The new human species Homo floresiensis (the Hobbit). Oops, Genesis missed it. Did god forget about them?

Question

Creationists, there is no mention of Homo floresiensis in Genesis. How could God have forgotten about a whole species of human? What an enormous blunder. Not only does scientific theory of evolution prove parts of Genesis wrong but it missed an entire species! Does that mean Genesis does not hold all the answers? Perhaps the bible got some things wrong?

Are you now ready to believe the facts instead of ancient bible myths about the origin of our species?

The ignorance of creationists never fails to floor me. It seems they have never heard of Homo floresiensis. Perhaps your pastor didn't tell you about them?

Answer 1

its not a new species its a very old one.

Answer 2

Of course they aren't.

Just like they believe that the sun revolves around the earth. The bible says that the earth is "the fundament and unchanging." If you believe that the entire bible is true then you can't pick and chose what you chose to believe in.

It's just like the first amendment; you can't give some people the freedom of speech and deny it to the people who don't agree with you. Either the bible is true word for word, and so is in error, or the bible is a work of man that was only inspired by God.

Personally I would rather stick to the facts. I read the article about the so called Hobbit man and I have faith that if it is an error a scientist will prove it. Neither the Koran, or the Bible, or the Torah can withstand such rigorous tests.

I believe in the American Revolutionary War hero Paul Reviver, although I have never seen him or talked with him, and neither has anyone currently alive. However, the proof of his existence is too great to disbelieve in him.

I don't doubt that people like Jesus and John the Baptist lived and were influential in the Christian religion. There are other proofs of their existence that are not in the bible and are impartial. However, you can't say the same thing about Jesus being a God. (If you know your holy trinity then you know that God and Jesus are the same, but Jesus was God's son, he existed after God and was born to a mortal woman, so he can't be God just one of the many examples where you can't make sense out of the bible as written.)

Jesus, new arisen from the dead, did appear to Thomas and let him put his fingers into his wounds so he would know that he was real and not an illusion. He has never done this again, so for all we know his appearance to the apostles was a group delusion, a lie, or brought on by shared grief and drug abuse. I don't demand that Jesus appear to me so I can put my fingers into his wounds, I don't have an ego that huge. However, Jerry Fawell does have an ego that big, a congregation that is large enough to provide proof and if Jesus did it live and on the air then every single person would have proof that the Bible is correct. Jesus won't do this (he can't since he is only dust and bone chips), and until he does something similar I refuse to believe in God.


Oh, since Jesus was God then God had to know that a day means a period of 24 hours, not a few thousand years. If God dictated the bible to someone it is very hard to confuse a hours, days and weeks with years, centuries, and eons. This is how the Christian Apologists "bend" the text of the bible to fit accepted facts.

Still the bible neglected to talk about dinosaurs, blacks, reds, or oriental people. When these people were first encountered by Christians they were a complete surprise. Since the bible is held to be the single and total work of all we can't believe in these kinds of people. Try and get that idea to gain ground in the beginning of Black History Month. Jessie Jackson, the Reverend, of a Christian Church, Jessie Jackson will not let that happen. He has to be the first one to admit that just because the bible didn't mention blacks doesn't mean that it is the container of all knowledge and is error free.

Answer 3

I'm gonna tell you something short and simple. The Bible doesn't speak much about any race and in most cases doesn't even mention any races. The Bible doesn't tell us everything God knows. It just tells us what we "need" to know. The Bible does talk about giants and back then people were shorter than they are today. Not a whole lot shorter but shorter. Anyway, you are making generalizations. You are saying that because God doesn't happen to mention a race of people or "small" people that the Bible isn't true. That's an extremely extremely foolish conclusion to make from that. So what...God didn't mention much about black people, whitle people, hispanic people and any number of other races as well. Doesn't prove the Bible incorrect or false it's just that it's not an important thing to be known. I'm not upset because the Bible doesn't talk about America. Cause if you really wanna be like that you can say well the Bible is false cause it doesn't mention America in it. That's ludacris!

Answer 4

The bible does not mention every species on earth, it generalizes in Genesis, like marine animals is talking about all the marine animals. How does evolution proove Genesis wrong? Please tell me, I am interested in this. I am always ready to believe facts instead of ancient myths about the origin of our species. Please write to me.

Answer 5

Hobbit bone wars
Professor says new analysis on ‘stolen bones’ confirms ‘hobbit’ just a small, sick human

by Carl Wieland, CEO/president, AiG–Australia

28 February 2005

We have already featured two articles on the tiny human specimen nicknamed ‘the hobbit’, after the diminutive quasi-humans imagined in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings fiction classics. See Soggy Dwarf Bones and Hobbling the Hobbit.

The scientific name assigned to this alleged new species of human is Homo floresiensis (after the Indonesian island of Flores, on which the bones of seven individuals were discovered).

These remains are now the centre of a substantial international controversy. Indonesia’s Professor Teuku Jacob, who had allegedly agreed to return the bones (to the Australian team which made the discovery) by 1 January this year, finally returned them on 23 February.

However, while the bones were in his custody, he permitted two other Australian scientists to study them in detail—Dr Alan Thorne of the Australian National University, and Professor Maciej Henneberg, of the Department of Anatomical Sciences at the University of Adelaide. The discoverers have protested loudly at the alleged impropriety of this pair studying ‘stolen remains’.

Following their three-day examination of the most complete specimen, Professor Henneberg said it confirmed his previous opinion, gained from studying the reports, that this was a modern human who had a brain-shrinking disorder called microcephaly. He is reported as saying that there is now ‘absolutely no doubt that this person had a growth disorder.’1

Whether the tiny people of Flores were indeed microcephalic modern types, or whether they represent a pygmy version of so-called Homo erectus, the point is really the same. Namely, that there is no reason not to classify them all—the Flores inhabitants as well as H. erectus—as Homo sapiens—part of the range of variation found within a single species (see also Skull wars: new ‘Homo erectus’ skull in Ethiopia).

In fact, evolutionist Alan Thorne is one of those who, along with the University of Michigan’s Milford Wolpoff, has been saying for years to his paleoanthropological colleagues that, even though they believe that H. erectus evolved into modern humans, it is wrong to assign a separate species name to it. Thorne and Henneberg are natural allies in this; Henneberg has recently published his findings that if you bunch all the ‘apemen’ in together, they exhibit the range of variation one would normally find within a single species!2

While this is radical even by creationist standards, it certainly undermines the dogmatism with which evolutionists have claimed that these sorts of ‘apemen’ demonstrate our nonhuman ancestry—and this is from an expert in anatomy!3

The Australian scientists who made the original discovery are even further dismayed that about two grams of the hobbit bones have been sent, without their permission, to Germany’s Max Planck Institute for extracting DNA.

While not buying into the ethics controversy surrounding the ‘hobbit bone wars’, we await the results of the DNA analysis with great interest. We would suggest with a great deal of confidence that it will be consistent with the human status of the tiny former inhabitants of Flores, and thus consistent with a biblical recent-creation worldview.

Sadly, the media ‘hype’ surrounding the initial discovery, as is so often the case, does its evolutionary-brainwashing damage in the public arena, without the subsequent sober withdrawals or corrections getting anywhere near the same airtime.

Answer 6

Parts of the Bible are wrong? No kidding, I thought it was physically possible to fit every single animal on a boat.

Either way, replacing the Bible with Lord of the Rings hasn't done much for you.

Answer 7

The thing to remember is that evolution is still just a theory - a hypothesis, a speculation, an unproven assumption.

According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....

"From the beginning of the Creation God made them male and female..."-- Jesus (Mk. 10:6)

Scripture says God SPOKE all things into existence with His Word:
" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens created, and all the host by the breath of His mouth. For HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED AND IT STOOD FAST". (psalm 33:9)

Answer 8

AND WHAT ABOUT THE DWARVES AND ELVES AND ORCS? Not to mention it says nothing about the Ents...

By the way, religion is still a theory, cuz God hasnt been proven real, so... yah know... shove it Gary.

Answer 9

isnt that like a hobbit from like lord of the rings>? what does that have to do with Homo sexuals????

Answer 10

yeah and all the other extinct ancient human species are all fary tales