English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

Get over it...God did not create anything much less humans or their homo erections either.

when man evolved to the stage that he was able to leave the caves with fire as a protector against the dinosaurs he cretaed God.

And you guys are still stuck with his creation lolololoy oh lol

2007-04-01 13:43:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I for one have an enormous problem with Neanderthals and Homo Erectuses. Why would god make such creatures? They are clearly the work of the devil! NOT! Just kidding, no I think (if they were created), then they were genetic experiments. It could have been some extraterrestrials having fun, sort of like a big video game. I personally would love to do such a thing and I would make the weirdest creatures you could possibly imagine.

2007-04-01 20:42:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, I think of it in terms of a man-made creation, computers. Originally, computers were big and bulky, some even took up entire buildings. These dinosaurs outlived their usefulness and eventually died out. Computers evolved to be smaller, faster and more intelligent. It is a perfect example of evolution at the hands of a creator.

So to answer your question it was probably for the same reason that we created the Commodore 64 before we created the PC.

(for those of you too young to know what a Commodore 64 was, it was the Neanderthal of the computer world.)

2007-04-01 20:40:15 · answer #3 · answered by Wisdom in Faith 4 · 2 0

The fundies have problems with all homos, be it homosexual or homo sapiens. They feel very guilty when the have a homo erectus. then they send them to transformation camp like they did with the right Rev Ted Haggard and convert them from gay to straight in 3 weeks thanks to Jeeeesus
http://www.matchdoctor.com/thread_88_16900_1/Reverand_Ted_Haggard_cured_of_homosexuality.html

2007-04-01 20:41:19 · answer #4 · answered by Rico E Suave 4 · 0 0

http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c13a.htm

CAVEMEN—The first introduction many children have to evolution are pictures of dinosaurs and cavemen. It is true that there have been groups that have lived in caves. They wandered from warm climates to colder ones and chose to live in caves for a time before building themselves homes in a new land. But the fact that some people lived in caves for awhile does not prove evolution from one species to another.

*Diodorus Siculus, writing about 60 B.C., told of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves. He describes many other barbarian tribes, some of them quite primitive. Thus we see that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time. We have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones..

Archaeologists tell us that in some places in Palestine, people resembling the Neanderthal race lived in caves, while not far away in Jericho people dwelt in well-built, beautifully decorated houses.

NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, "Neanderthals."

In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.

A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.

A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?"

"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically.

*D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens.

The Neanderthals apparently lived at a time when there was not as much sunlight. We know that the ice age came as a result of worldwide volcanic dust pollution. The weather in Europe at that time was cold enough that they may have stayed so much in their caves that they did not obtain enough sunlight, especially due to the overcast sky conditions.

2007-04-01 20:45:57 · answer #5 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0 1

Because the method God has designed
for the creation of species is gradual evolution from pre-existing species. Therefore every living species has a great many ancestral species that no longer exist.
.

2007-04-01 20:43:35 · answer #6 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0 1

Isn't that like asking why the potter makes the clay before he makes the pot? Or perhaps we're not even the pot, just a more shapely form of clay, ready to be fired and painted.

2007-04-01 20:37:53 · answer #7 · answered by Convictionist 4 · 0 1

LMAO! "Homo Erectus" , that's to good.

2007-04-01 20:37:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

And Cro-Magnon man. He was experimenting? If you know the answer tell us.

2007-04-01 20:38:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It behooves me to ask you of your sources.

2007-04-01 20:43:19 · answer #10 · answered by Uncle Thesis 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers