Hominids/caveman

[filly]

Sorry, I don't know the proper terminology, but how do the "not so much human, but not so much ape" creatures fit in with the 6-day literal creation? Not trying to debate...I'm genuinely interested in answers. I want to believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account, but where do these guys fit in?

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry, I don't know the proper terminology, but how do the "not so much human, but not so much ape" creatures fit in with the 6-day literal creation? Not trying to debate...I'm genuinely interested in answers. I want to believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account, but where do these guys fit in?

There is no such thing as an ape man and the fossil record demonstrates that. Here are a few lesser known facts. The most important thing to realize is that the key anatomical feature is the size and complexity of the brain. Evolutionists like to paint a picture of progressive evolution over millions of years but our supposed ancestors would have tripled their cranial capacity over night.

It's simple really, a couple of million years ago our supposed ancestors had a cranial capacity of around 680cc. Then for no apparent reason the cranial capacity jumps to 1000cc. You want to know what the really interesting thing is, none of the chimpanzee/gorilla ancestors are represented in natural history museums until you drop back at least 5 million years. The first chimpanzee ancestor fossil was discovered a couple of years ago and consisted of a few teeth. That is because the apes are always hailed as one of our ancestors.

" It was once thought that the evolution of the genus Homo was an example of anagenesis, the continual and gradual change of one parent species into its daughter species in a linear fashion. As the fossil record began to expand and more early human fossils were found dating to the period between 2 million and 1 million years ago...The face of 1470 is longer than 1813's and 1470's upper jaw is square instead of rounded-off. There is a great discrepancy between the cranial capacities of the two individuals as well. ER 1470 has a cranial capacity of 775cc, where ER 1813 has a cranial capacity of only 510cc (which is above the australopith average, but well below the accepted 600cc cutoff for Homo)"

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html

1470 is a skull found in Hadar, it was in 40 pieces and immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. You probably know here as Lucy. She bears no real resemblance to humans, she is for all intents and purposes a large ape. Dating has shifted around a lot but the final date is something like 2 million years ago.

What's the problem? From the same exact time a skeleton virtually identical to modern humans is found in South Africa and a skull about 1,000cc. All the fossils are either human or ape but the fact is that there are no ape fossils in natural history museums.

These apemen exist only in cartoon pictures in National Geographic. Never mind that our cranial capacity is 2 1/2 times that of chimpanzees and that there is no genetic mechanism for adapting the brain overnight. There must be an ape ancestor or the only other explanation is that God made man, fully formed, a few thousand years ago.

I was toying with a theistic evolution point of view when I noticed two things about TE. One, TE's do not have the slightest interest in the Scriptures as history. Two, they have no skeptical views with regards to human evolution whatsoever.

You should consider two things very seriously, whether or not the secular view is preferred above the Scriptural one with regards to human history. Then you have to think long and hard whether or not sound doctrine can be maintained while accepting evolution. If you are convinced that you can accept evolution as natural history and the Scriptures as redemptive history, go in peace and God bless you.

If however, you find them mutually exclusive as I do then I ask you to consider the human element in evolutionary theories. Be discerning and carefully weigh the evidence in the light of what you know is true in human history. Don't be supprised that the world can't accept our report, they can't see the evidence even if you show it to them.

"Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists)

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[filly]

So, they were either ape, or fully human? What about neanderthal, and the like? They are not human, like you and I. I also don't think they are ape. What are they? And they were created on day 5? So we've got man created one day later, walking around, seeing these very similar looking creatures, but they are looked upon as just an animal? Just like the giraffe, the zebra, etc. I don't know, just asking for opinions.

By the way, saw your pic...Army. I'm Navy. Thanks for the info above.

 

[mark kennedy]

So, they were either ape, or fully human? What about neanderthal, and the like? They are not human, like you and I. I also don't think they are ape. What are they? And they were created on day 5? So we've got man created one day later, walking around, seeing these very similar looking creatures, but they are looked upon as just an animal? Just like the giraffe, the zebra, etc. I don't know, just asking for opinions.

By the way, saw your pic...Army. I'm Navy. Thanks for the info above.

Oh, hi Navy, I'm prior service and here with the Guards. I was stationed on a Tender in Holy Lock Scotland about a million years ago. Anyway, the Neanderthal were completly human, in fact most of the Homo erectus fossils in Asia and Africa are very close to modern human proportions.

The African apes that are considered to be our ancestors like Homo habilis are bipedal, that is they walk upright. Their skulls are virtually identical to modern chimpanzees until all of the sudden about 2 million years ago our ancestors attain proportions virtually identical to modern humans and stay in stasis until a few hundred thousand years ago. Then, strangely enough, they are marked by an overall reduction is the size of the cranial capacity. 'The Neanderthal-1750 cm³ skull capacity (10% greater than modern human average)'

see Neanderthal From Wikipedia

The Neanderthal's buried their dead and produced religious icons. No ape has ever done such things, they don't use tools or produce works of art. Humans always have. Also, the cranial capacity of apes has decreased over time since they are subject to the same climatic and environmental conditions. The illusion of a transition is based on taking ape fossils that are different from modern ones and mistakenly making them human ancestors. Our ancestors did not have smaller craniums, they had larger ones and the Neanderthal fossils indicate exactly that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FallingWaters]

Sorry, I don't know the proper terminology, but how do the "not so much human, but not so much ape" creatures fit in with the 6-day literal creation? Not trying to debate...I'm genuinely interested in answers. I want to believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account, but where do these guys fit in?

Young Earth Creationists believe that God created humans,
and God created apes, but He did not create ape-men.

When a scientist finds a fossil skeleton,
and he believes that humans have evolved from apes,
then he interprets the artifacts he finds,
through that filter of his beliefs.

They say they have found an ape-man when in fact they have merely found an ape.
They says it is millions of years old when it is probably only thousands of years old.
They say what they say based on their beliefs.
Admittedly, I say what I say based on my beliefs.

Here are some excellent articles, and you might want to bookmark the website for further reading.

Referring to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925,
here is a small interesting excerpt:

"As we look back, we see that each one of the arguments for evolution are now known to be wrong. Featured prominently were supposed vestigial organs, like the appendix or tonsils, once touted as leftovers from an evolutionary past, but now recognized as functioning. Embryonic recapitulation, the idea that the human fetus goes through various evolutionary stages in the mother's womb, surfaced, but this whole idea was disproved decades ago.Most memorable were the fossil ape-men, but consider the list of evidences: Neanderthal man, known to be fully human; Piltdown man, later discovered to have been due to a fraudulent combination of human skullcap with an ape's jaw; Java man, consisting of an ape skull and a human femur, found separated by many meters, and later disavowed by its discoverer; and Australopithicus africanus, the skull of an infant ape which typically bore a slight resemblance to a human child's skull. Not entered into the trial, but aired in the press, was Nebraska man, America's own ape-man and thus very popular. This fossil consisted of only one tooth, later discovered to be that of a pig."
The Revival of Modern Creationism


Neanderthals are Still Human!
by Dave Phillips

What's a Missing Link?
by John Morris, Ph.D.

Richard Leakey's Skull 1470
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.