1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Jun '12 18:34
    Why are there no written or drawn records of interactions with Neandertals or Homo Habilis, they have been proven to have used tools, very much human, so where are the records of them being in contact with humans?

    Because they are way older than 10,000 years old that's why. Otherwise there would have been stories about interacting with them.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    07 Jun '12 18:481 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Why are there no written or drawn records of interactions with Neandertals or Homo Habilis, they have been proven to have used tools, very much human, so where are the records of them being in contact with humans?

    Because they are way older than 10,000 years old that's why. Otherwise there would have been stories about interacting with them.
    The Neanderthal man is just an example of bone disease.

    http://www.icr.org/article/bone-disease-simulating-ancient-age-pre-human-foss/

    P.S. The evolutionists wanted to believe in the theory of evolution so bad that they quickly interpreted these bones as coming from a extinct missing link of man instead of what they were in reality.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Jun '12 19:062 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The Neanderthal man is just an example of bone disease.

    http://www.icr.org/article/bone-disease-simulating-ancient-age-pre-human-foss/

    P.S. The evolutionists wanted to believe in the theory of evolution so bad that they quickly interpreted these bones as coming from a extinct missing link of man instead of what they were in reality.
    Well whaddya know, another creationism site.

    Neanderthal Man is now taught in evolutionary circles as being Homo sapiens, a sub-species of modern man that lived about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago as a predecessor to modern man.

    For one thing it was not a predecessor, it was totally parallel evolution from a yet way older common ancestor and the idea all the neandertal fossils had bone diseases is patently ridiculous.

    A great example of pseudoscience in action.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

    It also doesn't say a thing about my op, why there were no written records of those and other hominids, the two I talked about were not the only ones. Look at the images for australopithecus afarensis, tell me what bone disease they had:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=australopithecus+afarensis&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=RPvQT4nYDOiY6AGK3L18&ved=0CGoQsAQ&biw=985&bih=648

    Johanson and Edey (1981) extend this example by saying that if you put Homo erectus on a subway, "people would probably take a suspicious look at him". Put Homo habilis on the subway, and "people would probably move to the other end of the car". Berra (1990) states that "if cleaned up, shaved and dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television evangelists."
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148464
    07 Jun '12 19:23
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well whaddya know, another creationism site.

    Neanderthal Man is now taught in evolutionary circles as being Homo sapiens, a sub-species of modern man that lived about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago as a predecessor to modern man.

    For one thing it was not a predecessor, it was totally parallel evolution from a yet way older common ancestor and the idea a ...[text shortened]... dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television evangelists."
    Well if the world really is < 10K years old then people are wrong about a great
    many things with respect to species and several other things.
    Kelly
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    07 Jun '12 19:311 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well whaddya know, another creationism site.

    Neanderthal Man is now taught in evolutionary circles as being Homo sapiens, a sub-species of modern man that lived about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago as a predecessor to modern man.

    For one thing it was not a predecessor, it was totally parallel evolution from a yet way older common ancestor and the idea a dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television evangelists."
    We know talkorigins.org is an atheist evolutionist site so it has no credibility with creationists like myself, because they will make up anything to save their beliefs from extinction.

    P.S. What cause rickets?

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/176941.php
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Jun '12 19:32
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Well if the world really is < 10K years old then people are wrong about a great
    many things with respect to species and several other things.
    Kelly
    It seems you can at least consider the possibility the world is more than 10,000 years old, using the word if as your second word.

    RJ's neurons have turned to concrete, unable to change.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    07 Jun '12 19:37
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Well if the world really is < 10K years old then people are wrong about a great
    many things with respect to species and several other things.
    Kelly
    That is right! HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    07 Jun '12 19:42
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well whaddya know, another creationism site.

    Neanderthal Man is now taught in evolutionary circles as being Homo sapiens, a sub-species of modern man that lived about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago as a predecessor to modern man.

    For one thing it was not a predecessor, it was totally parallel evolution from a yet way older common ancestor and the idea a ...[text shortened]... dressed in business suits, [Neandertals] could probably pass for television evangelists."
    http://www.google.com/search?q=australopithecus+afarensis&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=RPvQT4nYDOiY6AGK3L18&ved=0CGoQsAQ&biw=985&bih=648

    I get no match.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    07 Jun '12 19:51
    What Ailed Old Neanderthal Man?

    In 1912 the famous Piltdown skull was found in a gravel bed in southern England by Charles Dawson. It created a sensation since it clearly was a creature halfway between man and beast. Evolutionists were ecstatic.

    While a few scientists were skeptical, it was accepted by scholarly opinion throughout the world. It is no exaggeration to say that one could fill a very large room with learned articles and books about Piltdown Man, including 500 doctoral dissertations! In 1953 - 41 years later - careful examination revealed the Piltdown Man to be a very crude forgery consisting of a recent human skull combined with the jawbone of a female orangutan, appropriately dyed with chemicals to give it the appearance of great age and slightly modified to fool the expert paleontologists of the British Museum.

    The Piltdown hoax illustrates an eagerness to believe in anything that might help to support the theory of evolution. One can almost picture men in museums all over the world hurrying with gray paint and brushes to paint out that branch of the human tree on the day the hoax was exposed. The next day, Piltdown Man had never existed. All the supposed family trees in the textbooks before 1953 show how Piltdown Man fit into the great story of human evolution.

    No orthodox expert would dare to propose a recent beginning of man which would correspond to the Biblical account. Although various authorities have pointed out that the variability found among human fossils is really no different from the amazing variability found among people today, little or nothing is made of this fact in the textbooks. White, middleclass scientists should not necessarily make themselves the model from which fossil bones are judged and compared (Custance, 1968, p.26-31).

    In the business of studying human fossil remains, astonishingly different reconstructions have been made from casts of the same skull fragments. As someone has noted, the features of the ape or the philosopher may be constructed on the surface of the same skull (Time , 5/17/1973, p.75-76).

    It is of more than passing interest in the consideration of fossil man than an anthropologist stated several decades ago that living style and habits, climate, and diet can influence the anatomical features of the skull to the point that experts may place such species into different genera. An additional factor of great significance is the physical degeneration and extraordinary physical variability that occurs among isolated inbred populations (CRSQ , 1968, 5:1, p.5-7).

    It is not well known that when 'primitive' Java man was discovered in 1891, two other skulls were found in the same formation and of the same age which were no different from skulls of modern Australian aborigines. The news of the modern skulls found with Java man was not made public for twenty years because they were not what the man was looking for (CRSQ , 1964, 1:2, p.9).

    In 1963 Dr. Leakey found a fossil, which he named Homo habilis , at the lowest level of strata where he was working. Homo habilis was much like modern man. The problem was that Homo habilis seemed to be much more advanced than fossil remains which had been found higher up in the strata. Since evolutionary theory requires a sequence of primitive to more advanced, the find became very controversial. On occasions such as these, explanations become very creative but strained in order to cling to evolutionary theory. Dr. Leakey suggested that all anthropology works be rewritten. A widely accepted 'solution' was that Homo habilis and the more primitive creatures were contemporaries, and that the search would continue in still older strata for the ancestor of Homo habilis (CRSQ , 1966, 3:1, p.14). Hope springs eternal!

    Neanderthal man is a story by itself. When the first discovery was made about 1856, science at last thought it now had the overwhelming evidence it needed to show the intermediate stage between man and ape. Texts today still faithfully illustrate this famous beetle-browed, bent-kneed, subhuman slob. There was only one apparent slight drawback. Its brain on the average was more than 13% larger than the brain of modern man. It was still considered, however, to be the perfect illustration of an important step in the evolutionary sequence of man. Neanderthal man was still cited as the most compelling proof of evolution just a few decades ago (Time , 6/21/1968, p.34).

    The famous names of early evolutionary theory made much of Neanderthal man, and texts published today still reflect their views. Haeckel proposed to solve the world riddles once and for all with Neanderthal man. Lyell and Huxley pointed confidently to the Neanderthal skull as evidence that there had been a low-caste, half-human creature, intermediate between man and ape (de Santillana, 1969, p.71; Victoria Institute , 1866, 2:72).

    It is interesting that Time , May 17, 1971, proclaimed that the primitiveness of Neanderthal was unwarranted. Except for physical ailments, he could walk the streets today and be unrecognized. One writer commented that in later centuries historians may declare all of us insane, because the incredible blunder about Neanderthal man was not detected at once and was not refuted with adequate determination.

    It is a tragic commentary on the scientific community that the following must be said. Back in 1872, Virchow, probably the greatest biologist of his day and the founder of medical pathology, cited evidence that the peculiarities of Neanderthal man were due not to a special place in the chain of evolution, but rather to a bad case of rickets. An authority reported in Nature, 1970, that every Neanderthal child's skull studied so far showed signs compatible with severe rickets.

    Again back in 1872 another medical authority declared that Neanderthal skulls showed medical problems, and that similar skulls of modern man may be found in any medical school (CRSQ , 1968, 5:1, p.5-7; 1970, 7:4, p.232-233; 1964, 1:2, p.9). The obsession to 'prove' evolution with Neanderthal man was so overpowering that it took more than 100 years for the scientific community to face up to the obvious truth that Neanderthal man was fully human.

    http://www.rae.org/ch08tud.html
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Jun '12 20:22
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    We know talkorigins.org is an atheist evolutionist site so it has no credibility with creationists like myself, because they will make up anything to save their beliefs from extinction.

    P.S. What cause rickets?

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/176941.php
    Yeah, you hate to see the truth printed, preferring fairy tales of the creationist sect.
    It is a sect you know.
  11. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140213
    07 Jun '12 20:24
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Why are there no written or drawn records of interactions with Neandertals or Homo Habilis, they have been proven to have used tools, very much human, so where are the records of them being in contact with humans?

    Because they are way older than 10,000 years old that's why. Otherwise there would have been stories about interacting with them.
    I will flip that around on you and ask why is written language only approx 6k years old ? If homo-Habilis and Neandertals and whatever other sub groups were around for 100K years ? My contention is that written language should go back further than 6K years.


    PS: I'm not sure where I stand on this as I'm not sure I believe in a young earth for scientific reasons and the age of the universe is still a debate in my mind as creationist (which I am one) have no satisfactory answers or theories as of now to the age of the universe being young.

    Manny
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Jun '12 21:02
    Originally posted by menace71
    I will flip that around on you and ask why is written language only approx 6k years old ? If homo-Habilis and Neandertals and whatever other sub groups were around for 100K years ? My contention is that written language should go back further than 6K years.


    PS: I'm not sure where I stand on this as I'm not sure I believe in a young earth for scient ...[text shortened]... no satisfactory answers or theories as of now to the age of the universe being young.

    Manny
    I am not talking about just writing. There are cave drawings 25,000 years old and there were certainly at least neandertals around then but no drawings or depictions of them or wars with them or anything.

    Creationists would say that adam and eve already knew how to write when they were forced out of eden since they learned the ways of the world when she ate the apple.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    07 Jun '12 21:351 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I am not talking about just writing. There are cave drawings 25,000 years old and there were certainly at least neandertals around then but no drawings or depictions of them or wars with them or anything.

    Creationists would say that adam and eve already knew how to write when they were forced out of eden since they learned the ways of the world when she ate the apple.
    Listen, for one thing, those cave drawings would not last 25,000 years. They would probably have all been faded away. There is no proof that they are 25,000 years old. That is only speculation based on wrong assumptions.

    P.S. Adam and Eve already had a lauguage they used to talk with God. And it was God who confounded the language, so we have all the different languages we have today. But we can still translate one languague into another, if we learn how.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    07 Jun '12 21:56
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Listen, for one thing, those cave drawings would not last 25,000 years. They would probably have all been faded away. There is no proof that they are 25,000 years old. That is only speculation based on wrong assumptions.

    P.S. Adam and Eve already had a lauguage they used to talk with God. And it was God who confounded the language, so we have all the ...[text shortened]... anguages we have today. But we can still translate one languague into another, if we learn how.
    I thought the confounding of language was from the time of the Tower of Babel, now you are saying that happened to TWO people only in the garden? So Adam and Eve spoke several thousand languages all foisted on them by your god?
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    07 Jun '12 22:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I thought the confounding of language was from the time of the Tower of Babel, now you are saying that happened to TWO people only in the garden? So Adam and Eve spoke several thousand languages all foisted on them by your god?
    No idiot. This shows how little you can understand the written English language. No wonder you are so easily suckered in to believing in evolution and that your ancestor was an ape. You do not seem to have evolved very far.
Back to Top