My question is, will Kirk Cameron play a Nephilim in the movie? Will he then have a near-death experience, change his perspective, and go on to help build the ark?
4 Likes
Wouldnāt that be a Nephil?
1 Like
Read my post again:
āYour proposal is eliminated by the fact that all portions of the human genome are similar to chimps and other apes. The type of hybridization you are talking about would produce portions of the human genome that are like chimps and others that are not.ā
1 Like
For your proposal to work, all of the DNA from the Nephilim would now be gone from the human genome. We would be all beast DNA.
Hum, probably should be Nephil. I see the last scene in the movie with Kirk looking up with a faint smile of satisfaction as rain drips from his face and the ark door closes.
1 Like
Find a single I.D. supporter who thinks your idea has any merit at all ā¦ enough that they are willing to study it.
Evolutionists donāt need to study it because your idea doesnāt make the first cut, which is the timing of this cross-breeding is immediately seen as not consistent with the genetic evidence.
I donāt think even you have thought through the repercussions:
Your scenario says all of this happened within 6000 years ago.
But Evolutionists can see genetic trends in our population that go back millions of years within the Mammalian branch of life, as well as specifically within the Primate branch.
Not only is your proposal not a better explanation for how to interpret this genetic data, your proposal isnāt even close to fitting the data.
Conversely, your position doesnāt have any support within the Bible because the Bible doesnāt allow for the Human ākindā to cross-breed with non-divine, non-humans. You would have to argue that non-human primates came out of the tortured results of Angel/Human cross-breeding.
Are you willing to amend your proposal to follow this possibility?
Maybe a neutrophil?
And itās not scientific either.
Honestly, @r_speir, I am now not sure if you are serious or not. My initial comment was based on an assumption that your proposal was purposefully inflammatory and not serious, but now I wonder if Poeās law is in effect here.
1 Like
@Paul_Nelson is kindly ensuring I get a review copy of this book. I look forward to reading it with anticipation.
I notice that āTheistic Evolutionā in this book, seems to be a particular brand of TE / EC. I say this because they choose to includes the theistic evolutionist Michael Behe as an endorser, writing:
Theistic evolution means different things to different people. This book carefully identifies,
and thoroughly debunks, an insidious, all-too-commonly accepted sense of the phrase
and also even go to define what has gone wrong with TE in this iteration. One of the final chapters is titledā¦
Additional Note: B. B. Warfield Did Not Endorse Theistic Evolution as It Is Understood Today
Iām curious to read this book to understand what exactly they think the problem is, and if it can be reconciled. If the issue is just that they do not like the type of TE they see currently, perhaps they could grow a new type that they theologically find acceptable, but still affirms evolutionary science. Perhaps the conflict here is just a theological fight being imported into science (not just by them, to be clear, but many of us).
A post was split to a new topic: What brand of TE does the new Theistic Evolution book object to?
In reading articles over at ENV it would seem that they are against the idea that humans are the product of natural processes. More to the point, they reject the idea that Godās plan can be enacted through natural processes instead of through actions outside of natural processes. For example, this snippet from a recent ENV article:
"Coded information of this kind is a profound problem for theistic or atheistic evolution (quick, whatās the scientific difference between the two?). "
They like to give the impression that theistic evolutionists are promoting atheism, and that seems to extend to EC and BioLogos. Unless someone believes that God has to directly interact with creation outside of natural laws they will view you as being no different than atheists. It makes you wonder what they think about atheistic plate tectonics or atheistic germ theory.
And all of this is before we get to their theological stance which requires a more literal reading of Genesis than most people are comfortable with.
1 Like
Looks like this is continuing hereā¦
Post deleted
It might be worth mentioning that genetics doesnāt work like mixing Hersheyās Chocolate Syrup into milk. Genes stay intact and donāt mix with the genes on the other chromosome. A review of Mendelian genetics would do you some good.
For example, letās look at gene A. Gene A from the apes and Gene A from the Nephelim or whomever are only 70% similar. The two crossbreed. The offspring would have one allele of Gene A that is 70% similar to chimps and one allele that is 100% identical to chimps. Descendants of this crossbreeding would have some alleles that are 70% similar to chimps and some that are nearly 100% identical to chimps. This is not what we see in humans. All alleles are about the same distance away from chimps, about 99% similar. This rules out your scenario.
5 Likes
Well, one of the things you will have to examine is how the heck any human male would get close enough to a gorilla or chimpanzee female to crossbreed without being killed first. These primates are intrinsically much more powerful than humansā¦ even more powerful than human males.
Then there is the conflicting behavior patterns. Unlike what can be found in human mating, it is virtually impossible for a non-human primate female to be compelled to mate. While theoretically non-human primate males have the strength, it would require a very different learned approach to females. In the wilds, female primates just sit down and thatās the end of the day for the male.
Thereās no extended threats, or negotiations to prolong the discussions. And there is no way to communicate that āif she does or doesnāt do something, drastic measures are inevitableā.
So letās anticipate a possible refutation: male human with female non-human. She sits down, and he starts to explain what she has to do if she knows what is in her best interests. What language would the male human use that the female would understand?
And if a rape is attempted human style, it is well within the female chimp or gorillaās behavioral catalog for violence to kill the human right there.
While it is feasible, I suppose, in some sick or deluded way, to imagine that humans could capture female primates and cage them, I think you will find plenty of anecdotal evidence that there was no systematic way for humans to safely enter a cage with a primate of any size. Until the advent of the tranquilizer gun, the idea of surviving āa dateā with a female gorilla seems most unlikely.
Letās reverse the question: Male gorillaās capturing female humansā¦ and then what? There would be no grim recital of pre-rape threatsā¦ Because non-human primates are not the best conversationalists.
Female resistance would be answered with a simple primate response of breaking an arm or smashing a skull. But in a population where pheromones are the principle methods of foreplay, why would a non-human primate find humans at all interesting? From their viewpoint, humans are just soooooooo hairlessā¦ gruesomely so! And without the right pheromone, could a non-human primate male even discover enough arousal as to make any of this plausible?
And finally, @r_speir, there is the genetic biochemistry of human and non-human gametes. If our chromosomes were compatible 6000 years ago ā¦ they would be compatible still today! In fact, they should be more so, if the current generations reflect any past cross-breeding. A few petri dishes could quickly confirm what we have all be explaining to you: at the biochemical level, not just all the other levels, you would discover that it just couldnāt happen.
2 Likes
Look into the incubi. They have been handy in explaining away embarrassing pregnancies, so why not this?
Good point about pheromones. Non-human mammals breed when the female is in heat, which makes her sexually receptive to suitors.
Most chimps and the like simply run away from humans. It took Jane Goodall a long time before the chimpanzees let her get close. You are right about mentioning the danger. A male chimp is much stronger than a human and can tear a man apart.
Now Iām having a giggle fit, picturing the divine sons of God swinging through the jungle, trying to court wild chimpanzees! 
1 Like
Post deleted
So, essentially, the point you are making is that:
Nephilim are not just humans, they are demi-gods.
And you want to your audience to take your proposal seriously that non-human primates were derived in part with the genome of quasi-divine humans.
Oh, wellā¦ I should have realized how reasonable you were being. Iām just going to sit here with a 5 gallon barrel of popcorn and enjoy the show!
1 Like