How are Neanderthals explained?

Question

How does your religion tackle the subject of Neanderthals and other Homo Sapien like fossils that have been found? Was it God's first try at making humans? I could see how it could fit in with those who believe God and evolution, but what about those who don't beleive in evolution?

I was expecting to get more answers. I assume that many people whould have an answer. Is this a subject people avoid because it go against the Adam and Eve explanation? And you can't cast doubt that Neanderthals did exsit?

Neanderthals was a different species than us. Radiation may mutate things, but it dosen't change you species.

Answer 1

Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.” As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look.

Another fossil type frequently encountered in scientific literature is Cro-Magnon man. It was named for the locality in southern France where his bones were first unearthed. These specimens “were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” said the book Lucy.

Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that—apes, or monkeys—not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”

Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?

Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”

For example, the radiocarbon “clock.” This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.

Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.” The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”

When reviewing a book on evolution, English author Malcolm Muggeridge commented on the lack of evidence for evolution. He noted that wild speculations flourished nevertheless. Then he said: “The Genesis account seems, by comparison, sober enough and at least has the merit of being validly related to what we know about human beings and their behavior.” He said that the unfounded claims of millions of years for man’s evolution “and wild leaps from skull to skull, cannot but strike anyone not caught up in the [evolutionary] myth as pure fantasy.” Muggeridge concluded: “Posterity will surely be amazed, and I hope vastly amused, that such slipshod and unconvincing theorizing should have so easily captivated twentieth-century minds and been so widely and recklessly applied.”

Answer 2

Don't bother- there is an extreme education problem at work here, and the "religiously educated" people are the victims.

Don't believe me? Here's what you're looking at.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At0lxrEJJnWHvVHUGgTh7zjsy6IX?qid=20070117114936AAkVqq4

Again. This is a problem with education, and a reason why evolution needs to be presented better by educators...

Answer 3

Keep up with science. Neanderthals were very old humans. Unfortunately those who are looking for something that is not there (missing link) usually find something. Such is the case with Neanderthal.

Answer 4

The effect of radiation etc. causing mutation, disease and disfigurement due to the world falling into corruption because of sin.

Answer 5

I do believe in evolution to a certain point.......I don't however believe that we came from apes....or all life started off as pond scum. To me, it seems that many secrets are hidden from man.......and I'm sure there's a good reason behind it.

Answer 6

Those fossils were planted by Satan.

(Here being Satan a far more believeable claim than fossils, even though no one has ever seen Satan and many of us have seen and even touched fossils. It's called FAITH)

NICHOLAS: Can't you see when someone is being sarcastic??

Didn't you read between the lines??

Answer 7

God put them here to make Geico commercials funnier.

Answer 8

thats when the creationist come in with the flintstones i no its evolution but thay like fairy tales

Answer 9

sadly, many of them simply deny they ever existed.
-See the answer 2 spots below mine? ...TRULY SAD how someone can deny reality like this.