cure-real
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

  1. #1

    Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Ancient Hebrew doesn't have a word for that term.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,492
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Here is the best answer I ever heard about Neanderthals, et al:

    Since we have no human beings that live as old as the people of the Old Testiment, the extrapolation of becomming 300, 400, 500 to 900+ years old could lead to the human body looking like the ancient "cavemen".

    I always liked that answer.
    "You're gonna make a difference when you lay down your life, and in complete submission to God, choose to die with Him in service to other people."
    "Sometimes it concerns me, you know, the number of people that can quote my songs, and-- or they can quote the songs of several different people, but they can't quote the Scriptures."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZLFGZ6zpeI
    Rich Mullins

    For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kyburz, California, United States
    Posts
    3,574
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Yes it does.

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    (1Ti 4:1-2)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    17,591
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raybob View Post
    Yes it does.

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    (1Ti 4:1-2)
    This works also

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay/Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    257

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Interesting you would post this, since just yesterday I made a post discussing Neanderthals.

    To answer your main question, no. There is no mention of Neanderthals in the Bible. In my post, which is located in the Controversial Issues forum (which is found here, http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...Human-Ancestry), I go in another direction with Neanderthals though.

    But I directly deal with ChristianCoffee's opinion, which I used to subscribe to. But based on recent genomic evidence, we now know that theory is incorrect.

    Thanks for the question, and God bless.
    While you are on this site, don't debate to win and prove yourself right, but discuss to learn and find truth, and to encourage through a humble spirit. God Bless

    Ephesians 4:1-3
    As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

  7. #7

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Jack Cuozzo, an orthodonist from New Jersey, wrote a book about Neanderthals called Buried Alive (1998), based on his examination of Neanderthal skulls at a French Museum. Cuozzo was given unique access to these skulls through remarkable circumstances, which he describes in his book. When Cuozzo examined the skull and jawbone of each specimen, he put the jawbone in its natural occlusion (so that the jaw is in its properly hinged location), the kind of action any orthodontist does in his sleep, so to speak, because of the nature of his work. But Cuozzo was amazed to find that the face then looked much smaller than the re-created ‘skeletons’ in the museum, in which jawbones had obviously been moved forward and thus out of occlusion, leaving the impression of an ape-lie creature.

    The really interesting thing about Cuozzo’s work is that his son (or son-in-law; I forget which), an MIT graduate student, showed that if the human skull continued to grow in the direction it naturally and continually does in a person’s lifetime, with the forehead growing forward and the face growing longer, a person would look like the Neanderthal skulls if the person lived to be 3oo to 400 (or so) years old, i.e., the age of persons who lived between the time of Noah and Abraham, such as Job and his contemporaries.

    So I would be careful about supposing the illustration you show is anything like what the fossils actually are. For if the skulls are thus manipulated, so can any other human skeleton part.

    I’m disappointed that there is no longer a separate Wikipedia entry on Jack Cuozzo. It makes me wonder if some discrimination is afoot a la Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed.

    I first heard about the work of Cuozzo on a James Kennedy radio show. The late James Kennedy was a well known TV preacher dedicated to making others aware of the Christian roots in many of the founding fathers of America.

    Anyway, some years ago, I was amazed to find out that my Sunday school teacher, Austin Robbins, had actually been an associate of Cuozzo. It’s a small world, after all. In his day, Robbins (probably now in his 80s) had been a missionary for 15 years in Africa, and had also taught dentistry at Temple University and Penn University in Philadelphia. Robbins told of an interesting bone he (or Cuozzo?) found while on an archaeological dig. Robbins suspected it was part of an ear bone of a particular female Neanderthal skeleton that was familiar to them. They asked some guy at the British Museum to send a cast of the ear, to see if their piece fit. Long story short, it fit [i]exactly[/i/]! But even more amazing was that the newly found ear bone fragment showed that a hole had been drilled into it. In fact the hole showed ridges that only a tool could have made, and the hole, explained Robbins, was the result of a surgical procedure known to have existed among ancient cultures, for the purpose of relieving pressure on the brain. The ‘problem,’ however, is that in the evolutionary chart Neanderthals are not suppose to have used tools. Anyway, for verification purposes they sent it to the man at the British Museum for further testing. The man cut the bone apart and examined it, then promptly declared in was only a stone. “But of course it was stone,” said Robbins, with some asperity, during a lecture where I was present. “It was petrified!” Robbins asked for the piece back, even though it had been cut. The man sent it back, and Robbins still has it. This story illustrates perfectly what creationists mean, when they say that a creationist and an evolutionist look at the same evidence, but draw two totally different conclusions. In other words, because the man at the British Museum was an evolutionist, his mind refused to accept the possibility that 'Neanderthals' used tools of this nature. And so for the man at the British Museum, it had to be a rock.

    So if you want to know more about Neanderthals, I would start with Cuozzo’s book, or else possibly try to find Cuozzo on youtube. Good luck!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay/Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    257

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Daniel,

    You provide a good overview of Cuozzo's theory, which I used to agree with. Now, I don't doubt Cuozzo was well intentioned; but his thesis is outdated and has been proven false, even from a creationist standpoint (Hugh Ross, an Old-Earth Creationist, now claims that Neanderthals were very human like animals. That thesis has many problems with it also, though.). The Neanderthal genome was sequenced proving that it is a different species, and not a very old pre-flood human. Additionally, you say,

    The ‘problem,’ however, is that in the evolutionary chart Neanderthals are not suppose to have used tools.
    That is following a very old framework, but now that is far from the truth and an inaccurate statement. I would ask you read my linked post, which is located in the post above yours. I go into these issues but in more detail.

    Thank you for the thoughtful post though, and God bless.
    While you are on this site, don't debate to win and prove yourself right, but discuss to learn and find truth, and to encourage through a humble spirit. God Bless

    Ephesians 4:1-3
    As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

  9. #9

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    My passion runs more toward philosophical questions about theology than it does about origins, though I am a YEC. But having examined this matter just a little, I have a few thoughts.

    First, despite your claim that Cuozzo's theory has been proven false, It seems to me that you have not proven (1) that Cuozzo was wrong about the shape of the face when the skull and jawbone were put into proper occlusion, nor (2) his claim that the museum misrepresented the shape of the skull by failing to place the jawbone in proper occlusion, thus making it appear more ape-like than it really was, nor (3) that Cuozzo is wrong about the shape human skulls would appear in the distant future, were persons to live 300 or 400 (or so) years longer than they presently do, because of the law of multiple proportions. Or are all forms of uniformitarianism so dead that I cannot make this appeal? So I think it should be clear that any genome claims you're making, at least so far your linked response shows, have not proven Cuozzo wrong to the extent I have just shown.

    What in fact you seem to be claiming is that whatever (I would say, alleged) tissue has been found in something claimed to be a Neanderthal, genomes out to something different or substantially different to what humans and apes are today, and that assuming these Neanderthal femurs are of the same species as that to which belong the skulls and jawbones examined by Cuozzo, that therefore Cuozzo has been proven wrong. But, personally, I think your conclusion is premature. For if nothing else, I think it would be naive to suppose all evolutionists have evolved to something so morally superior to their former selves as to be unable or unwilling to repeat something analogous to the Piltdown hoax of 1912. At least, I think you should consider that a possibility.

    But I think a more likely scenario is one or both of the following:

    First, there is the problem of likely contamination of the samples. For as Wikipedia notes, quoting AP’s Patrick McGroarty’s article “Team in Germany maps Neanderthal genome”:

    Only about half a gram of the bone samples was required for the sequencing, but the project faced many difficulties, including the contamination of the samples by the bacteria that had colonized the Neanderthal's body and humans who handled the bones at the excavation site and at the laboratory.
    Well, well, I would certainly like to know—since I can certainly imagine—were an O.J Simpson-like defendent's freedom contingent on these very tissue samples, how much doubt a good defense lawyer could raise about the likelihood that such samples, allegedly 38,000 years old, were kept completely and consistently uncontaminated from all bacterial contamination, as well as contamination from the handling of these bones by humans at the excavation site AND at the labratory. Enough said.

    But I think an equally likely scenario is to ask what the physiology, including the human genome map, would look like in a human that lived five to seven times as long as persons do today? For obviously if the Bible is to be believed, then persons who lived hundreds of years—like Job, his friends, and many others in the generations between Noah and Joseph—must have been physiologically different in some way or ways which today we do not fully understand. Yes, there may be theories about what physiological differences these were, but they are only that—just theories. But surely it is not theory to suppose that the difference in life-expentancy is because we have devolved, not evolved, from what we were.

    For all these reasons I think you have been hasty in casting away your YEC viewpoint. And I strongly feel you have not considered that the kind of bias that enters these fields of ‘inquiry’ by these genome mappers is of the same kind which Austin Robbins encountered first-hand from the man at the British Museum, who had to declare a bone to be merely a stone, lest he have to rethink his entire understanding about origins.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay/Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    257

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Gracely View Post
    My passion runs more toward philosophical questions about theology than it does about origins, though I am a YEC. But having examined this matter just a little, I have a few thoughts.
    Thanks for the reply. Obviously the issue of Neanderthals is inherently connected to origins issues, but that definitely influences theology and philosophy.

    First, despite your claim that Cuozzo's theory has been proven false, It seems to me that you have not proven (1) that Cuozzo was wrong about the shape of the face when the skull and jawbone were put into proper occlusion, nor (2) his claim that the museum misrepresented the shape of the skull by failing to place the jawbone in proper occlusion, thus making it appear more ape-like than it really was, nor (3) that Cuozzo is wrong about the shape human skulls would appear in the distant future, were persons to live 300 or 400 (or so) years longer than they presently do, because of the law of multiple proportions. Or are all forms of uniformitarianism so dead that I cannot make this appeal? So I think it should be clear that any genome claims you're making, at least so far your linked response shows, have not proven Cuozzo wrong to the extent I have just shown.
    None of those issues deal with my statement. When I said Cuozzo was wrong, it was based on essentially him denying the existence of Neanderthals as a separate species, the core issue. #2 may or may not be true, I am not saying he is wrong; he may indeed be correct since Neanderthals were not 'ape-like'. They were 'human-like'. #1 and #3 are pure speculation, since the oldest human in modern times was about 120, and we have no idea what a 400 year old would look like. I do highly doubt it though. For example, Neanderthals all show to be much shorter than humans, but not because of osteoporosis. They were naturally shorter and stockier. Overall their bones are all shorter, not just their backs. That cannot be explained by extreme age. I don't have the qualifications though to go through an in depth criticism of his theory in that sense, nor have I put the time into personally studying physiology enough to do so. Once again, this is a side issue. My focus is on the issue of DNA.


    For if nothing else, I think it would be naive to suppose all evolutionists have evolved to something so morally superior to their former selves as to be unable or unwilling to repeat something analogous to the Piltdown hoax of 1912. At least, I think you should consider that a possibility.
    To keep the scientist accountable, the evidence was given to many parties to examine the evidence. There is no hoax here, or surely the likes of Todd Wood, Hugh Ross, and other creationist scientists would call them out. None have. Additionally, even secular scientists would love to out a hoax like this.


    First, there is the problem of likely contamination of the samples. For as Wikipedia notes, quoting AP’s Patrick McGroarty’s article “Team in Germany maps Neanderthal genome”:

    Well, well, I would certainly like to know—since I can certainly imagine—were an O.J Simpson-like defendent's freedom contingent on these very tissue samples, how much doubt a good defense lawyer could raise about the likelihood that such samples, allegedly 38,000 years old, were kept completely and consistently uncontaminated from all bacterial contamination, as well as contamination from the handling of these bones by humans at the excavation site AND at the labratory. Enough said.
    You are correct, there was a large amount of contamination. But I think you misunderstand if you think that means it cannot be sequenced accurately and confidently. The contamination was bad but they were able to do so still. The issue was that 95% of the DNA was non-Neanderthal DNA, the vast majority of that being bacterial. No doubt, it takes a while to parse through it all. But we know the end result was not from contamination. Why? Because they can tell the difference between bacterial DNA and other lifeforms' DNA. The way they would discover if the contamination was too much was the end result of the earlier stages. If they went through it all they could, and it all showed to be DNA of either bacteria or modern humans (from the bone fragment being handled after its discovery) they would know it was beyond use. But that is not what happened. About 5% of the DNA was Neanderthal. They sequenced it, the results showed it was unique, something never before seen. It was highly human, but very different from modern humans. It was something that was very closely related to homo sapiens, much more so than chimps, but not homo sapien. (It also certainly wasn't bacteria)

    So you are correct to say the contamination was an obstacle to be dealt with, but it was dealt with. Also, the whole O.J. Simpson thing is not pertinent, since he was found innocent by a jury. But he was in fact guilty, as the DNA evidence proved, but jury's get it wrong sometimes. (and that was the 90's; technology in this area is far more advanced and precise than it was then) Also, civilly he was found guilty, but that isn't the point.

    Also, once again, what has been the response by creationist scientists? Todd Wood says creationists have no response, and he is arguably the top YEC in the world. Hugh Ross, arguably the top OEC in the world, accepts them as a different species of human (but there are flaws in this view, as Todd Wood and others have pointed out). In terms of evidence against the neanderthal, the YEC community of scientists have brought forth nothing (this is one reason why I like Todd Wood, he is a YEC but he is so honest about the evidence).


    But I think an equally likely scenario is to ask what the physiology, including the human genome map, would look like in a human that lived five to seven times as long as persons do today? For obviously if the Bible is to be believed, then persons who lived hundreds of years—like Job, his friends, and many others in the generations between Noah and Joseph—must have been physiologically different in some way or ways which today we do not fully understand. Yes, there may be theories about what physiological differences these were, but they are only that—just theories. But surely it is not theory to suppose that the difference in life-expentancy is because we have devolved, not evolved, from what we were.
    That is based on your interpretation of the texts. But of course that is a whole different issue.

    For all these reasons I think you have been hasty in casting away your YEC viewpoint. And I strongly feel you have not considered that the kind of bias that enters these fields of ‘inquiry’ by these genome mappers is of the same kind which Austin Robbins encountered first-hand from the man at the British Museum, who had to declare a bone to be merely a stone, lest he have to rethink his entire understanding about origins.
    I can assure you I have not been hasty. I never thought I would end up rejecting it when I was younger, and I was an extremely staunch defender of YEC at times. I've been with top YEC scientists (one of which told me evolution is far more well founded scientifically than YEC). But I looked in depth, looking to prove evolution wrong. But the evidence is overwhelming. I tried, looking at issue after issue, but each one fell short. There is no conspiracy, or the numerous Christian evolutionary scientists would surely expose such a thing. (Unless you are saying they are all in on it, as is practically every scientists; and that they are devoting their lives to studying something they know is a lie just to prove YEC's wrong. I find that highly unlikely though.)

    Additionally, there is the whole Neanderthal admixture in non-Africans issue, which I go over in my linked post from earlier. That is major since that is what is predicted by the evolutionary model if any in-breeding took place. Statistically that in itself is extremely strong evidence.

    Anyways, I do appreciate your reply. And sometimes forums fail to get across the tone in which I mean this, but I say it all in a way with high respect for you and anyone else on this board.

    God bless.
    While you are on this site, don't debate to win and prove yourself right, but discuss to learn and find truth, and to encourage through a humble spirit. God Bless

    Ephesians 4:1-3
    As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

  11. #11

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    I essentially understand your arguments. As much as I would like to be all things to all people, I’m afraid I’m not versed enough in DNA analysis to help you. Yes, I know, you don’t need help. You simply want a scientific response from YEC. Nevertheless, I still have a few other things to say or to ask.

    First, is it possible that a prejudicial viewpoint can influence how DNA sequencing is interpreted, in regards to what is thought to be bacterial and/or animal, versus what is human? That is, how long must the strands be to disallow any other interpretation? Or is it that one strand is showing 100% human, another strand something different, and so on, but we’re not being told? I’m asking if, in the same way a spare amount of bone fragments have been pieced together to show some anatomical ‘proof’ of evolution only because the evolutionist anticipated that shape, the same could happen in the study and piecing together of the DNA? I suspect you will tell me that no other conclusion is possible than what you have already told me, so I’ll move on. But before I do, I must state that I think your claims that it is mere speculation about (1) Cuozzo’s conclusion about the shape of the face based on occlusion, and (2) his son (or son-in-law’s) work at MIT regarding the law of multiple proportions as it relates to the growth of the human skull, is grossly wrong and unproven by you or by anyone else.

    Moving on, then, first, science has often been wrong about theories, yet sometimes Science is the last to admit it has been wrong. But often it takes many years until it becomes obvious to all (or nearly all) that they were on the wrong track. Let me give you a personal example.

    About three years ago my brother’s PSA (prostate specific antigen) went from about 2.5 to 4.25. He went to a urologist who repeated the PSA test, to see if there had been any change. In the meantime I studied the matter myself, scouring the internet to see if prostate biopsy might cause the very thing it was designed to prevent (i.e., cancer). Eventually, I came to a site run by some South American doctor whose claim about the dangers of biopsy I didn’t really trust, since his treatment was different and because I felt his pooh-poohing of biopsy might just be a ruse to get people to buy into his treatment. But he did give a link to support his claim, so I followed it. Turns out it brought me to the work of Michael Karin, an Israeli-born researcher working out of the USC at San Diego. He and his team had worked on the problem of why a cell would metastasize when, for so long a time prior, it had lay dormant. The general assumption was that something happened in the cell itself which caused it to go ‘haywire,’ though it was unknown what this factor of change might be. In the end Karin found that it was not the cell itself, but nearly injured cells that caused the problem. He found that these injured cells put out some kind of enzyme reaction which ultimately suppressed something called Maspin in the cancer cell, which had been acting to suppress metastisization. Karin went on to say that the irony of prostate biopsy (in which there are generally 12 needle sticks to the prostate), may be causing the very thing it was designed to prevent.

    I also learned from the internet that two major studies had been done about PSA in relation to survival. One involved 120,000 men, the other 80,000 men. One was a Swedish study, the other American. The studies ran for 10 years, apparently because the expected result of showing a major benefit to early-PSA screening never materialized in the first few years of the study, and so they had to keep the studies running for far longer than they had anticipated. In the end, one study showed ZERO lives saved, the other a benefit of 7 lives in 100,000 men saved, or less than one-tenth of one percent. Yet American doctors were routinely telling ANY male patient over 50 to get their PSA tested. In fact, I myself was being told this.

    Long story short, based on my research I advised my brother not to get a biopsy. And since my brother had already decided he didn’t want a biopsy, we returned to the urologist with that mindset, and to find out the results of the repeated PSA test. BTW, I had read that red flags should go up if your urologist doesn’t suggest other treatments besides biopsy, but pushes for an immediate biopsy, or if he is unaware of the latest research, etc. Well, we found out my brother’s PSA was up to about 5, and the doctor said “We need a biopsy at this point. But I challenged him, and I was very confrontational with him because I felt he was playing with my brother’s life, to line his own pockets with an unnecessary procedure. He tried to defend himself by dismissing the two massive studies, which, of course, had they proven his position, he would have been the first to quote. He also claimed he was unaware of Karin’s work. In the end we left his office very unhappy. Then, about a year later, President Obama’s medical advisory board officially recommended that early-PSA screening be discontinued, since it showed too little benefit (near zero) for the massive amount of effort put into the program of early-PSA screening. I have read that possible up to one MILLION men were unnecessarily clinically treated for prostate. One million. Can you believe that?

    Fast forward to a year or so later, after early-PSA screening has been devalued (though it hasn’t stopped urologists from TV ads, claiming otherwise). My brother is having abdominal pain, and worrying he has cancer. Eventually he gets checked out and it turns out to be diverticulitis. But his PSA is tested again, and this time it is 13. This is a very high number. So he goes to a different urologist. This doctor decides to give him Cipro, an antibiotic, to see if the number will go down. He explains to me that even though Cipro is an anti-biotic, and that only 1 of the 5 reasons for Benign Prostate Hyperplasia (prostate enlargement) is bacterial related, Cipro has shown an ability to lower the PSA number is ALL 5 causes. Dave gets retested some weeks later and the number is now less than 5! We are elated. And so, finally, after a year to a year and a half, I feel vindicated in my original advice to my brother not to get a prostate biopsy.

    My point in all this is that if Science can get this type of thing wrong, in which so many billions of dollars are spent, all of which, of course, drives the money machine, what level of confidence to any new theory of Science does this suggest? In my opinion, it compels a healthy dose of skepticism.

    In fact, I have to smile when I think about a PBS program only 5 years old, or so, which explored why some particular rock was moving along the desert floor in some Californian desert. The movement of the rock had baffled scientists. Now, I must ask, if, as of several years ago, scientists are baffled about the movement in a rock in a desert, do you really think that on so momentous an issue as Neanderthal DNA sequencing, that no major reinterpretation of the data is likely in the future? That it’s all set in stone? Well, maybe that stone is going to move.

    I’m concerned, frankly, that already you are allowing your new view to render a response to me about “that’s your interpretation of the text”. But I know enough to at least tell you that a seminarian pointed out to me a year ago or so that the Hebrew doesn’t allow for a gap of time between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 because of what is called the Hebrew waw consecutive. And my own work regarding Daniel’s prophecy of the coming of the Messiah has shown that the scriptures can be trusted more than any scientific claims, because of the supernatural element of the prophecy’s fulfillment.

    Unfortunately, what is likely to now happen is that you will begin, if you have not already begun, to approach the Old Testament as a thing literary rather than literal. From there you will be tempted to assume that passages that describe miracles might just be a kind of literary genera that modern, Western readers have misinterpreted. This way you can cling to the idea of biblical inerrancy, without believing in the miracles of the Old Testament. I don’t know what to say. Except I think you’re going down the wrong track, and that you’re in more danger than you realize. And I regret I can’t be of more help to you, or be all things to all people. Please approach this issue with more caution. I know someone who was once a 6-day Evangelical creationist, but now is a Deist and homosexual. When he first departed from his belief in inerrqancy he still believed in the Resurrection. Obviously, now he doesn't. People can lose their faith over this sort of thing. Be very careful.

    Probably this is my last response, since I doubt I have much of anything at present I can add to the discussion.

  12. #12

    Re: Does the Bible say anything about Neanderthals?

    I have found out some additional information that adds to the discussion. MLC states in his thread, “Genomics, Neanderthals, and Human Ancestry”:

    “It was proven that Neanderthals were indeed a different species of 'human'. They are very similar, but very distinct in many areas. In this area the debate is over. Neanderthals are not very old pre-flood humans and that is fact”
    But if the linked articles below are correct, it seems that MLC’s conclusion that “Neanderthals are not very old pre-flood humans and that is fact,” is really just his opinion. In fact, I can only suppose MLC meant to say "post-flood humans," not "pre-flood humans," since the YEC position on the Neanderthals links them to those who dispersed from Babel after the Flood.

    And I’m not sure why he thinks Young Earth Creationists haven't responded. As most or all of the below articles show, they certainly have. Moreover, MLC’s conviction that Cuozzo “has been proven false, even from a creationist standpoint,” is simply not true. For as author Anne Habermehl points out, while the conclusions of geneticists and anthropologists are at odds with each other, Cuozzo’s view cuts the Gordian knot anthropologically, explaining in the most natural way why Neanderthals are found buried among modern humans, why Neanderthals 'disappeared,' and why their dispersal pattern is wide, yet not penetrating to the American continents. Furthermore, the genetic work of Robert Carter and the micro-biological efforts of Dan Criswell, if they do not endorse Cuozzo per se, at least create enough doubt about the legitimacy of evolutionists' conclusions about aDNA (ancient DNA), to a point where Cuozzo may be proven true in the end. In fact, Habermehl says that in one respect Cuozzo has actually gained some traction from an unexpected quarter, i.e., evolutionists who now believe Neanderthals were slower in maturing than what was previously thought.

    Here is an excellent overview article by Anne Habermehl about Neanderthals, from the creationist perspective:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/cont...anderthals.pdf

    Dan Criswell, a micro-biologist, explains how the aDNA of Neanderthals was subject to decay and contamination to the point where conclusions about the relationship of Neanderthals to humans amounts to assumption, not fact. His article can be read here:

    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...rtal%20DNA.pdf

    Perhaps a more accessible article is by Robert W. Carter, a geneticist and creationist. It can be found here:

    http://creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ours

    In short, Carter, like Criswell, point out problems with key assumptions made by evolutionists about the aDNA of Neanderthals.

    Lastly, I find one of MLC's arguments inconsistent. MLC says it is speculation to assume Cuozzo is correct that continual growth of the skull during a person's lifetime would, if carried forward some hundreds of years, look like that of Neanderthal skulls. MLC says we can't know that, since there are no 400-year old persons around to verify Cuozzo's claim (even though, I note, neither MLC nor anyone else has shown Cuozzo's mathematical projections to be in error on this point). But what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the sword cuts both ways. For if MLC is going to claim Cuozzo's point is mere speculation, what of MLC's own assumption that 400-year old persons wouldn't have a mitachondrial DNA different enough to account for the 'findings' of evolutionists? Where are the 400-year old persons around to verify this claim by MLC?
    Last edited by Daniel Gracely; Jul 9th 2012 at 12:37 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Bible BooClips- Kids animated Bible stories
    By ori in forum Christian Classifieds
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep 20th 2011, 03:30 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Apr 21st 2011, 08:08 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb 26th 2010, 03:55 AM
  4. Replies: 87
    Last Post: Nov 13th 2009, 04:38 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Apr 27th 2009, 03:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •