Neanderthal, Bible & Young Earth

[RZehr]

Where do Neanderthals fit in the Bible and a 6-7,000ish year old earth? Theories anyone? Who were they? Or don’t you believe in they existed at all?

[Neto]

Back when I took Anthropology (1975-1976 school year) they were said to be a sort of pre-human sapiens species who had some social organization (in that they lived & hunted in groups), but did not have any developed religion or art. (I do not recall if they were thought to have had language.) But recent studies, and advances in scientific studies like DNA identification, have shown that they were much more 'human' than not. (I suppose you already know that most Europeans have some Neanderthal DNA.) What this means to me (and something which I do not hear evolutionist scientists talking about) is that their so-called "missing-link" now must cover a much greater gap than that which they described before. As I recall, they used to identify the Neanderthals as part of the gap between ape-like sapiens and homo-sapiens. (I think that the Cromagnons were placed in there someplace as well - I think after the Ns.) Even much 'earlier' 'species', some which these scientists believe to have not had any artistic expression or language have been found to have kept 'special' stones that they had taken with them far from areas where such stone types should be found. (I'm thinking specifically of a stone found in a cave that had obviously been used as a place of abode (an occupation dated to a period "before homo-sapiens"), a stone that was naturally shaped in such a way that it looked like a human face. The fact that some 'pre-human' noticed this, and carried the stone with him or her, indicates a cognitive ability far beyond anything which they 'should have had' according to evolutionary theory.)
No offense to anyone who has large or 'course' features, but if you look at how they depict the Ns, you can very possibly think of someone you know who has similar features. So I think that the fossils they have found were just of individuals who had larger facial features and a larger build, or possibly an entire separate ethnic group. The Bible speaks of giants, and these tribes (such as the Philistines) were known to have traveled from other places. (Also, their dating methods are really messed up. Consider the fact that things like a fossilized felt hat, and solid stone formed inside of a steel pipe have been dated to thousands of years ago.)

[Soloist]

(Also, their dating methods are really messed up. Consider the fact that things like a fossilized felt hat, and solid stone formed inside of a steel pipe have been dated to thousands of years ago.)

I would agree, but it really bothers me when we have "creation scientists" touring around showing "proof" of modern dinosaurs or some oddity that should be impossible by evolutionary science... The proof is usually poor or of a disputed item such as the clay dinosaurs in Mexico... If we really have proof of graves of dinosaurs and the common animal are dumped together... Where is the proof?

Its absurd to argue for a scientific explanation of starlight with non-testable theories and argue for a young earth based off of fossil records that don't seem public. I've seen almost every Creation Scientist teach that there is a mass bone pile of dinosaurs, horses, camels and other animals in the USA but never do they have photo's or resources and get quite offended if you ask for proof.

As for the Neanderthals... they likely were just us. Maybe the giants, maybe a genetic defect... who knows.

[Ken]

Where do Neanderthals fit in the Bible and a 6-7,000ish year old earth? Theories anyone? Who were they? Or don’t you believe in they existed at all?

Neanderthals lived between 130,000 and 40,000 years ago and the earliest evidence for Neanderthals dates to about 250,000 years ago. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for this. You can't reconcile Neanderthal paleontology and science with modern "young earth" religious doctrine.

[Soloist]

Where do Neanderthals fit in the Bible and a 6-7,000ish year old earth? Theories anyone? Who were they? Or don’t you believe in they existed at all?

Neanderthals lived between 130,000 and 40,000 years ago and the earliest evidence for Neanderthals dates to about 250,000 years ago. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for this. You can't reconcile Neanderthal paleontology and science with modern "young earth" religious doctrine.

I disagree.

The fossils are dated by the rock. The rock could have been around for an unknown period of time.

The Scriptures say God created the earth and later it says he caused plants to grow. The simple belief is that God created a fully formed earth including layers and "aged" dirt to grow plants in. Either you believe Scripture is accurate or you believe some figurative interpretation that calls into question any miraculous account in Scripture.

Why do we have elements with a short half life still around? Fits with a young earth or a changing decay rate but it doesn't fit with a constant rate of decay very well.

[Ken]

Where do Neanderthals fit in the Bible and a 6-7,000ish year old earth? Theories anyone? Who were they? Or don’t you believe in they existed at all?

Neanderthals lived between 130,000 and 40,000 years ago and the earliest evidence for Neanderthals dates to about 250,000 years ago. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for this. You can't reconcile Neanderthal paleontology and science with modern "young earth" religious doctrine.

I disagree.

The fossils are dated by the rock. The rock could have been around for an unknown period of time.

Not true. Neanderthal sites and remains are dated directly using radiocarbon dating. And using genetic analysis with actual DNA recovered from Neanderthal remains. These are mostly remains like bones found preserved in caves. They are dating the actual bones and other remains like wooden tools, not rock layers. This is completely different from how hundreds of millions of year-old fossils recovered from rock layers are dated from say the Jurassic or pre-Cambrian periods. Where they use different techniques such as potassium-argon isotope radiometric dating.

You can choose to discard or dismiss modern paleontology and geology. What you can't do is reconcile it with modern young-earth religious doctrine.

Why do we have elements with a short half life still around? Fits with a young earth or a changing decay rate but it doesn't fit with a constant rate of decay very well.

Because all living things absorb carbon-14 from the atmosphere by photosynthesis or by eating plants. New carbon-14 is constantly being created in the upper-atmosphere via solar radiation. This is very basic and well established science. Once a living plant or animal dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon-14 via photosynthesis or eating and the existing carbon-14 in the tissue starts to decay.

[Soloist]

Because all living things absorb carbon-14 from the atmosphere by photosynthesis or by eating plants. New carbon-14 is constantly being created in the upper-atmosphere via solar radiation. This is very basic and well established science. Once a living plant or animal dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon-14 via photosynthesis or eating and the existing carbon-14 in the tissue starts to decay.

I'm not speaking here of carbon 14 which is only supposed to reliably date things to 50,000 years at absolute best. I'm talking radioactive Isotope dating that can go massively further.

You can choose to discard or dismiss modern paleontology and geology. What you can't do is reconcile it with modern young-earth religious doctrine.

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't care if it sounds dogmatic because it is. I believe the account of the Bible and I view everything through this world view.
Carbon dating of things older then 30,000 years was considered very unreliable until fairly recently and while the isotope dating was more reliable for older periods. We have to rely on secular scientists who have something to prove
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/scie ... rthal.html
The bias is obvious. Why would you side with secular sources over Scripture unless you already discarded the truth?

[Ken]

Because all living things absorb carbon-14 from the atmosphere by photosynthesis or by eating plants. New carbon-14 is constantly being created in the upper-atmosphere via solar radiation. This is very basic and well established science. Once a living plant or animal dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon-14 via photosynthesis or eating and the existing carbon-14 in the tissue starts to decay.

I'm not speaking here of carbon 14 which is only supposed to reliably date things to 50,000 years at absolute best. I'm talking radioactive Isotope dating that can go massively further.

You can choose to discard or dismiss modern paleontology and geology. What you can't do is reconcile it with modern young-earth religious doctrine.

I don't have to reconcile it. I don't care if it sounds dogmatic because it is. I believe the account of the Bible and I view everything through this world view.
Carbon dating of things older then 30,000 years was considered very unreliable until fairly recently and while the isotope dating was more reliable for older periods. We have to rely on secular scientists who have something to prove
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/scie ... rthal.html
The bias is obvious. Why would you side with secular sources over Scripture unless you already discarded the truth?

I don't think the Old Testament was ever written or intended to be a definitive chronology of the age of the earth. In any event, what "truth" are you talking about? Young earth religious estimates of the age of the earth are all over the map. Even biblical literalists can't agree.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your link to that 2011 NYT article. The science in this area continues to be refined and updated every year as new sites and evidence is discovered, and techniques improve. The fastest way to make your name in any field of science is to take down old scientific "doctrine" and replace it with something new and better. Like Einstein did with Newtonian physics. Young scientists around the world in every field are always trying to re-examine and replace the theories of their elders. That's how science works.

[Soloist]

I don't think the Old Testament was ever written or intended to be a definitive chronology of the age of the earth. In any event, what "truth" are you talking about? Young earth religious estimates of the age of the earth are all over the map. Even biblical literalists can't agree.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If we dispute the account of Genesis, what exactly do you actually believe is true in the Old Testament? do you hold that there was a flood? that God placed a rainbow in the sky and prior it didn't exist? The story of Samson? the story of Elijah calling fire down? Can you state what miracles you believe in from the Old Testament? Or if none, do you believe any in the New Testament?

[RZehr]

I'd like if we could keep this Neanderthal thread on Neanderthals in a young earth, Bible context. Instead of sidetracking on the topic of the age of the earth, and the veracity or literalism of the Bible. I'm welcoming theories and ideas that could explain their existence or who they may have been within a young earth timeline. I recognize that for those of you who do believe in a ancient world this may be pointless and/or silly.