Piltdown Superman

In Part 1, we saw that proponents of evolution have a mess, and they are constantly needing to rewrite human evolution because the facts do not fit the narrative. As we continue, we see that other scientific disciplines are also recalcitrant to evolutionary ideas. Background image :  The Passion of Creation ,  Leonid Pasternak, 1880s Radiometric dates assigned to Neanderthal remains conflict with archaeological finds, and the radiometric dating methods used are based on circular reasoning. In addition, these dates were disingenuously adjusted to fit what scientists wanted — especially when they were more compatible with biblical timelines. The archaeologists discovered that the Neanderthals engaged in the same kinds of activities that modern humans would enjoy. A recent report in the journal Science mixed detailed archaeological finds with stories about human origins. As is typical, age assignments for fossils fit evolutionary time instead of the Bible’s much shorter timeline

New material added to the end of this post. There was a time when Neanderthals were considered partly-evolved cavemen, a link to our simian ancestry. Scientists caught up to what biblical creationists have said for decades: Neanderthals were fully human just like us. Evidence continued to mount that showed how they were not only human, but intelligent. Now we learn that they were rather sophisticated! Modified from an image at Openclipart Neanderthals were creative and intelligent and fully human. Some scientists were skeptical that there was evidence proving they were the ones who did those high-quality cave wall paintings. While it seems obvious, study on it a spell. Nobody saw them doing the painting, and they could have taken over furnished caves or shared them with Denisovans and modern humans . Nope. Now it is believed the Neanderthals did the painting. This may have been put aside for a spell since they apparently had a proclivity toward sexual promiscuity — like moder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A word that has gained popularity in recent months is "—splaining". As you can see, it is based on explaining, but current lingo often means that someone is pretending have greater knowledge than he or she actually possesses. Also, it is done in a condescending manner. Advocates of muck-to-man evolution are fond of evosplaining  to biblical creationists and the unwashed masses. Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain Some owlhoots refuse to admit that Neanderthals were fully human. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they will seek out evoporn that makes them feel good about their preconceptions. One claim to keep the myth in the saddle is that Neanderthals did not make recognizable art. That story was based on evolutionary presuppositions that the art was done by more modern humans instead of Neanderthals. This idea was given a serious slap down a few years ago , and the fact of Neanderthal-made art ha

Creationists have been saying for a mighty long time that Neanderthal people were fully human, and the evidence from paleoanthropologists and others continues to affirm this fact.  Evidence for the humanity of Neanderthals, including the inner ear, interbreeding (sharing DNA) with modern humans, facial differences between us and them are minor, home organization, heating water, and advanced art techniques help make the conclusion of the humanity quite solid (see " Losing Face to Neanderthals " for more, including links).  Credit: Freeimages / kelly suzuki Of course, facts will not stop some uneducated anti-creationists from digging up irrelevant rescuing devices and outdated links . Since their phantasmagorical death cult needs every scrap of tendential "evidence", some folks will never admit that this battle is over. The possibility that they were in Spain was met with hesitation , and cave paintings over thataway were compared with those in France and fo

Once again, I want to emphasize a couple of things. First, informed biblical creationists do not believe in "races", as evinced in Acts 17:26 and the fact that the Bible does not use the word "races". Also, we do not say that evolution causes racism. Racism has existed for millennia, but Darwinism has been used to make it scientifically respectable . If you study on it, the ones making the "science" thought darker-skinned people were of inferior evolution and Caucasians were superior. And before someone from Fallacy Central puts words in my mouth: no, being an evolutionist does not mean you're a racist. There are no races, but there are people groups. But since "people group-ism" is a mite awkward, I'll use the more widely understood and less syllabic word racist for the purpose of discussion. Despite evolutionary mythology, scientists have reluctantly admitted that Neanderthals were indeed fully human. (See the links at " Losin

Seems that with all the attention given to the accumulation of evidence that Neanderthals were fully human , those folks called Cro-Magnon seemed to have fallen out of favor as members of the human cave man parade. They used to be in the textbooks. There are a few of reasons we don't hear much about those skilled hunters and artists much anymore. Photo of Lascaux cave painting credit: Wikimedia Commons / Prof saxx Cro-Magnons were named after an area in France where some of there skeletons were discovered. Sure, they were "cave men" at times. Let me ask you something. Does living in a cave make you "primitive"? Nope. Like other people, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon people groups were resourceful and used the shelter caves provided. (You may want to give it a try yourself .) Since their times on Earth overlapped, mayhaps Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, and "modern" humans shared some living spaces? I'm just speculating, though. The hands at the Dar

Meteorologists can be wrong frequently, but they still have their jobs. Looks like the same kind of thing happens in evolutionary sciences. We hear conjectures about how the cosmos evolved, "junk" DNA, the ridiculous walking fish concept — they keep turning out to be very, very, wrong. Usually, the weather forecasters are shown to be wrong in short order (except the global climate change apocalypse prophets, whose errors are shown later). Bad science sometimes takes a mighty long time to be discovered, and the public doesn't hear about those things so much. Not a lot of money in refuting evolution and affirming creation, you know. Paleoanthropology is one of the worst sciences for accuracy. Like the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals , their "rulings" are frequently overturned. Look at the timeline in our alleged evolutionary history. Them critters get themselves thrown out of the family tree, reclassified as fully human, fully ape, blatant fraud, outrageous st

Can you imagine a game show where people need to match survey questions about items found in a cave? "Stalactites, Steve!" Yes. "Bats!" Yes. "Water!" Yes. "Dirt!" Yes. "DNA!" Gets a strange look from the host, checks the results. Buzzzzz! Nope, DNA didn't match the survey. But DNA is in caves, especially in the soil. Some of it comes from our fully-human Neanderthal ancestors, too. Credit: Morguefile / Koan Scientists are disagreeing about the age and movement of the DNA. The stuff breaks down over a short amount of time. Maybe soil helps preserve it, but water in the soil helps mix it up and seep into deeper rock layers. Some secularists are believing that the DNA is way, way old, and others are saying, "Waitaminnit, it has age limits". To date the DNA because of their long-age assumptions require it to be old is circular reasoning, but actual science shows that the DNA cannot be all that old. There w

While there are honest evolutionary scientists who seek to find and promote evidence of all live evolving from a common ancestor, their militant comrades use skulduggery to promote their worldview. In this instance, the Neanderthal was fully human (as affirmed by archaeology, DNA, anthropology, and more, presented on this site several times), but some insist on portraying Neanderthals as less-than-human brutes. Things get worse, as we shall see. Credit: Unknown, Public Domain, even used at NASA Why do some folks continue to believe that Neanderthals were not quite human and a link to our evolutionary ancestry despite the evidence? They want to. It fits their paradigm, and they are adverse to admitting that the evidence refutes evolution and supports special creation, and that is anathema to them. Portrayals of Neanderthals have been based on presumptions of evolution and on chimerical visions, but not on evidence. Science isn't supposed to work that way, old son. Even in r

Who were cave men? Men who lived in caves. Next question. Oh, too short? Okay. In the parlance of proponents of evolution from a common ancestor, our predecessors were stupid brutes that gradually evolved human characteristics, intelligence, culture, and so on. The Neanderthals were popular cave man icons because some lived in caves, but they were not only intelligent, but fully human — much to the consternation of some anti-creationists. It's kind of fun to learn about our distant fully-human cousins, and new discoveries keep on refuting evolutionary ideas. One reason is that we have a whole passel of information about Neanderthals to work with than the usual fragments of teeth and bones of our other alleged evolutionary ancestors. By the way, people in modern times have lived in caves, especially in hot climates. Morguefile / richard_b If you're not too bright and just trying to survive, or just passing through, you're not likely to gussy up a place too much. Neand

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Hat tip to Doug McBurney for giving some inspiration for this article. The atoms-to-acrobat evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have the view that people were stupid way back when. It's consistent with their philosophy, since we supposedly came from minerals, fish, animals, and up the ladder to where we are today. So, we're wired to be the best, right? Image credit: Pixabay / Cornfreak We're created in God's image but are in rebellion against him, so we're a mix of good and bad. Technological and medical advances, taming animals, the ability to compose music, write literature, and do all sorts of things that are not possible for animals to accomplish. We can also do something else that is unlike animals: self-destruct, whether individually, culturally, or destroy millions of our fellow beings in a short time. Also unlike animals, we can celebrate our downward spiral. We've made same-sex marriage not only legal, but want people

Can you imagine a cowboy working the Montana Territory with allergy problems? All that dust, animal hair, hay and such — may as well go back East. When you commence to sneezing, your immune system is trying to protect you. Sometimes it gets a mite overwrought and reacts to things that are not necessarily threats, and for some people it goes into hyperdrive with a severe allergic reaction. Where did this come from? Image credit: David Castillo Dominici at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Scientists aren't exactly sure how allergies develop and what can be done about them. They do know that we have two types of immune systems, the innate and the adaptive. A study was done tracing some genes back to the Neanderthals, which were passed along when these "archaic" but fully-human people interbred with modern humans. However, there is no rational reason to think that genetic information came about through the random processes of evolution. Our immune system was created to do a job.

Depictions of Neanderthals as stupid, ugly, partially evolved brutes are becoming increasingly unrealistic. Studies of the inner ear , surprises by advanced art techniques , interbreeding with modern humans , heated water and organized their homes , and more factors show that they were inaccurately portrayed. If you study on it, you'll realize that the differences between us and them is shrinking all the time. Beautiful and Ugly by Adriaen van de Venne, 1634 There was a variety among Neanderthals. Indeed, there is a wide variety among the people you pass on the street every day. Were Neanderthals "ugly"? By what standard? Additional research on their facial constructions shows that the "ugly" features were bone constructions, and in fact, modern humans may actually be physically inferior to them! Let's face it, they are not the products of evolution, and neither are we. Humans are created beings, as are all creatures. The facial differences betw

Evolutionary scientists had some basic guidelines for determining how to classify humanoid fossils and so forth. (For that matter, the concept that a larger brain meant that the owner was more intelligent was discredited.) Once again, we see that when more information is discovered, we also see that there is a great deal more information to be learned. Adjustments must be made. Henry Vandyke Carter / PD One of the criteria to determine if a skull belonged to a Neanderthal was the layout of the inner ear — it was unique to them. Or so they thought. Since that same inner ear arrangement has been found in a non-Neanderthal, some rethinking has been happening. The lines of biology are more complicated, and archaic humans traveled quite a bit. This may be startling for evolutionists, but it fits in very well with the biblical creationist timeline. How can you tell a fossilized skull belonged to a Neanderthal? The comparatively large size and prominent brow ridges? Actually — unt

Neanderthal bones in Spain fell nowhere near the plain. They have caused a great deal of controversy in several locations, throwing off evolutionary dating timelines and more. Now it seems that remains in Spain may not be Neanderthal. Or they may be. Or both. Or neither. Huh? Personally, I opt for "both", since they are nowhere near the Neander Valley, they may be Neander-Spanish, like other immigrants that hyphenate their old and new homes. Ya dig? It seems that whenever there is a variation in any living organism, the Evo Sith are looking for a way to say that it is an example of evolution in action. This is not only very fallacious because they use circular reasoning, ignore conflicting explanations and so on, but an example of their biases. Trying to shove variations of these ancient humans into some "that must be evolution" scheme seems desperate. If you're confused, it is not surprising, considering the ever-changing speculations that are offered as &quo

Evolutionary timelines are constantly being disrupted by new discoveries. "Paleolithic" cave paintings in Chauvet, France, were troublesome enough by stirring up controversy . Now cave paintings in Spain have made matters worse, throwing a spanner into the works for the ages and skills of ancient humans. Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / PD Cave paintings from Chauvet, France, were thought to be the oldest according to radiocarbon dating. The ones in Spain are dated as "older". But that does not fit, because evolutionists insist that humans (Neanderthal or not) were not that advanced yet, but the opposite is true . Once again, evolutionary presuppositions are threatened by evidence — and the evidence comes from their own methodologies. It is far better to accept that humans were created, and created recently. Reality does not threaten biblical creation. The radiocarbon ‘dating’ of charcoal remains from ancient fires inside Spain’s famous Nerja cav

Real Science Radio had a two episodes on Neanderthals. Research continues to show that they are not very dissimilar to modern humans at all. But more than this, Bob Enyart and Fred Williams had a special guest who has done extensive first-hand research on the skulls, makes no bones about it. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams from Real Science Radio, scene from promo video Most scientists are only able to examine plaster casts instead of the actual bones. Not so with Dr. Cuozzo: "Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams get to incorporate the latest genetic research while interviewing Dr. Jack Cuozzo, the jaw and teeth expert who has studied firsthand and x-rayed more Neanderthal skulls than anyone else, ever." You can listen to or download the audios at this link (both shows are on the same page), and there are several links that should keep the honest inquirer busy and informed.

When telling the tail — I mean, tale — of the progression from primitive to modern humanity, evolutionists hate to give up. The creatures they put forth as our alleged ancestors are built up from fragments, preconceptions, assumptions and a great deal of wishful thinking. "Go to a museum and learn about evolution". Yeah, sure. A few bone fragments and artists' conceptions mixed in with the speculations of Evolution's High Priests™ and we get a mental image that scientists are brilliant, they really know how evolution happened. But they do not tell the entire story of how they have scant evidence, and that several of the "links" in the parade have been disproven, discredited, reassigned as fully human or fully ape (no, wait a moment, let's un-reassign this one again). Still they continue spinning yarns, ignoring facts. "The  cognitive dissonance is strong in this one." It would make far more sense to admit that the evidence refutes evo