Hoax or confirmation of angelic hybrids?

[seanD]

The reason I asked that question here and not the science section is because I'm more interested in the theological implications of Genesis 6. But here's the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOSbRCg0B4g&feature=plcp

[fm93]

Scientists think that it's the skull of a human child who died of hydrocephalus.

[seanD]

I'm not so much focusing on the physical appearance of it than the genetic claims made in the video.

[Sparko]

I'm not so much focusing on the physical appearance of it than the genetic claims made in the video.

according to wikipedia (search starchild) the DNA was completely human. and they even tested mitochondrial DNA.

[seanD]

Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, since the claims are pretty extraordinary, but don't we repudiate atheists and skeptics who use wiki as a source against Christianity?

[Sparko]

Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, since the claims are pretty extraordinary, but don't we repudiate atheists and skeptics who use wiki as a source against Christianity?

Depends on the wiki article mostly. I gave it to you as a source to check out. It has references.

and the video you linked to was just screaming "hoax hoax hoax" the way it was edited together. Just read between the lines of what they are saying and NOT saying in the video.

For example at the beginning of the video they show a page from the DNA test with "No significant similarity found" circled in red. They imply that means that the DNA was not similar to human. But that is not what it says. We don't know what wasn't similar to what. each DNA test has multiple parts to it. It could mean that some gene was not similar to another gene even in another test. We don't know.

It also mentions the DNA was finally tested in 2010, but according to the wiki article the DNA testing was done in 1999 and they had TWO skulls. And the DNA had normal X and Y chromosomes, meaning it was a male and that both parents were human.

[seanD]

Fair enough. I was just sort of discouraged at first and wasn't what I was hoping to hear discussed. The first response was the physical appearance, but the video talks more about just the appearance. Then you referenced a wiki source (granted, you did expound a little more in your second post). What I'm hoping is for someone with an open-mind (IOW, a Christian that accepts the story of Genesis 6) and who has knowledge in the field of genetics (of which I have none) to explain why the evidence being presented in the video is flawed (preferably pick apart the claims step-by-step and show where they are incorrect or where they could be fraudulent). He talks about mapping the entire genome to get a specific margin of error, and I have no clue what that implies.

[Sparko]

Fair enough. I was just sort of discouraged at first and wasn't what I was hoping to hear discussed. The first response was the physical appearance, but the video talks more about just the appearance. Then you referenced a wiki source (granted, you did expound a little more in your second post). What I'm hoping is for someone with an open-mind (IOW, a Christian that accepts the story of Genesis 6) and who has knowledge in the field of genetics (of which I have none) to explain why the evidence being presented in the video is flawed (preferably pick apart the claims step-by-step and show where they are incorrect or where they could be fraudulent). He talks about mapping the entire genome to get a specific margin of error, and I have no clue what that implies.

I have to admit I didn't watch the whole thing. I skipped around. The guy with the beard talking about the bone and skull and so on, from what I heard, he was pretty much just spouting pseudo-science babble most of the time.

and they also are claiming it was an adult skull when it looks like an infant from what I can see, with a deformed skull from hyrdoencephalitis.

[seanD]

Calling something pseudo-science babble is different than what you said in your second post. Your second post argued that they were hiding facts or selectively applying the facts, but "pseudo-science babble" is asserting that the science is incorrect or that it's not real science. But this is just a claim (hand-wave), not describing how the science is incorrect, which is what I'm looking for. IOW, the science could either be incorrect in order to support his conclusion or the science could be correct but he's simply lying that he applied the correct science to derive at his conclusion. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Is the science correct, or is it incorrect?

[RBerman]

Calling something pseudo-science babble is different than what you said in your second post. Your second post argued that they were hiding facts or selectively applying the facts, but "pseudo-science babble" is asserting that the science is incorrect or that it's not real science. But this is just a claim (hand-wave), not describing how the science is incorrect, which is what I'm looking for. IOW, the science could either be incorrect in order to support his conclusion or the science could be correct but he's simply lying that he applied the correct science to derive at his conclusion. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Is the science correct, or is it incorrect?

Which science? A pair of human skulls were found in a cave. One was normal, and one was freakishly misshapen, with an appearance consistent with the medical condition known as hydrocephalus. Both skulls were shown to be human (Native American specifically) by DNA testing. You note that Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of proof, but is there some reason to pay any more attention to the ideas of some guy on YouTube?

[Cerebrum123]

Which science? A pair of human skulls were found in a cave. One was normal, and one was freakishly misshapen, with an appearance consistent with the medical condition known as hydrocephalus. Both skulls were shown to be human (Native American specifically) by DNA testing. You note that Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of proof, but is there some reason to pay any more attention to the ideas of some guy on YouTube?

I think he wants to know if there is any reason at that this really could be an example of a Nephilim, or have it thoroughly refuted, either way he seems interested in it.

[RBerman]

I think he wants to know if there is any reason at that this really could be an example of a Nephilim, or have it thoroughly refuted, either way he seems interested in it.

I am not aware of any reason to think it would be a "Nephilim" even if I agreed with the interpretation of Genesis 6 which the human/angel hybrid idea would involve, which I do not.

[KingsGambit]

Would those who view the nephilim as angelic hybrids reconcile this with Matthew 22:30 by arguing that that statement only applies to angels in heaven specifically, who have not fallen? I still think there are some problems there - Jesus's words seem to imply that angels are asexual in nature.

[seanD]

Which science? A pair of human skulls were found in a cave. One was normal, and one was freakishly misshapen, with an appearance consistent with the medical condition known as hydrocephalus. Both skulls were shown to be human (Native American specifically) by DNA testing. You note that Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of proof, but is there some reason to pay any more attention to the ideas of some guy on YouTube?

Genetic sequencing and the claims made thereabout.

I am not aware of any reason to think it would be a "Nephilim" even if I agreed with the interpretation of Genesis 6 which the human/angel hybrid idea would involve, which I do not.

Then how do you make the inerrant word of God belief compatible with Jude's (and undoubtedly Peter's) error?

[RBerman]

Genetic sequencing and the claims made thereabout.

Where are you getting your information about genetic sequencing? Dr. YouTube?

Then how do you make the inerrant word of God belief compatible with Jude's (and undoubtedly Peter's) error?

Neither Jude nor Peter say anything about angel/human hybrids.