Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
Adam versus Neanderthals

First, I am a strong Christian, however, I do have a question that always has troubled me. If Adam was the first man created by God, how do we explain the evidence of man found from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago? I would love your insight. Thanks in advance.

Good science versus bad science

Is teaching your children that Neandertals AND 'Lucy' are our direct ancestors 'good science' or 'bad science'?

Evolutionists call this indoctrination 'good science' and insist that science will actually prove it to be true someday. We suggest that if they ever do, they can THEN teach it as fact, but this nonsense needs to be taken out of science curriculums immediately!

(For Lucy's scientific demise as our direct ancestor, see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152801536&pagename=
JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Please refer to the research papers below and you will see that Neandertals are human and more than likely a separate race (microevolution).


1. Neandertals have the manual dexterity of modern humans:
“Despite their ability to make and use stone tools, Neanderthals were presumed to have had limited manual dexterity on the basis of the anatomy of their thumb and forefinger1 — a contention that has been called into question …
We find that these digits could make tip-to-tip contact, and conclude that manual dexterity in Neanderthals was probably not significantly different from that of modern humans.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6930/full/422395a.html

2. Neandertals had hyoid bones (necessary for speech) that are indistinguishable from modern humans:
“Although no one had explicitly predicted what a Neandertal hyoid would look like, few were really surprised when it turned out to be a slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid and nothing like an ape hyoid … . Many anthropologists came to believe that Neandertals could have spoken any modern human language, whatever their accent may have been.”
The Neandertals – changing the image of mankind, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 391, 1993

3. DNA analysis shows Neandertal DNA more closed related to recent ‘modern-human’ DNA than older ‘modern-human’ DNA. (Please note that mitochondrial DNA evaluations are NOT completely reliable.)
“He and his colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 10 modern-human fossils ranging in age from about 2,000 to 62,000 years. Genetic material from the oldest specimen, which was found at Lake Mungo in southeastern Australia, differs more from that of living people than do the previously isolated Neandertal sequences, the researchers contend. Mitochondrial DNA from the other, younger Australian fossils closely resembles that of humans today, they find.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_71191510

4. Neandertals had the same brain size:
“Although Neandertals' brains were roughly the same size as those of modern people, they often have been portrayed as lacking the language skills, foresight, creativity, and other cognitive abilities of modern humans.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n5_v154/ai_21015206

5. Fossil dating techniques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. In addition, some zealous evolutionists openly commit fraud to advance their cause:
“HISTORIANS OF THE STONE AGE FEAR THAT they will have to rip up their theories about Neanderthal man after doubt has been cast on carbon dating of sleletons by a leading German anthropologist.”
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146411784

“Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years. Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750. The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346676/posts

That's not what was asked

He didn't ask about whether neanderthals and lucy are direct ancestors. It's known in the scientific community that they are not, they're off-the-line from Homo Sapiens. We SHARE ancestors with them. None of this is a problem for evolution.

What he was asking is how do you explain the existence of Adam in the light of knowledge of the Neanderthal race, it being dated to 12,000+ years? (I am assuming he is also asking how this conflicts with the age-of-the-earth issues of creation, Adam's existence having been dated to about 6,000 years ago).

Reading the ENTIRE content is suggested

If you want to challenge anything AFTER you actually read it, then you may proceed to offer a challenge.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

He didn't ask about whether neanderthals and lucy are direct ancestors. It's known in the scientific community that they are not, they're off-the-line from Homo Sapiens. We SHARE ancestors with them. None of this is a problem for evolution.

What he was asking is how do you explain the existence of Adam in the light of knowledge of the Neanderthal race, it being dated to 12,000+ years? (I am assuming he is also asking how this conflicts with the age-of-the-earth issues of creation, Adam's existence having been dated to about 6,000 years ago).

My, how can you tell?

What was it about my last comment made it clear that I didn't read your whole post? Can you explain to me what I'm missing, because your post didn't really make that clear either.

Thanks in advance.

Recap

Here is the original post:

"First, I am a strong Christian, however, I do have a question that always has troubled me. If Adam was the first man created by God, how do we explain the evidence of man found from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago? I would love your insight. Thanks in advance."

Refer to my below response in which summarizes that:
1. Neandert(h)als were fully human
2. Dating techiques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. (The KEY words being "random' and "spontaneous.")
3. If you wish (since I suspect that you created the original post), name a specific specie and I'll go over the one with you. Otherwise, "evidence of man from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago" is too vague to address.


My original post:
Please refer to the research papers below and you will see that Neandertals are human and more than likely a separate race (microevolution).

1. Neandertals have the manual dexterity of modern humans:
“Despite their ability to make and use stone tools, Neanderthals were presumed to have had limited manual dexterity on the basis of the anatomy of their thumb and forefinger1 — a contention that has been called into question …
We find that these digits could make tip-to-tip contact, and conclude that manual dexterity in Neanderthals was probably not significantly different from that of modern humans.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6930/full/422395a.html

2. Neandertals had hyoid bones (necessary for speech) that are indistinguishable from modern humans:
“Although no one had explicitly predicted what a Neandertal hyoid would look like, few were really surprised when it turned out to be a slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid and nothing like an ape hyoid … . Many anthropologists came to believe that Neandertals could have spoken any modern human language, whatever their accent may have been.”
The Neandertals – changing the image of mankind, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 391, 1993

3. DNA analysis shows Neandertal DNA more closed related to recent ‘modern-human’ DNA than older ‘modern-human’ DNA. (Please note that mitochondrial DNA evaluations are NOT completely reliable.)
“He and his colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 10 modern-human fossils ranging in age from about 2,000 to 62,000 years. Genetic material from the oldest specimen, which was found at Lake Mungo in southeastern Australia, differs more from that of living people than do the previously isolated Neandertal sequences, the researchers contend. Mitochondrial DNA from the other, younger Australian fossils closely resembles that of humans today, they find.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_71191510

4. Neandertals had the same brain size:
“Although Neandertals' brains were roughly the same size as those of modern people, they often have been portrayed as lacking the language skills, foresight, creativity, and other cognitive abilities of modern humans.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n5_v154/ai_21015206

5. Fossil dating techniques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. In addition, some zealous evolutionists openly commit fraud to advance their cause:
“HISTORIANS OF THE STONE AGE FEAR THAT they will have to rip up their theories about Neanderthal man after doubt has been cast on carbon dating of sleletons by a leading German anthropologist.”
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146411784

“Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years. Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750. The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346676/posts
Replies:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

What was it about my last comment made it clear that I didn't read your whole post? Can you explain to me what I'm missing, because your post didn't really make that clear either.

Thanks in advance.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again

Wow, good to see your copy and paste skills are still intact. Very well done.

====
Refer to my below response in which summarizes that:
1. Neandert(h)als were fully human
2. Dating techiques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. (The KEY words being "random' and "spontaneous.")
3. If you wish (since I suspect that you created the original post), name a specific specie and I'll go over the one with you. Otherwise, "evidence of man from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago" is too vague to address.
====

1. Your posts/links said nothing about a Neanderthal being "fully human":
a. "probably not significantly different from that of modern humans"
b. "slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid"
c. "closely resembles that of humans today"
d. "roughly the same size"
None of these say that Neanderthals = Homo Sapiens. They each claim slight or subtle differences, but NOT equality. Are you claiming there IS no difference?
Also, what did the original post have to ask about Neanderthals? I don't get it.

2. Your article is based on a hoax by Reiner Protcsch, and doesn't threaten carbon dating methods at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiner_Protsch_von_Zieten

3. I had nothing to do with the original post, honest engine. If the original question was too vague to address, why address it? Why not clarify, THEN answer the question instead of throwing around nonsense about carbon dating and Neanderthals?

Supporting evidence?

As stated above in "Deleted postings - Specific information is necessary for arguments"
"Supporting articles, research papers are needed to substantiate your argument. Blogs and your personal opinion do NOT qualify as 'evidence.'"

If you wish to submit any current research claiming that Neandertals were clearly NOT human, go ahead and we will proceed. Otherwise, your further postings will be deleted.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Wow, good to see your copy and paste skills are still intact. Very well done.

====
Refer to my below response in which summarizes that:
1. Neandert(h)als were fully human
2. Dating techiques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. (The KEY words being "random' and "spontaneous.")
3. If you wish (since I suspect that you created the original post), name a specific specie and I'll go over the one with you. Otherwise, "evidence of man from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago" is too vague to address.
====

1. Your posts/links said nothing about a Neanderthal being "fully human":
a. "probably not significantly different from that of modern humans"
b. "slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid"
c. "closely resembles that of humans today"
d. "roughly the same size"
None of these say that Neanderthals = Homo Sapiens. They each claim slight or subtle differences, but NOT equality. Are you claiming there IS no difference?
Also, what did the original post have to ask about Neanderthals? I don't get it.

2. Your article is based on a hoax by Reiner Protcsch, and doesn't threaten carbon dating methods at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiner_Protsch_von_Zieten

3. I had nothing to do with the original post, honest engine. If the original question was too vague to address, why address it? Why not clarify, THEN answer the question instead of throwing around nonsense about carbon dating and Neanderthals?

Re: Supporting evidence?

===
submit any current research claiming that Neandertals were clearly NOT human
===

Well, my question before I pull up the papers is what are you defining as "human"?
I need to know if you are agreeing with this much:
"Neanderthals" = Homo neanderthalensis
"Human" = Homo sapiens

Do we agree here?

Some pictures might help?

OK, I'm assuming you're going to agree, and the scientific definition is what you want to use.

Let's start simple and obvious with some *pictures* of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

That is your proof? Try another exercise

Find the skeletal pictures for the below modern day populations, line them up in order by size and claim 'evolution':

The smallest human on record
The largest human on record
Asian descent (from short to tall)
African descent (from short to tall)
Aboriginal descent
Native American descent (from short to tall)
On and on and on ...

That is the identical standard you just used for your 'proof' of human evolution. It's called variation and the above are ALL human.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology/Modern_Humans/Population_Variation

Since the basic premise for the theory of evolution is that mutations/genetic recombination (or whatever) combined with natural selection produce new traits and features, why don't you submit an example for a new feature that was proven to arise from an ape or chimpanzee.

Then, we can start a discussion.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

OK, I'm assuming you're going to agree, and the scientific definition is what you want to use.

Let's start simple and obvious with some *pictures* of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Neanderthals / original post

In regard to your comment:

"Also, what did the original post have to ask about Neanderthals? I don't get it."


Please refer to what EC put in the subject line:

"Adam versus Neanderthals"


Does that help you "get it"?

Re: Neanderthals / original post

Ah yes! Now I see it!
I totally missed that. NOW i know why you're referencing neanderthals. My bad.