Do Creationists find those Geico commercials with the caveman to be blasphemous?

Question

Just wondering.

Answer 1

As the one said, keep wondering. Since you do not know what you are asking about. Did you think of this on your own or is a dare?
ANyway, who ever said Adam was not a caveman.?

Answer 2

i for my section love the Geico gecko, so the caveman classified ads only type of annoy me. They were humorous the first time yet now i'm over them. i recognize the little gecko's accent. he's tremendous.

Answer 3

Just funny like Geico. Their Insurance is as high as anybody else.

Answer 4

Heck no, I think they're funny as all get out, and actually I think they're poking fun at evolutionists who think cavemen (even Christians believe the earliest humans lived in caves) where unintelligent.

Answer 5

I find them very funny. I am a creationist but I have no doubt there were cave men long long ago. Geeez

Answer 6

Where Are the “Links (Ape to man)”?
However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”16
Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”17
Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Man’s “Family Tree”
As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”19 And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.”20
The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”21
In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”
Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”22 Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record—fully human, just as we are?
The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

Answer 7

Nope. But I involve science and evolution with my beliefs in Christianity heh.

Answer 8

No. They're funny. I get a laugh every time they come on.

Answer 9

I always think that guy looks like Val Kilmer.

Answer 10

Keep wondering.