Our Websites

Neanderthals: Compassionate and Caring?

No matter how much logic, scientific or historical evidence is presented, it may never unseat the prevailing false worldview about Neanderthals. God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago. Some 4,400 years ago, there was a flood that destroyed the world (see Noah’s story, Genesis ). Before the flood, people lived to be more than 900 years old. After the flood, for a few generations they still lived to be around 450, but life expectancy then declined significantly. See Genesis 5:9–11, our “Adam to Joseph” time line, and Creation Seminar #2 for details.

Physical evidence ignored

As people age, the bones of their head and face change. Dr. Jack Cuozzo has done great work on this subject. (See Buried Alive.) It has long been known that Neanderthal skeletons are just normal humans of average height (5’9″), who lived more than 300 years and had larger brow ridges, elongated skulls and larger brains than we have today. These were probably post-flood people, or people who drowned in Noah’s flood. They did NOT live six million years ago and slowly “evolve” into modern man. Don’t be fooled by the steady propaganda from the “willingly ignorant” (II Peter 3:3–9).

The same God who judged the world before with the flood is coming soon to judge it again. If you have not made arrangements to have your sins paid for by the only available one capable (God in the flesh—Jesus Christ), I suggest you DROP EVERYTHING and cry out to Him for mercy and forgiveness ASAP!
God’s Word is true—cover to cover!

,

Leave38 Responses to testNeanderthals: Compassionate and Caring?

  1. Jay Liemowitz October 13, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    Steven H replied to me yesterday with: “It amazes me to see the effort you put in to this debate that ultimately doesn’t matter, according to your world view.”

    Sorry to continue a discussion from another post here, but I think this is relevant to today’s topic (it’s relevant to every topic here in fact).

    Steven, it does matter. Granted, it may not matter in some sort of eternal, cosmic sense, but it matters to us as a culture. It matters for the good of humanity.

    I believe education is the best tool we have in combating bigotry, famine, disease and suffering. And according to my worldview, this life that we are living now is the only one we will get, so I would argue that in a sense, it could matter more to me than you. After all, I can’t just lay back and say “Well Jesus will fix all this when he comes back again, then I’ll live forever in bliss”.

    I want to help fix the ills of society, and I think the type of miss-education and fear mongering that the Hovinds utilize is on the whole, damaging to that society. I want my posterity to live a better life than I have, so it indeed matters a great deal to me.

    As for this nonsense about Neanderthal, I’ll defer to my post from yesterday and reissue my challenge for one creationist to debunk the transitional fossils mentioned there.

  2. Dennis October 13, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    “It has long been known that Neanderthal skeletons are just normal humans of average height (5’9″), who lived more than 300 years and had larger brow ridges, elongated skulls and larger brains than we have today. These were probably post-flood people, or people who drowned in Noah’s flood. They did NOT live six million years ago and slowly “evolve” into modern man.”
    – No, its a fact that they are not the same specie as us, we have extracted DNA from over 10 different Neanderthals, not to mention their anatomy doesn’t fit ours.

    Not suggesting that they evolved to us, they’re an extinct specie whom didn’t survive.

  3. Mike Ayala October 13, 2010 at 8:49 am #

    Hey Dr. Hovind,

    With things shaping up in the Middle East as fast as they are just as was prophesied in the Bible 2500 years ago, I think the Lord is coming back very soon. The scoffers and nay-sayers have precious little time to humble themselves before the Lord.

    God bless and protect you.

    Mike Ayala

  4. Matthew Traylor October 13, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    Very awesome. I didn’t consider ones brows nor skull really changing with age. Thank you so much for that!!

  5. Alfred Russell Wallace October 13, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    >>>God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago.

    I stopped reading there because you have no evidence. The only evidence you get is from a dusty old book with errors.

    The sight of 22,000 year old human artifacts must really frustrate you, Kent.

    Did you know that the first ever man-created God myth had God as a female? Artifacts from Turkey date the creation of this God myth around 25,000 years ago. The most popular name for her was “Venus of Willendorf” who gives up her bounty of foods from the earth to the humans. That is over 20,000 years before your Hebrew God myth.

  6. Alfred Russell Wallace October 13, 2010 at 9:38 am #

    excuse me 22,000 years B.C.E. *

    That is over 20,000 years before the hebrew myth.

  7. Mike Ayala October 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Hey Jay,

    I saw your note above about reissuing your “challenge for one creationist to debunk the transitional fossils mentioned there”.

    I hope it is ok that I’ll let evolutionists debunk them instead. I know you wanted one creationist, but these evolutionists seemed to do such a good job at it, and I thought it might be more convincing to you – especially since they are folks who are much more qualified to speak about transitional forms and evolution than I am by virtue of the fact that they are leading evolutionary evangelists, evolutionary palaeontologists, and museum curators, and they are (or were) in the thick of the battle. They’re kind of like generals in the evolutionary army.

    Just so you do not miss it, here is what I wrote in response to you in yesterday’s post. I hope you respect what they have to say.

    Grace and blessings to you.

    Mike Ayala

    _______________________________________________________

    Mike Ayala
    October 13th at 5:04 am
    Fractured Fairy Tales

    Hi Jay,

    Are you seriously suggesting that one species can morph into another species? Really?

    Can you suggest any mechanism by which such a thing can take place outside of a cartoon or CGI animation?

    Let’s go back to Darwin’s speculation:

    Darwin observed a little change over a little time, so he extrapolated it out to a lot of change over a lot of time.

    Darwin came to this conclusion based on an 1850’s ignorance of information theory, microbiology, metabolism, and genetics. Darwin did not recognize the boundaries of life. By 1859, Darwin did not know what we know today as the basics of genetics that change in a species only occurs within the confines of the genetic code resident within that individual.

    Darwin drew a line in the sand:

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    Darwin should have studied the woodpecker before he wrote that in his book. Darwin had no chance to study the flagellum motor. His speculation has absolutely broken down, but there are folks who emotionally and religiously hold to it because the only alternative is special creation the non-random creation of life, and that sounds too much for their liking like what was observed and reported by God in His word.

    Jay, you must know something that Darwin did not know because Darwin did not know of any transitional forms.

    Surely by now you are familiar with one of Darwin’s most famous statements:

    “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

    Jay, you probably have more knowledge and experience than David Raup, former curator of geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History:

    “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”

    It was 120 years later, and it was not as though:

    “only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care”

    as Darwin suggested. No transitional forms were found in Darwin’s day because there were no transitional forms to be found. Darwin had no transitional forms to offer in his day, and we have even fewer today!

    You would probably consider Stephen Gould a Creationist based on his statement:

    “The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

    1) Stasis most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

    2) Sudden appearance in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed”

    Jay, evolutionists in the field do not even believe in what you offer as proof. Remember, Stephen Jay Gould was professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University. Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York had this to say this about supposed proofs of transitional forms:

    “There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.”

    Jay, please remember, data plus assumptions do not equal evidence for evolution.

    Jay, the proofs you offer do not stand up to scrutiny. The scrutiny is Genetics. To summarize I’ll repeat what I wrote to Nigel about the subject:

    Darwin was wrong about natural selection. Darwin promoted natural selection as a designing force, when in reality all natural selection does is help an organism to adapt to its environment within the confines of the genetic code found in the organism. Natural selection helps to preserve a species, but it certainly does not create the species. Adaptation is not evolution. Adaptation is a designed feature of the code of life that helps the organism to disperse into a variety of environments.

    Concerning Darwin and genetics, even Darwin was afraid acknowledging of Mendel’s works. When Darwin died, a copy of Mendel’s writing were found on his desk, so at least by the end of his life, Darwin knew of Mendel and his findings. It tells all that Darwin did not incorporate Mendel’s works into his theory of evolution, for he could not Mendel’s works totally contradicted Darwin’s speculations on inheritance. Do you remember gemmules and pangenesis?

    Darwin proposed purpose driven inheritance that would respond to need, whereas today we know inheritance is passed on genetically. Darwin proposed inheritance that could morph one species into another when what we know today is the code of life is passed on to progeny from parent, and that code does not change except through mutations. Darwin’s natural selection was based upon mutations adding information, whereas we know today that mutations are a loss of information broken genes. Mutations are equivalent to ripping pages out of the book of life not adding information.

    Jay, if you want a challenge, present a credible challenge: present a plausible and verifiable mechanism for one species morphing into another that will stand up to the slightest scrutiny. If you could do so, you’d be rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams; You’d slam-dunk a Nobel prize (that’s not too hard these days); you have your picture on the cover of Scientific American (you could buy five copies for your mother); and you’d be on the speaking circuit till the day you die.

    God bless you, Jay.

    Mike Ayala

  8. Nigel McNaughton October 13, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    Once again with the 300 year old children.

  9. Carl M October 13, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    It has long been known that Neanderthal skeletons are just normal humans of average height (5’9″), who lived more than 300 years and had larger brow ridges, elongated skulls and larger brains than we have today.

    Not quite true. It has long been claimed by Jack Cuozzo if the growth rates applied to modern humans are applied to Neanderthals the implied age is 300+ years. The catch is, if Neanderthals are different enough to modern humans to be considered a species in their own right, the cross-species application of growth rates is highly unreliable. Genetic studies have shown Neanderthals are not modern humans.

  10. Billy Meacham October 13, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    Alfred, I’m sure your Bible is a ‘dusty old book’ since you likely never read it.

    And the list of science texts which contain well known errors is astounding.

    There are NO human artifacts of the age you state. That is an interpretation using either circular reasoning (ex: the fictional geologic column) or methods that have been shown to be flawed. (ex: living creatures being carbon dated thousands of years old).

    Just because some group of pagans cobbled together a myth based on the God of the Bible does not invalidate Him. And yes, Alfred, you can prove that the God of the Bible is the one, true and ONLY God.

  11. Carl M October 13, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    No matter how much logic, scientific or historical evidence is presented, it may never unseat the prevailing false worldview about Neanderthals.

    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.” – CSE Statement of Faith

    Hypocritical much?

  12. Billy Meacham October 13, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    Dennis, paraphrased from an article by a well known anthropologist:

    …the Neanderthal had the same number of bones which functioned in the same manner as ours only differing in thickness and strength (robusticity).

    The conclusion that Neanderthals and modern man are of a different line is not justified.

    Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range.

    Phillips, D. 2000. Neanderthals Are Still Human! Acts & Facts. 29 (5).
    Dave Phillips earned the M.S. in physical anthropology from California State University, Northridge, in 1991 and is now working on his Ph.D. in paleontology.

  13. Julie Collins October 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    jay Liemowitz October 13th at 8:42 am

    i guess when you say “Steven H” you mean steven hawking? a person who is getting so many e-mails and cannot even type on a regular keyboard, let alone type to a low life who he does not even know? good try on that lie.

    Alfred Russell Wallace

    “I stopped reading there because you have no evidence. The only evidence you get is from a dusty old book with errors.”

    as if you had better evidence Alfred, the hypocrisy in your text is laughable. you have no evidence anyone lived 22000 years ago. all human history charts burst into being about 6000 years ago…

    Dennis

    a black persons anatomy does not fit a white mans either… and sure, lets say they are a different “species”, (which i am sure they were not because species means you cannot interbreed, and you cannot prove that with a skeleton), they are still humans, not apes. and their “anatomy” fits ours quite well, the thing is, forensics have already proven that anatomy changes with age, that is how they can tell a 20 year olds body from a 80 year olds body.

    i am shocked at the stupidity of evolutionist… well, maybe not as shocked

  14. Ryan Vinter October 13, 2010 at 11:08 pm #

    >Alfred

    How did u arrive at this 22 000 bc? see seminar 6 plz an learn some real science from seminar 4 also.

    > Dennis

    Can u show us a web site of this “Neanderthal DNA?” How is it that you have come to know this and have u considered seminar 4?

  15. Jay Liemowitz October 14, 2010 at 8:26 am #

    David McCrea, on your challenges to me yesterday, in order.

    1. The Cambrian Explosion was a time period spanning some 50 million years (no, the fossil record doesn’t show that all life just suddenly appeared all at once, if that’s what you’re implying), roughly 550 million years ago, during which, life on this planet diversified relatively quickly, with each major phylum of life we see today being present by the end of that time, albeit in primitive and almost unrecognizable forms. Note that most of the fossils dating to this time period varied greatly from what we witness today even though each phyla is represented; there were no mammals, no reptiles, little to no land dwelling plants or animals in fact. Also note that this is not the first period where we find evidence of multicellular organisms, but it is the time period where hard body parts like bones and carapaces became more abundant, thus producing more fossils on average than those epochs before it.

    One last point, all of the evidence in support of the occurrence of the Cambrian Explosion is the very same evidence for evolution that you most likely reject out of hand. Radioisotope dating, continental drift, plate tectonics, and even DNA evidence all point to both conclusions. It’s a rather odd tactic to employ evidence you reject in one case, to debunk that very case.

    2.You said: “The second is to PRECISELY list the ACTUAL evolutionary process starting from your one-celled whatever and leading all the way to homo sapiens.”

    I can’t. Nobody can, nor does anyone claim that ability. We can, however, get some very good ideas of how it took place. In brief outline, roughly 3.5 billion years ago, natural chemical process led to the first self replicating organic system in the earth’s oceans. We see evidence of single celled organisms in fossils dating to 3 billion years ago. Life remained single celled for the next 2.5 or 3 billion years until colonies of single celled organisms began to take shape more into what we would call multicelluar. Note that organisms that fit this description exist today, in blue green algae and even sponges. Sometime prior to the Cambrian Explosion, multicellular organisms increased in complexity. Some 450 million years ago, we see the first evidence of land plants, which changed the chemical makeup of the earth’s atmosphere, converting it to similar composition as we see today. Shortly after this, some 350 million years ago, now that the atmosphere was less hostile, fish, much like mudskippers and lungfish we see today, began to colonize land. The progeny of these fish became what we know as reptiles and amphibians. Enter the age of the dinosaurs, some 250 million years ago, until their extinction (except for birds) around 60 million years ago. After this time, small, rodent-like mammals filled the niches left by the dinosaur’s disappearance, increasing in size and populating the globe. Early primates escaped predation into the trees. In sub-Saharan Africa, as brain size increased in some early primates, so did their social structure, eventually leading to ardipithicus and australopithicenes coming down from the trees, walking upright and forming societies in much the same way modern chimps, gorillas and yes, even humans do now. Starting roughly 1 million years ago, one lineage of these primates began to take shape into what we would begin to call human (homo habilis, homo erectus, Neanderthals, and eventually homo sapiens).

    I want to point out that you’ve asked for detailed specifics on a process that occurred over billions of years, long before recorded history. It’s impossible to even recount murder scenes to that level of detail, but the bloody footprints leading away from the crime scene, blunt force trauma to the victim, and forced entry can all lead to conclusive evidence that someone was murdered, even though the specific object used, or the exact minute the assailant entered the home may not be possible to determine.
    I’ll also note that if I were to issue the same challenge to you “Detail exactly, with no omissions, the process God used to construct man out of clay” you would be unable to reconstruct it. But it’s your theory right? It shouldn’t be that hard…

    3. I don’t rank human races as we are all part of the same branch of the same evolutionary family tree. If you ever hear anyone ranking human races in such a way, they are using a version of evolution that is not accepted by scientists, presumably to justify their racism. The diversity among human races is so minute as to be insignificant in evolutionary terms.

    4. You said “My research clearly shows that African apes actually evolved from homo sapiens. Please debunk my theory.”

    Homo sapien fossils appear in rock formations that date only very recently alongside fossils of animals that live along side us, whereas fossils of varying and diverse species of African apes appear in far older rock formations along side fossils of animals we no longer see extant today. Even if I were to concede that radiometric dating is not sufficient to show the age of such fossils, it would nevertheless make very little sense that homo sapiens appear only in rock layers along side fossils of organisms that are extant. In other words, if homo sapiens appeared on earth before other African apes, lets say, in the Eocene epoch, we should find human fossils along side other fossils of animals of the Eocene that have since gone extinct. We don’t find such a thing. To further debunk such a theory, I’d have to actually see your research. Science is not performed based on what someone shouts his research suggest, you have to demonstrate why your theory fits the evidence better than the current model. You would have to have mountains of evidence that not only contradicts the current theory, but explains current evidence more thoroughly than the current theory, in order to demonstrate such a theory.

    Jay

  16. Jack Napper October 14, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    Are you seriously suggesting that one species can morph into another species? Really?

    Poof black to white morphing? No. If you are using the term “morph” you apparently have a poor understanding of speciation.

    Can you suggest any mechanism by which such a thing can take place outside of a cartoon or CGI animation?

    Right off the top of my head here’s a couple. I’ll keep it simply for you. Random mutation and speciation.

    Darwin observed a little change over a little time, so he extrapolated it out to a lot of change over a lot of time.

    Overly simplified but will go with it. Darwin proposed a theory and it is supported by the evidence.

    Darwin came to this conclusion based on an 1850’s ignorance of information theory, microbiology, metabolism, and genetics.

    Yet each one supports the theory. Creationists LOVE to claim that all these disprove evolution. It’s funny that the best they offer up are people claiming to have PhDs and people well outside of biology (like Nuclear Physicists) make arguments from authority or claiming conspiracies and cover ups. Just like Big Pharma is keeping “natural cures” from the market I guess “Big Science” is squashing “Creation Science”. sorry but Big Science wins here. While they are trying to prove they are right, Creationists think that arguing [poorly] why they are wrong will automatically make them right.

    I’m more than willing to retract that if you can offer up an advancement as a result of creation science. Creation Science not an advancement made by someone you consider to be a creationist but an advancement made from stopping at “God just did it that way”.

    By 1859, Darwin did not know what we know today as the basics of genetics that change in a species only occurs within the confines of the genetic code resident within that individual.

    Really? I’d like to see the research on this. Wait what? Cover up conspiracy? Seriously, what are these boundaries you speak of? How do you determine these boundaries? Something about KINDS I guess. OK, please define KIND. What is the methodology used to determine and categorize kinds?

    I won’t waste my time with the rest of your post as I see it’s just copy and paste parroting, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and almost every logical fallacy in the book from arguments from ignorance to quote mining. Besides I’ve show that your post really is the same old nonsense spewed time and time again.

  17. Alfred Russell Wallace October 14, 2010 at 10:20 am #

    >>There are NO human artifacts of the age you state.

    Please look up Venus of Willendorf

    try google, wikipedia, or any other search engine you desire.

  18. Alfred Russell Wallace October 14, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    >>>(living creatures being carbon dated thousands of years old).

    NO. Carbon Dating is used on human artifacts. Fossilized organisms are dated with Rubidium-Strontium, Potassium-Argon, and Uranium-Lead dating methods.

    Please do some research of your own.

    If Kent had a seminar about how appleseeds cure cancer… YOU would believe him. Oh wait.. he does say that.

  19. Jay Liemowitz October 14, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    Sorry for the horribly worded last sentence in my above post. I must’ve been in a hurry.

  20. Nigel McNaughton October 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    Mike and I asked you for a primary source for your wonderful story about Darwin being Afraid of Mendel’s work.

    Isn’t it funny that Julie will berate people for spelling and lack of citations, but not the creationists.

    Also I asked if it’s possible for you to give a concise answer without resorting to half-truths and quote-mines. That answer is clearly “No”.

    It’s hilarious to read so many Creationists here denying the very sort of Evolution they believe in. One Species Becoming Another is exactly the standard “microevolution” that Creationists rely on to make the millions of species we have to day be the result of the contents of Noahs ark a few thousand years ago. Yet right here in this thread “No Species to Species can’t happen! Never”. I’ve seen this most commonly referred to “Super Evolution”, you can google it and see examples, particularly from Ken Ham’s Creation Museum.

  21. Geno Castagnoli October 14, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    “Before the flood, people lived to be more than 900 years old. After the flood, for a few generations they still lived to be around 450….. It has long been known that Neanderthal …. lived more than 300 years”
    #######
    Geno comments:
    Not likely. Ancient people ate stone ground grain and the abrasive particulate in the grain would have worn their teeth to nothing much sooner than that. Many modern people in Mexico where corn for tortillas is often ground on a mattate are living examples of this problem as their teeth are often worn out by the age of 70 or so. Since there is no evidence the teeth of the ancients were made of a different material than ours, there is no reason to believe their teeth would have lasted any longer.
    ######

  22. David McCrea October 14, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Jay,

    Thank you for your very detailed response to my challenges.

    In summary:

    Spontaneous generation eventually led to rodents and homo sapiens eventually evolved from rodents.

    You’re not serious.

    Are you?

    You have great faith indeed.

    God bless.

  23. David McCrea October 14, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    Jay,

    You opined the Hovinds’ worldview is damaging to our society. You further claimed they are engaged in miss-education (sic) and fear-mongering by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. By this you must be inferring that your godless, pagan, and hedonistic worldview is far better than the worldview espoused by Christ.

    I think you’re on to something. I can see how all that NT talk of love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness can easily be seen as inflicting damage on our society.

    Or how about this advocation of societal destruction and devastation:

    “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

    Outrageous statement, isn’t it? Who does this Jesus think He is, God? I can sense the damage this forgiveness nonsense has on our society as a whole.

    Yep, I really think you’re on to something.

    Let’s support and encourage the likes of Marilyn Manson but those “Horrible Hovinds” MUST BE STOPPED!

    I feel damaged just writing this post.

    God bless you, Jay. For I once believed as you do until the scales fell.

  24. Carl M October 14, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Billy Meacham

    Lubenow (1998)…. the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate…… placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range.

    A lot more research has been done in the past 10 years. However, a fly in the ointment for the speciation theory is the possibility of limited interbreeding with modern humans which does fail the technical definition of species as being unable to interbreed. However, it should be noted that this defintion also fails with most closely related creatures who normally don’t interbreed but are physcially capable of doing so. So the debate moves from not one of significant genetic difference between modern humans and neanderthals but if neanderthals meet the technical defintion of a species.

  25. Kenneth Haven October 15, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    This is in response to Jay L., you stated that the world being taught evolution “matters for the good of humanity” and “I believe education is the best tool we have in combating bigotry, famine, disease and suffering.”
    My question, how does teaching somebody that they are just an animal and that they don’t need morals save anybody from any of these things?… it seems that kind of teaching is ultimatly contributing to the world wide problem of disease and famine, hence aids, stds, murders, all sorts of crime and diseases. Just don’t try to fool me by saying this matters to you for any other reason than trying to rid the world of Christianity for Satan.

  26. Jay Liemowitz October 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    David McCrea said “Spontaneous generation eventually led to rodents and homo sapiens eventually evolved from rodents.

    You’re not serious.”

    No that’s not what I said, perhaps you should read my post again. Better yet, perhaps you should read some of the wonderful explanations of the theory of evolution written by scientists far more qualified than I. These should be available at your local book store.

    Your Inner Fish
    Why Evolution is True
    The Making of the Fittest

    After all, what do you have to lose? If evolution is the lie you claim, surely you’ll see right through it. I’m serious, I encourage you to read not only books from creationists, which is fine, but read those from evolution supporters. I personally read both, as well as listen to Kent and Eric’s seminars. Hearing both sides of an argument is the only possible way to discover who is right, don’t you agree?

  27. Geno Castagnoli October 15, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    Billy Meacham wrote:
    ” …. methods that have been shown to be flawed. (ex: living creatures being carbon dated thousands of years old).”
    #######

    Geno comments:
    This is an excellent example of what I meant about people who have a declared bias against examining the evidence objectively using a test we KNOW is not appropriate then pointing the the EXPECTED error as “proof” the test doesn’t work.

    Carbon dating is useful for things whose PRIMARY source of carbon is atmospheric, not marine. Marine carbon is known to date older than atmospheric carbon. So, these people will take things like polar bears, seals, fish, mussels, etc. that we KNOW will date too old because most of the carbon in them is NOT atmospheric, then when the results of these living things come back as being old, they point to them as “proving” the test is “flawed.”

    Hint: If you do not use a test within the limitations of an appropriate methodology, you will get erroneous results. The simple term for this is GIGO.

  28. Don Carr October 15, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    Can Noah’s Ark fly ?

    The world was virtually reduced to a ball of mud around 4400 years ago – like yesterday? Continents fell and seafloors rose? Solar flares induced large currents in telegraph lines just over 100 years ago; strong enough currents to wipe out modern electronics in a flash. Yikes! No more Nintendo.

    Sure hope our good shepherds have sufficient technology to get us out of here before the next cataclysm – which sounds due anytime soon. They can create worlds and universes in an instant; certainly they can make Noah’s Arc fly.

    Christ rose from the cross in a Body of Light prior to the death of his physical garment. He defeated death and proved the power of the Light Body, just as Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ in their eternal Light Bodies. And Christ even returned to pick up his old flesh body to show that the matter in this fallen realm can be raised back up to where it fell from.

    And are we not created in the image of our creator? Would it not stand to reason that we too have Light Bodies – needing to be activated (baptized) and recharged (thru Shekinah – Holy Spirit) to reestablish our trinitized selves (mind, body, spirit). Was Christ not called the Wayshower? Showing us the way out of this 3D mud blob of personal death cycles and earthly cataclysms every 6000 years or so.

    We may not all ascend in a Body of Light (Merkabah), but surely Noah’s arc CAN FLY (Enoch ascended on the 7th arc of the Rainbow of Light).

    A cataclysm of one sort or another is due very soon, if only the obliteration of electronics. Does everyone have the Blood of the Lamb over their door jamb. That is, an active third eye (7th chakra), which can be detected on the day our good shepherds pass over this planet. They are on the lookout for those with a good and generous eye, so I’ve heard.

    Why bicker about Neanderthals when the very existance of Nintendo is at stake? Not to mention texting…

    And is this realm not allowed to be governed by fallen mind energies. And would it not stand to reason that some of these mind energies were implanted during our birth. And do they not displace the activity of the Holy Spirit in ones life? And more fallen mind energies are tempted upon us during our lives, such that we die young (over and over again) without achieving our own Light Body tickets out of here.

    So by releasing fallen mind energies (sin) we may become active in the Holy Spirit…Yes that includes feelings of competition and revenge etc.

    Thank YHWH for his son YHSWH (YHWH (S)aves – or Ye(S)hua) and a Host of countless Ascended Masters who have been tirelessly in the background shepherding us to the gate and through, should we be found willing.

    Thanks for pointing out the urgency Kent. You have helped make the workings of the Holy Spirit real in my life.

    Time to step it up a notch?

    YHWH Shalom,
    Don

  29. David McCrea October 15, 2010 at 4:42 pm #

    Kenneth,

    Exactly!

    Even Darwin’s contemporaries warned him of the potential devastating consequences to humanity if his theory ever caught on. And it did catch on, to the detriment of humanity. All one has to do is watch TV or read a newspaper to learn of its destructive tendencies.

    I don’t lock my doors at night and carry a concealed pistol because of the Christians. Government schools don’t have metal detectors and police officers patrolling the hallways because of the Christians. The recent rash of suicides due to vicious school bullying isn’t because Christians are the ones doing the bullying.

    Young minds already in conflict due to hormones and peer pressure turn to mush when they are taught they evolved from bacteria. Evolutionists, are you actually listening to the nonsense you’re espousing? Do you even care that your “everything from nothing” mantra is destroying innocent lives?

    1 John 2:16 “For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

    Thank you Father for saving me from the things of the world. God bless.

  30. Mike Ayala October 15, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    Jack Napper October 14th at 11:15 am

    Hi Jack,

    I can see by your post you are not very serious at all. If you would just read what I have posted with any reading comprehension, you’d feel very silly for what you have written.

    “Random mutation and speciation” sounds like you are supporting Darwin’s Lamarckian transformism as well as you do not understand the word “mechanism”.

    Contrary to your propagandistic statement, No, Darwin did not propose a theory, and nor does any evidence support his speculation. If you had read with any level of reading comprehension what I had posted then you should feel very silly for what you have written.

    The only logical conclusion is that in the absence of a rational answer you just want to make noise to try to drown out the signal of truth.

    What is clear is that you certainly do not comprehend the complexity of life and the necessary simplicity of evolution.

    As far as the research you seek, start with Mendel. That was the beginning of the Genetic Revolution that shows how bankrupt evolutionary dogma is.

    Mike Ayala

  31. Carl M October 15, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    <@ Kenneth Haven

    My question, how does teaching somebody that they are just an animal and that they don’t need morals ….

    This is a style of strawman argument. That is, it applies to a scientific concept expectations and conclusions for which that concept is not intended. Evolution Theory does not make value judgements any more that the Theory of Gravity. To suggest otherwise is a gross misrepresentation.

    For example, an equally negative argument could be made against the Theory of Gravity (TOG). The TOG says we are all only matter attracted mindlessly to other matter. Where is the moral guidance in such a belief? Therefor the TOG is bad.

  32. Carl M October 15, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    @ Billy Meacham

    (ex: living creatures being carbon dated thousands of years old).

    Could you give an example of a living creature which accumulated atmospheric carbon which has been “dated thousands of years old”.

    I don’t think you will be able to find one because the examples which circulate in YEC circles are those that accumulate carbon from non-atmospheric sources eg, snails and seals.

    Carbon dating works of the property of equilibrium of an organsims C14 ratio being in equilibrium with the atmosphere. If the organism’s environment is not atmospherically based eg aquatic, then carbon dating is inappropriate.

    As an aside, if dating is done in a biased way, why are these “erroneous” dates published?

  33. PAUL October 16, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    Can anyone explain why statistics (probabilities in particular) cannot be used / applied in explaining evolution? Probabilities are calculated to estimate the occurrence of practically everything – except evolution.

  34. ant bourdon October 16, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    It is easy yo answer that question. Evolution is a religion. In fact, it is not even allowed to define the word the same way it is not allowed to talk about Mohamed. If you use science to disprove evolution, then you must be a bloody Christian making false propaganda.

  35. Julie Collins October 17, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    @Nigel McNaughton

    wow… you must be desperate to resort to calling people out like that… that’s is immature.

  36. aaron moore October 17, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    Why did only some apes evolve and not all of them? LoL

  37. Carl M October 17, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    @ PAUL

    Can anyone explain why statistics (probabilities in particular) cannot be used / applied in explaining evolution? Probabilities are calculated to estimate the occurrence of practically everything except evolution.

    The problem is that those who apply statistics to evolutionary issues usually don’t understand Evolution Theory, statistics, or both.

  38. Jack Napper October 17, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    “Random mutation and speciation” sounds like you are supporting Darwin’s Lamarckian transformism as well as you do not understand the word “mechanism”.

    “Darwin’s Lamarkian”? Thank you for revealing “Random mutation and speciation” sounds like you are supporting Darwin’s Lamarckian transformism as well as you do not understand the word “mechanism”.your level of comprehension about the subject.

    Contrary to your propagandistic statement, No, Darwin did not propose a theory, and nor does any evidence support his speculation.

    So what did he propose? A meatloaf? As for evidence, burying your head n the sand does not make it go away. There is a MASSIVE amount of evidence which supports evolution. I find it funny that rather than scrutinize and exam the evidence before disqualifying it (even with your apparent armchair science) you simply claim it doesn’t exist. Sad really.

    If you had read with any level of reading comprehension what I had posted then you should feel very silly for what you have written.

    I did read what you wrote. The very fact that you feel the need to attack me personally reveals quite a bit about your argument.

    The only logical conclusion is that in the absence of a rational answer you just want to make noise to try to drown out the signal of truth.

    This is rather sad. I pick apart your argument to show why it’s not at all sound but apparently the over all conclusion is? Seriously if you had put forth the argument that A=B so therefor Q is an elephant I’m sure I’d be responding to a similar post.

    What is clear is that you certainly do not comprehend the complexity of life and the necessary simplicity of evolution.

    Yes, it’s not that you used a poor argument containing logical fallacies, misinformation and just plain silliness. It’s that I can’t wrap my head around it.

    As far as the research you seek, start with Mendel. That was the beginning of the Genetic Revolution that shows how bankrupt evolutionary dogma is.

    This is my favorite. Creationists cherry pick something and scream loudly that they are apparently the only ones who have bothered read, well, anything. I’m going to guess that you also believe you are one of the select few elite to have read “Little Red Riding Hood”. Honestly I was half expecting the something like “obviously you haven’t read…” somewhere in there.