Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: Nearly half of America is creationist
Hotair ^ | 06/02/2012 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 06/02/2012 8:14:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

What the heck... it's been a while since we last opened up the flood gates on this topic and according to Gallup surveys, we're no closer to a consensus now than we ever were. The subject at hand is our old friend, evolution vs. creation.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

It will come as no shock to anyone that the answers given tracked tightly with the religious views of the respondent, and that a majority of registered Republicans fall in line with creationist views.

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

What’s interesting about the Gallup survey as compared to some others I’ve seen in the past is the phrasing of the questions. You tend to get more clearly splintered results if you pose seriously confrontational questions such as, “Did God create man from dust or did man evolve from ape-like creatures?” Gallup’s choices are a bit more subtle, asking which phrase best describes your feelings.

You’ll notice that none of the choices go so far as to say, for example, “There is no God so the question is pointless” or, at the other end, “The Bible is literal and God created man from the dust and woman from one of his ribs.” I think such polls provide more value if they add in a couple more choices along those lines and forget about trying to be nuanced or avoid offending anyone.

My own views have “evolved” over the past five decades, (if you’ll pardon the phrase) and I’ve seen a number of theories. As a young man, I once lost my faith entirely (and still struggle with it at times) and rashly published a letter declaring that “God is the answer to a collection of questions which man is either too stupid or too frightened to answer. On the day that science answers the final question, God will be dead.”

I confess, I regret having penned that one now, but the young are frequently rash and foolish. But there are other theories which have come down the pike and stuck around. A very popular one which echoes a couple of the Gallup choices is along the lines of The Blind Watchmaker theory. It essentially states that the universe may well have begun with the Big Bang and men may have evolved from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed it, like the greatest software programmer ever, freeing Him up to move on to other projects once our reality was set in motion.

But I still have plenty of friends who come from the “six days and a rib” school of thought, and you have to respect them as well. At the opposite end of the scale you find people like my friend Doug Mataconis, who simply seems to be waiting for the day when all this creationist nonsense “evolves” out of our society.

This is why, as I noted the other day, I am skeptical of the argument advanced by Richard Leakey that increased discoveries in the field of anthropology would lead to an end to the evolution debate in the near future. The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture. It’s not going away any time soon, at least not in this country.

But returning to my original question, does the phrasing of the survey really impact the results for a strictly non-political topic such as this? Since the Hot Air faithful have never been shy about sharing and debating their feelings in a vigorous fashion, let’s toss up our own poll and compare it to the historical results as well as Gallup’s. But we’ll give you a bit more ammunition to work with in the answers. Have at it.


CLICK ABOVE LINK TO TAKE THE QUICK POLL



TOPICS: Current Events; History; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creation; creationism; evolution; faithandphilosophy

1 posted on 06/02/2012 8:14:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance;

That's the part of it which makes the least sense. God does not use broken tools.

Other than that, the data seems to indicate that only something like 15% of Americans are real evolosers and that compares so favorably with Europe mainly because Americans are the world's best consumers and the world's best at weeding out inferior products including inferior ideological doctrines like evolution.

2 posted on 06/02/2012 8:25:58 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Thanks SeekAndFind.
Darwins Black Box
Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

by Michael J. Behe
hardcover
Molecular Machines webpage
(thanks Val)

3 posted on 06/02/2012 8:27:40 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There is ample evidence He created us with free will.

We are free to seek Him, or not.

Choose Wisely. Choose Life.

4 posted on 06/02/2012 8:44:53 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture.”

I disagree. I would not have come to the faith if I had not been first persuaded that the Bible could in fact be true.


5 posted on 06/02/2012 9:36:16 PM PDT by Gil4 (Sometimes it's not low self-esteem - it's just accurate self-assessment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Don’t we have about 3 billions bits of info in our genome? If our supposed closest relative differs by 4% (at least) that’s 120 million bits of info separating us and they’re looking for a (as in 1) missing link. If the theory of evolution is true, shouldn’t they’re be more than 1 link along the great divide?

I’m not suggesting there’s 120 million disinct creatures that are somehow missing but suggesting there’s just an elusive single link seems ridiculous. Also, if evolution is true, why have the only links “found” been exposed as hoaxes?


6 posted on 06/02/2012 10:09:30 PM PDT by Hayride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

In the original “Matrix” movie Morpheus offers Neo a choice before revealing the reality of the Matrix to him. If he takes the blue pill he wakes up in his bed and believes whatever he wants to believe. If he takes the red pill he learns the truth about the Matrix. The color red is used throughout the movie to signify ultimate truth. Creation myths, personal deities, and all the adaptive conventions of human culture are aspects of the “blue pill”, the world of apparent truth. The vast majority of people don’t accept ultimate truth because like the character Cypher, they prefer the satisfaction of their illusions over the nihilism of deterministic materialism. This is not an indictment of their choice. They simply prefer “meaning” over “truth”.

The actual process of creation is expressed today in the language of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Something is just more probable than nothing. Life is an emergent process for information storage and replication to exploit entropy differences in an open system. Human consciousness emerges from the synchronization and synaptic interconnection of neurons. It evolved as it did because it allowed a living organism to better exploit entropy. The experience of being an “I” in a time “now” and in a world with other like “minds” is a simulation generated by complex neural processes in the evolved human living organism. Consciousness allows human organisms to evolve faster through social collaboration based on language. This does not involve any non-material or supernatural processing. It is simply the laws of quantum mechanics creating and annihilating bits of information. In about 5 billion years the Sun will burn out and consume the Earth. Long before this all evidence of life will disappear. In about 100 billion years the universe will be an empty vacuum at absolute zero. This is the red pill. How many people in this world do you think could get through their day if they really comprehended and accepted the truth of scientific materialism and evolution?


7 posted on 06/02/2012 11:05:06 PM PDT by Dave Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

In the original “Matrix” movie Morpheus offers Neo a choice before revealing the reality of the Matrix to him. If he takes the blue pill he wakes up in his bed and believes whatever he wants to believe. If he takes the red pill he learns the truth about the Matrix. The color red is used throughout the movie to signify ultimate truth. Creation myths, personal deities, and all the adaptive conventions of human culture are aspects of the “blue pill”, the world of apparent truth. The vast majority of people don’t accept ultimate truth because like the character Cypher, they prefer the satisfaction of their illusions over the nihilism of deterministic materialism. This is not an indictment of their choice. They simply prefer “meaning” over “truth”.

The actual process of creation is expressed today in the language of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Something is just more probable than nothing. Life is an emergent process for information storage and replication to exploit entropy differences in an open system. Human consciousness emerges from the synchronization and synaptic interconnection of neurons. It evolved as it did because it allowed a living organism to better exploit entropy. The experience of being an “I” in a time “now” and in a world with other like “minds” is a simulation generated by complex neural processes in the evolved human living organism. Consciousness allows human organisms to evolve faster through social collaboration based on language. This does not involve any non-material or supernatural processing. It is simply the laws of quantum mechanics creating and annihilating bits of information. In about 5 billion years the Sun will burn out and consume the Earth. Long before this all evidence of life will disappear. In about 100 billion years the universe will be an empty vacuum at absolute zero. This is the red pill. How many people in this world do you think could get through their day if they really comprehended and accepted the truth of scientific materialism and evolution?


8 posted on 06/02/2012 11:05:34 PM PDT by Dave Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I am currently reading the Red Queen book you recommended. Fascinating, but I can only handle small chunks at at time. All that running is making me dizzy.


9 posted on 06/02/2012 11:22:56 PM PDT by Explorer89 (And now, let the wild rumpus start!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Forty-six percent of Americans

Clearly 46% of the population needs re-educated, start building the camps. </sarcasm>

10 posted on 06/03/2012 1:18:39 AM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Time for the created to tell their Creator that their polls indicate He might not really exist. /s

But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

11 posted on 06/03/2012 2:16:18 AM PDT by ME-262 (We need Term Limits for the federal house and senate. We need new Bums up there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”

And if you throw out the 10,000 year nonsense, the number believing in creation doubles!


12 posted on 06/03/2012 2:52:26 AM PDT by G Larry (Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave Wright
Nice perspective ya have there.

Most people can't get past who's gonna be in next years stupor bowel.

Out of the dust we were created, and into the dust shall we return. Moldy ancient Heebs actually knew what they was talking about. Makes one wonder what else they knew?

If you would like to learn, google a missionary named Chuck Missler. He doesn't beg for money! I have never heard him ask for one thin dime. Seriously.

13 posted on 06/03/2012 3:23:17 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; That's the part of it which makes the least sense. God does not use broken tools.

He created us to live pretty much forever. After the Fall, He declared a much shorter lifespan, yet a couple lived pretty darn long. It would seem He did a REALLY good job and then allowed us to DEVOLVE.

14 posted on 06/03/2012 4:48:08 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hayride
I’m not suggesting there’s 120 million disinct creatures that are somehow missing but suggesting there’s just an elusive single link seems ridiculous. Also, if evolution is true, why have the only links “found” been exposed as hoaxes?

Mathematically evolution thru natural selection and chance seems ridiculous. Mankind will never know exactly what happen millions of years ago, but it is fun trying. The evolutionists are really ridiculous but don't try to tell them that. As far I as I can tell h.sapien is about 200,000 years old. If you met a person from 200,000 years ago he would look like a modern human. No gradual changes that an evolutionary theory requires.

15 posted on 06/03/2012 5:00:12 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The real question is how much does a person believe (truly believe) that God creates and controls their destiny?

In the end this is what this argument boils down to. The scale is more of a “faith” meter.


16 posted on 06/03/2012 5:01:01 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave Wright; rawcatslyentist

Which is the red pill and which is the blue?


17 posted on 06/03/2012 5:06:47 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Exactly. There are so many different creation theories. Not going to get into a debate this am with folks, but there are several that don’t fit into those three.

I’ve always been partial to creation, but longer than 10000 years. Hugh Ross wrote a few books about it, and I like the reasoning. “Young Earthers” tend to go to war with him. His particular theory has been called “progressive creation” -that is, creation happened in supernatural events, just longer than the 7 day scenario. There’s no Gallup choice for that.

I said it, not coming back for the flame wars!

http://www.reasons.org/


18 posted on 06/03/2012 5:32:34 AM PDT by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Most scholars put the introduction of modern man, Cro Magnons at least, around 45,000 years ago. There is no evidence of modern man on the planet prior to that and there is every reason to believe that there is no relation between hominids and humans, indicating that modern man was either brought here or created here ex-hihilo very recently. There is also reason to think that there were at least two separate saltations of modern man on the planet i.e. Cro Magnons in ice age times, and then the Bible antediluvians starting with Adam and Eve. The two groups are genetically identical or close enough to ignore any differences, but the cultures and technologies were so totally different as to prevent believing that the one group could be descended from the other.
19 posted on 06/03/2012 5:34:51 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
That's the part of it which makes the least sense. God does not use broken tools.

We're all "broken".

20 posted on 06/03/2012 5:48:08 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I still care

RE: There are so many different creation theories. Not going to get into a debate this am with folks, but there are several that don’t fit into those three.

If you went to the bottom of the article of this thread (by clicking on the article’s link above) , you will see an online survey, asking readers the following questions and giving them the following choices:

_______________________

Which of the following statements most closely represents your feelings regarding the origins of the human race?

* As stated in Scripture, God created the entire universe in six days. The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.

* The nature of the Bible is somewhat allegorical, so the time spans involved may be different, but God did literally create man as we are today at some point in the past.

* God caused man to rise up above the other animals over a period of time. If you want to call that “evolution” feel free.

* Man evolved over a period of millions of years from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed the universe to unfold.

* God was the spark of creation, but left everything and everyone with free will. He made evolution possible, but didn’t much interfere with the process.

* Why are you still asking about God? He never existed. We are the inevitable outcome of the evolution of natural forces.


21 posted on 06/03/2012 7:25:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dave Wright

Blue = Democrats

Red = Republicans

:’)


22 posted on 06/03/2012 9:27:14 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Explorer89

Uh-oh, Red Queen? Please refresh my memory. :’o [blush]


23 posted on 06/03/2012 9:28:33 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I thought it must have been you.....I trust your book recommendations. Maybe someone else mentioned it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Queen-Evolution-ebook/dp/B006O4227U/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1338742138&sr=1-3


24 posted on 06/03/2012 9:50:03 AM PDT by Explorer89 (And now, let the wild rumpus start!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Explorer89

Thanks, I guess I’ll have to get that out of the library now. :’)


25 posted on 06/03/2012 11:32:05 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hayride; varmintman; central_va
varmintman: "That's the part of it which makes the least sense. God does not use broken tools. "

central_va: "As far I as I can tell h.sapien is about 200,000 years old.
If you met a person from 200,000 years ago he would look like a modern human.
No gradual changes that an evolutionary theory requires."

Hayride: "If our supposed closest relative differs by 4% (at least) that’s 120 million bits of info separating us and they’re looking for a (as in 1) missing link.
If the theory of evolution is true, shouldn’t they’re be more than 1 link along the great divide?"

to all: how can you look at these transitional fossils and still pretend they don't exist?

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

to varmintman: How can a "tool" which produced humans be "broken"?

to central_va: 200,000 years ago there were a number of "not-fully-humans" walking the earth, Neanderthals for one.

to Hayride: Depending on what exactly you count, human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.4% the same, meaning about 50 million mutations separate us from them.
The rate of mutations (nearly all harmless) among humans has been measured as highly variable, up to 50 per generation.
With chimps mutating at the same rate, we are looking at 100 mutations to separate each new generation of pre-humans and chimps.
This suggests something over 500,000 generations since the human-chimp common ancestor, or 5+ million years (chimps begin to mature at age 8).

Other studies using different methods arrived at similar results.

26 posted on 06/03/2012 1:34:08 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; central_va; Hayride
All of the creatures you mention other than for the Cro Magnons were hominids, i.e. bipedal apes which, as far as we have any real evidence for, are all extinct, most likely because our own ancestors killed them all.

Logic is the most major tool which God has given us for understanding our world; any sort of a science theory or claim which cannot pass a sniff test for basic logic is junk science; on a scale of 1 - 10 for ability to generate logical breakdowns amongst people with PHD degrees, the Neanderthal is at least a 9.

There are several kinds of such breakdowns. One is the claim that we and the Neanderthal have a "common ancestor". The Neanderthal has been abandoned as a plausible evolutionary antecedent for modern man precisely because the genetic gap is too large (DNA halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee). Anything 300K - 500K years back which anybody could try to claim was a "common ancestor(TM)" to both us and the Neanderthal (Usually given as homo Heidelbergensis)", would be much more remote from us THAN the Neanderthal. Too-genetically-remote-to-be-ancestral-to is a transitive relationship and the nature of such relationships doesn't require graduate level math; you'd think the people making this particular claim would figure the problem out sooner or later but they don't seem to.

Another is this new claim of 1 - 4% Neanderthal genes in everybody other than Africans. Once again, the Neanderthal was a glorified ape. Any crossbreeding with a glorified ape PRIOR to the bottleneck and Africans would not get left out. Any crossing AFTER the bottleneck and not involving Africans as claimed, and the genetic gap between Africans and everybody else would be gigantic, rather than minuscule as it actually is.

Then of course there is the problem of thinking that a Neanderthal male could/would rape a woman and, rather than cooking and eating her afterwards as usual, somehow or other keep her alive long enough to bear a cross-species child, raise that child to reproductive age, and have him/her breed back into human populations without anybody catching on.....

In real life, Neanderthal females would kill that woman the first time her new owner left her alone for ten minutes; the woman wouldn't fare any better than the subjects of the commie attempts to breed humans and apes into super workers in the 1930s (no subjects survived); humans would notice the child was different (the fur coat, the odd taste for bananas etc.); and the humans would kill that child and everybody else like him as part of the same program which killed out the Neanderthal. They would not need DNA tests to determine who to kill for that sort of reason, again, it would be exceedingly obvious.

Why would it be exceedingly obvious you ask??

Again this is what a Neanderthal would look like without the 6" ice-age fur coat, image courtesy www.themandus.org:

Photobucket

We're not related to them.

27 posted on 06/03/2012 8:12:31 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "The Neanderthal has been abandoned as a plausible evolutionary antecedent for modern man precisely because the genetic gap is too large (DNA halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee)."

Your claim has been posted and corrected here before.
Here it is again, in a nutshell:

Bottom line: Neanderthal DNA was over 90% closer to humans than to chimpanzees, indeed Neanderthals were close enough to interbreed with Europeans, which means they were not a separate species at all, but rather a sub-species of homo-sapiens.

varmintman: "All of the creatures you mention other than for the Cro Magnons were hominids, i.e. bipedal apes..."

The word "hominid" refers to all great apes -- orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans -- who branched from common ancestors around 14 million years ago.
The word "hominid" also refers in a more restricted sense to humans and pre-human relatives more closely related than chimpanzees.

varmintman: "Anything 300K - 500K years back which anybody could try to claim was a "common ancestor(TM)" to both us and the Neanderthal (Usually given as homo Heidelbergensis)", would be much more remote from us THAN the Neanderthal.
Too-genetically-remote-to-be-ancestral-to is a transitive relationship "

All modern Europeans and Asians are recognized today as having migrated "out of Africa" beginning around 125,000 years ago.
So no pre-existing pre-human populations in Europe or Asia were our ancestors, but there is DNA and fossil evidence of some interbreeding with Neanderthals.

varmintman: "Another is this new claim of 1 - 4% Neanderthal genes in everybody other than Africans.
Once again, the Neanderthal was a glorified ape.
Any crossbreeding with a glorified ape PRIOR to the bottleneck and Africans would not get left out.
Any crossing AFTER the bottleneck and not involving Africans as claimed, and the genetic gap between Africans and everybody else would be gigantic, rather than minuscule as it actually is. "

We are "glorified" apes -- hominids.
Neanderthals were rather more humble, I'd think.

Whatever interbreeding happened as modern humans migrated out of Africa into Asia and Europe, was relatively minor, leaving traces of 1% to 4% in our DNA.
This suggests an occasional "boys night out", but, but, which were the "boys" and which were the "girls" they went to visit? ;-)
More important, why did their parents allow these offspring to live and grow up?


28 posted on 06/04/2012 6:05:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Images courtesy www.themandus.org, what Neanderthals actually looked like:

neanderprofile, hairy ape with fur

Without the ice age fur coat, for illustration purposes:

Photobucket

There is zero genetic evidence of any relationship between humans and Neanderthals.

and there is zero evidence of crossbreeding in the Levant despite the two groups living there in close proximity for long periods of time.

Neanderthals were smart, and they did not lack for courage. They were big game hunters taking on mammoths and other large ice-age prey animals with thrusting spears, but their only real form of interaction with humans was eating them, and they paid the price for it.

29 posted on 06/04/2012 7:01:44 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "There is zero genetic evidence of any relationship between humans and Neanderthals."

Your data from 2004 appears to be obsolete.
More recent studies show 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in Europeans & Asians which is not present in Africans.

Your pictures are gross distortions of what fossil evidence provides on Neanderthals, among other things missing their large noses and necessarily white skin color.
Your pictures seem driven by some agenda which is neither accurate nor let's call it, very nice.

My post #28 pictures (except obviously the last one) are intended to provide accurate representations of what physical evidence tells us.

Here is another character study of an old Neanderthal man found in France:

30 posted on 06/04/2012 2:20:34 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: BroJoeK
Your pictures are gross distortions of what fossil evidence provides on Neanderthals, among other things missing their large noses and necessarily white skin color.

Evidence offers no clue as to skin color. If you try to draw a more human-like Neanderthal with the eyes and nose as large as the bones indicate they would have to be, what you end up with is outlandish:

That's courtesy of the Subversive Archaeologist: (http://thesubversivearchaeologist.blogspot.com/)

Who also notes:

"...So, I thought I'd do a wee comparison between a modern day "top" carnivore and our cousin's, the Neanderthal, face. Do you see what I see in the image below? It looks as if the felid and the Neanderthal face have more in common than either has with the modern human.

"So, I thought I'd do a wee comparison between a modern day "top" carnivore and our cousin's, the Neanderthal, face. Do you see what I see in the image below? It looks as if the felid and the Neanderthal face have more in common than either has with the modern human.

The lion has a keen sense of smell. Which of the bipedal cousins do you think has the better sense of smell? Relative to the rest of the face, the big cat has a nasal aperture that's equivalent in size to that of the Neanderthal. Not so that of the modern-day hominid on the right.

A cat can spot its prey from 3 km away. Can you? Do you think the Neanderthal could?

The cat has dagger-like fangs and molar teeth that would put a deli meat-slicer to shame. "Aha!" you might say, "that chap from Forbes quarry couldn't be as effective as the lion--it doesn't have the appropriate dental accoutrements!" Umm. It's possible, isn't it, that all those flint flakes lying about came in handy for more than whittling?"

The Renegade Archaeologist missed the possibility which Vendramini notes that the huge Neanderthal eyes were for nocturnal hunting, as are the lion's.

32 posted on 06/04/2012 9:23:52 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: varmintman; SunkenCiv
varmintman: "I've gone over that in the past, you simply haven't absorbed the reality of it yet."

I well remember these discussions from 10+ years ago, and at that time there was no serious evidence of human-Neanderthal interbreeding.
Today there is evidence from multiple sources showing some small interbreeding.
SunkenCiv has posted some of the evidence on FR many times.

varmintman: "Think really hard: What do you think the chances are that this same group of people who hated hominids badly enough to extirpate them from the planet root and branch, would have tolerated any human/hominids (i.e. human/glorified ape) cross-breeds amongst their own population??"

I'd put it to you a little differently.
Suppose you are a scrawny little ancient human just "off the boat" from Africa, 40,000 years ago, trying to migrate into Europe, and making no headway -- zero, zip, nada -- against those powerful brute Neanderthals.

So, pal, whatchagonnado?
How you going to get along with these big brutes?
What do you have to offer that they might want?
Remember, 40,000 years ago, you're no smarter than they are -- your weapons and tools are no more "high tech" than theirs are.
So what do you have that they might want?

Well, one thing's for sure, your women are a heck of a lot prettier than theirs, and if you have little ones running around your camp which look a lot like their little ones, they might see you less as supper, and more as a hot date in the big city.

Think about it... ;-)

34 posted on 06/05/2012 6:32:57 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: BroJoeK
Think about it... ;-)

I don't waste time thinking about idiotic stuff.

36 posted on 06/05/2012 9:22:57 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "I don't waste time thinking about idiotic stuff."

Not true, everything you've posted here is "idiotic." ;-)

Here is a summary of recent years DNA findings:

Expansion of human populations into Europe beginning around 1,600 generations ago = approx 40,000 years:

37 posted on 06/05/2012 5:09:02 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
All of your fictitious images show human-sized eyes, which is totally wrong, Neanderthal eye sockets are twice the size of ours or more (from themandus.com again):

Danny Vendraamini's reproductions show the thing right:

neanderthal 4

That's without the ice-age fur coat for illustration purposes. The Ice age in Europe was really cold, you'd last five or ten minutes without the fur coat if you were lucky.

With the fur coat:

neanderprofile, hairy ape with fur

38 posted on 06/05/2012 6:16:51 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "All of your fictitious images show human-sized eyes, which is totally wrong, Neanderthal eye sockets are twice the size of ours or more..."

Now you've gone back to posting inaccurate caricatures of Neanderthals -- wrong in every respect -- from skin color to noses to over-sized "bug eyes".

In fact, Neanderthal eye sockets were no larger than most pre-human hominids, or than modern chimpanzees.
And we can see exactly how large are chimpanzee eyes.
So your caricatures are just not accurate.

A = modern chimps, J, K & L = Neanderthals, M & N = modern humans:

39 posted on 06/06/2012 6:16:53 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Mind telling us what your motive is in all of this?


40 posted on 06/06/2012 7:20:49 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "Mind telling us what your motive is in all of this?"

The same "motive" as in every post I've ever made on Free Republic: to defend the truth, as best I can.

And your "motive" is what, exactly?

41 posted on 06/06/2012 9:50:13 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

To spread the truth, and assist others in seeing through the ideological doctrine of evolution and the faulty science which backs it, including the idea that humans and hominids are related, which they clearly aren’t.


42 posted on 06/06/2012 9:59:03 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Cro Magnons in ice age times, and then the Bible antediluvians starting with Adam and Eve. The two groups are genetically identical or close enough to ignore any differences, but the cultures and technologies were so totally different as to prevent believing that the one group could be descended from the other.

Nonsense. The technological and artistic differences between Cro-Magnon and early Homo Sapien, and indeed, some current primitive cultures are so similar as to be indistinguishable. What's more, Cro-Magnoids still exist to this day in Easter island and their more archaic Palaeo-Atlantid versions in Sweden and Ireland.

43 posted on 06/06/2012 10:28:43 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode or Evil, that's the choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

Coreection: Canary Islands, not Easter Island.


44 posted on 06/06/2012 10:33:07 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode or Evil, that's the choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Man evolved over a period of millions of years from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed the universe to unfold.”

Creationists seem to have a big problem with randomness in nature - as if the power of God stops at the Casino door. The Bible says “The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.”

As to being created from “dust” - The Bible says that I also was created “from dust” and that “to dust” I will return; but I was also created via a natural process involving DNA.

Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?


45 posted on 06/06/2012 10:39:11 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
There is a list of things which the Bible and Jewish literature would have to know about if you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended From Cro Magnons and which the Bible and Midrashim appear to know nothing about:

Likewise there is no version of anything which puts the metal ages prior to four or five thousand years ago which is ballpark for Adam and Eve and their descendants arriving on the scene.

46 posted on 06/06/2012 11:07:44 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "To spread the truth, and assist others in seeing through the ideological doctrine of evolution and the faulty science which backs it..."

"Faulty science" you can't demonstrate because first you obviously know nothing about real science, and second you are just as obviously driven by your own non-scientific ideological doctrine, FRiend.

Further, you'll never accomplish your goal by posting obviously faked drawings of Neanderthals, drawings which any idiot -- such as me -- can see are grossly wrong in color, nose shape, eye size, stance and attitude.
Here again are the best reconstructions based on scientific evidence:

varmintman's closest ever attempt at honest representation:

All you'd have to do with this picture is eliminate the "bug eyes" and grossly flared nostrils, and you pretty much have it:

47 posted on 06/06/2012 1:48:36 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
There is a list of things which the Bible and Jewish literature would have to know about if you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended From Cro Magnons and which the Bible and Midrashim appear to know nothing about:

I don't want to hurt your feelings but the Bible does not mention a lot of things which nevertheless exist and existed.

And as far as no version of anything which puts the metal ages prior to four or five thousand years ago

Metallurgy was know to the neolithics of Catal Hoyuk as far back as 7,500 BC. Heck, nearby Gobekli Tepe dates back to 10,000 BC - double the antiquity you erroneously ascribe to the Adam and Eve story, unless you think Martians built it. But the Bible doesn't mention Martians either.

And of course you have Cro Magnon depicted what are now extinct cave bears, wooly rhinos and mammoths 25,000 year ago with a degree of skill that surpasses most of the "art" you find in contemporary primitive "descendants of Adam and Eve" cultures and what you typically find at MOMA.

BTW Stone tools. Adam and Eve and their descendants were metal-tech people from day one.

There is no mention in the Bible of metal before the birth of Cain's sons. Therefore, according to your own rules, it didn't exist on day one as you opined. But I'll let you in on a little secret. Metallurgy has been around for nearly ten thousand years, and whether it's on your list of things to know about or not is inconsequential.

48 posted on 06/06/2012 3:31:15 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode or Evil, that's the choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

All of the dating schemes you seem to believe in are based on assumptions, mainly that natural isotope ratios have always been as they are now, which go out the window the first time you admit to any sort of a global disaster like the flood at the time of Noah. Standard dating schemes have Cro Magnons dating from around 45K years ago but all we can be reasonably sure of is that they predate the people of the Bible.


49 posted on 06/06/2012 7:45:58 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson