Pericles,
Sorry for accusing you of sarcasm if that’s not what you were intending. It was a difficult comment for me to interpret.

As for the CNN supported discussion between American evolutionist Bill Nye and Australian creationist Ken Ham, I thought you might know more about than me, as you were the one that brought it to our attention here.

George, I used to think that Darwinism was a British disease, now I see it’s spread to the colonies as well.

Pericles, I think there easily can be found a lot of common ground between folks who believe in God and those who don’t. We share our humanity, we often share citizenship, and we often share workplaces. We’ve often been to the same schools and have been brought up understanding the same history and philosophy of our culture. We can both understand the rules of logic.

Don’t think that people are never persuaded by good arguments. You might not see this happen all the time, as people are stubborn by nature, but it does happen. I know plenty of people in the circles where I mix who were once evolutionists and then were persuaded by the creationist argument. And I’ve also known some who went the other way.

I think what is to be encouraged is intelligent discussion and debate. And that’s what this website is meant to be about. And that’s what the recent public discussion between Nye and Ham was meant to be about. If the SMH believes that such discussion was pointless, I think that reflects more on the biases of the SMH reporter (or editor) than anything else. Why would they say ‘few minds were changed’? Can the people from SMH now read minds? (I find it hard to understand why a newspaper editor or reporter would be scared of open discussion, but such is the state of our newspapers currently.)

(cont. …)

Pericles,
I think Zimmerman is wrong in suggesting that Christianity and scientific thinking don’t play well together. I believe that they are natural friends and not natural enemies, or at least they should be, looking at their shared history. The title of his article, Different Ways of Knowing, seems to be at the heart of some of your concerns. You perceive that Christian believers are quoting the Bible as evidence for something, and quoting scriptures doesn’t sit well for you. But everything has its place in its proper context.

Christian Scripture is a written testimony, and often an eye witness testimony, of something that occurred in a time and place in history. Testimony has a place in our culture and in our shared thinking. Without testimony, written or otherwise, we will often know precious little about historical events. You say you don’t accept certain alleged miracles on the basis of Scripture alone. Yet in this, we have a written, perhaps an eye witness, account. Even for any 21st Century thinking, and especially for a believer, that counts as runs on the board. Why shouldn’t it?

You say you ‘genuinely’ want to know the creationist perspective on Neanderthals. I’m wondering for what purpose. Your mind seems pretty made up that the creationist view is towards the fruit loopy side of legitimate. For the huge interest that you’ve shown in this subject, responding to virtually every post I’ve ever posted on it over many years, I would have thought that by now you might have researched for yourself the basic ideas behind what creationists believe.

But maybe not. So here are the basics. God created two people. All other people are descended from those two. So if Neanderthals were people, and there is quite a bit of evidence (anatomical, paleontological and genetic) suggesting that they were, then they were also descendants of those two original people. As for the anatomical, paleontological and genetic evidence, I am no expert. But to more fully understand the creationist view, I suggest you could find a more detail here: creation.com

Even after all this time, Dan S de Merengue, it is still difficult to pin you down on the views that you hold.

>>For the huge interest that you’ve shown in this subject, responding to virtually every post I’ve ever posted on it over many years...<<

If, during all those years, you had provided just a little more insight into why you are comfortable with the beliefs you hold, my questions to you would undoubtedly be fewer. Instead, you invariably fob them off with...

>>As for the anatomical, paleontological and genetic evidence, I am no expert. But to more fully understand the creationist view, I suggest you could find a more detail here: creation.com<<

You see? You claim not to understand the evidence for evolution, but have chosen to stick to the Bible's view instead. Since you appear to be an intelligent, fully functioning human being, I am quite fascinated by the disconnect between the evidence that we all can see, and the conclusions that you seem to reach.

The best we have ever achieved, you and I, is to agree that the essential prerequisite to your worldview is the Bible. Which, regrettably, enables you to produce the most circular of reasonings.

>>God created two people. All other people are descended from those two. So if Neanderthals were people, and there is quite a bit of evidence (anatomical, paleontological and genetic) suggesting that they were, then they were also descendants of those two original people.<<

Which completely bypasses the question related to your beliefs, which was for you to describe where, in the lineage between Adam and Eve and ourselves, did Neanderthal Man appear, and then disappear?

pericules..we all have circular reasoning..for good reason
the facts begin and end at one point..AS FIRST Put by god himself
when he was asked his name..i am..that i am..[i think WHAT I AM/i talk with those who might know what i am/WITHOUT Needing to explain.

thing is..we know the science THEORY..is just a theory
its NOT A SCIENCE..yet some give it as FACT..AS IF SCIENCE..THE GODLESS CIRCULAR REASONING..BEGINS AND ENDS WITH NO GOD..OTHERS HAVE EQUAL RIGHT TO BEGIN AND END..WHERE THEY CHOSE.[AND UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO EXplain..that they can only answer at the end of their living..when they have tHE LIFE EXPERIENCES/life wisdoms..to deciDE.

Its not important we decide..nor that we explain
its enough..that we try to reply if asked..IN A REPLY..THAT dosnt reply that BIT..not immediately relivANT.

TAKE the young eartH THEORY..SO MUCH..has been put onto 'creatorism'..THAT ISNT ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE..

NO WHERE DOES IT SAY..WE ARE ONLY living out the 7 th godfree day..but it may be infurED..OR THAT THE EASRTH IS FLAT..[IT MAY BE INFURED BY EVERY EYE SHALL SEE]..BUT AGAIN..NO WHERE IS IT IN THE BOOK..THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT.

YET WE GET TESTED..get told then who made god
think..of HOW..we have physical laws..who made the laws
..it didnt need TO create itself..ITS NATURAL LAW..NO SUPER nature needed..[but then it isnt really a law/but by our observation/in space time..it may be infured]..but outer space needs no LAW/just as spirit needs no law.

yet logic dictates this amassing life/living [material being]
iS SO PRECISE THERE MUST BE A LOGICAL CAUSE .process/..fruiting
AND If so facto..where else to look but that by way of a god[a good god]..who's sure sign is light sustaining life INTO LOVE VIA LOGIC

if you push me..you would get there more quickly
but instead you push..for a reply..from OTHER..WHAT REPLY WOULD YOU REPLY..TO HIS REPLY..THAT HIS GUIDANCE COMES FROM THE HOLY TEXTS

if dan says yeS..THEN WHAT?
IF DAN SAYS NO..WHAT THEN..[im prepared to say anything..
just tO HEAR THE NEXT LINE...OF THE REVEALING..MAYBE NO REPLY IS CONGEALING...[YOU GOT A PLAN..so ok..YES]

..NOW WHat?

AS to..THE 'WHEN' DID NEO*AND/HER-TALL/DISAPPEAR
[I THINK THE FLOOD STORY COVERS THAT?]
BUT MORE SO..BY THE BEGINNING.

as to appearance..think it out
SEE GEN 4;12..ie 4=lasT CALL

AS to..WHAT IS EVI-DENCE
,,..<<Crime scene investigators know that,

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong;..it cannot perjure itself; ..it cannot be wholly absent...Only its interpretation can err.”..(Paul Kirk, Crime Investigation)..>>..

http://on.fb.me/1lXucIB

Pericles,
I don't know why you expect me to do your home work for you. If you want to understand creationist views, why don't you research them for yourself? You're obviously at least a bit interested.

I accept the Bible's view of history for what I see are good reasons. I believe the Bible has a lot of runs on the board (in cricket parlance.) You seem to be claiming there's evidence out there contradictory to the Biblical view, evidence "that we all see". I'm obviously not seeing what you're seeing. I'm not sure what you're seeing.

The evidence that I see matches well with the Biblical view of history. Creationists have detailed how the present evidence is consistent with a world flood in ancient times and a subsequent ice age. As I understand it, Neanderthals were probably people associated with the post flood ice age.

By the way, when you said I claim not to understand the evidence for evolution, I have no idea what you're referring to. (You're sometimes trying to put words in my mouth.) Which evidences are you talking about? 

To summarise, to me you appear to be among those who sit back and say you do not and will not believe in God until presented with undeniable and incontrovertible positive evidence. While there's others who sit back and say they do and will believe in God until shown similarly strong evidence to the contrary. Also, you also appear to be saying that the first position is somehow superior to the second. Is that a fair summation?