Meet Your 'Not So' Ancient Relatives
For decades, at least since Darwin’s time, cavemen have been given little respect. They have been portrayed as knuckle-dragging near-apes that conked their women on the head with a club and dragged them into their caves by the hair. Not until The Flintstones did cavemen find a semblance of dignity. Fred would go to work daily peddling his rock-mobile, while Wilma kept the home all dressed up in her finest pearls. More recently, cavemen have been given a greater opportunity to show their more “human” side in TV commercials for a leading auto insurance company. Here, at least, we get the feeling that cavemen really are human after all.
We believe that cavemen, or Neanderthals, were not predecessors to modern humans at all, but were human in every way. However, there are some in the “creationist” community that still believe that Neanderthals were something less than human. According to their biblical creation model, “hominids,” which include Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and others, were “animals created by God.” They describe these “creatures” as extraordinary in that they had sufficient intelligence to make crude tools and even have a certain level of “culture.” Their model “predicts” biological similarities between Neanderthal and modern humans, but they insist that true humanity belongs to the descendants of Adam and Eve. There are serious ramifications to that line of thinking, but we can deal with that at another time.
In an interview with Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, Dr. Robert Carter, Marine Biologist, said this about Neanderthal: “Recent archaeological studies show that Neandertals were behaviorally human; they apparently even had the spare time and intellect to make cosmetics.” Recently, the study of Neanderthal genome was fully released, and “this showed us things completely unexpected from evolutionary theory. First, Neandertal was fully human. Second, he is related to people living in Eurasia today. Third, Neandertals interbred with modern humans, meaning they were the same species, even though evolutionists claim that they split off from modern humans 500,000 years ago. So there is nothing in the data to suggest Neandertals were not fully human. And there are many reasons to believe they lived on the earth after the Flood and are descended from Noah and his family like everybody else,” says Dr. Carter.
So, you may be related to Neanderthal, but that’s okay – they were fully human!
38 Responses
Join the ConversationMarquiel Williams Baker says:
Ashely,
Upon reading your quote I too wanted to find the evidence myself about human remains found with dinosaur remains. After several hours of searching and reading I believe I have found a good book for all to read. I have not read the complete book but I have read a good part of the book. The title of the book is" Phosphate rocks of South Carolina and the 'great Carolina marl bed'" by Francis Simmons Holmes. The link to find the book is http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7220099M/Phosphate_rocks_of_South_Carolina_and_the_great_Carolina_marl_bed.
I will read the whole work and look at its claims and also the claims of the findings of more sites in Europe in 1854. Francis claims that his findings took place in 1844. Look on pages 62-65 which Francis talks of the actual findings.
On a side note, I as a Christian believe when God says that his word is true. Psalms 33:4 "For the word of the Lord is right and true; he is faitful in all he does.". So when God says he created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh I faitfully believe him. Just as so many who faitfully believe the science can take a jaw bone and a few teeth and reconstruct a whole species and understand how they lived based on that. God tells me to trust him in all things and not just the ones I think are comfortable enough to accept. We cannot put God and his wisdom in a box because we honestly cannot even use the full capabilities of our brains as humans. It comes to the ultimat question of,do I have faith in God or do I not?
Graham says:
Is this coming from an old or young earth perspective?
YOM says:
We are definitely "young earth."
Graham says:
How do you account for the carbon dating on some of these Neanderthals dating past 10,000 B.C? It would seem the earth is a bit older than most "young earth" believers see it to be.
YOM says:
Here is a link to an article that addresses your question: Myths Regarding Radio Carbon Dating. We hope this helps.
Graham says:
Even if the carbon dating is not an accurate measurement. How would a "young earth" creationist account for the fossil record, and the many layers of the earth's crust, appearing to show a pile up over time? It doesn't appear reasonable to me that dino's lived 6 to 10 thousand years ago.
Matthew Grove says:
The flood of Noah's day washes away millions o years it is able to explain the vast majority of the fossil record. Catastrophic Plate tectonics is a good mechanism for it as well. It explains more observations than the slow and gradual model.
YOM says:
Just what is the fossil record? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. We account for the fossil record from the biblical record of the global flood of Noah. You can read a good description of that here: What Geologic Processes Were Operating During the Flood?
You know by simple observation that when something dies and is left exposed to the elements, it does not last very long – certainly not long enough for it to become fossilized. For fossils to form, they must be buried rapidly in sediments. Long years of gradual deposition would not form fossils. There are also many fossil deposits that include mammal and dinosaur fossils mixed together. Human fossils have also been found in the mix at the “great Carolina marl bed” in the phosphate rocks of South Carolina. Of course, you won’t read about that in any evolutionary literature.
Recently, paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in a supposed 65-million year old T-Rex. Soft tissue cannot last more than a few thousand years, yet there it is! Even more recently, a fossil of a squid (which is mostly all soft tissue) was discovered with ink still in its ink sac. You can find that article at: Fresh Fossil Squid Ink 160 Million Years Old? If all of this sounds unreasonable to you, it may have something to do with the many years of evolutionary indoctrination you have received.
You can find articles on this topic (and others) at ICR Search. Just search for “soft tissue,” or “squid ink.”
Ashley Haworth-Roberts says:
"There are also many fossil deposits that include mammal and dinosaur fossils mixed together".
And NONE WHATSOEVER where dinosaur and primate fossils have been found mixed together.
YOM says:
Ashley Haworth-Roberts says:
I don't believe this to be accurate.
If you have hard evidence of this, why not try to get the finding published in a peer-reviewed science journal (I don't mean a magazine produced by Young Earth Creationists)?
Graham says:
How do you guys deal with the amount of time it takes for star light to hit the earth ( in a way that doesn't defy the laws of physics)? No link preferred... p.s just searching and curious (im not indoctrinated into evolutionary ideas). Also many Christians lean to the "old earth" belief who remain biblical (of course you're interpreters don't agree), yet don't need to do so much scientific gymnastics.
Nora says:
Why do you not believe this to be accurate?
Do you believe whatever scientists who believe in evolution say without hard evidence is accurate?
No science magazine or book that supports evolution would print it because it undermines their own theory.
Ernie says:
Hi Graham, your question about distant starlight, is a little off topic, but I'll take a stab at it. Did you know that what we commonly accept as the speed of light is actually an "average" speed of light? They take a beam of light from Point A and direct it toward Point B and measure the time it takes to reflect back to Point A. They then divide that time by 2 to get the average speed of light -- approximately 186,000 miles per second. They haven't come up with a good way to measure the one-way speed of light -- from Point A to Point B. The one-way speed of light might be almost instantaneous -- we don't know. Dr. Jason Lisle, astrophysicist and director of research for ICR deals with that in his book "Taking Back Astronomy."
Rod says:
YOM et al. Attempting to get back on the topic I have to express a concern about old earth creation teaching. When it comes to fossils like the Neanderthals, is old earth creation doctrine teaching we had different races before Adam in Genesis 2, i.e. pre-Adamites that evolved through various stone ages? It certainly seems this is the doctrine being taught.
Q: Does the doctrine of pre-Adamites contradict what Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9?
YOM says:
We are NOT saying that Neanderthal was a pre-Adamic race. What we said was, "We believe that cavemen, or Neanderthals, were not predecessors to modern humans at all, but were human in every way."
ashley haworth-roberts says:
Nora
I've seen no reputable evidence suggesting that it is accurate.
Nora says:
Ashley,
What 'reputable evidence' are you looking for, or what do you call 'reputable evidence'?
ashley haworth-roberts says:
Not that Creation Moments link referring to hadrosaurus fossils having been found at South Carolina Marl Beds!
Please see the exchanges here: http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/common-misconceptions-cavemen-comments/#comment-4155
The links provided by Eye on the ICR did not appear ever to mention any dinosaur fossils or bones at the US site.
This may also be of interest - my posts and those of Brian Jordan (there are other topics too within the thread over the past 48 hours, though not addressed by me): http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3100&hilit=carolina&start=135
ashley haworth-roberts says:
Is my new post and its links still being checked - please?
Please see my two comments here just now:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3100&start=150
Thanks.
Rod says:
Ashley, I read your link. I don't think YOM will censor you concerning comments about dinosaurs and human remains together in the fossil record.
I want to get back on topic of the Neanderthals or Neandertals as some spell. Do you think Neanderthals are descendants of Adam in Genesis 5 and the Neanderthal sites are post-Flood burials, meaning they belong to the time of Genesis 11 generations before Abram in Canaan or do you believe that Neanderthals are a pre-Adamic race, dating back long before Adam in Genesis 5?
Real says:
Rod, the neanderthals would have been after the flood. They were the descendents of Noah.
ashley haworth-roberts says:
Where does the Bible say that?
Ian says:
Why is a marine biologist being solicited for opinions on the the relationships between humans and neanderthals? There is an entire field devoted to this issue and more - paleoanthropology.
Rod says:
Ashley and Ian, I read your recent comments. I feel this is an important topic and so present the following for you and others reading YOM conversations.
"ScienceDaily (Sep. 17, 2012) — Finds from early stone age site in north-central Germany show that human ingenuity is nothing new -- and was probably shared by now-extinct species of humans. Archeologists from the University of Tübingen have found eight extremely well-preserved spears -- an astonishing 300,000 years old, making them the oldest known weapons anywhere. The spears and other artifacts as well as animal remains found at the site demonstrate that their users were highly skilled craftsmen and hunters, well adapted to their environment -- with a capacity for abstract thought and complex planning comparable to our own...” Ref. Skilled Hunters 300,000 Years Ago, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120917085535.htm (Sep-12)
It is apparent from secular reports like ScienceDaily.com that Neanderthals do not fit into the evolution model as an extinct non-human species that walked the earth tens of thousands of years before Adam and Eve in the Garden as described in Genesis 2. The evidence shows they were fully human and could make advanced spears and use for hunting. The question for those who accept the Bible and old earth creation doctrine like Ashley and Ian apparently do (correct me if I am wrong here), where do you folks place the Neanderthals in relation to Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies? An old earth creation doctrine must accept the Neanderthals as extinct non-humans who were evolving from the stone ages long before Adam was created by God in Genesis 1:26-31 and Genesis 5:1-2. The Bible does not teach this doctrine of mankind origins likewise the Bible does not specifically mention Neanderthals to answer Ashley question. As a biblical creationist, I interpret the fossil finds within the framework of Genesis chapters 1-11 so Neanderthal sites found today would be viewed as post-Flood burials and sites thus the Neanderthals are sons of Noah migrating in the post-Flood world as we see in Genesis 10:32. I believe YOM will follow this paradigm as well for understanding Neanderthals as YOM posts indicate. So basically I see three models to interpret Neanderthals.
1. Evolution interprets as extinct non-humans who evolved over immense time spans through many stone ages before modern man appears on earth. Adam and Eve in Genesis are not real historical persons and neither are the sons of Noah in Genesis 10.
2. Old earth creationists interpret as extinct non-humans who evolved over immense time spans during many stone ages but God did create Adam and Eve and they are historical persons just like the sons of Noah. Neanderthals eventually went extinct, usually before Adam and Eve were created in the Garden in Genesis 2.
3. Biblical creationists like YOM, ICR, AiG, CMI see the Neanderthals as descendants of Adam and Eve, descendants of the sons of Noah in Genesis 10:32 migrations after the Flood. The Neanderthals indeed may have been wiped out by other sons of Noah in the early post-Flood world.
Q: Ashley and Ian, where do you folks stand on the discussion of Neanderthals?
Marquiel Williams Baker says:
Where in the bible says what? That his ward is truth? That is Psalms 33:4.
ashley haworth-roberts says:
None of these responses answers my question about how the Bible does not mention Neanderthals (or other extinct species of Homo). The fact that they made spears does NOT show that they were Homo sapiens. They were already extinct by the time the Bible was written.
ashley haworth-roberts says:
In response to Rod's question at the end, I used to accept the whole Bible as entirely trustworthy, but no longer am able to do so. When I was an evangelical Christian I was largely agnostic about the book of Genesis as it was never really an issue for me.
I have since studied science, and the claims of creationists, and feel that the approach taken by the ICR, AiG and CMI in particular is misleading, anti-educational, biased and frequently erroneous (though usually faithful to the scriptures taken as literal 'history'). I do not question their sincerity - but they are immune to ALL arguments that show that their teachings are faith-based and do not fit known facts (they simply call such facts 'assumptions' or even 'lies').
By the way that Science Daily link suggests that the spear makers were of the species Homo heidelbergensis rather than Homo neanderthalis (still 'Germans'!!)
YOM says:
Ashley, when you say, "They were already extinct by the time the Bible was written," how do you know that to be true?
- Michael, on behalf of YOM
Marquiel Williams Baker says:
Ashley,
I believe this article is saying they were humans. And on the point that the bible is anti-education is false. Look at Isaac Newton he was a believer. Benjamin Franklin was a believer, these men were very educated and still believed in Christ.
ashley haworth-roberts says:
YOM
These fossils always date to older than 6,000 years. (Also the Bible mentions only one 'kind' of human.)
Marquiel
Please re-read my comments. I did not state that the Bible is anti-educational, I suggested that young Earth creationists are - because they seek to use the Bible to undermine mainstream science.
Rod says:
Ahsley, YOM et al. The ScienceDaily report I cited about the 300,000 year old spears also states this - "It is likely that they were members of the species Homo heidelbergensis, although no human remains have yet been found at the site."
So far no remains of the spear makers have been found so to interpret as heidelbergensis is not rooted in solid scientific fact. The only hard evidence is the spears which can clearly be made by modern man too. The ScienceDaily report is a classic example of evolution spin in origins story telling-my opinion.
YOM says:
Ashley, on what are you basing your statement that "fossils always date to older than 6,000 years"?
ashley haworth-roberts says:
What science has discovered.
Why are you asking these questions?
Marquiel Williams Baker says:
Ashley,
What if mainstream science is undermining the bible. I wonder why you seem to believe the bible in some areas but why can't you accept Geneses. You said you once believed, If you don't mind me asking, what is it that caused you to stop believing? I am interested BC when a fellow believer stops believing I am always interested how after seeing the love and grace of God one can say no to that. If you don't want to answer I understand but this is deeper than facts and arguing. God says people will know him through our love. That tells me no matter how much we argue the facts love cannot be argued. I don't know you but I can tell you this BC God loves you I love you. "The second of these is love your neighbor like yourself", as Jesus says.
YOM says:
Ashley, what specific examples of scientific discoveries convince you that fossils "always date to older than 6,000 years"?
This website has been designed for the purpose of facilitating conversations like this one that you, Marquiel, Rod, and others are having. The purpose in asking these questions is to reveal what facts exist in the claims that you make.
Ashley Haworth-Roberts says:
No, it's simply that I trust the consensus scientific view that previous species of human other than Homo sapiens died out longer ago than 4,000 BC and that Earth is 4.5 bn years' old and the universe much older still. It is for YECs, who challenge mainstream science, to try and disprove these. I've seen nothing so far on YEC websites that has convinced me that conventional history and science are both wrong and that Earth is really only 6,000 years' old.
However, if you have something specific to put forward I will look at it.
YOM says:
Ashley,
You said you are familiar with YEC information. Could you then give your explanation of two apparent discrepancies?
1. Original tissue fossils cannot be older than around 800,000 years, yet they are found in dinosaur and other fossils which consensus has labeled as 80 million years. (Reference)
2. Original C14 has been reported in every testable carbon-containing earth material, including marble, coal, oil, and fossils. These cannot be older than 90,000 years – and in fact return ages of 20-30,000 carbon years, but are routinely reported in samples designated at many millions of years.
How do you explain these?
Could scientists be brushing aside these observations? You say that you trust the scientists. Do you think they are infallible in their attempts to reconstruct history? How have they handled these two scientific discrepancies?