Purpose of "early man"

[LynchPin]

There is obviously plenty of fossil evidence of what people refer to as "early man." If you are a creationist, why do you think God created these earlier human-line species and then allowed them to die off?

 

[Vance]

You know, Dr. Hugh Ross, a Creationist, has puzzled over this one as well. He has to acknowledge that we DO have a long list of hominid fossils that are definitely not apes, and as we get closer and closer to modern times, look more and more like modern humans, but are NOT modern humans. While he remains convinced that Man was a special creation with a literal Adam, Ross acknowledges that we do, indeed, have a series of hominids that did exist and that the more recent ones were very close to human, without being human. He believes each of these were special creations as well (since he does not accept macro-evolution). and if I recall he ultimately concludes that this is just a mystery and we will have to ask God about it when we see Him. Maybe someone more familiar with his position could correct me or give more details.

 

[grmorton]

You know, Dr. Hugh Ross, a Creationist, has puzzled over this one as well. He has to acknowledge that we DO have a long list of hominid fossils that are definitely not apes, and as we get closer and closer to modern times, look more and more like modern humans, but are NOT modern humans. While he remains convinced that Man was a special creation with a literal Adam, Ross acknowledges that we do, indeed, have a series of hominids that did exist and that the more recent ones were very close to human, without being human. He believes each of these were special creations as well (since he does not accept macro-evolution). and if I recall he ultimately concludes that this is just a mystery and we will have to ask God about it when we see Him. Maybe someone more familiar with his position could correct me or give more details.

I have been arguing against the absolutely false position of Ross and RTB on anthropology for years. I have had one meeting with Ross trying to get across to him that he has a serious problem with what he says in these areas. Ross has claimed

Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, (Orange: Promise Publishing, 1991), p. 159-160][/font]
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only adhan, as being made in His image. The point is emphasized by repetition. Clearly, as man's story unfolds through subsequent chapters, one discovers that what makes him different is a quality called 'spirit.' Man is unique among all species of life. By 'spirit' the Bible means 'aware of God and capable of forming a relationship with Him.' Evidence of man's spiritual dimension would include divine worship, shown by religious relics, altars, and temples. From the Bible's perspective, decorating, burial of dead, or use of tools would not qualify as conclusive evidence of the spirit. Moreover, nonspirit creatures such as bower birds decorate their nests, elephants bury their dead, and chimpanzees use tools."

"While bipedal, tool-using, large brained hominids roamed the earth at least as long ago as one million years, evidence for religious relics and altars dates back only 8,000 to 24,000 years. Thus the secular anthropological date for the first spirit creatures is in complete agreement with the biblical date.

“Some differences, however, between the Bible and secular anthropology remain. The Bible not only would deny that the hominids were men, it also would deny that Adam was physically descended from these hominids. Even here, support from anthropology is emerging. New evidence indicates that the hominid species may have gone extinct before, or as a result of, the appearance of modern man. At the very least, abrupt transitions between [hominid]species is widely acknowledged.

Let's parse this. First he says "Evidence of man's spiritual dimension would include divine worship, shown by religious relics, altars, and temples."

But that isn't all the evidence one can find for man's religion. Neanderthals and earlier hominids seemed to engage in religious activities which are none of the above, yet they still leave evidence. The Neanderthals left some evidence that they might have worshiped bears as do the circum polar peoples in both North America and Siberia and Europe. But there are also evidences of altars from going MUCH further back than 24,000 years but Hugh Ross simply doesn't mention them to anyone. Like a YEC he hides contradictory data. this is from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rossrev.htm



[size=+1]There was apparently an altar in Chauvet Cave(dated 31,000 years ago[Balter, 1996, p. 449). A bear skull was precariously placed on a flat topped stone and fire was burned just behind the skull. Chauvet et al, write:[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]"A little further on we were deeply impressed by what we discovered. In the middle of the chamber, on a block of grey stone of regular shape that had fallen from the ceiling, the skull of a bear was placed as if on an altar. The animal's fangs projected beyond it into the air. On top of the stone there were still pieces of charcoal, the remains of a fireplace. All around, on the floor, there were more than thirty bear skulls; now covered in a frosting of amber-coloured calcite, they were purposely set out on the earth. There were no traces of skeletons. This intentional arrangement troubled us because of its solemn peculiarity." (Chauvet et al, 1996, p. 50)[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]The lack of bear skeletal parts proves that these were not stray bears that got trapped and died in the cave. Their heads were removed elsewhere and brought into the cave.[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]The fact that 30,000 years ago man was apparently worshipping the bear lends credence to the next oldest probable religious site. Except this one was built by Neanderthal. At Bruniquel, France, archeologists have excavated a square stone structure dating to more than 47,000 years ago (prior to the advent of modern man in Europe) in which the Neanderthals burned a bear. Bednarik (1996, p. 104) writes:[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]"The cave of Bruniquel in southern France has just produced fascinating new evidence. Several hundred metres in from the cave entrance, a stone structure has been discovered. It is quadrilineal, measures four by five metres and has been constructed from pieces of stalagmite and stalactite. A burnt fragment of a bear bone found in it was radiocarbon analysed, yielding a 'date' of greater than 47 600 years BP. This suggests that the structure is the work of Neanderthals. It is located in complete darkness, which proves that the people who ventured so deep into the large cave system had reliable lighting and had the confidence to explore such depths. Bruniquel is one of several French caves that became closed subsequent to their Pleistocene use, but were artificially opened this century."[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]This appears to have been the ritual sacrifice of a bear. It is also the first proof that man went deep into caves long before they painted the walls. (Balter, 1996, p. 449)[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]Neanderthals at Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon, appear to have ritually sacrificed a deer. Marshack writes:[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]"In the Mousterian cave shelter of Nahr Ibrahim in Lebanon the bones of a fallow deer (Dama mesopotamia) were gathered in a pile and topped by the skull cap. Many of the bones were unbroken and still articulated. Around the animal were bits of red ochre. While red ochre was common in the area and so may have been introduced inadvertently, the arrangement of the largely unbroken bones suggests a ritual use of parts of the animal." (Marschack 1990, p. 481)[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]The ochre was proven to have been brought in from elsewhere by the discoverer (Solecki, 1982). This site is greater than 40,000 years old.[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]The 80,000 year old site of Drachenloch, Switzerland, also appears to have been a religious site, once again a Neanderthal site. Bachler found what appeared to be ritually arranged cave bear bones and ashes on what he called a sacrificial altar. (Lissner, 1961, 187-188). Campbell and Loy write:[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]"The most famous example of what has been claimed to be Neandertal hunting magic is the so-called bear cult. It came to light when a German archaeologist, Emil Bachler, excavated the cave of Drachenloch between 1917 and 1923. Located 8,000 ft (2,400 m) up in the Swiss Alps, this 'lair of the dragons' tunnels deep into a mountainside. The front part of the cave, Bachler's work made clear, served as an occasional dwelling place for Neandertals. Farther back, Bachler found a cubical chest made of stones and measuring approximately 3.25 ft (1 m) on a side. The top of the chest was covered by a massive slab of stone. Inside were seven bear skulls, all apparently arranged with their muzzles facing the cave entrance. Still deeper in the cave were six bear skulls, seemingly set in niches along the walls. The Drachenloch find is not unique. At Regourdou in southern France, a rectangular pit, covered by a flat stone weighing nearly a ton, held the bones of more than 20 bears." (Campbell and Loy, 1996, p. 441)[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]Honesty demands that one note that Drachenloch (not Regourdou) is controversial so for an alternative view, see Kurten (1976, p. 84-86) For a discussion of why I don't think Kurten's critique is correct see Morton (1997, p.73-75)[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]There is an even earlier altar, which is not controversial, found at Bilzingsleben, Germany. The excavators, Dietrich and Ursula Mania have found a 27-foot-diameter paved area that they say was used for "special cultural activities" (Mania et al,1994, p. 124; See also Mania and Mania, 1988, p. 92). Gore writes:[/size][size=+1][/size]

[size=+1]"But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle. "'They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,' says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'"[/size][size=+1] (1997,p. 110)[/size][size=+1][/size] [size=+1]I would contend that the symbolism here, if found in a modern village, would be enough to cause one to turn and flee for his life. Such an arrangement of objects would immediately be interpreted as evidence of religion, and a hostile religion at that. And Bilzingsleben dates to around 400,000 years, not the mere 24,000 years that Ross prefers for the oldest evidence of religion. If Ross wishes to claim that religion doesn't go back further than 24,000 years, he should explain why the above five examples don't qualify as examples of religion? It is clear that evidence of religion in the anthropological record prior to 24,000 years is not rare. Ross can't prove his case by ignoring these sites and this data.[/size][size=+1][/size]

**endof quote from my web page**
Ross claimed above that Neanderthals went extinct prior to or as a result of the advent of man. Since he defines man as anatomically modern man at 60 kyr or less, he has a problem. The first anatomically modern skeletons date 150,000 years old from Herto Ethiopia. Neanderthal co-existed with anatomically modern man until 27,000 years ago. And with the discovery of H. floresiensis in Indonesia, H. erectus co-existed with modern men until at least 18,000 years ago. Ross simply doesn't know what he is talking about in anthropology.

 

[Vance]

As an astrophyscisist, he gets that cosmology right, but he can't be an expert on all areas of science, that is for sure. I agree with you that he is simply trying too hard to make the data (which he does not deny) fit his "no-evolution" framework. At least he is honest enough to recognize that there are, indeed, hominids that are not man, and not ape. This is a HUGE step for most Creationist who choose, instead, to adopt an "I can't hear you" approach to such data.

 

[grmorton]

As an astrophyscisist, he gets that cosmology right, but he can't be an expert on all areas of science, that is for sure. I agree with you that he is simply trying too hard to make the data (which he does not deny) fit his "no-evolution" framework. At least he is honest enough to recognize that there are, indeed, hominids that are not man, and not ape. This is a HUGE step for most Creationist who choose, instead, to adopt an "I can't hear you" approach to such data.

Well, actually the YECs will generally include all of fossil mankind back to H. erectus, as humans. When it comes to the observational evidence of very human-like activity associated with the ancient hominids, the YECs actually are closer to being right than is Ross.

 

[Vance]

Ah, most YEC's I have seen refuse to believe that any of the hominids were anything other than either apes, on the one hand, or modern humans with deformities, etc, on the other. No transitionals allowed!!! The really troubling ones they just say were cobbled together of a mixture of bones. I guess you have met more enlightened YEC's! :0)

 

[TwinCrier]

I love how a question is directed at creationists and every evolutionist on the forum jumps onboard to answer. Nice.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I am sorry, after you then . . .

 

[grmorton]

Ah, most YEC's I have seen refuse to believe that any of the hominids were anything other than either apes, on the one hand, or modern humans with deformities, etc, on the other. No transitionals allowed!!! The really troubling ones they just say were cobbled together of a mixture of bones. I guess you have met more enlightened YEC's! :0)

THat is interesting. I did say 'most' and I know of some who absolutely say no hominid is human. But I would defend my position with the following citations:

"Surpirisingly, Homo erectus furnishes us with powerful evidence that falsifies the concept of human evolution. Three questions are crucial. First, is Homo erectus morphologically distinct enough to warrant its being classified as a species separate from Homo sapiens? The evidence clearly says no. By every legitimate standard applicable, the fossil and cultural evidence indicate that it should be included in the homo sapiens taxon." ~ Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), p. 120

"Although the Homo erectus evidence is still fragmentary and equivocal, it seems probable at this time that these were true human beings, descendants of Adam and even of Noah. There is certainly no basis for believing that they were evolutionary intermediates of any kind." ~ Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1984), p. 395

Ritland is agnostic on whether erectus is human or not ~ Richard M. Ritland, A Search for Meaning in Nature, (Mountain View: Pacific Press Publishing Assoc., 1970), p. 259-261

"It is almost beyond dispute that these creatures had material cultures consisting of hand axes, perhaps spears or digging sticks, and fire. Their cranial capacity was generally smaller than that of modern humans, although some specimens approach or meet the lower limit of the modern human brain volume. In our opinion it is possible that these creatures were human, although there is no clear-cut evidence of any religious life among them. It is possible that some were specialized or degenerate branches of humanity." ~ Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation, 3rd Edition, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), p. 123

"Rather than being a proto-human, it is possible that Homo erectus is fully human, but in a degenerative state." ~ Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p.172

Some of the older creationists didn't accept H. erectus--Klotz didn't but he did accept Neanderthal

"The Neanderthal man appears to have been short and stocky. In any case, it is clear today that he must be classified as Homo sapiens." ~ John W. Klotz, "The Case for Evolution," in Paul A. Zimmerman, Darwin, Evolution, and Creation ,(St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), p. 130

Huse is ambivalent on erectus but is better than Ross on Neanderthal

"With the discovery of other Neanderthal skeletons, it is now known, however, that Neanderthal Man was fully erect and fully human." ~ Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), p. 101

Gish rejects some H. erectus' but accepts others and fully human

"At this time, while the evidence in most instances is still very fragmentary, and published reports in some instances have been strongly influenced by preconceived ideas, it is our opinion that some specimens attributed to Homo erectus, such as Java Man and Peking Man, are definitely from the ape family with no link of any kind to Man. In other cases (some of which have not been described here) specimens have been attributed to Homo erectus which otherwise would have been attributed to Neanderthal Man if the authorities making this decision had not believed that the fossil creature was too old to have been Neanderthal Man." ~ Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,(El Cajon: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), P. 203-204

Now, I think most lay YECs do reject any fossil man as being human. There certainly is a diverse opinion so we may be seeing different parts of the same elephant here.

 

[Vance]

OK, that agrees with what I thought, that they either classified them as modern humans or apes, but not some hominid species that was not one of these two.