Neanderthals and Their Place in Biblical History
I just got done reading an AiG Research Journal article that I found very interesting. I encourage all who wish to participate in this discussion to read it. It was written by a layperson who, by all accounts, appears to have done quite a bit of research on her own and corresponded with a couple of scientists in order to complete the paper. Here is the link to the paper:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/enigmatic-Neand...
The abstract states: Abstract
"Young-earth creationists rightly consider that Neanderthals were human, but are divided on
various issues, mainly because of the opposing views of Jack Cuozzo, author of Buried Alive! and
Marvin Lubenow, author of Bones of Contention. These differences include Neanderthal lifespan,
causes of the Neanderthal distinctive morphology, why the Neanderthals disappeared, length of
Neanderthal children’s maturation time, whether we can place Neanderthals in biblical history, and
the related issue of whether Homo erectus was human. In addition, Neanderthals are implicated in
matters that include the Babel dispersion, earth’s breakup, DNA, patterns of world population, the Ice Age, archaeology and historical timeline."
The author has some interesting theories and ultimately takes the side of Jack Cuozzo in the end. This line really sticks out to me and it was something I've never really thought about, Currently, the most widely accepted creationist view of the Neanderthals is that they were very early nomadic humans, probably one of the tribes that departed from Babel in the dispersion (for example,
Oard 2003b, Robertson and Sarfati 2003).
Interesting. Do any of the creationists here that might have studied this more in depth have anything to add or a differing opinion on Neanderthals??? From what I gather, creationists agree that these were humans, not apes. Correct?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/enigmatic-Neand...
The abstract states: Abstract
"Young-earth creationists rightly consider that Neanderthals were human, but are divided on
various issues, mainly because of the opposing views of Jack Cuozzo, author of Buried Alive! and
Marvin Lubenow, author of Bones of Contention. These differences include Neanderthal lifespan,
causes of the Neanderthal distinctive morphology, why the Neanderthals disappeared, length of
Neanderthal children’s maturation time, whether we can place Neanderthals in biblical history, and
the related issue of whether Homo erectus was human. In addition, Neanderthals are implicated in
matters that include the Babel dispersion, earth’s breakup, DNA, patterns of world population, the Ice Age, archaeology and historical timeline."
The author has some interesting theories and ultimately takes the side of Jack Cuozzo in the end. This line really sticks out to me and it was something I've never really thought about, Currently, the most widely accepted creationist view of the Neanderthals is that they were very early nomadic humans, probably one of the tribes that departed from Babel in the dispersion (for example,
Oard 2003b, Robertson and Sarfati 2003).
Interesting. Do any of the creationists here that might have studied this more in depth have anything to add or a differing opinion on Neanderthals??? From what I gather, creationists agree that these were humans, not apes. Correct?
Views: 140
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on -
I really don't have anything to add except that you are correct in that creationists agree that neanderthals were fully human. To my knowledge, a lot of research in this field (creationist and evolutionist) has brought forth evidence that confirms that Neanderthals and "modern" humans coexisted and probably intermarried and had offspring with one another.
I found the article pretty thought-provoking, and I'd be interested to read more on the computer model that was used to predict skull changes over extremely long life-spans. My guess, however, is we'll probably never know for sure in this world.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on -
Yeah, Paul brings up a good point (gasp)! The article is found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/08/news-to-note-05...
When I first read it what I thought was surprising is that they concluded that Homo Sapiens shared an ancestry with Neanderthal because our genes share 4% similarity with Neanderthal. ...4%? How do we only share 4% similarity with Neanderthal when we supposedly share 98% similarity with chimpanzees? Methinks someone uses different methods of quantifying similarity.
Paul Iacono said:There was a pretty "conclusive" study done recently that showed a certain percentage of Neanderthal DNA in humans, the highest amounts in those native to the Middle East, with decreasing amounts the farther you went from the ME. (As opposed to Africa, which is what the researchers were expecting.) Don't remember all the details, but I think that was the gist of it. Kind of surprised she doesn't mention it.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on -
I'll have to read the article Alexander posted on this but I know the one I referenced mentions the problems with the DNA testing and tends to favor the bone structure methodology better. I know very little about either, so I can't really comment on which is the better method. Seems DNA would be if done correctly and free of contamination. I know she takes Cuozzo's side and he specialized in the study of jaw, teeth, and skulls for his findings.
Edit: I just read the article and it quite frankly makes no sense to me, especially the 4% part. Seems terribly low.
Paul Iacono said:There was a pretty "conclusive" study done recently that showed a certain percentage of Neanderthal DNA in humans, the highest amounts in those native to the Middle East, with decreasing amounts the farther you went from the ME. (As opposed to Africa, which is what the researchers were expecting.) Don't remember all the details, but I think that was the gist of it. Kind of surprised she doesn't mention it.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on
-
LOL...that quote def stuck out with me too. If I could have a sig line here, that would probably be it. Classic.
But yes, it is a fascinating article. Lots of speculation but it's clearly only meant to be a model.
Jeannette Parry said:Fascinating article! Haven't finished reading it yet, but have been making notes of parts that especially interest, and sometimes amuse.
This quote from Mark Twain is my favourite:
'…Mark Twain would have been quite impressed
by how little hard evidence supports some of these
papers. He wrote, “There is something fascinating
about science. One gets such wholesale returns
of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of
fact”...'
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on
-
I agree with Jeannette, the more I read outside of AiG (although this was printed in AiG) and the more I read more complex creationist writers/scientists, the more I realize that really all one can do is come up with models, such as this one on Neanderthals. I also realize, the more I watch Nat Geo, Disc, SciTec, ect, that that is really all evolutionists come up with either. Models. Watch any show on one of these channels and you will constantly hear language such as, "could have", "probably", "scientists speculate", ect. In other words, nothing definitive. However, more importantly, both sides, creationists and evolutionists, fit their models to their worldview.
We Christians, specifically of the YEC kind (hehehe) know that God made man after his image and animals after and within their kind, so we know that Neanderthals fit in one of these categories and it appears that they were fully human, as were the "hobbits" from Indonesia.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on
-
Well, they do put out the AiG Research Journal, which, after having read a few of the articles, goes against some of the theories and models that AiG itself has put out.....so, maybe AiG understands this better then you think.
Paul Iacono said:Ehhhh... Not so sure AiG would agree.
Jeannette Parry said:"Nice to hear you say that. (Or see you write that... whatever.) I tend to fall back and reference the AiG position, since that's what I read every day and since -- except for this forum -- that's my primary exposure to Creationist philosophy (for better or for worse). And I'm pretty sure they say that the breakup happened as a result of the flood."
The point is, and AiG would agree, that if the BIBLE doesn't say for definite then we shouldn't either. There is for example a suggestion that there may have been more than one breakup (will try to find some info on that if you like - it isn't my field so not sure why they think that). Presumably the first breakup would have been at the beginning of the Flood, the other some time later. There is room for creationists to have differing opinions, or change their position on such things, (as new discoveries are made and new studies done), as they do not contradict scripture.
An example of change in position as a result of further advances in science:
Creationists apparently used to believe that God created all the different species of living things exactly as (and even in the same locations!) they are now. But increased scientific understanding of genetics showed that this isn't so. Instead, the scientific evidence is that there is great variation and fluidity within the basic kinds of organisms; and that there was probably even more in the past. The decline in richness of the genome through adaptive radiation, isolation of populations, speciation, extinction and accumulatind genetic faults through the millennia, would slow down any further changes.
But that in no way contradicts the Genesis account because this change is only WITHIN kinds, not between kinds. ...There is no definite evidence for the latter.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on
-
Based on catestrophic plate techtonics the break up of the continents caused the flood. The majority of the water would have come from the oceans and "the waters beneath." When the continents began to separate the hot magma that filled in the gaps would have been less dense due to its temperature. This means that the ocean bottom that was newly created would have been a great deal higher (the ocean floor would have been much shallower) forcing the waters of the oceans to submerge the continents. As the ocean floor cooled it became more dense and began to sink down taking the water from the continents with it. I think the continents would have had to have broken up before and during the flood and not after or there would have been another flood.
Paul Iacono said:What I found most interesting in the article... The idea that perhaps the breakup of the continents came after the flood. I thought it was standard creationist dogma that the breakup was a result of the same tumult that caused the flood.
Can anybody edjumukate me?
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on -
This is going back a few comments, but wanted to chime in on it. There are many things that the Bible does not address specifically. Such as computers, or calculators, or space shuttles. So while the Bible does relate many things, it doesn't have all the answers (trivial pursuit type answers). Many biblical principles are universal and can be applied in many scenarios involving these things (like cheating on a test with your calculator). Where the Bible is not specific, we practice grace and charity. Where the Bible is specific, we are firm. I especially like the phrase
"In essentials, unity; In doubtful matters, liberty; In all things, charity."
So, the Bible doesn't say anywhere "the world broke up into 7 continents" - however, there are times where some tremendous geological activity is implied (Noah's flood). The current model that seems the most likely is the catastrophic plate tectonics. This is a model that purports to show how the flood looked, what might have happened, and how it shaped the Earth. If another model emerges that better explains it, while still accepting the details that are provided in the Bible, then the consensus will likely shift. What is non-negotiable is what is delineated in the Bible, what is negotiable is what is extrapolated from what is stated in the Bible.
By the way, Paul, you've asked if there was a time that creationists changed based on evidence, and there are and have been. The one I most recall is the "canopy" model, which once seemed very promising, but has since become less tenable. Our model's change, but our presupposition is that the Bible is what it says it is and was provided to us by the one who says He gave it to us.
My two cents seems to have turned into a dollar and a half. =)
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on
-
Excellent response Brian...very well done.
I'm going to elaborate on AiGs position on models. Paul seems to think (and admittedly is learning here that it's not true) that all creationists believe the exact same thing. That's just not true. We believe Gen 1-11 to be literal history! So the models we come up with (I say "we", I'm not a YEC scientist and have never come up with a model) must fit into a literal reading of Gen 1-11. In fact, AiG believes this also, they do not hold firm to a rigid model Paul. I got my new Answers magazine today and just cracked it open and there is a letter to the editor that kind of addresses this issue.
Here's AiG's answer:
Editor’s Response: "Creationists start with the Bible when they try to explain how the present world came to be. We find miles of fossil layers, which were bent and moved by great upheavals some time after the fossils were deposited. Because nobody was there to see exactly what happened, tentative language is appropriate.
Our aim is to glorify our Creator by “searching out” how He has worked in and through His creation (see Proverbs 25:2). As we attempt to do that, we hope that people will see that the Bible’s history is the proper starting point for all scientific study, including the natural history of Madagascar.
To be effective in that task, we have to distinguish carefully between a model (a possibility) and God’s Word (absolute truth). See “Loving Science, Loving God” (pp. 90–92, Answers, October–December 2008) for a fuller discussion of this approach."
Brian Guiley said:This is going back a few comments, but wanted to chime in on it. There are many things that the Bible does not address specifically. Such as computers, or calculators, or space shuttles. So while the Bible does relate many things, it doesn't have all the answers (trivial pursuit type answers). Many biblical principles are universal and can be applied in many scenarios involving these things (like cheating on a test with your calculator). Where the Bible is not specific, we practice grace and charity. Where the Bible is specific, we are firm. I especially like the phrase
"In essentials, unity; In doubtful matters, liberty; In all things, charity."
So, the Bible doesn't say anywhere "the world broke up into 7 continents" - however, there are times where some tremendous geological activity is implied (Noah's flood). The current model that seems the most likely is the catastrophic plate tectonics. This is a model that purports to show how the flood looked, what might have happened, and how it shaped the Earth. If another model emerges that better explains it, while still accepting the details that are provided in the Bible, then the consensus will likely shift. What is non-negotiable is what is delineated in the Bible, what is negotiable is what is extrapolated from what is stated in the Bible.
By the way, Paul, you've asked if there was a time that creationists changed based on evidence, and there are and have been. The one I most recall is the "canopy" model, which once seemed very promising, but has since become less tenable. Our model's change, but our presupposition is that the Bible is what it says it is and was provided to us by the one who says He gave it to us.
My two cents seems to have turned into a dollar and a half. =)
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on
-
And this refutes the existence of God how?? That is in ref to your last line.
God did not reveal himself to man fully in science, because science is fallible and prone to error as your know. Pick up Hunter's text book from 1915 and you will laugh your rear end off at what the evolutionists were teaching back then....it's comical. Science reveals God however in the sense though that it is generally uniform, orderly, and follows rational laws.
God's complete revelation to mankind however, is scripture, not science.
Paul Iacono said:But see, Brian and Justin, this is the problem I have with Creationism:
If another model emerges that better explains it, while still accepting the details that are provided in the Bible, then the consensus will likely shift. What is non-negotiable is what is delineated in the Bible, what is negotiable is what is extrapolated from what is stated in the Bible. [emphasis added]
Honestly -- HONESTLY!! -- I don't know of an "evolutionist" who would make the same statement regarding "evolutionism". I know you'll laugh -- and I'm sure Jeannette will chime in here with her standard "ALL EVOLUTIONISTS ARE CLOSED TO ANYTHING BUT THEIR 'RELIGION' OF ATHEISM!@@#"... But the truth is, scientists are most dedicated to discovering the truth, no matter where it leads. And if it leads to God, so be it!
I've said it before -- if an "evolutionist" scientist came up with valid data that confirmed the Biblical account of creation, he would go down in history!!
The reason no evolutionist scientist has come up with such data is because there is none.
Justin Poe said:Excellent response Brian...very well done.
I'm going to elaborate on AiGs position on models. Paul seems to think (and admittedly is learning here that it's not true) that all creationists believe the exact same thing. That's just not true. We believe Gen 1-11 to be literal history! So the models we come up with (I say "we", I'm not a YEC scientist and have never come up with a model) must fit into a literal reading of Gen 1-11. In fact, AiG believes this also, they do not hold firm to a rigid model Paul. I got my new Answers magazine today and just cracked it open and there is a letter to the editor that kind of addresses this issue.
Here's AiG's answer:
Editor’s Response: "Creationists start with the Bible when they try to explain how the present world came to be. We find miles of fossil layers, which were bent and moved by great upheavals some time after the fossils were deposited. Because nobody was there to see exactly what happened, tentative language is appropriate.
Our aim is to glorify our Creator by “searching out” how He has worked in and through His creation (see Proverbs 25:2). As we attempt to do that, we hope that people will see that the Bible’s history is the proper starting point for all scientific study, including the natural history of Madagascar.
To be effective in that task, we have to distinguish carefully between a model (a possibility) and God’s Word (absolute truth). See “Loving Science, Loving God” (pp. 90–92, Answers, October–December 2008) for a fuller discussion of this approach."
Brian Guiley said:This is going back a few comments, but wanted to chime in on it. There are many things that the Bible does not address specifically. Such as computers, or calculators, or space shuttles. So while the Bible does relate many things, it doesn't have all the answers (trivial pursuit type answers). Many biblical principles are universal and can be applied in many scenarios involving these things (like cheating on a test with your calculator). Where the Bible is not specific, we practice grace and charity. Where the Bible is specific, we are firm. I especially like the phrase
"In essentials, unity; In doubtful matters, liberty; In all things, charity."
So, the Bible doesn't say anywhere "the world broke up into 7 continents" - however, there are times where some tremendous geological activity is implied (Noah's flood). The current model that seems the most likely is the catastrophic plate tectonics. This is a model that purports to show how the flood looked, what might have happened, and how it shaped the Earth. If another model emerges that better explains it, while still accepting the details that are provided in the Bible, then the consensus will likely shift. What is non-negotiable is what is delineated in the Bible, what is negotiable is what is extrapolated from what is stated in the Bible.
By the way, Paul, you've asked if there was a time that creationists changed based on evidence, and there are and have been. The one I most recall is the "canopy" model, which once seemed very promising, but has since become less tenable. Our model's change, but our presupposition is that the Bible is what it says it is and was provided to us by the one who says He gave it to us.
My two cents seems to have turned into a dollar and a half. =)
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on
-
Paul Iacono said:
Honestly -- HONESTLY!! -- I don't know of an "evolutionist" who would make the same statement regarding "evolutionism".
Just had to jump in here. Since you don't know of one, Paul, I thought I'd point one out. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is famously quoted with the following:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
(emphasis mine)
Certainly sounds EXACTLY like what you're so upset at Creationists over.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on
-
Excelent point Stefan! I could not have produced anything better.
Stefan Morin said:Paul Iacono said:
Honestly -- HONESTLY!! -- I don't know of an "evolutionist" who would make the same statement regarding "evolutionism".
Just had to jump in here. Since you don't know of one, Paul, I thought I'd point one out. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is famously quoted with the following:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Certainly sounds EXACTLY like what you're so upset at Creationists over.
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
