Neanderthals went extinct, we think, from radiocarbon dated fossil records, about 30,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, where they had existed in one form or another, as humans, for millions of years. There were many then. All different types in Asia, some more 'human' than others.
And they all interbred.
They always have and always will.
I'm pretty sure that if Horses and Donkeys can produce the occasionally fertile offspring, why can't chimps and Bonobos, or their offspring become something like a human, if we're 99% genetically identical?
What's that remaining 1% is important.
Because without it, we'd all be dead from the first virus that killed one of us.
And now Eurasians have around 2% Neanderthal DNA and Melanesians have up to an additional 5% Denisovan DNA, that's up to 7% more Ancient Human than our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
The so-called, "Wise Wise Men"
But how wise are we,
if we kill our own wise men?
Other than that, we're all Homo's.
We're just different breeds,
just like any other species,
Cats, Dogs, Cows, Pigs, bears, seals, chimps, bonobos, keep on going and you get to us.
All have different breeds, which is another word for hybrid.
So are we. Hybridization is a good thing, not something to hate over. We should value our genetic diversity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 11:56AM by schrodingerscat.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm pretty sure that if Horses and Donkeys can
> produce the occasionally fertile offspring, why
> can't chimps and Bonobos, or their offspring
> become something like a human, if we're 99%
> genetically identical?

Um, because first they are evolving with us and not "something like a human." And second conditions and genetic predilections take lots and lots and lots of time to express the vast differences people don't think about in that 99%.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/12/09/131931215/our-family-tree-chimps-bonobos-and-our-commonality

But I'm responding for myself only. I've read this rejoinder to this theme of yours many many times here.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm pretty sure that if Horses and Donkeys can
> > produce the occasionally fertile offspring, why
> > can't chimps and Bonobos, or their offspring
> > become something like a human, if we're 99%
> > genetically identical?
>
> Um, because first they are evolving with us and
> not "something like a human." And second
> conditions and genetic predilections take lots and
> lots and lots of time to express the vast
> differences people don't think about in that 99%.
>
> https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/12/09/13193
> 1215/our-family-tree-chimps-bonobos-and-our-common
> ality
>
> But I'm responding for myself only. I've read this
> rejoinder to this theme of yours many many times
> here.

Wow, that's a dismissive way of putting it.
As if I can't be convinced otherwise, with good evidence?
THat's why I left the church, on good evidence.
DNA evidence that led me to quit believing Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus, because God is a childish myth like Santa Claus.
Tell me what Santa Claus God I believe in?
I'm careful to distinguish between "God" and "god".
They're two entirely different things.
One is personal, which is why it is capitalized.
The other is not personal, like Einstein's god,
not Einstein's God.
He didn't believe in a personal God.
He believed in Spinoza's god, which was Nature.
We have different names for it,
I prefer Logos
Eternal Mystery also works.
As does Great Spirit
the word, "God" seems like Santa to me.
but the word, "god" seems more like, Mother Nature, to me.
I trust in nature because it always strikes a balance.
We should be able to find common ground there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 12:12PM by schrodingerscat.

...missing were Tao and God Particle..


"So I give it an 81, Mr. Clark. It has a good rhythm, a strong bass line, but the lyrics we're repetitive and boring."

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...missing were Tao and God Particle..
>
>
> "So I give it an 81, Mr. Clark. It has a good
> rhythm, a strong bass line, but the lyrics we're
> repetitive and boring."
Feel free to NOT detract from every conversation on the internet.
Nobody forces you to respond.
Your non answer is more repetative and boring than the question.

Please feel ultra-free to put a line space between what you copy and your commentary.

Also, gross exaggeration is a sign of insecurity.

Tao, baby!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please feel ultra-free to put a line space between
> what you copy and your commentary.
>
> Also, gross exaggeration is a sign of insecurity.
>
> Tao, baby!


hahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahaha.. This is one of the

reasons why I love you mister....

The word salad hits the menu again. Get yours now.

I prefer word slaw.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The word salad hits the menu again. Get yours now.

I'll pass. It would probably cause logorrhea.

My reply, to say the very least, will be controversial.
I have come to believe that homo-sapiens were genetically created from what would appear to be modification of a Neanderthal species. To me this is a reasonable solution. Whether or not anybody on the forum agrees or not is strictly up to them and it will not alter my perception.

I've checked with representatives of ALL the "religious people" in the world and they all agree that "It's a personal issue between each individual and God."

A majority of those polled didn't give a whit about any supposed need to find reconciliation. It is what it is, seemed to be the consensus.

There was also this view: "Este, pos, quien sabe?", said Marcus Aurelius, a Tijuana taxi driver...

>> "How do religious people reconcile Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in our DNA"

I don't think they do, they don't feel the need. This is your broken record that keeps on playing, over, and over.....its like the news that repeats every hour.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> "How do religious people reconcile Neanderthal
> and Denisovan DNA in our DNA"
>
> I don't think they do, they don't feel the need.

If they can't answer serious questions about how they reconcile their faith with scientific evidence, then they must not want any converts. If they come to my door in an attempt to convert me, it's my way of giving them an assload of cogdis to deal with.

I thought others, who have these kinds of encounters, might benefit from having a Socratic question to ask them that would make them think about how ridiculous it is to believe in Adam and Eve when we are descended from Neanderthals and we have the DNA evidence to prove it.

If you don't appreciate it, you're welcome to NOT read, or respond to my posts. Nobody forces you to respond.

Some religious people don't care. Our genetic makeup is not an issue for them.

Some would care, but my best guess is that they ignore the issue.

Yes, many religious people are very good at ignoring issues ;-)

Either that or they just religio-rationalize it into wonder at the marvels of god's creation.

I can live more easily with the second than the first because there's at least some rationalizing going on ;-)

I too marvel at new knowledge of the world and its inhabitants, human and otherwise, so at least we can agree on that.

Tom in Paris

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some religious people don't care. Our genetic
> makeup is not an issue for them.
>
> Some would care, but my best guess is that they
> ignore the issue.

Am I the only one who asks them ?

Everytime a JW or MORmON shows up I my doorstep I ask them that same question.

Before MORmON.org went tits up I'd ask the online MORmONs that question.They suddenly remember they got another appointment and gotta run.
I tell them to come back when they have an honest answer.
They rarely do, because they might have to face the fact that, contrary to creationist myth, humans had to have coexisted with Neanderthals and interbred with them 30,000 years ago in Europe, and with other species of humans in Africa prior to that.
We are all hybrids and thats a very good thing.
And completely destroys any kind of a young Earth creationist myth. I do think it is possible to debunk bogus myths, and silence is no longer an option. Silence enables the abuse to continue.
Silence isn't golden, its enabling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 02:08PM by schrodingerscat.

Well since you already knew, why did you bother asking us yet again?

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well since you already knew, why did you bother
> asking us yet again?
Just checking to see if anybody else here is interested in existentialism

Then you should have asked that.

I suggest he's humble-bragging again in his continuing search/rampage for acolytes.

So this is preaching and against the site rules.

When he was banned from PostMormon, it was everybody's fault but his...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When he was banned from PostMormon, it was
> everybody's fault but his...


Any wonder that High School Clique went extinct?
Oh wait, the dinosaur Mean Girls Club is still here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2020 04:58PM by schrodingerscat.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are all hybrids and thats a very good thing.

There is no consensus on this assertion.

"One day, possibly within a few years, we might be able to a sequence DNA from much older human specimens. Only then it will become clear just how much hybridisation has shaped who we are."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151013-how-interbreeding-shaped-us

But you will just keep playing that horn.

>> "Am I the only one who asks them ?"

Apparently yes. You're the only one asking them, asking us, asking everyone else. No one seems to be interested in your query, that's why you don't get the discussion you are baiting for. Its not everyone else, its you.

Maybe it's time to put this question to rest and find a new one?

And the non answers you get here are far more interesting and entertaining that the same questions you ask over and over.

The questions were interesting the first dozen or so times. But the scores since then?

Not so much.

>> "But the scores since then?"

SC - 50 (posts on the same topic)

EXmo Board - 0 (interest in SC posts)

But somehow I feel the game will continue. Is there a way we can move the goal post? Or just forfeit so he can win and go home?

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> "But the scores since then?"
>
> SC - 50 (posts on the same topic)
>
> EXmo Board - 0 (interest in SC posts)

So far today in half a day this post has 47 comments, which is more interest than anything you've ever posted.

You take pride in having garnered as many replies as you have? You think you've done a good thing?

Oh wait, you're saying that you've done us a service, you've made us think, you've opened vistas to us that our ignorance and apathy had kept closed, about which, prior to your public service, we knew nothing. We are better people now, for having read the Tao of the God Particle, et alia.

Sure, why not?

You'd have to ask religious people.

You are being silly.
The Genetic Testing of Ancestry.com does not give you ANY Neanderthal and Denisovan information because it is not true and is put there by Satan to deceive you. They protect you from this deception because they are God's Team! God's One TRUE DNA testing corporation.

I was always very seriously interested in anthropology and archaeology. My over-the-top Mormon foster parents discouraged that, because all the study of fossils, early humans, etc., was useless, since those items had been placed in the earth by Satan. Now, I can believe that among Evangelicals, but it's rare that I see such simple and narrow religious view among Mormons.

After my mission, I discovered that BYU's anthropology and archaeology disciplines are actually very good, and I don't think that I ever heard any professor try to push religion into the picture.

> Neanderthals went extinct, we think, from
> radiocarbon dated fossil records, about 30,000
> years ago in Europe and Asia, where they had
> existed in one form or another, as humans, for
> millions of years.

Contrary to your assertion, Neanderthals did not exist "for millions of years." They emerged around 400,000 years ago and died out 40,000 years ago.


------------------
> All
> different types in Asia, some more 'human' than
> others.

What does that even mean? Which human species was "more human" than which other "human species?"


-----------------
> Melanesians have up to an additional 5%
> Denisovan DNA, that's up to 7% more Ancient Human
> than our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Wrong. Melanesians are Homo Sapiens Sapiens just like you.

That would require SC to assemble facts into a coherent structure and apply it.

In other words, learning.

I think that his conclusions-a-priori leave his brain no free room to work with actual evidence-based materials.

"Work" being the key word.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Neanderthals went extinct, we think, from
> > radiocarbon dated fossil records, about 30,000
> > years ago in Europe and Asia, where they had
> > existed in one form or another, as humans, for
> > millions of years.
>
> Contrary to your assertion, Neanderthals did not
> exist "for millions of years." They emerged
> around 400,000 years ago and died out 40,000 years
> ago.

Before Neanderthals there were Cro Magnons, Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus, in Europe.
>
>
> ------------------
> > All
> > different types in Asia, some more 'human' than
> > others.
>
> What does that even mean? Which human species was
> "more human" than which other "human species?"

There were the Hobbits and 3 different types of Denisovans in Asia, not to mention the Cro Magnons, and Homo Erectus.
>
>
> -----------------
> > Melanesians have up to an additional 5%
> > Denisovan DNA, that's up to 7% more Ancient
> Human
> > than our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
>
> Wrong. Melanesians are Homo Sapiens Sapiens just
> like you.

Except their DNA is 5% Denisovan, which makes them significantly different from you and me.

Better write a letter to Newsweek to correct them.

"The genome of modern Melanesians is 3 to 5 percent Denisovan and 1 to 3 percent Neanderthal."

https://www.newsweek.com/neanderthal-denisovan-dna-melanesians-tropical-island-1465999

Of course you'll never admit you were wrong.

I will admit to being incorrect when you demonstrate that I am incorrect. Not before.

1) You said Neanderthals have been alive for millions of years. That is false. The true answer is about 400-450,000 years.

2) You said some species of humans are less human than others. That is patently absurd, like saying that some turtles are more turtle than other turtles.

3) You say that 5% Denisovan DNA makes someone different from "us," by which you presumably mean "different from me" because you don't know where the rest of us posters are from. Yet in any case since Denisovans were every bit as human as Neanderthals and HSS, none of them are more "human" than others.

4) I don't read Newsweek. But I did provide the original data to to you several months ago with a reference to David Reich.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2314230,2314609#msg-2314609

It's nice to see that real scholarship eventually does seep through to Newsweek and from there to you. Imagine, however, how much cooler it would have been if you'd bother to read the original.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will admit to being incorrect when you
> demonstrate that I am incorrect. Not before.
>
> 1) You said Neanderthals have been alive for
> millions of years. That is false. The true
> answer is about 400-450,000 years.

No I said Humans, There were humans in Africa for the past 3 million years. What makes you think none of them wandered up to Europe in 3 million years?

"Short and repetitive migrations of archaic humans before 1 million years ago suggest that their residence in Europe was not permanent at the time." Anton, S.C.; Swisher C. (2004). "Early dispersals of Homo from Africa". Annual Review of Anthropology. 33: 271–296. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144024

>
> 2) You said some species of humans are less human
> than others. That is patently absurd, like saying
> that some turtles are more turtle than other
> turtles.

There are at least 16 different sub-species of Humans, that we know of and new ones are discovered all the time. 4 have been discovered recently, through DNA analysis alone since we have no fossil record of them. If humans, meaning, Homo Sapiens Sapiens could interbreed with Neanderthals and 3 different species of Denisovans why do you think that we didn't all come from the same sub-species, Homo Sapiens Edaltu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

If I were still Mormon I'd say, "That's Adam!" only he was here about 195,000 years ago and Eve was probably one of the many other species of humans who existed at that time, Neanderthal, Denisovan, Cro-Magnon, Heidelbergensis, Homo Erectus. Adam could have been a polygamist, going back millions of years in Africa and at least a million years in Europe and probably even longer in Melanesian and Australia.

>
> 3) You say that 5% Denisovan DNA makes someone
> different from "us," by which you presumably mean
> "different from me" because you don't know where
> the rest of us posters are from. Yet in any case
> since Denisovans were every bit as human as
> Neanderthals and HSS, none of them are more
> "human" than others.

What I meant was more ancient, as a species.
Denisovans were around Europe and Asia 200,000-50,000 years ago. The point is, they never went extinct, they still exist in the genetic information inside of SE Asians and Melenesians. The reason Tibeten Sherpas can exist at high altitude is because they are high in Denisovan DNA.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human#:~:text=The%20Denisovan%20and%20Tibetan%20segments%20matched%20closely.&text=The%20genome%20of%20this%20enigmatic,of%20Tibetans%20and%20Han%20Chinese.

>
> 4) I don't read Newsweek. But I did provide the
> original data to to you several months ago with a
> reference to David Reich.
>
> https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2314230
> ,2314609#msg-2314609
>
> It's nice to see that real scholarship eventually
> does seep through to Newsweek and from there to
> you. Imagine, however, how much cooler it would
> have been if you'd bother to read the original.

I do have a full time job and have written most of what I have written this week in between airplane flights, so I don't have time to do a thorough research project, and provide you with a bibliography professor.

I read it back when you shared it.
But the Newsweek article was a lot easier to find the information and I trust NEwsweek.
Tell me when they've been wrong in reporting on science.

> No I said Humans, There were humans in Africa for
> the past 3 million years. What makes you think
> none of them wandered up to Europe in 3 million
> years?

You wrote: "Neanderthals . . . had existed in one form or another, as humans, for millions of years." Note the subject of that sentence: Neanderthals.


--------------
> "Short and repetitive migrations of archaic humans
> before 1 million years ago suggest that their
> residence in Europe was not permanent at the
> time." Anton, S.C.; Swisher C. (2004). "Early
> dispersals of Homo from Africa". Annual Review of
> Anthropology. 33: 271–296.
> doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144024

Kori, your source is 16 years old. Homo Erectus was present
"permanently" in Eurasia from at least 1.8 million years ago.


--------------
You said, " All different types in Asia, some more 'human' than
others." I pointed out that in the human family all humans are equally human, none more "human" than others.

Now you write:

> There are at least 16 different sub-species of
> Humans, that we know of and new ones are
> discovered all the time. 4 have been discovered
> recently, through DNA analysis alone since we have
> no fossil record of them. If humans, meaning, Homo
> Sapiens Sapiens could interbreed with Neanderthals
> and 3 different species of Denisovans why do you
> think that we didn't all come from the same
> sub-species, Homo Sapiens Edaltu.

That passage has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The fact remains that all human species are equally human.


-----------
> What I meant was more ancient, as a species.
> Denisovans were around Europe and Asia
> 200,000-50,000 years ago. The point is, they never
> went extinct, they still exist in the genetic
> information inside of SE Asians and Melenesians.
> The reason Tibeten Sherpas can exist at high
> altitude is because they are high in Denisovan
> DNA.

Denisovans separated from the HSS/Neanderthal lineage about 400,000 years ago, just slightly earlier than HSS and Neanderthals diverged. As for Melanesians, yes they have the most Denisovan DNA of any existing human lineage--but they also have the most Neanderthal DNA. We aren't arguing over that point, but it is interesting.


-------------
> But the Newsweek article was a lot easier to find
> the information and I trust NEwsweek.
> Tell me when they've been wrong in reporting on
> science.

I'll take the challenge. The article you just cited discusses Neanderthals and then, with no transition, says "Modeling suggests the ancestors of Africans and non-Africans diverged sometime approximately 74,000 years ago."

What are we to make of that sentence? We know that Neanderthals entered Eurasia hundreds of thousands of years before then, so that can't be right. We also know that HSS separated into African and non-African branches about 120,000 years ago and spread into the Near East before going extinct. And we know that HSS entered Eurasia the second time about 50-55,000 years ago. So the 74,000 number is misleading no matter how you interpret it.

I'm not sure why you would defend Newsweek for science reporting. That seems obviously misugided.

you've been demonstrated to have misunderstood the premise every time you post it.

As Neandrithals were, God once was. As God is, Neandrithals may become.

Mormonism is already crazy enough as it is. Why not this? Of course, what happens when the millinium never comes and ten thousand years from now, everyone has big heads to match their superior mental capacity and small weaker bodies? Will the church still be true then? If so, what will their God look like?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 05:35PM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As Neandrithals were, God once was. As God is,
> Neandrithals may become.


I hope you don't have to live with the guilt of having BLOWN SC's mind...

I'm sure the blown mind will not cause any significant damage, and can easily be cleaned off the backsplash.

My TBM friend basically tends to blame the science. "Well that can't be right. Science isn't perfect, you know. DNA testing must not be reliable."

Edited to add that my friend also frequently says, "That can't be true because it is not in tune with the Gospel. But I'm not worried about it because I know that Heavenly Father will explain it to us someday and then we'll know the truth."

So if anything is not in sync with what she has been taught, then it's something to be ignored until a future date (probably meaning during the Millenium).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 08:43PM by Greyfort.

It's simple, most religious folks shut off the part of their brain that is analytical and accept whatever crap their bishop or pastor tells them. From my experience the two prevailing themes are that "no 2 scientists can agree on anything" and "the lord works in mysterious ways". A final 3rd trump card is "what does it matter if the pearl of gates slide shut or swing shut, focus on your salvation".

The only reason I bring it up is because there's new knowledge.. NatGeo report I linked to is updated. The numbers are different.
Before we were thought to have 2-4% Neanderthal DNA. Now they say Eurasians 2% average and Africans 33% of that, so: 0.6% Neanderthal and Melenesians are up to 5% Denisovan DNA. I find the topic as it relates to current genetic makeup fascinating.
Science and reason debunk all the racist myths we were brainwashed to believe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 08:49PM by schrodingerscat.

I suppose it's possible that you don't recognize in yourself what most of us see as an obsession.

If that's the case then you probably can't understand why we don't sit at your feet, clamoring for more guidance.


Compare the almost completely cogent five sentences you wrote above with your OP of roughly 16 sentences of aptly named 'word salad'.

Do they have anything in common? You reference a NatGeo link in the semi-cogent post to which I am responding that I can't find anywhere in this thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2020 09:27PM by elderolddog.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose it's possible that you don't recognize
> in yourself what most of us see as an obsession.
>
> If that's the case then you probably can't
> understand why we don't sit at your feet,
> clamoring for more guidance.
>
>
> Compare the almost completely cogent five
> sentences you wrote above with your OP of roughly
> 16 sentences of aptly named 'word salad'.
>
> Do they have anything in common? You reference a
> NatGeo link in the semi-cogent post to which I am
> responding that I can't find anywhere in this
> thread.
Sorry, thought I'd linked it.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/01/more-neanderthal-dna-than-you-think/

There's also new knowledge about Denisovans, which are made up of 3 different distinct kinds of Denisovans.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/enigmatic-human-relative-outlived-neanderthals/

It seems like DNA evidence is now way ahead of archeological evidence, since many of those species we've discovered through DNA, we only have the tip of a finger bone.

So... Is the church still not true?

I gotz ta know!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So... Is the church still not true?
>
> I gotz ta know!


Every new bit of knowledge we get from our DNA confirms what we already knew, that Joseph's Myth is even more bogus than we thought it was before.

It's more bogus now that we've got this new data?

What's the current, updated percentage of mormon bogusosity?

If the church is now a few more percentage points more bogus than it was before you posted, how long until one of your posts collapses it?

What are the limits to its bogusosity? Will it ever be 100% bogus? Boy,wouldn't that be something!!!

But you said you posted this to talk about existentialism. And now it's about new knowledge?

Neither of which you talk about at all until now?

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But you said you posted this to talk about
> existentialism. And now it's about new
> knowledge?
>
> Neither of which you talk about at all until now?

It is possible for all three to be true.

Another nonevidential claim. Why aren't I surprised.

“pretty sure that if Horses and Donkeys can produce the occasionally fertile offspring, why can't chimps and Bonobos, or their offspring become something like a human, if we're 99% genetically identical?”

Joseph Smith had the sex life of a bonobo. Is that evolution?

Depends. How often to bonobos get shot?

We co-existed with Hobbits up until about 12,000 years ago.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/meet-homo-floresiensis-the-real-life-hobbits-of-indonesia

BAM!!!

The church is another percentage point more bogus!


And this is another reply!!

DOUBLE BAM!!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BAM!!!
>
> The church is another percentage point more
> bogus!
>
>
> And this is another reply!!
>
> DOUBLE BAM!!

I mean, the church was 100% bogus the day it was started, but for me, what debunked Joseph's Myth most in my mind, was the DNA Test results proving there's exactly no Semitic DNA in Native Americans.
This just adds ammunition to use against pushy door to door salesmen who come to your door, instead of hiding behind the door and hoping they go away.
Thought it might be useful to newcomers who come here.
I know old folks are not that interested.
No need to comment on my posts if you're no interested.
Nobody forces you to contribute.
It's your choice.
I'd prefer it if you and the rest of your dinosaur mean girls club didn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2020 04:59PM by schrodingerscat.

> I'd prefer it if you and the
> rest of your dinosaur mean
> girls club didn't.


Excellent!

Nobody gets what they want: You'll keep your recycler going and we'll continue to piss and moan. Everybody wins!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I'd prefer it if you and the
> > rest of your dinosaur mean
> > girls club didn't.
>
>
> Excellent!
>
> Nobody gets what they want: You'll keep your
> recycler going and we'll continue to piss and
> moan. Everybody wins!

I talk about a lot of things on here besides Neanderthals and Denisovans. I don't know why you make it seem like all I ever talk about is this topic.

This week I've started topics on this forum about 9 different subjects that have nothing to do with Ancient Species of Human DNA in our DNA:

Ta-Nehisi Coates & John McWhorter on white racism
Why are BOM heroes all jacked up on roids!?!?
Toxic cynicism
If you don't trust in god, what do you trust in?
Ironically Prof. compares "CULT of Anti-racism" to MORmONs.
Toxic positivity and science denialism
What is "truth" now that you no longer believe in Joseph's Myth?
Why True Believers Resist Logic
What if we had it backwards all along?

in the last week Elder Olddog has posted:

WAAAY Off Topic: If you confess, the authorities will go easy on you...
Are current missionaries "allowed" to have and spend 'extra' money?
Dagny, thank you!!
CEMS
I just can't believe atheists!

and yet, somehow the topics I like to talk about are a complete waste of bandwidth?
SO don't waste your time!

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CEMS

LOL! Thanks for the chuckle. I'm a younger dinosaur mean girl since I'm only 50. EOD has been off his mission longer than I've been alive. His CE is MS.

> and yet, somehow the topics
> I like to talk about are a
> complete waste of bandwidth?

Here's a not so subtle difference: I seek to make people laugh, and occasionally I 'inform'; you just want converts who will recognize the Savior in you.

Totally not subtle...


You'll state a point of view and when people disagree with you, you come storming back, seeking to prove yourself not only 'right', but 'woke' and other wondrous attributes, at the time whining, "I'm just trying to share! I just want to inform!"

And then there's the water torture: drip <NdGT>, drip <Einstein>, drip <logos>, drip <Tao>, drip <God Particle>, drip <Neanderthals>, drip <Harris>, drip <White Racism>, drip <DNA>, drip <"I">. This last one refers to how prominent that pronoun is in your posts.

None of us here knows you and thus have but the hope that in person we'd find common ground, but that hasn't happened as we interact on this board.

It is not a surprise to read your commentary regarding how you view your expulsion from PostMormon. It was a private board, with specific rules that one agreed to abide in order to be granted access.

You violated the rules, were warned and continued to violate the rules. Apparently you considered yourself above the rules. You were going to lead us all and we needed to agree with you in all things, for our own good.

And then your right to pass was revoked, which on a board with a members-only gate was easy enough to do. You just kept ignoring warnings, you kept pushing it, with those big-ass .jpegs of the BofA hieroglyphics, over and over and over again (sound familiar?) and then, per your view, completely unjustly, you right to pass was revoked.

Seriously, none of us with a vote was thinking that you were a threat to our power; none of us were jealous of you or your intellect. We felt sorry for you, but the clamor from the members could not be ignored.

Anyway, that's my point of view.

Religious people do NOT reconcile anything. Whatever they believe is true, no matter what.

invinoveritas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religious people do NOT reconcile anything.
> Whatever they believe is true, no matter what.

I was once a religious person and reason got through to me. It was really important for me to reconcile my beliefs with reality. That might have been the reason the myth got busted for me. It was a non-Mormon author, Jon Krakauer who wrote "Under the Banner of Heaven" who got through to me and made me ask, "If the church is so true, then why don't they open up their secret vault to the press and let them shout whatever's in there from the rooftops? What are they hiding?"

Then it was a couple of Mormons who got through to me the most as a Mormon, Aarmond Mause, who begged me not to leave the church, just because I'd figured out that it was a racist institution. And Grant Palmer, I was the first one to ask him a question at his last appearance at an ExMo conference, I asked him if he would still draw the same conclusions about the church, that he did in his book, Insider's View of Mormon Origins. He said he would, after he'd been 'disfellowshipped' by them for writing his book that he refused to retract. I couldn't believe it. I had to follow up and ask him after the meeting what he meant by that. He told me personally that he was tired and that it was my turn to take up the fight.
He died soon after that.

Maybe you were chosen by ghawd to disprove his existence? Maybe from the very foundation of this existence?

Man, you've got a lot on your plate!

What if God just means Neanderthal?

I Denisovan about that...

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if God just means Neanderthal?
Then he is extinct.

LOL! But his code still exists in us. Isn't it wonderful? Marvelous?

I don't know that we teach that.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL! But his code still exists in us. Isn't it
> wonderful? Marvelous?

Maybe what we call "god" is the code, the math that all adds up to one, in this dimension, Lamda.

So now maths is God?

There may be various maths, but only one of them can reign supreme. Is Lambda Calculus the one True Math? Is that the claim?

So many facts to adsorb, so little time.

Grasping for God at straws is a problem only zealous devotion to a strong sense of self concept can help.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So now maths is God?

Since that's a big giant mystery, my guess is as good as yours, but that's what I've heard prominent string theorists argue, like Michio Kaku, here.

https://bigthink.com/videos/dr-michio-kaku-math-is-the-mind-of-god

And what if god means Neandrithal? ;-)