Fossil record

[keda69]

First hello to everyone,

I am new to this board and i'm sure this topic has been asked before, but what exactly is the fossil record, as it pertains to alleged human ancestors. I have seen opinions of great varying degrees. Some say there is no record of neanderthal man. That the fossils said to be neanderthal are really just early primates or completely false like the piltdown man and Nebraska man. Ofcourse there is the famous evolution of man sequence going from primate to homo sapien, but exactly how much evidence is there to support any of the progression. Ray comfort says there is none whats so ever. What do you think? and more importantly what proof can you point to.
Thank you

[jlay]

I'm sure some of the veterans here can link you to some threads where this is discussed.

It's interesting that you can take skull remains of modern people and modern apes and create a convincing "evolution," of man.

[Gman]

You can find out a lot about homo neanderthalensis from these links below. Although there is not much data to observe, scientists have uncovered only about 6 or 7 sites, some with complete skeletons others not (just bone fragments), there is no real direct link that they were connected to any ancient human ancestor or homo sapiens.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originman.html
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html

[waynepii]

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal ...

[Kurieuo]

Modern humans do not have Neanderthal ancestors in their family tree, a new DNA study concludes.

The DNA extracted from the ribs of a Neanderthal infant buried in southern Russia 29,000 years ago was found to be too distinct from modern human DNA to be related.

"There wasn't much, if any mixture, between Neanderthals and modern humans," said William Goodwin, of the University of Glasgow, UK. "Though they co-existed, we can't find any evidence of genetic material being passed from Neanderthals to modern humans."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/694467.stm

[Delay]

Even if humans did evolve from animals, what does that imply?

[Canuckster1127]

Even if humans did evolve from animals, what does that imply?

It would imply that the Creation Account in Genesis is to be taken more as a metaphor or myth rather than a historical account which in turn, in the minds of some, would call into question other passages within Genesis and the Bible as a whole and both its historical reliability as well as the type of interpretation applied to it would diminish or have to be adjusted to a point where this might in turn would call inspiration and inerrancy itself into question.

It's a secondary issue in one regard but the underlying dynamics affect every other doctine that it supports.

[Delay]

Even if humans did evolve from animals, what does that imply?

It would imply that the Creation Account in Genesis is to be taken more as a metaphor or myth rather than a historical account.

I personally view Genesis as non literal in most aspects. I believe the world is billions of years old, and also I do not think there is anything wrong with evolution and God simultaneously existing. (Saying we evolved from animals is a stretch, but evolution and survival of the fittest is completely acceptable to me).

Seeing St. Augustine in your sig; ever read his commentary on Genesis? He advocates for evolution and says "Certain potencies could have been created by God to unfold throughout time...there is no need to take Genesis literally..."

[Canuckster1127]

Even if humans did evolve from animals, what does that imply?

It would imply that the Creation Account in Genesis is to be taken more as a metaphor or myth rather than a historical account.

I personally view Genesis as non literal in most aspects. I believe the world is billions of years old, and also I do not think there is anything wrong with evolution and God simultaneously existing. (Saying we evolved from animals is a stretch, but evolution and survival of the fittest is completely acceptable to me).

Seeing St. Augustine in your sig; ever read his commentary on Genesis? He advocates for evolution and says "Certain potencies could have been created by God to unfold throughout time...there is no need to take Genesis literally..."

I gave you an explanation, I wasn't saying the explanation given reflected my position entirely. I'm an old earth creationist who favors what is known as Progressive Creationism. I don't personally believe evolution played a major part in terms of the differentiation of species over time. I certainly believe evolution however is a real observed process that explain a great deal of the differentiation within species. I'm not threatened by evolution as a means of God's creative process.

The reason it's such an emotional issue for many, frankly is that intellectually and philisophically the process of evolution and more importantly the introduction of natural selection as a viable explanation for how evolution could account for the process of life's distribution and differentiation and on that basis it has served as a basis for the development of a philisophical position often known as Methodological Naturalism which is effectively atheistic.

I believe the earth is probably billions of years old as well. However, I believe Genesis is to be taken literally and that Old Earth creationism is a literal rendering of Genesis.

blessings,

bart

[Delay]

I gave you an explanation, I wasn't saying the explanation given reflected my position entirely. I'm an old earth creationist who favors what is known as Progressive Creationism. I don't personally believe evolution played a major part in terms of the differentiation of species over time. I certainly believe evolution however is a real observed process that explain a great deal of the differentiation within species. I'm not threatened by evolution as a means of God's creative process.

The reason it's such an emotional issue for many, frankly is that intellectually and philisophically the process of evolution and more importantly the introduction of natural selection as a viable explanation for how evolution could account for the process of life's distribution and differentiation and on that basis it has served as a basis for the development of a philisophical position often known as Methodological Naturalism which is effectively atheistic.

I believe the earth is probably billions of years old as well. However, I believe Genesis is to be taken literally and that Old Earth creationism is a literal rendering of Genesis.

blessings,

bart

I realize you were not saying that was your personal stance, just wanted to spur up some discussion . I respect your views, just wanted to ask some questions. I hope I did not come off as attacking, I am not attacking you, nor did/do I mean to portray myself in that particular manner.

One of the few things I have a hard time with accepting Genesis literally is that humans have not existed since the earth was created, right? And also that whole incestuous thing with Adam and Eve's offspring.

I realize my views on the matter are not scholarly or professional, I am simply just being realistic and honest.

[Gman]

One of the few things I have a hard time with accepting Genesis literally is that humans have not existed since the earth was created, right? And also that whole incestuous thing with Adam and Eve's offspring.

This question gets asked often in Christian circles... There are a few different opinions on it.

Here is RTB's response...

The "Incest" Problem

"As recorded in the book of Genesis, no law of conscience or society forbade marriage between brothers and sisters or other close relatives (except parents and children, Genesis 19:30-38 ) in the early centuries of human history. Even at the time of Abraham, the practice of marrying siblings continued.

Sometime later, however, when God established a set of moral and civil laws for the emerging nation of Israel, He ruled out marriage between siblings (Leviticus 18:6-18 ). The timing of this command makes perfect sense from a biological perspective. Genetic defects as a result of intrafamily marriage develop slowly. They would present no risk until after the first several dozen generations."

Other explanations are that Adam and Eve were the first humans that turned out to be the first Jewish ancestors and that their offspring simply mingled with the other populations of the world created before Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:27.

[Delay]

Other explanations are that Adam and Eve were the first humans that turned out to be the first Jewish ancestors and that their offspring simply mingled with the other populations of the world created before Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:27.

The incestuous problem makes perfect sense now from what you posted, thanks.

With this last statement, are you implying that there were people on earth before Adam and Eve?

[Gman]

Other explanations are that Adam and Eve were the first humans that turned out to be the first Jewish ancestors and that their offspring simply mingled with the other populations of the world created before Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:27.

The incestuous problem makes perfect sense now from what you posted, thanks.

With this last statement, are you implying that there were people on earth before Adam and Eve?

Yes...There are some scholars that believe that the creation of man was a series of creations as given in Genesis 1:27. The Adam of Eve story simply being the central theme to the creation of humans in the Garden of Eden specifically (not that there weren't other gardens nearby) and how this played out on mankind (being of one body) and would eventually result in the lineage of Christ.

[CliffsofBurton]

Neanderthal's are an interesting topic.

My 12th grade anthropology teacher made a terrific comment, one which I ridiculed him mercilessly for the rest of the year.

He said that, "Neanderthals, from observation of their skeletal structure, were able to chase down deer."

I didn't believe that. I have never seen any animal on 2 legs move as fast as 50 miles an hour, which was the speed I was driving across a wheat field, and the deer were actually GETTING FARTHER AWAY FROM ME.

I saw we were talking about neanderthals, and I remembered that. Just thought it was funny.

[BavarianWheels]

I have never seen any animal on 2 legs move as fast as 50 miles an hour

Call me wrongly informed, but do not Ostrich run at speeds up to 46mph? Pretty darn close to 50mph isn't it?
.
.