Whether these entities were related by procreation is purely speculative.
Creation could account for what you are grasping at straws to prove."
First -- of course Creation can account for anything & everything, but by definition, Creation is not science.
Creation should be taught appropriately in houses of worship, or dedicated religious study classes, not science.
Second, you obviously know nothing about DNA analysis.
Do you comprehend that DNA is used to "prove" paternity in courts of law?
That is not, in your words, "grasping at straws", rather it's as close to certainty as science can get.
By those same process types, analysis can establish how much "Neanderthal DNA" some humans may carry.
The answer turns out to be: none for Africans, but non-Africans carry from 2% to 4% Neanderthal DNA (roughly equivalent to one great-great-great grandparent), clearly suggesting a small amount of ancient interbreeding.
Similar amounts of Denisovan DNA are found among Melanesians and Australian Aborigines.
These are observed & confirmed facts, not "grasping at straws", pal.
DoughtyOne: "Let me guess.
This is not an example of mocking.
And since God's word does provide the account of creaton of manin His image by the hand of God, who is it that you would be mocking?
Oh that's right."
No, seriously, you are totally 100% entitled to believe whatever you wish, provided you don't call such beliefs "science", because by definition of the word "science" your religious beliefs cannot be science.
So I am mocking neither you nor God, simply stating the facts.
My religious belief is that God used evolution as one of His tools to create mankind in his image.
DoughtyOne: "Because science is your only one true God.
Yes, I know.
So anything that buttresses the concept of creation, is now hereby declared to be unscientific by none other than you."
Now look who is ridiculously "grasping at straws".
By definition of the word, "science" cannot be God because science is only concerned with the natural, material realm, while God is First and Foremost, Ruler of the spiritual realm.
Before there even was a natural realm (a Universe), God was Ruler of Heaven.
By stark contrast, science rules nothing, it merely explains, as best it can given it's basic assumptions, the natural realm of God's creation.
FRiend, the theological reason why God is not science is that God is spiritual, not material, while science is material, not spiritual -- the two don't mix.
God created and rules the material realm, but He is not it, and it is not Him.
So it's really not that difficult, if you try, you can grasp it.
DoughtyOne speaking of "settled science": "Well that's certainly not irrelevent to you, when it comes to creation science.
You dismiss it out of hand.
And this provides no small amount of pride to you."
Creation "science" cannot, by definition be real science, since it introduces a supernatural explanation for the natural realm.
Natural-sciences, as a matter of working assumptions, exclude such possibilities.
Of course, those are not my definitions, though I certainly agree with them.
As for your accusation of "pride", there's no "pride" here, just the facts, sir.
DoughtyOne still speaking of "settled science": "Oh yes, the high priests of Science have spoken.
All bow on bended knee.
Nevermind what they can't prove, just keep those science classes with evolution going strong."
Spoken like a true Alinskyite -- personalized, distorted, mocking & derisive.
I'll repeat, natural-science is what it is, it does not "prove", it confirms, and is always subject to falsifying data or experiments.
The bottom-line larger value of science is not that it provides some spiritual certainty or comfort, but rather that science works -- it keeps our machines & factories running, creating "smart" gadgets and ideas which make sense.
DoughtyOne: "Since there is no settled science on the subject of Evolution as the origion of the human species, it stands right there with creation as one explanation for life as we know it."
In actual fact, the science on evolution is largely "settled", since your personal opinions and religious beliefs on the subject are irrelevant to science.
Of course, your notions of "creation" are "one explanation for life as we know it," but they are in no way a scientific explanation, and they cannot possibly be, as I've explained above.
DoughtyOne: "Science does not prove what you are peddling."
I'll repeat: science does not "prove" anything, it only confirms hypotheses, making them theories pending some future falsification by new data or experiments.
That's not just evolution science, that's all of science.
Of course, you have every right to reject scientific findings, but not to claim that your own religious opinions are somehow "scientific".
DoughtyOne: "You have no proof how life spontaneously came forth. Strike one."
There are many questions which science cannot answer, indeed doubtless more questions than it can answer, so the origin of life question is just one of many.
But that does not make all other scientific theories invalid!
DoughtyOne: "You have no continual examples of man along the supposed evolutionary trail... Strike two."
But the word "mankind" is defined by scientists as meaning: biologically indistinguishable from today's humans in physical form and DNA.
The first remains said to be fully biologically modern appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago.
At the time there were several other species and sub-species of pre-human creatures on earth.
Some of those pre-human populations could have been human ancestors, others doubtless were not.
Regardless, DNA analysis tells us that some of those early humans did interbreed with other populations, and some of us carry their DNA today.
Here again is that photo of pre-human to human skulls:
DoughtyOne: "And a leap of faith has to take place, for you to buy in. Strike three.
And then you announce that it's settled science."
Science requires no "leap of faith", because science does not deal in "faith", but rather in informed hypotheses, confirmed facts and theories.
There's no "belief" in it, rather it's a matter of accepting or rejecting the latest findings, pending some future improvements.
A particular theory can become "settled" (or "unsettled") based on the continuing efforts of other scientists to falsify it.
Your personal opinions and religious beliefs are irrelevant to science.
DoughtyOne: "As I do this, I don't do it without noticing what you are doing.
You try to dismiss the other person's point, by calling them distortions and mockery, when your theories are repleat with real distortions and mockery."
But your posts here are, almost without exception, distortions, mockery and derision of science, as well as my efforts to explain it.
That you can't even see the difference between such polemics and actual science tells us all how far away from reality you are.
By contrast, I've "mocked" nothing, only reported factually on your own misunderstandings.
DoughtyOne: "Science has not proven evolution to be the origion of the human species.
It's a theory.
Evolutionists try to sell their beliefs based on science, but at the end of the day, they are theories and that's all they are."
Do you not see how close you are to the truth here, and yet you refuse, completely, to say it: evolution is a scientific theory, period.
That's all it's ever been and all it will ever be, the same as many other scientific theories.
But that's enough -- they are science and should be taught in appropriate science classes.
By stark contrast, your Creation ideas are not science, never were and never will be -- until the spiritual realm is made manifest in the natural world, for all to see, record and study, as if it were Itself natural.
So, your Creation ideas are 100% appropriate in classes on religion and places of worship.
DoughtyOne: "So you come here and demand that science be the only true gage of what is true or not."
I said nothing of the sort.
I merely distinguished between the natural and super-natural realms, calling science the appropriate tool to understand the natural, and your religion an appropriate response to God's Creative actions.
I'm merely saying: don't teach religion in science classes and don't teach natural-science in your worship services.
DoughtyOne: " Then you support the teaching of evolution as the origin of the species, which is not scientifically provable at all.
Not without a shadow of a doubt you can't.
And if there is one, you've got a massive problem on your hands.
And so, you do."
I'll say it again: science is not about metaphysical certitude.
There are doubts, unknowns and probabilities in every aspect of science, not just evolution.
But science does claim one thing: it works.
No theory is ever "proved", but every theory can be, and has been, confirmed to work.
That, and that alone, is the great claim of science to validity -- not "proof".
So doubt is not, in your words, "a massive problem", but rather doubt is at the heart of, indeed is a chief driver of the scientific enterprise.
Scientists love doubt, because that is what peeks their curiousity, and drives their efforts.
Do you not "get" that?
DoughtyOne: "And yet evolution takes Divinity and Humanity out of it.
We are not the sons of God, created in His immage."
I don't see why you can't grasp such a simple concept.
Just consider any human manufacturing process -- it first begins with marketing and engineering concepts/drawings of the finished product, but production itself starts with the simplest, most basic raw materials, often forms of dirt, "dust of the ground" which is filtered, sifted, sorted, melted, poured into molds of a rough image.
Next it is machined, polished, dipped, painted and assembled with many other parts... Don't you "get" it?
That "dust of the ground" which ends up as a shiny new automobile, is valued based on it's end state (automobile), not it's beginning condition (dirt).
And so with God's creation of human beings: if we started out billions of years ago as amoebas, it's only because that's the way God intended it.
So how can that conceivably be a problem for you?
DoughtyOne: "We are the sons of an amoeba all the way up to ape-like creatures and beyond, because God couldn't possibly have created us as Genesis states."
Ludicrous! Genesis 2:7 specifically says: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground..."
Evolution tells us precisely that, and my analogy with a human automobile is precisely accurate -- so what is your problem?
DoughtyOne: "There goes God the Father, Jesus His Son, the Holy Spirit, Satan and his angels, the Test of Man in the Garden, the reason for Jesus to die for us, all right out of the process in every meaningful way connected to Christianity."
Rubbish. All of those can be deeply understood in their biblically-literal, literary, historical, metaphorical and even scientific senses.
It diminishes none of those, indeed it highly enriches them, to comprehend the other understandings.
Regardless of which lens you look through, Genesis accurately describes our human condition in relation to the Creator and sustainer of the Universe, of us, and of our infinitesimally small place in it.
DoughtyOne: "I understand a lot more here than you think I do.
It's just that you are dismissive of anyone who isn't bowing at the alter of the religion of science."
The real truth of this matter is that you have no interest -- zero, zip, nada -- in actual understanding.
Your only real interest is in enough understanding to make your distortions, mocking and derisions sound half-way plausible.
DoughtyOne speaking of Origin of Life hypotheses: "Speculation?
So speculation is now the scientific hurdle to be taught exclusively in our nation's schools."
If Origin of Life ideas are to be taught in government-schools at all (and I'm not certain if they ever are), they can only taught as unconfirmed hypotheses, mere scientific speculations.
Non-scientific speculations should not be taught in science classes, but should be taught appropriately in places of worship.
DoughtyOne: "And to me, there is no other truth than God's word.
I am a Christian.
I am not a member of the religion of science."
Science is not a religion, among other reasons because it make no claims on "the truth".
The Truth is vastly bigger than science.
Instead, science is first and foremost concerned with the facts about nature, and with confirmed explanations (theories) of how the natural world works.
Yes, science is, in a sense, a brotherhood, but there are many brotherhoods which have nothing to do with religions, and science is one such.
DoughtyOne: "So the schools are your temples, and Christian's temples are exactly what they claim to be."
More distortion, mocking and derision, not serious.
The truth is: government-schools are kept more-or-less free of official religions for the same reasons the rest of government is: the US Constitution forbids government established religion.
DoughtyOne: "Is this your way of claiming abstention due to you're refusal to acknowledge your membership in the religion of science."
Again: distortion, mocking and derision.
No serious discussion to be found.
DoughtyOne: "None the less, he assures me it is reasoned to preach his ideology in our schools, but can't see any reason to preach mine there."
You can teach your religion in religion classes and places of worship, but not in government-school science classes.
It's that simple.
DoughtyOne: "And sence what is being taught in our schools today can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then you have no right to be presenting what you are there to the exclusion of anything else.
And claiming science has anything to do with it, sans proof, you have a massive double-standard on your hands.."
First, no "double standard" at all, either "massive" or minute.
Rather, just one standard: does it qualify as natural-science or not?
Your religion is not, and therefore cannot be taught in science classes, but can be taught in religion classes and places of worship.
Second, I'll repeat: all science, without exception comes with some level of doubt, uncertainties, probabilities and unanswered questions -- so teaching science is not all about teaching certainties, it's about what we do know as well as what we don't.
But science is 100% consistent in insisting on its methodological naturalism: only natural explanations for natural processes can qualify as legitimate science.
DoughtyOne: "And your theory is not scientific either.
It's a belief derived from faith in the religion of science.
You cannot prove what they are teaching."
But those are lies or nonsense, about which you've now been instructed repeatedly, indeed ad nauseum.
So you have no excuse for telling them, none.
But knowing the truth, you continue to lie about it, and I don't think that's good for your soul, FRiend.
DoughtyOne: " If creation did take place, your science goes right out the window.
So far, you are only able to grasp the Christian religion's theory going out the window, you are so blinded to reality."
I'll repeat: Creation certainly did take place, and science merely describes some of the tools God used to make it happen.
Genesis 1 clearly says that Creation did not happen all at once, magically, but rather that God worked hard, for "days" to create, make and place various objects in the Universe.
At the end of each day He reviewed his hard work, found it good and blessed it.
So God was not only the "imaginer", but also the chief construction engineer, and quality control engineer.
Theologically speaking, as the Spiritual Power of Good, God controls the material realm, but He is not of it and He is not it.
Do you grasp all that?
DoughtyOne: "You call others dishonest. You call other liars."
Only because you have been dishonest and lied in several respects, FRiend. You need to stop that.
DoughtyOne: "You claim science is the true measuring stick.
It never dawns on your it has become your god.
You measure beliefs by scientific methods only."
No, you still misunderstand.
Of course science is the "measuring stick" -- but only of science.
Your religion is the measuring stick -- of your religion.
But science does not measure your religion, and your religion should not waste its time trying to measure science -- nothing good comes of that.
It should be fully adequate to respond that whatever science discovers (confirms, not "proves") is the way God created it, and intends the natural world to be.
Why is that so hard?
DoughtyOne: "God's word means nothing. You believe in science over God's word.
You have no faith in God, but a rock solid faith in science."
First of all, science is all about varying degrees of doubt, not faith.
Second, your accusations regarding my alleged lack of faith in God are utterly false, like most everything else you post.
Obviously, I understand God's Word somewhat differently than you do (though not so different as you suppose), and I think my views more carefully thought out and accurate than yours.
DoughtyOne: "You do not want other poeple's regligious dogma taught in our schools.
If it's the religion of scientific's dogma which ultimately can only be deemed right if you have massive faith in it, you think that's reasoned."
Lies and more lies!
First, I do want religious doctrines taught in places of worship and even government-schools, in religion classes.
But science classes should be, and so far have been, reserved for those subjects which qualify as genuine natural-science.
That certainly does not include anybody's religions beliefs.
DoughtyOne: "Yes, and of course leave the Evolution-centric temples alone, to conform to Satan's plan."
If you fantasize the study of science is "Satan's plan", then you are part of a very small minority of Christians who hold such views.
They are mistaken, imho.