RTB's Model and Smalley


#1

In the RTB model:

  1. Humans = Homo sapiens.
  2. Neanderthals are more close mentally to Apes, and are beasts without intelligence.
  3. Homo sapiens must arise less than 100 kya, genetically from a single couple
  4. No interbreeding with Neandertals.
  5. A lost record of cities and agricultures

It seems they painted themselves into a corner here. @Agauger’s and @vjtorley’s model is much more viable, if they must preserve sole genetic progenitorship. Btw, any more thoughts on the Dabar paper I sent you and the Catholic Genealogical Adam?


Engaging the Zoo of RTB Models
Examining "Signature in the Cell"
Should RTB/OEC's Tweak Model in Light of New Data and if so How?
#2

Month by month, as new results are published, all five of these continued to be wildly wrong.


#3

@swamidass @Patrick @Revealed_Cosmology This model arises because RTB has been unwilling, so far, to consider the John Walton / Mark Moore / Coe / et. al. interpretation that the events in Genesis chapter one, verses 26-27 ff. well precede those of the much later story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:5 and ff. (by something approaching AT LEAST 25,000 years; a triviality to Adam and Eve, and thus not included in the “poem of creation” orally communicated to them by the Malak YHWH, and later recorded in writing on stone tablets as per “toledot theory”).


#4

The Genesis 1:27 statement can describe something “sudden” OR “gradual;” the Hebrew verb 'bara doesn’t specify which it is. As for Adam, the Hebrew verb 'bara (“create”) is not used with regards to him when the account describes him as being made from the dust of the ground.


#5

[The sound of crickets chirping… : )] RTB’s model is in need of revision and fine-tuning; go get 'em, @swamidass !


#6

Someday, I wonder if an RTB supporter will turn up here. What fun we will have.


#7

All we have to do is post an invitation somewhere obvious… I am not familiar with the RTB site… but whether it is offline or online… I’m sure a little effort would trigger the news of an invitation broadly … even if only to laugh at our boldness!


#8

@Guy_Coe knows that world well. He would know.


#9

I actually am an RTB supporter, convinced that we can help them sharpen their model. Whatever influence anyone has to get their members to visit here, please use it!


#10

@Guy_Coe, have you considered contact some of the RTB chapters?

https://www.reasons.org/get-involved/chapters

I’m sure an invitation from you (RTB to RTB leader) would be well received. You could probably be able to get through that list in just a week.


#11

Actually they seem to have changed their position on this years ago. Todd Wood commented on this in his blog, refering to a podcast in which RTB decided to go with “bestiality” (sticking to their position that Neanderthals are beasts):


#12

6 posts were split to a new topic: Are Genesis One and Two Sequential, Telescoping, or Something Else?


#14

@Otto

This is not so surprising if humans have to be descended from Adam & Eve to be of any theological value.

The only way to avoid making Neanderthals “non-human” is to make Adam & Eve (or at least one of them) Neanderthal.


#18

Great find. Thanks!

This raises lots of questions about what the genetic evidence has to do with their model in the first place. Perhaps the right way to explain the situation is that they changed the model to acknowledge interbreeding with Neandertals.


#19

It’s a totally unnecessary stance, given the right model. They’re forced into a “bestiality” corner, more than anything, to keep from upsetting their donor base, is my best guess. I really, really want to help them over this self-imposed hurdle.


#20

And what about the Denosivans? People from Papua New Guinea have 5% Denosivan genes. Also Tibetans have a high attitude gene from Denosivans.
And what about the archaic human species that lead to all three at around 700,000 years? Erectus? Florensis? Naledi?


#21

My original post in response to this question was shunted off to a new topic; I’ll repeat it here. [quote=“Guy_Coe, post:6, topic:292, full:true”]
I tend to see Genesis 1:26-27 as a summary statement of what God did to bring pre-human species to full human status, occurring over a long period of time, rather than in a single, saltational event. Nevertheless, there’s room for the arising of a rapidly-changing, dramatic new reality for humans, once a near-universal language is established.
[/quote]


#22

@Guy_Coe

If you are Old Earth, and also accept the existence of a large pool of pre-Adamite “adams” … why would you work this hard to embrace so much of early human history into Genesis?

There doesn’t seem to be any down-side to assuming the Genesis discussions about either “Adam” or all of Humanity begins after (perhaps thousands of years after) the last of the other strains of humanity are extinct.


#23

Because that’s what my interpretation of the relevant passages teaches. As noted previously, the verb for “create” carries with it no particular notions of duration of action. What is the “down side” to holding the view that Genesis 1:27 announces the arrival of full humanity, regardless of physical differences, at God’s hand, and that chapter two verse five and forward presents the story of Adam and Eve, whose actions lead to a change of neural brain physiology and morphology that all humans, subsequently, come to inherit through a GA scenario?


#24

@Guy_Coe

There is something to be said about intentionally using broad interpretations of Bible text, instead of reading into every little word a complex pattern of surmised historical events that cannot be warranted, let alone proven.

But, of course, you are going to do what you like.