Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. VI
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts, usually on the subject of his primary ministry. I pray this post touches you or speaks to you in some special way.
Neanderthal Cavemen
In 1856, workers blasted a cave near Düsseldorf, Germany in the Neander Valley, a valley named after Joachim Neander (1650-1680). As an aside, Joachim was a 17th century theologian and hymnist who composed such hymns as Almighty God, Creator of Heaven, Sea, and Sky.
Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. In the years that followed, these bones were examined by both scientists and Darwinists; and, for a number of years, all agreed that these were just normal human beings. Even that ardent defender of Charles Darwin himself, Thomas H. Huxley, the man described as Darwin’s “bulldog,” said that they “obviously” belonged to people and did not prove evolution. Rudolph Virchow, renowned German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis.
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 in collections today. A French paleontologist named Marcellin Boule said they must have come from apelike creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other Darwinists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.
In 1908 a typical “Neanderthal” skeleton was unearthed in Poland. It had been buried in a full suit of chainmail armor that was not yet even fully rusted (“Neanderthal in Armour,” in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587).
A “Neanderthal” skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that site, it would be absolutely impossible for the skeleton to be even as much as one century old (“Living Neanderthal Man,” in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).
Two “Neanderthal” skulls were found in Santa Barbara, California in 1923. Researchers recognized that they were simply modern Native American Indian skulls.
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. In 1973, D.J.M. Wright showed that congenital syphilis could have caused some of the other kinds of bone deformities found in other Neanderthal specimens.
They may also have lived longer than men do today. Facial bones keep growing throughout life. In his book, Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo, it is demonstrated that Neanderthals may have lived to be more than a hundred years old. This could account for the pronounced eyebrow ridges in some of the skulls.
Cuozzo also demonstrated that Darwinists had intentionally mismatched the alignment of the upper and lower jaw in many specimens, apparently in order to make the Neanderthals look more apelike. With the alignment often depicted, the lower jaw would not have functioned. Not very scientific, is it? With the proper alignment at the TMJ, the jawline is clearly– and fully — human.
As for citing Neanderthal as a transitional form between ape and man? The fact is that so called “Neanderthals” were 100% human beings, as human as you or I, who happened to have various perfectly explainable health conditions. Painting them as half-man/half-apes, or a “separately evolved” race of hominids is simply unsubstantiated, misleading, and fraudulent.
As Charles Darwin demonstrates, the human brow ridge continues to grow throughout one’s entire natural life. In a very old human, the brow ridge is very prominent, just as with a “Neanderthal” skull. | ||
The neo-darwinist fairytale includes the religious belief that “Neanderthal” and “Cro-Magnon” evolved separately as two distinct forms of “hominids” and that the Cro-Mags wiped the Neanderthals out of existence. Even interpreting the evidence with a strongly Darwinist worldview, this religious belief is based on a ton of assumptions.
Intentionally mismatching the alignment of jawbones? Covering up the fact that “cavemen” wore chainmail? Fudging the age of bones found in wetlands by hundreds of thousands of years? What can any reasonable human being call that kind of activity?
Simply put — FRAUD.
Coming Soon
Ahead, more monkey business in Darwinian evolutionary history. In the weeks to come, I will review the cases of Piltdown Man, Rhodesian Man, Taung African Man, Peking Man, Nutcracker Man, Skull 1470, Flipperpithecus, Orce Man, and Lucy the magic Australopithecine.
The Truth
Creationism is a belief system which postulates that the universe, Earth, and life on Earth were deliberately created by an intelligent being, namely God. My personal position has a deep rooted foundation in scripture found in the Bible, God’s holy word, which is relied upon for insights regarding the history of the world by secularists and believers alike. It is my belief that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena, up to and including the existence of intelligent life itself. This is a belief that is shared by many rational scientists.
Any reasonable observer cannot think this is merely a dogmatic belief on my part, nor one that is outside the boundaries of logic or reason, given that the authority of scripture is a fundamental assumption. And, based upon my beliefs — beliefs that are shared by many others — I have reached a few conclusions about truth.
The truth is that we are all created from one blood, all nations of men. We were placed here not as a mathematically impossible random act, but as an act of will by a supreme being. We serve a purpose. We are not animals. Our ancestors were not animals. As the Psalmist said, we are one step below Elohim. Created beings possessing of minds and emotions and eternal spirits.
Believers need to understand that much of what is recognized as “science” today is “falsely so-called” and amounts to assumptions based on misleading lies, outright frauds, or unworthy (godless) assumptions. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7). It would be wise to take the advice Paul offered to Timothy and “…keep that which is committed to thy trust [see Timothy 6:14], avoiding profane and vain babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20–21, KJV).
If Darwinists were so obviously right, why all the Pious Fraud? Why ANY fraud at all? Why not let indisputable facts lead to unavoidable conclusions in a chain of logical evidence? Why add lies, misdirection, obfuscation, mendacity, fabrication, and fraud to the argument? Why is that necessary? What is the meaning of that? What do you suppose the intent, is?
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Pin It
“In the years that followed, these bones were examined by both scientists and Darwinists…”
Oh, that’s charming.
The hominin stuff bores me and I don’t much want to read up on it, but it seems like you’re leaving out a big chunk of the story here, and I’m not sure how your thoughts are similar or different to current thinking. You haven’t mentioned the Neanderthal genome info at all.
When you say we are not animals, I am not sure how you mean that word. Biologically we are animals and mammals. If you want to say that spiritually we are different from all other living creatures because of having a spirit or soul which is a nonphysical part of us, that would not contradict our physiological nature (and would not be observable by science if it is a supernatural phenomenon)). If you want to define the word ‘animal’ to describe living creatures with brains that don’t produce language and creativity the way ours do, I could understand that usage if you define it that way. But there is a usage of the word animal which includes humans based on our anatomy and physiology and genetics and all that. Would you disagree that physiologically and in other biological ways we are animals?
It isn’t meant to be charming, I don’t think. I think the point is that Darwinism isn’t scientific since it is a religious belief system, not a scientific method. Therefore, I think the statement was meant to be highly accurate.
Usually I can motor right on past the remarks that bother me here, do the La-La-La-can’t-HEAR-you thing in my head, and focus on the actual arguments. That time, not. Oh well, whatever.
I knew Neanderthal man was a fraud, but I didn’t know all this! Thanks for sharing. I am looking forward to reading some of the older posts on creation and any future ones.
Hi Gregg and Hallee,
.
I posted a comment three weeks ago showing that Darwinism is scientific. That comment still stands.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Hi Gregg,
.
Rudolph Virchow was being very deceptive to say that Neanderthal’s were suffering from rickets. For a start, rickets causes the femur to bend sideways. Neanderthal bones bend backwards. People with rickets also have weak bones due to a lack of calcium. Neanderthal bones are 50% thicker than the average humans.
.
I’m sorry, your source has let you down again.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
I think we can agree that because someone’s skin is 50% darker than mine does not make them more or less human than I am. Because my skin is 60% lighter than someone else’s skin, that does not make me more or less human.
.
Therefore, riddle me this. Why should bone density matter as a measuring stick for what qualifies someone as fully human or not? I, myself, reach volumetric equilibrium somewhere about 6 inches below the surface of the swimming pool and on average I weigh in about 20 lbs heavier than others of equal height and girth to myself. My bones are probably 10-20% more dense than the “average” human male. Does that mean I am a caveman!?
.
Are pygmies more or less human being that they are so short and they have distinctive bone formations at the skull? How about “Aborigines” which is a racist term invented by Darwinists for those separately evolved dark-skinned folks who don’t happen to be members of Charles Darwin’s “Favoured [sic.] Races” don’t you know.
.
What about intentional misalignment the mandible in the skulls? What about the “Neanderthal” skeleton wearing chainmail? What about the fact that so-called “Neanderthal” have exactly the same number of bones as modern humans and in exactly the same arrangement? What about the skeleton found in marshland that magically hadn’t deteriorated?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Let me share a few points about what makes Darwinism more religious than scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in The Big Bang, that absolutely nothing condensed, then all of the condensed nothing exploded into an environment of even more nothing, that the shrapnel of the nothing that exploded defied the laws of motion and thermodynamics and became absolutely everything. This is not a scientific belief AT ALL.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Stellar Evolution, that gases created from nothing defied the laws of motion and thermodynamics to condense into stars. Since gas cannot condense in that medium, this is also not a scientific belief AT ALL.
.
Faithful Darwinists once religiously believed in infinity until too many people with common sense handily refuted it. Therefore, faithful Darwinists religiously now believe in billions of years, as many billions as possible. This is also not a scientific belief given the many problems Big Bang and Stellar Evolution bring to the table.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the Hubble “Constant” is supposed to be used in any calculation as a “Variable.” Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe in re-naming it the Hubble Variable, but to continue to inaccurately refer to it as a Constant so as to avoid any confusion. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the value of the Hubble Constant can vary even within the same equation provided the end result ultimately supports Darwinism and does not refute it. This is not a scientific belief, nor good mathematics.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Chemical Evolution, that newborn stars can fuse elements heavier than iron. This is not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the Earth evolved out of a molten state. Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe in Polonium Halos even though they patently exist. This is not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe that the moon is less than 10,000 years old.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe that the sun is less than 1 million years old.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Generation, Life from Non-Life, and Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe in mathematical impossibilities as they relate to this article of faith. This is not scientific. Science predicts that we should be able to recreate this spontaneous generation event given the right materials and conditions. It isn’t happening, folks.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in the theory of recapitulation, formerly and erroneously called the biogenetic “law,” also known as embryological parallelism, and often expressed as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” and Faithful Darwinists religiously believe it is right to ignore all scientific evidence that disputes this belief. This is, obviously, not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Larmarckism, and that Lamarck’s notion of “the inheritance of acquired characteristics” is the philosophical basis of all biological Darwinian evolution and they believe it is right to ignore all scientific evidence that disputes this belief until a “better” explanation comes along. This is stubborn faith.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that every Scientific Dating method that supports millions or billions of years is absolutely accurate down to the minute and second. Faithful Darwinists religiously do not believe any dating methods to be even slightly accurate when those methods do not support millions or billions of years. When the same method supports billions of years and refutes it in equivalent tests, the former is embraced as perfectly accurate and the latter is assumed to be a lab error. Not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists also religiously do not believe in the validity of Archaeological Dating when Archaeological Dating contradicts Darwinism. Not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that continents are highly mutable things. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in “Pangaea,” and that the continent of Africa was once 40% smaller while remaining in exact proportion to its current shape, and that Central America did not exist in the Pangea world, and that all other continents fit together with it like a jigsaw puzzle until they drifted apart — like giant lily pads floating on a big lake – after which Central America mysteriously appeared by means of a yet unknown but somehow still perfectly reasonable natural process — and that Africa increased in size by a full 40% while remaining in exact proportion to its current shape by means of another yet unknown but somehow still perfectly reasonable natural process. Hardly science. More like a fanatical faith.
.
I assume that faithful Darwinists religiously believe that DNA, RNA, Proteins, Amino Acids, and every part of any living cell are remarkably simple and uncomplicated structures that could easily produce themselves out of dirt or mud or some other base elements entirely by random chance. This seems foundational to Darwinism yet is hardly science.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that Natural Selection causes changes across every species and that, though this may appear directed or designed, it is purely random. Since science is also observable, this is not science.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that Mutations are mostly benign or benevolent and can produce entirely new, never before seen species even though such a thing has never been observed. Not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that the genetic species barrier common to every Animal and Plant in the known universe can easily be broken by any undirected and random process. That is pure belief in slim hope — not science.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in the Geologic Column and in index fossils. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in strata. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that the strata is an excellent way to judge the age of the index fossils they contain and that the index fossils are an excellent way to judge the age of the strata in which they appear. That is circular reasoning at it’s finest and far from scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that any and all evidence that could support Darwinism in even the most remote and infinitesimal way does, in point of fact, fully support Darwinism and only Darwinism. Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that any and all evidence that could contradict Darwinism also (somehow) supports Darwinism. In short, faithful Darwinists religiously believe that any evidence at all supports Darwinism. That is dogma, not science.
.
When it is convenient, faithful Darwinists are given dispensation to believe in the directed process referred to as punctuated equilibrium but always refer to it as an undirected process so as to avoid any confusion.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe humans evolved from more primitive species. There is no evidence to support this and there are mountains of evidence that refutes this. The former is embraced, the latter is ignored or dismissed on the slimmest of excuses while fraud is accepted as par for the course. This is a side-show at a cheap carnival and not scientific at all.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe there was never a world wide flood. This ignores the evidence and is therefore not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that similar structures, homologies, are an evidence of evolution, and not evidence of clever design. That is cherry picking and not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe in Vestiges, useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life-forms, and do not accept the notion of elegant design. Not scientific.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe that the best examples of Darwinian evolution have proven salient, cogent, sound, and not at all fraudulent or worthless. That is religious fervor.
.
Faithful Darwinists religiously believe the Laws of Nature are completely random, not fine-tuned at all, not Anthropic, and do not directly oppose “Darwinetics.”
.
For this and a host of other reasons, Darwinism is — in my opinion — what the Supreme Court would define as a legal religion.
.
I hope this better explains my stance.
Gregg
I think there is room for discussion on your points, and I don’t think you paint an accurate picture. But I can’t get into it now.
(But I did order that book! Thirty three cents on Amazon used! (plus $4 shipping of course.) I ordered the Meyers book too, but I may not be able to face reading it. And a biography of Haeckel. Your posts may not be changing my mind, but they’re influencing my reading.)
Obviously I think you’re wrong. We disagree.
But aside from that, where did you get the idea that evolutionary biology accepts Lamarck’s ideas? That’s incorrect.
The new info on epigenetics is showing some unexpected carry-over of some environmental influences from one generation to the next, and his name has been mentioned superficially in that context, mainly because his ideas were rejected so strongly for years.
Hi Gregg,
.
I didn’t say that bone density is a measuring stick for whether someone is human or not. It’s a measuring stick for whether they have rickets.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.