Creationism and Neanderthals ?  What do you think?
912794
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
120182
I believe in creation, because I believe there is more scientific evidence to support it. The theory of evolution goes against all known science that we have accepted so far, such as the second law of thermodynamics. Try doing some open minded research on that one, it's pretty clear that evolution can't happen. Also, every evolutionist that I have ever talked to about evolution could not just sit down and discus their theory like true scientists. Instead, I have been called names such as "extremist" and "fundamentalist Christian" (I never meantioned religion or my beliefs, it was assumed), I have also been made fun of, and so on. But I have never been given the chance to really examen the theory. I really believe it's because there is not as much evidence as they say there is. I also believe there is a lot of evidence to support creation. I mean, come on, half of the evidence gathered for evolution could just as eaisly be interpreted to support creation, but that goes against mainstream science, so it is rejected. Trust me, I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I don't believe in evolution here, there are too many. But my suggestion to you is to do some research, and be open minded about it. If evolution has more evidence, go with it, and the same with creation. If God created the world, there will be evidence, we just need to find it. So do some research, there are a lot of good books and websites on the topic (watch out, there are a lot of really bad ones too that say nothing but lies on both sides). Two good ones are www.talkorigins.org (for evolution) and www.trueorigin.org (for creation, and some great responses to talkorigins.com). Good luck, and have fun:)
729212
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
340817
Oh good grief.\n\nHow can someone not believe in evolution?  The evidence is freakin' everywhere.\n\nFirst off: evolution is not incompatible with creation theory.  You just have to widen your theological perspectives and stop being a tool.\n\nSecond, there is a host of evidence for evolution.  Just look at the biological tree.  Life has trended from simple life to complex.  There are also fossil records that demostrate quite concretely (excuse the pun) that creatures have changed over the centuries.\n\nIf you write such glaring evidence off as some sort of "demonic trickery" then I truly have to wonder about your gullibility.  I mean, some people seriously need to think about the full rammifications of their religious beliefs.
1138218
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
663844
Jumping into the Evolution vs. Creationism is a messy fight.  What Baumgardner proposes is a very rapid movement of the plates to get them into the current position and also creating the massive flood referred to in the Christian Bible.  Geologic evidence refutes the theory at every turn.  The structure of the earth as we know it will not allow this.  The aesthenosphere is the plastic-y layer over which the solid plates move.  Geophysical and surface observed evidence tell us that this is a very slow process, inches a year at a maximum.  The type of catastrophic event describes in this theory would not be physically possible by the natural laws we have observerd.  Also, radio carbon dating shows the varying ages of rock throughout the Earth, ages that far exceed the several thousand years he posits.  His response is that the radio isotopes decayed at a diferent rate.  Basically, he wants the laws of science, the laws that have never been seen to change, to be broken to support his creationism theory.  I suppose if you believe in an omnipotent being that created the world, that being can change the laws as it sees fit; however, that isn't science, that is belief.\n\nMy opinion is that Baumgardner's theory is a feeble attemptto put a scientific face on religious thought.  The website I reference is a Evolution vs. creation discussion group.  Many people spent far more thought on the subject and you can find some very good points in the discussion thread.
1133128
I read the answer to the question "How did marsupials get to Australia?" and the article "The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid". Is it the same people that say evolutionists have no evidence and that their explanations are ridiculous? Whoa!\n\nGood to know that several christian churchs/organizations accept evolution as a valid theory and that it doesn't contradict their belief. And I wonder too, is it ok for christians to lie in such shameless ways?
292474
I think it makes plenty of sense.  I think evolution and creationism work side by side rather well...after all, how long is a day for God?  \n\nSort of the same way with the big bang when the universe was formed...\n...and God said, Let There Be Light....
101290
A few points need to be cleared up.\n\n1) We don't know that Neanderthals were a separate species. We know that they left no female line descendants, which is not at all the same thing. There were thoroughly modern human populations in Australia that also left no female line descendants. The evidence suggests they were a different species, but it is a long way from conclusive,\n\n2) Neanderthals weren't pushed away. Modern humans and Nenderthals lived side by side for 20, 000 years or more. Neadnderthals were gradually replaced by modern humans but there is no evidence of them being pushed aside.\n\n3) In reference to Jeremie's claim that humans massacred Nedanderthals, there is no evidence to support such a claim. There has never been a Neanderthal body disocvered with human arrow or spearheds in it or vice versa. Remember, these groups had distinct technologies so if massacres were common we would probably find the evidence. More important is the timeframe for co-existence. If Neanderthals were bieng subject to regular violence they should have vanished rapidly from contact zones. Yet we don't see  that. INsrtead we see inplaces like Isreal that the two populations lived side by side. Which brings us to the next point.\n\n4) There was probably no overt racial discrimination involved in the disappearance of the Neanderthals. As I've ponted out, they co-existed for millenia apparenbtly peacefully. Insetad the Neanderthals appear to have simply lost the reproductive game. For whatever reason they bred slower and/or or recovered slower from catastrophe. Over time the numbers appear to have simply dwindled. The situation between Neanderthals and humans is more akin to the situation with Amish and non-Amish Americans. For the most part the populations co-exist peacefully, but the Amish population does not grow as fast as the majority population. \n\nThe Amish may survive because there is little resoucre competeition. In a situation where the populations compete (not fight) for food and other resources the smaller population will always lose out simply because the ststitsical chance of any person in their group finding a resource is much smaller.\n\n4) By no stretch of the imagination were all Neanderthals the same race. Neanderthals covered a large range, stretching from Islrael and presumably North Africa through western Europe all the way to Asian Russia. That gave them a comparable range to H. sapiens at that time.\n\nNorthern and far Eastern Neanderthals were quite different to modern humans, being short and thick set with protruding, flat noses. In contrast the Middle Eastern Neanderthals had no single features to distinguish them from the modern humans they lived side by side with. They were short bymodern standards, but many were much taller than thuamns in the same area. they tended to be muscular, but many were slim. Their facial features covered a whole spectrum but even themost extreme of them looke dlike some people who are alive today. \n\nIOW the Neanderthals themselves were racially dividied.\n\n\n5) Neanderthals sure didn't die out because of the Ice Age. Neanderthals were a cold adpated species. We are the tropical branch of humanity.  The Neanderthals lived through several the ice ages and thrived. It was only when the last ice age abated and us tropical humans managed to move into Europe that they started to deline.
742072
What is the creationist response to feathered dinosaurs?\n\nThey stick their head in the sand and repeat over and over, "I believe the Bible, I believe the Babble."
215240
Neanderthals are thought to not be predecessors of humans at all.\n\nThe FIRST ancestor would be the Universal Common Ancestor.  Evolution is founded upon the idea of commonality of descent; that all life on earth is related, descended from a single parent organism.  Such an organism cannot be known, because so small an organism leaves no meaningful fossils, and one would expect it to be extinct by now.  I can only say that the first ancestor of humans is also the first ancestor of cats, dogs, bees, trees, bacteria, and mushrooms.
1021610
We have fact and the ability to think  on our side. Facts that prove that there is no god. That means that you only have ignorance on your side. No one but Christians suggest we came from monkeys, that is just one more example of their ignorance. Evolutionists say humans and apes came from a common ancestor that was not either human or monkey. Do you really think creationism is better? We came from Adam and eve? So then all after them were inbred. The family must have sat down together for orgies. Inbreeding that closely would kill a species, but god let them live to f*** their mothers. I would think you would rather be related to apes, than come from motherf***ers. You need not kid yourself by suggesting that you have a trace of intelligence, when you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Have a nice day.
1003421
It is an interesting idea, but do you reallly understand where the other side is coming from?  Have you read any good books written by creation scientists?
200642
It seems that anthropologists have bones of austropethicus and ape-like people like the bones of an ape person called "Lucy" The skull cavity was for a large brain but the bone structures were more ape like than human like. There was neanderthal man which was believed to have been exterminated by homo erectus. Also homo habilis. I'm really not sure if people wiped out some smart ape people or if those bones are supposed to be us. But I personally believe humans are not apes. If anything I believe people are more closely related to bears than apes, though genetically speaking I'd be laughed at for that assertion.
891990
Very interesting indeed...  This may very well be another piece of the puzzle.\n\nAn earlier theory speculated , well before neanderthals existed, was the ability to walk upright was an anatomical change that later facilitated cranial development.\n\nUpright ambulatory movement freed the hands to later craft tools, literally gave a different perspective of the world, etc.\n\nGenetically, proof of our connection to the great apes has been established by Hillier et al, Nature 2004.  Mind you, we didn't come FROM the apes, but share a common ancestor.  Peace.
1082941
You continue to make excellent points. Bravo.\n\nYes, I have heard of Australopithecines. And most Creationists don't do their share of research.\n\n- 16 yo Pagan
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.