Question about the "neanderthals"

River88 · #1 26th December 2003, 09:26 PM

I have a question for Christians here who do not believe in evolution... how do you explain the neanderthals? I heard they never existed, and the "reamains" were a hoax. So how do other Christians who don't believe in evolution explain this?

Bushido216 · #2 27th December 2003, 12:09 AM

They usually try to say something like scientists only found part of one skeleton and he probably had MS.

However, that fails to account for the countless other specimens we found, including children, who all had that hunched body structure.

Ark Guy · #3 27th December 2003, 12:30 AM

A little while ago I saw a show on TV called Origins produced by Cornerstone Television out of Wall PA. The host of the show, Russ Bixler had a guest on named Dr. Jack Cuozzo who is an orthodontist of 30 years.
The show was most interesting and covered the topic of human longevity.
Dr. Cuozzo talked about the neanderthal man and their appearance. One of his points were that studies show that the human head does not stop growing as we age. He cited references from a study done by a Dr. Rolf Gordon Behrents, from the U of Michigan while he was working on his Ph.D.
Dr Behrents work involved the measurement of people heads when they were 19, late 40’s and some at age 80.
What was discovered was that the head changed in this fashion;
the brow ridge came forward
the jaw came forward
the nose got bigger
the chin came forward
the cheeks came forward and flattened out
the teeth came forward
the back of the head started to point out
Some of the measurements show that the nose moved 1.3 mm in 30 years while the browridge moved forward and upward 1.5 mm and the cheek bone moved 1.1 mm in the same 30 year period.
Dr. Cuozzo’s son in law then took the same data and plotted it and extrapolated the growth out to 300 then 500 years. The 500 year age would be about the age of Noah and some of the other early bible characters that lived for a long time. At 300 years,he show the pictures that showed mans jaw was square at the gonial angle and the face was moving forward and downward. At 500 years there was no chin point , a very long face and a huge brow.
His conclusion is that the large browed neanderthal man was just an old human and the features are a natural manifestation of aging .

Bushido216 · #4 27th December 2003, 12:49 AM

Okay, first he was an orthodontist and this research was outside of his field of expertise. Second, show me a scientific article in which this is referenced. You won't find any. Second, don't you think that the kind of morphology found in neanderthals would be really freaking obvious in old people today?

As well, how do you explain the skeletal remains of children with common morphology to their elders?

Buck72 · #5 27th December 2003, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Bushido216

Okay, first he was an orthodontist and this research was outside of his field of expertise.

Oh brother, we can have a FIELD DAY with this sort of disqualification!!

Charles Lyell was a lawyer
Charles Darwin was an apostate seminary graduate

Yet just these two men alone have put more of their conjecture in your head than any real scienist. Come on! I could go for hours on the NON-SCIENTIST evolutionary "founders". Ugh.

Second, show me a scientific article in which this is referenced. You won't find any.

Translation: "Show me an evolutionist that agrees with your finding".

Second, don't you think that the kind of morphology found in neanderthals would be really freaking obvious in old people today?

What if people a few thousand years ago lived to be REALLY, REALLY OLD...like the Bible says? I bet their brows would get kinda hunky after a few hundred years.

Chi_Cygni · #6 27th December 2003, 02:23 AM

But people lived to lesser ages in the past.

No one has ever found a skeleton with evidence of great ages.

There are scholars who claim the ages in the Bible are mistranslations.

Ark Guy · #7 27th December 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Chi_Cygni

But people lived to lesser ages in the past.

No one has ever found a skeleton with evidence of great ages.

There are scholars who claim the ages in the Bible are mistranslations.

There are also biblical scholars that claim Jesus was myth...your point?

Bushido216 · #8 27th December 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Buck72

Oh brother, we can have a FIELD DAY with this sort of disqualification!!

Charles Lyell was a lawyer
Charles Darwin was an apostate seminary graduate

Yet just these two men alone have put more of their conjecture in your head than any real scienist. Come on! I could go for hours on the NON-SCIENTIST evolutionary "founders". Ugh.

Translation: "Show me an evolutionist that agrees with your finding".

What if people a few thousand years ago lived to be REALLY, REALLY OLD...like the Bible says? I bet their brows would get kinda hunky after a few hundred years.

I fail to see your point about Lyell and Darwin. I don't know much about Lyell, but Darwin spent his lifetime taking courses and being the student of many, many esteemed experts in their respective fields. Regardless, it was a different time and many of the pioneers of modern day science worked out of their respective fields, it's the way things were done. Today, however, that's not the way it works.

And no, I was looking for a peer-reviewed publication on the subject. Have you ever noticed that most creationists post their works in non-main stream publications? No one knows they exist.

And show me how people could possibly live longer than they do today, given that they have less medical knowledge and fewer ways of combating disease, poorer ways of gaining food and a host of natural factors just aiming to kill them.

Ark Guy · #9 27th December 2003, 02:06 PM

bushido:
And show me how people could possibly live longer than they do today, given that they have less medical knowledge and fewer ways of combating disease, poorer ways of gaining food and a host of natural factors just aiming to kill them.

The means are numerous.

For example, here's one. What if the genetic pool right after the creation contained no illness.

Of course if you want to claim that the old ages presented in the book of Genesis weren't quite like what was written, then just what are they analagous to?

River88 · #10 27th December 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

A little while ago I saw a show on TV called Origins produced by Cornerstone Television out of Wall PA. The host of the show, Russ Bixler had a guest on named Dr. Jack Cuozzo who is an orthodontist of 30 years.
The show was most interesting and covered the topic of human longevity.
Dr. Cuozzo talked about the neanderthal man and their appearance. One of his points were that studies show that the human head does not stop growing as we age. He cited references from a study done by a Dr. Rolf Gordon Behrents, from the U of Michigan while he was working on his Ph.D.
Dr Behrents work involved the measurement of people heads when they were 19, late 40’s and some at age 80.
What was discovered was that the head changed in this fashion;
the brow ridge came forward
the jaw came forward
the nose got bigger
the chin came forward
the cheeks came forward and flattened out
the teeth came forward
the back of the head started to point out
Some of the measurements show that the nose moved 1.3 mm in 30 years while the browridge moved forward and upward 1.5 mm and the cheek bone moved 1.1 mm in the same 30 year period.
Dr. Cuozzo’s son in law then took the same data and plotted it and extrapolated the growth out to 300 then 500 years. The 500 year age would be about the age of Noah and some of the other early bible characters that lived for a long time. At 300 years,he show the pictures that showed mans jaw was square at the gonial angle and the face was moving forward and downward. At 500 years there was no chin point , a very long face and a huge brow.
His conclusion is that the large browed neanderthal man was just an old human and the features are a natural manifestation of aging .

Thank you for the explanation...very satisfying! God bless you!