• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

God Created Bigfoot

Definitely not a YEC then. That's fine Correa, I doubt it's one of those things that could ever be proven based on the circumstantial evidence I based my little pet theory on.
 
Jodie said:
I don't understand how Zana is any more off topic than Neanderthals? Anyway Correa, I liked your Flintstone analogy, it was quite funny.

I'll look for the study that dates the Neanderthals further back than 30,000 years ago.

I don't know what a YEC is but I'm pretty sure I'm not one. :-)
Click to expand...

Here's a couple for you

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...on-earlier-than-previously-thought118926.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8265228/Neanderthal-extinction-came-earlier

Interestingly, there is even a theory that they became extinct due, in part, to the size of their eyes!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...led-to-their-downfall-says-study-8532539.html
 
smartcooky said:
Here's a couple for you

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...on-earlier-than-previously-thought118926.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8265228/Neanderthal-extinction-came-earlier

Interestingly, there is even a theory that they became extinct due, in part, to the size of their eyes!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...led-to-their-downfall-says-study-8532539.html
Click to expand...

They were obviously wiped out in a fit of jealous rage by all the husbands they had cuckolded.
 
Jodie said:
Definitely not a YEC then. That's fine Correa, I doubt it's one of those things that could ever be proven based on the circumstantial evidence I based my little pet theory on.
Click to expand...

Jodie, that's not exactly a theory...
 
. Hwere are two that I believe a relevant to this debate

jerrywayne said:
I would say Jodie's Neanderthal notion is more like a scenario than a theory. She's right to assume her scenario makes more sense than the aliens/angels stuff that's out there (way, way, out there.)

Here is a scenario that links Neanderthals to satyrs (and so scenario making is so easy): http://karlshuker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/sex-and-single-satyr.html
Click to expand...

There ain't nothing wrong with "what ifs".

I often quote Carl Sagan on this forum. I believe he had many things right about skepticism in many areas of debate, not just space science! There always seems to be a Sagan quote that can be applied to every debate. Here are two that I believe are relevant to this one...

There are many hypotheses in science that are wrong. That's perfectly alright; it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts; rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress them. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.
-COSMOS Episode 4: Heaven & Hell

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones."
- "The Burden of Skepticism" in Skeptical Inquirer Vol. 12, Issue 1 (Fall 1987)
 
smartcooky said:
Here's a couple for you

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...on-earlier-than-previously-thought118926.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8265228/Neanderthal-extinction-came-earlier

Interestingly, there is even a theory that they became extinct due, in part, to the size of their eyes!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...led-to-their-downfall-says-study-8532539.html
Click to expand...

The first two also state that modern human occupation goes back further in the Southern Iberian area than previously thought. It doesn't look like they have used the new ultrafiltration method to redate any of the other Neanderthal bones in other areas. Overall, this would mean everything would need to redated using this new method.

I briefly remember the eye issue being discussed on our little forum. It's not the size of the eyes so much as what it indicates about the brain structure. I alluded to the brain structure differences that their skulls indicated, as far as behavior was concerned, in the clipped section. What the article doesn't mention, but I've read elsewhere, is that most Neanderthals tended to be near sighted. I would say if you can't see a rabbit 20 feet in front of you then it would be hard to hunt when the big game disappeared.
 
Jodie said:
. . . the stories do exist about the Nephilim.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the nephilim as described in those stories have so little in common with Neanderthals that the presumption of a connection is untenable.

Nephilim, descendants of Cain, descendants of Esau: Will the real biblical basis for bigfoot please stand up?
 
No, the translation was not correct, or at least in question, depending on whose opinion you want to recognize. However, I don't think anyone literally thinks the word Nephilim was ever intended to mean a literal giant. Nephilim either comes from the root Aramaic word "naphal" which means fallen, fugutive, or inferior or it comes from "nphyil" which means a bully or a tyrant. Either way, I think it fits.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
No, the translation was not correct, or at least in question, depending on whose opinion you want to recognize. However, I don't think anyone literally thinks the word Nephilim was ever intended to mean a literal giant. Nephilim either comes from the root Aramaic word "naphal" which means fallen, fugutive, or inferior or it comes from "nphyil" which means a bully or a tyrant. Either way, I think it fits.
Click to expand...

Can you see the problem here?

Remember myth interpretation is like a bitch - she'll tell you what you want to hear ("Oh, yes, honey, that's a loooong schloooong! That would be 200 bucks."). You want to see relict hominids. Here's another fantasy: they were nordic-type merchants or nomads. Strong, tall, blonde with blue eyes. Proto-Jew chicks loved them ("Oh, those blue eyes... Its like looking in to Heaven! Those guys are divine!" said Wilma Flintstein) and they fancied the brunettes from the desert. Fred Flintstein arrives home, screams "WILLLLLMAAAAA!", but no one answers, she's gone. Kidnapped by the demigods, he says. " Uhu..." , said Barney Rubbleberg. Same thing must have happened to Betty... So, whose fantasy would be more accurate or more likely?

There's another problem- Before trying to explain something, first make sure the something exists. And the basis, the support for the existence of Nephilim is rather shaky. There's no actual reason to think they existed.
 
Last edited:
There is support for their existence if you think the biblical stories are referring to the Neanderthal. Now many things thought to be mythical in the bible have been proven to have existed? The Hittite Empire, the city of Ur, the Egyptian city Pithom, and Siphrah, who was one of the two the midwives, that prevented the genocide of the Egyptian Hebrew children. I could go on with the number of places and people that were mentioned in the bible that were thought to be myth but actually existed. Don't discount the stories out of hand so quickly.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
There is support for their existence if you think the biblical stories are referring to the Neanderthal.
Click to expand...

So if one believes in something outlandish then one can find support for the belief amid the ancient mythologies of illiterate Middle Eastern herding people?
 
Bigfoot DNA is Humans! It's Humans! Arggh.
 
Last edited:
IMO, the current topic really belongs in our thread titled "God Created Bigfoot" and not here in Bigfoot DNA.
 
Jodie said:
There is support for their existence if you think the biblical stories are referring to the Neanderthal. Now many things thought to be mythical in the bible have been proven to have existed? The Hittite Empire, the city of Ur, the Egyptian city Pithom, and Siphrah, who was one of the two the midwives, that prevented the genocide of the Egyptian Hebrew children. I could go on with the number of places and people that were mentioned in the bible that were thought to be myth but actually existed. Don't discount the stories out of hand so quickly.
Click to expand...

The Bible also contains tales about talking snakes, a guy who lived at a whale's belly, the sun stopping in the sky, a guy walking over the water, a Pharaoh and his army being drowned, pillars of fire moving though the desert, weird beasts with many faces and the list goes on and on... Should I avoid discounting such tall tales too?

But lets assume, for the sake of the argument, there were Nephilin (something I find highly, extremely, unlikely). Now, try debunking my theory Nephelins = Proto Vikings. Can you figure out why it will be a hard task?

Hint- both are just fantasies, built over a myth and completely detached from the original context of the myth; they reflect nothing but our bias, our expectations, ou wishes, our fantasies.
 
Creationism showed its face again on the BFF in the Bigfoot exists/doesn't exist thread. A mod had to step in and remind the crowd that they aren't supposed to discuss religion (God created Bigfoot) outside of the private paid section. I wonder what it looks like inside that place where you are allowed to testify that "evolution is only a theory".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom