Homonid

SLNT_FIR

SLNT_FIR

New Member
I was wondering, where does the "creation of man" fit along with "the evolution of homonids". *ie: neanderthals, homo habilus... etc. :confused:
 
Most of the supposed hominids of evolution have been proven to be apes, frauds or modern homo-sapiens when the evidence is carefully reviewed.

For example, take neanderthal man. They seem to be archaic in look in that the brain case and face are very long, the forehead is low, and the brow ridges protrude. The mandible is strong and lacks a projecting chin. The face is structured around a large nasal cavity, and its middle part projects forward. These very traits can be found in modern day homo sapiens: Eskimos, Latts and some African tribes.
 
Mmm... So "cave men" didn't really exist? (The picture most of us have of "cave men")

addon: oh and could you give me some info on that? :)
 
Cave men (cave man) is a rather ambiguous and loaded term. I'm sure people lived in caves at sometime though out history. You can call them cave man I guess. I'm tired and going to bed now...I'll get you links later, k?
 
I am so proud of everyone here, the young people, more especially...you are so blessed. I did not have any Bible training to speak of when I was young. I hung out with Bible college students as a new Christian. (I love how God works His plan, that was just what I needed to catch up!) They used to think I was a hoot and would try to tease me about my lack of knowledge. For example, at a Bible study, they told me to turn to the book of Maccabbes. I tried hard to find it and had them cracking up by the time I got to the index. King James Version...VERY funny! In addition, while I knew God as the Great Creator of all things, I thought perhaps that He used evolution to do it! It took quite a bit of explaining on their part, for evolution was what the school had taught me.
I say all that to say, SA, anything outside the very simple and easy to understand way that God created things is simply a bunch of hooey! They are lies of the enemy to get our minds off God.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: I Timothy 6:20

The only other place in the Bible that science is directly mentioned is in Daniel. He was a lover of scientific fact. Fortunately, there are Scientist that actually find the LORD when they weigh the evidence: Science against Biblical Creation Fact. Yet sadly, there are multitudes that will be lost because they cannot get past what scientist have seemingly discovered.
 
If you search thru past discussion about Creation vs Science you will find that there are a lot of debates.

I believe the bible. I believe the earth is 6000 years old , I believe the flood happened about 4000 years ago and 2000 years ago Christ died for me.

I could tell you why I believe that , but YOU NEED to research that and draw your own conclusion.

Cave men, Yes, were they that different from us, no more than a African from a Aborigines, to a Hispanic to a Spaniard to a Asian to a Pygmy.

That’s my 2 cents


Leave my change :eek:
 
mmm... 4000 years ago? from what I thought, king david existed around -2100... but that's based on a research thing in 6th grade.
 
SilentAssassin said:
mmm... 4000 years ago? from what I thought, king david existed around -2100... but that's based on a research thing in 6th grade.
Click to expand...

HEY! don't listen to me, I could be as ate up as a soup sandwich! You need to look up evidence of creation, read all you can on it.

The fact is everyone has a theory or opinion. I am not excluded here. The only thing I wish hold vehemently about is that the BIBLE is the irrefutable word of GOD.

If the bible said it, its truth to me. That simple.

Moses parted the red sea, Jonah survived in a whale and so on and so on


I could be wrong in my timelines and its not important to me.

I just want to see the dead raised, the sick healed and demons cast out

I see or do these three things I’ll be a happy camper, that and I want to be taken in to heaven alive like Elijah, That would be ok in my book  ( Don’t know if the later will happen but I am going to try!!!!!!)
 
Gods_Peon said:
Most of the supposed hominids of evolution have been proven to be apes, frauds or modern homo-sapiens when the evidence is carefully reviewed.

For example, take neanderthal man. They seem to be archaic in look in that the brain case and face are very long, the forehead is low, and the brow ridges protrude. The mandible is strong and lacks a projecting chin. The face is structured around a large nasal cavity, and its middle part projects forward. These very traits can be found in modern day homo sapiens: Eskimos, Latts and some African tribes.
Click to expand...

Most of the supposed hominids of evolution have been proven to be apes, frauds or modern homo-sapiens when the evidence is carefully reviewed.
Click to expand...

Nope. A list of prominent hominid fossils

The thing is, it is oft argued that fossils are 'obviously' ape or 'obviously' human. Yet creationists never seem to decide, even among themselves which are what is who.

By 'most', what do you mean? Do you have a list of the number of fossils (or a rough estimate) of the fossils proven fake/not what they are touted to be in comparison to the total found?

ETA: And neanderthal man is human. No scientist (i know of) has claimed otherwise. They just aren't modern human.
 
Last edited:
neanderthal man was humans i believe with a bone desease ( i think lack of iodine) which still happens today though not as widely with the fact that we add minerals to our tap waters and so forth.
 
LionOfJudah said:
neanderthal man was humans i believe with a bone desease ( i think lack of iodine) which still happens today though not as widely with the fact that we add minerals to our tap waters and so forth.
Click to expand...

Indeed, some specimens had diseases like arthritis, but many do not.

They are sometimes known as homo sapiens neanderthalensis The differences are large enough to consider them different (emphasised brows, sturdy skeletal structure and and elongated skull) from modern humans.

You are entirely correct that some suffered bone diseases (the lack of iodine I couldn't say, but arthritis most certainly) but there is no justification why these would have caused such differences in every specimen.
 
arthritis is something that is usually genetic and occurs over a long period of time, while lack of a key mineral in ones diet during developmental stages is going to be prevalant in all of the species in an area and not just a few, though the arthritis might explain more of the "extreme" cases of neanderthalensis.
 
LionOfJudah said:
arthritis is something that is usually genetic and occurs over a long period of time, while lack of a key mineral in ones diet during developmental stages is going to be prevalant in all of the species in an area and not just a few, though the arthritis might explain more of the "extreme" cases of neanderthalensis.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't quite understand your point?
 
About the pictures, there were at least a few that looked weird. A few didn't even look remotely like dinosaurs.

http://www.kingsnake.com/monitor/tricoloredmonitor.jpg
http://www.petreptiles.com/repdb/showrep.php3?id=8
Monitor lizard. These babies can reach up to seven feet in length. Note the long neck and it is native to africa.

http://www.mcwdn.org/Animals/AliCroc26.JPG
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/brittoncrocs/csp_cnil.htm

And note that nile crocodiles could reach lengths of up to 6-7 meters. That's well over twenty feet long...and these accounts would have come in long before large scale population displacement or hunting.

http://www.reptilia.org/images/Snakes/African_rock.jpg

Rock pythons are also natives of Africa, and big suckers too. Nevermind the cobras and vipers and all that other fun stuff.

And that's just the big reptiles on land; nevermind whales, huge sharks, and other nastiness.


Which is more likely: Gigantic dinosaurs roaming unchecked but leaving no modern remains for us to see, or the fact that people have active imaginations and sample creatures that resembled these beasts on the ancient art?

How often do people exagerate the size or number of things?

How reliable are eye witness testimonies, even today?

Note that no actual evidence, such as dinosaur and human fossils have ever been found together. Dinosaur fossils date to around 65 million years and human to around 3-4 million. Extrapolating the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans from drawings and/or vivid imaginations of older cultures?

And about the iodine, could you please state the symptoms of lack of overconsumption of iodine and please provide links demonstrating their effect on modern people?

I highly doubt the considerable physical differences, stated earlier can all be blamed on iodine.
 
First things first... you're telling me that in all of paleontological history, no bones of dinosaurs are ever found with human bones? I guess that depends on what you'd consider a dinosaur... Crocodiles have been around, according to evolutionists, for around 200 million years virtually unchanged, making them a living dinosaur. Certainly we here in Florida come into contact with these "dinosaurs" every day-- and we know to stay away from them, because they'd tear us to shreds. It therefore makes sense that dino bones have never been found with humans, since they were an imminent danger.

To the left is another beautiful mosaic that was one of the wonders of the second century world. Called the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, it depicts Nile scenes from Egypt all the way to Ethiopia. Scholars now believe this is the work of Demetrius the Topographer, an artist from Alexandria who came to work in Rome. The top portion of this remarkable piece of art is generally believed to depict African animals being hunted by black-skinned warriors. These Ethiopians are pursuing what appears to be some type of dinosaur. The Greek Letters above the reptilian animal in question are: KROKODILOPARDALIS which is literally translated Crocodile-Leopard. The picture shown here is only a small portion of the massive mosaic. It also contains clear depictions of known animals, including Egyptian crocodiles and hippos. (Finley, The Light of the Past, 1965, p. 93.)
Click to expand...

One thing I noticed from your link to the nile crocs was that their knees are bent like ours, in that they flex forward. In the mosaic, their knees are flexed backwards, like a horse or a jungle cat. Your skimming of the article I mentioned also ignores the fact that Demetrius (the artist) had separate names for the "Crocodile-Leopard" and the nile crocs.

As far as your argument that these ancient civilizations had active imaginations... I find it hard to believe that this many ancient civilizations, in some of which every other known artifact contains depictions only of nature, that the fact that the artifacts match so closely to the modern day representation of dinosaurs is simply coincidence. It is easier for me to believe that our dating methods are incorrect than that this many ancient peoples had legends of the same ancient animals that were later found as fossils in their region by pure chance.

However, I think we'll end up agreeing to disagree on this point, as your interpretations of the data are jaded by your preconceptions, as my interpretation is also jaded by mine.

The biggest problem I have with the idea of evolution without a creator is the idea of spontaneous generation of life from "the primordial soup". Can you explain for me how that happened? (No sarcasm intended, I'd really like to know what you think happened.)
 
Regarding the beginning of your post, if the art is to be taken to mean that dinosaurs (assume the ones depicted) existed at the same time as man, then surely there would be evidence that they were together wether man knew to stay away or not? Remember; some of the art depicted hunting scenes, so if they are to be taken at face value, they indicate that man did indeed come into contact with them. If this is the case, it is not unreasonable to assume some evidence would come to light of their proximity.

As far as your argument that these ancient civilizations had active imaginations... I find it hard to believe that this many ancient civilizations, in some of which every other known artifact contains depictions only of nature, that the fact that the artifacts match so closely to the modern day representation of dinosaurs is simply coincidence. It is easier for me to believe that our dating methods are incorrect than that this many ancient peoples had legends of the same ancient animals that were later found as fossils in their region by pure chance.
Click to expand...


But you'll notice that, in addition to some of the art not actually depicting modern dinosaurs at all but seem to show other creatures, some of them being either totally ambiguous or quite clearly non-dinosaur (that I have ever heard of or seen anyway.)

Notice that the animals in the pictures were all different in a variety of ways; including many dragon-like creatures. It wasn't as if they were identical. IN fact some looked like mythical creatures, not at all like recordings of dinosaurs.

The biggest problem I have with the idea of evolution without a creator is the idea of spontaneous generation of life from "the primordial soup". Can you explain for me how that happened? (No sarcasm intended, I'd really like to know what you think happened.)
Click to expand...

A perfectly legitimate question, but I cannot say I know. Nor will I (at least it seems highly unlikely) be able to answer that in my or my children's lifetimes. The thing about evolution is that it explains a massive amount of the biological activity we see. A great many aspects of biology would simply not make sense without it. However, it is better to stick with what explains things the best according to current evidence, than to ignore a genuine mystery by simply saying "God did it."

See, this is why I prefer this site to other (specifically anti-evolution) sites. Here, calm and reasoned debate can be acheived.
 
However, it is better to stick with what explains things the best according to current evidence, than to ignore a genuine mystery by simply saying "God did it."
Click to expand...

That is a wild generalization that happens to be completely incorrect.
 
Your generalization assumes that Christians are lazy when it comes the "mysteries" of the universe. That is simply false. I suppose I could generalize about those who rely on the "science will eventually explain it" arguement. Scientists and explorers, who are Christian, continue to marvel, discover and analyse the universe, knowing full well that God did it. God did it is the starting point, not the ending point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top