Assessing the Reasons to Believe Model

@purposenation, welcome to the forums!

Dr. Ross is not a biologist and wisely defers to Rana and other biologists. I recently invited him to a session on the science of Adam, and gave a lecture on this in attendance. He wisely demurred from participation, even though I invited him.

For the currrent RTB model, it seems the focus should be on their written work:

That is where, in print, Dr. Ross acknowledges that evidence with Rana. What you are hearing from him in person is probably put in the speculative bin.

Though, if others hold that view, we should be clear the genetic evidence solidly rules out sole-genetic progenitor within the last 500,000 years. That interbreeding with Neanderthals is really helpful, as it brings in additional genetic diversity to allow for the hope of a single couple origin of Sapiens.

Just for the record, that is not terribly plausible for a range of technical reasons. How does he even know that it wasn’t Africans or Asians that were handling the material?

1 Like

Not sure why you’d stake the validity of “human exceptionalism” on whether or not we’d ever bred with neanderthals, by defining them as non-human. The “image of God” is what distinguishes us as exceptional, as distinct from the animal kingdom. We know too little about neanderthal culture to merely describe them as “brutish.” Such conceptions have more to do with a lack of imagination than with the available evidence, IMO. Don’t get the need for this kind of distancing.

Don’t forget the Denosivans. And the other archaic humans that interbreed with our species. Also labs all over the world confirmed the interbreeding results. Unlikely to be contamination as measures % neanderthal in 2 million+ DNA kits sequenced. Did you have your DNA sequenced? You may have some Denosivan DNA in your genome. I had zero Denosivan but 1.5% Neanderthal.

1 Like

Yes I know. We are going to deal with that too. I’m just saying Neanderthal, because that is what they have accepted. The RTB model is between a rock and hard place there. As “distasteful” as interbreeding is in their model (but not in a Genealogical Adam model), they need it to get enough diversity. Or so it seems.

True. End of summer you might get a chance to have that conversation with Fuz.


2 posts were split to a new topic: Jack Collins and a Genealogical Adam

A post was split to a new topic: Wayne Grudem and Early Genesis

A post was split to a new topic: The Souls of our Ancestors

@Patrick, that is what we might be be doing here.

I am holding off testing the model too soon. I want to do with this with Dr. Rana and Dr. Roberts. They are honest scientists, and want to bring them along with this. This is, after all, an effort of peace. In the end, also, I hope their model stands.

1 Like

Can someone (@gbrooks9?) please post this on the BioLogos forum topic ( related to this?

@jammycakes, I think you had a question about this post. Do you want to ask it here?

It looks like they closed that discussion on June 13.


3 posts were split to a new topic: Neanderthals and Nephilim

So, in the interest of reviving this association and topic, I thought I’d excerpt a bit of their current fundraising letter.
This from Dr. Ross, whom I support and esteem highly:

“Recently, I came across a Facebook discussion on dinosaurs. What struck me was how much anger the Christians expressed towards scientists and science.
Chances are right now you can think of at least five people in your life who believe scientists are trying to knock down our faith or who simply refuse to talk about science. Why is that so true of so many Christians?
If you ask me, this reaction comes from fear. Millions have a deep-seated fear that the next big scientific discovery will be the one that shatters their faith. Millions more are afraid that if they ask science-faith questions --or even worse, voice their doubts --they’ll be pounced on and ridiculed, or labeled as not having enough faith.
Do you remember that fear? Before you discovered Reasons to Believe or other science apologetics, were you afraid that science might lead you away from your faith?”

I’ll include more later, if there’s interest.

Do you see this as a legitimate perspective from an OEC organization? Is it a fair way to raise funds? Personally, I think so.

The letter goes on to explain that they’re sending a free copy of their brand new DVD, “Meet Jeff Zweerink.”

“It’s Jeff’s talk from this years’ AMP conference, full of great information. But what I like best is the way Jeff shares his own struggles with fear and doubt. Jeff admits honestly that sometimes new discoveries challenge him. But, these are what scientists call “anomalies,” things we just can’t explain right now. They don’t derail the trend of scientific discovery toward greater and greater proof of God’s hand in nature. And, as Jeff clearly shows, engaging our with our doubts, instead of suppressing them, is actually the road to deeper faith!”

Good going, RTB. Thanks again for your ministry!


This is a clear ministry opportunity TOWARDS RTB, is how I read this.

1 Like

I suppose its legitimate. They aren’t breaking any laws. They are talking about real insecurity that people have.

I just think that the Resurrection, God’s work in history to reveal himself, is much stronger than any “scientific apologetics.” I’d point to Jesus for confidence over any effort of my ministry. That’s just me though.


Totally and 100 perecent agree! It’s the sine qua non of everything else.

1 Like

I don’t think this is an issue. Once the events of early Genesis are pinpointed in human history you’ll find that the interbreeding with Neanderthal was ancient history, as well as the Neanderthal species themselves, by the time Adam was created.

Because Adam was the introduction of free will, nothing that happened before that point was in conflict with God’s will. This is not bestiality.

69 posts were merged into an existing topic: Jeremy Christian’s Take on Free Will