the error...still a remarkable find.

[Jose]

Neanderthals evolve about 250,000 years ago

...

Therefore you contention to be descended from Neanderthals is show, by your own reference, to be impossible!!!

It's an interesting thing, you know. We've been through this before, but the message seems to go bzip! and into the ether. Neanderthal DNA just isn't us. It proves they are a side-branch, the cousins that didn't make it from then until now.

Of course, jcrawford has a valid complaint that we haven't sequenced the DNA of every human living on the planet, so we can't prove conclusively that there are no Neanderthal descendents. We've looked in the right places to find 'em, with no luck, but we haven't checked everyone. If jcrawford is right, he'd be the one to check. A few cheek cells from a Q-tip swab would be enough.

But, we'd probably be told that the PCR technician was incompetent, because they'd keep getting normal, modern-human DNA. It would be said that this is the DNA of the technician. Well, this happens. We'd have to find a technician who has a couple of base pairs that are different, and try again. (In fact, the folks who work with ancient DNA in my building have sequence data from everyone in the building, so they can tell whose DNA contaminated the sample. It's usually the person doing the reactions, of course.) So, with a few polymorphisms to clue us in, we'd be able to conclude, in the end, that jcrawford is a modern human...or that he's not.

But we can't go back as far as dino DNA. The soft tissue was pretty mucky, and had no DNA. It was sort of a bit of organic stuff, but too severely degraded and oxidized to get any information from. And, sadly, the Jurassic Park trick hasn't worked. There's lots of stuff embedded in amber, but not DNA accessible from it. It was a great idea, though.

[steen]

Neanderthal and dinosaur fossils with testable DNA in them are excellent examples of what is meant by 'extraordinary scientific longevity' in the 'living' fossil record.

Well, that is still a "just because I say so" postulation. Now you specifically said that "There is evidence of extraordinary scientific longevity for some bones in the fossil record."

Now, if you know there is evidence, you will be able to at least reference where you saw that evidence. Because it DOES exist, doesn't it? You didn't just make it up and are making false claims, are you?

Here you go. Real old scientific human fossils with unfossilized DNA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4260334.stm

Here. Living tissue found in 70 scientific million years old dinosaur.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

No evidence of longevity, though. So are you saying that you lied when you made the above claim?

[steen]

Well, they are cousins to H. sapiens sapiens (That's us.)

That's what I would say even though Darwinist inter-cousin breeding isn't on my short list of inter-generational recommendations. Let's give steen a big round of applause here for being taxonomically correct about which 'species' my Neanderthal ancestors really do belong to. H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Music to my ears. Welcome to the National Organization of North American Neanderthals, steen!

Perhaps taxonomy is not your strong suit, but at least family relations should be. A COUSIN should not be a mystery to you, should it? Your cousin is not your ancestor unless your family practiced massive, IQ-lowering incest.

So exactly what do you mean with the cousin Neanderthalers being your ancestors?

You're the one who taxonomically classified my Neanderthal ancestors as H. sapiens cousins of yours and I simply agreed with you and applauded your taxonomic skills since most neo-Darwinist professionals now classify my ancestors as H. neanderthalensis, an extinct species.

But YOU are the one who claim that a cousin somehow can be your ancestor. Again, was that per IQ-lowering incest or what?

The Neanderthal 'cousins' I was referring to are Charles Darwin and his cousin-wife, Emma.

Ah, more "just because I say so" silly johnisms.

There is evidence of extraordinary scientific longevity for some bones in the fossil record.

Really? There is? Could you reference this?

Yes. See my last reply several minutes ago.

Well, that reply didn't provide any evidence, nor a reference to the evidence. So should I conclude that you lied when you said there was "evidence"?

Not yet, since I posted a couple of weblinks several minutes ago which offer evidence of extraordinary scientific longevity for some bones in the fossil record. One hundred thousand scientific years for humans and 70 million scientific years for a dinosaur.

That is how long back the fossils were laid down. That doesn't show longevity. You DO know what "longevity" means, don't you? After all, YOU were the one making the claim.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

That's what I would say even though Darwinist inter-cousin breeding isn't on my short list of inter-generational recommendations.

I did want to mention that according to the story Abraham married his sister and both Jacob and Isaac married their cousins.
Your not being very biblical John.

[jcrawford]

Here you go. Real old scientific human fossils with unfossilized DNA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4260334.stm

We all know that DNA samples outlast the being that once had them.

I don't know that nor do I believe that DNA can survive fossilization.

What you have not shown is any evidence that any ancient humans had life spans over 500 years.

Life spans up to 900 years and over are well documented in the Bible from the days of Adam up till Neanderthal Noah's time.

[jcrawford]

Now that we've done with this little "misunderstanding" let's have your evidence for 900 year life spans in Neanderthals.

Descendents of Neanderthal Noah (950 year life span) inherited Neanderthal morphologies for generations until their life spans gradually decreased to less than 200 during Abraham's lifetime.

[jcrawford]

Guess that means your many times great granpa was an ape just like everyone elses

I guess you would just call him a Neanderthal ape. From the reconstruction you posted though, he looks more human than ape-like to me. Probably because he was a recent descendent of Noah.

[jcrawford]

Here. Living tissue found in 70 scientific million years old dinosaur.

Soft tissue...not living. In spite of the error...still a remarkable find.

Remarkable in the fact that "soft tissue" in a 70 million scientific year old dino is laughable. Dead tissue = dead DNA whether in a dinosaur or Neanderthal.

[jcrawford]

Of course, jcrawford has a valid complaint that we haven't sequenced the DNA of every human living on the planet, so we can't prove conclusively that there are no Neanderthal descendents. We've looked in the right places to find 'em, with no luck, but we haven't checked everyone. If jcrawford is right, he'd be the one to check. A few cheek cells from a Q-tip swab would be enough.

Don't bother. I plan to do my own checking since my theory is that Neanderthal morphology gradually gave way to Heidleberg Man's due to the decreased life-spans of Neanderthal Noah's descendent's over several thousand years. DNA tests on early/archaic human fossil remains like Kabwe, Mauer and Boxgrove ought to match up with ours, don't you think?

We'd have to find a technician who has a couple of base pairs that are different, and try again.

Any old commercial lab that will genetically validate Heidleberg Man as a Caucasian ancestor in our family tree for $300 will do.