Today we will be digging into the fossil record to take a look at ancient fossils of man. Why? you ask. To see if there is any evidence of some of the claims made in the bible. The predictions made about the past (retro-diction's) that we will be examining today will be 1. that people live longer in the past? 2.That children reached maturity at a much later age than they do today and 3. Mankind's history is much shorter than Evolutionist teach today.
So what particular evidence do we have that seems to support these retro-dictions? By examining Neanderthal skeletons we can conclude that people lived longer and developed at a slower rate in the past. First we have to conclude that the assumption that Neanderthal bones are the result of disease is false in order to show that these differences between modern skeletons and neanderthals are the result of evolutionary change (Micro evolution that is).
The three diseases that some claimed caused Neanderthals is arthritis, rickets, and syphilis. We should be able to rule out arthritis right away because it does not create Neanderthals in modern folk who have it. Concerning the claim that Neanderthal bones were caused by rickets there are a few things that these bones should have if Neanderthal skeletons were made by this disease (childhood rickets) including thinning and softening of areas of the skull, The base of the skull would be flattening, Box shaped skulls, The hard palate of upper jaw would be high arched and narrow, Delayed eruption of teeth as well as decay. The argument that Neanderthals were caused by rickets is debunked in the video below around 13:30-21:21.
Nor do we see signs of congenital syphilis in Neanderthal skeletons such as Barrel shaped permanent lower incisors, high palatal arch, mulberry molars with little enamel, or notched permanent incisors. If we were to make a biblical retro-diction we would say that children thousands of years ago would grow slower than they do today, and would lose their baby teeth much later in life perhaps in their twenties or later. They would also have tiny faces which grew larger over time.
Evolutionist have portrayed Neanderthal children as more apelike and have given them protruding jawbones in order to make them more ape-like. So you wouldn't expect small skull faces on a Neanderthal child who's growth rate according to evolutionist would be about the same as apes, which is 1.8x faster than present humans.
A real example of Small skulls in Neanderthal skeletons which challenge the evolutionary paradigm is Engis 2 which is a 4.5 year old Neanderthal child skull from Belgium had a 164mm cranial length which was only 76% the length of Spy 1. Spy 1 was an adult Neanderthal with a cranial length of 216mm. According to Evolutionary standards Engis 2 skull should have been at least 86% the length of Spy 1. So it was reported that Engis length was 176 mm instead making it 81% of Spy 1. Yeah don't change your theory to fit the evidence, change the evidence to fit your theory! In order for Engis to have become a big skull it would to have had a growth rate faster than apes or it would have to have took a long time.
Another example of changing the evidence to fit evolutionary theory is in 1979, when some paleontologist cut the chin off of a female Neanderthal skull (La Quina V) in order to make it look more ape like, because apes have no chin. He then used dental compound to change the shape of the jaw. Turning it from human to apelike. This is deceitful plain and simple.
Next we are going to take a look at Pech de l' Aze. What's that? you ask. It is a french skull of a 2.5 year old that has a -14 degree below the norm in the in the angulation of the palate. So here is a 2+ year old with the upper jaw of a fetus. This is yet another example of slow development in ancient man. It has been said that adults replace their skeletons about once every ten years, this means our heads also would be continuously getting bigger. The changes that would take place in our skulls at about five hundred years would make us look like Neanderthals.
The fact is there have been many great scientist throughout the ages who hold to the biblical view of creation. One of which is Robert Boyle. He is considered the father of chemistry and he believed that Jesus was born at about 4000 years after the creation. Another sneaky trick that I've heard that some evolutionist do is to wash off the red ochre from ancient skulls because they realize that people couldn't have buried their dead using that for hundred's of thousands of years.
The last thing that I wanted to mention before wrapping this article up is Neanderthal population statistics. Here we have around supposedly 200-400 thousand years of evolutionary time and it is Estimated that there have been around 10 thousand generations or more. Now here is the dilemma for Evolution. There are only about five or six hundred total individual skeletons found and of those only twelve are mostly complete. Where is all the evidence of these thousands of generations?
In Conclusion we see that there is ample evidence from the field of paleontology to support the biblical worldview. I find it quite amazing that whichever field of science you turn to look at, that you can find God's hand in all of it. What do I mean by that? I mean that you can find evidence for the truth of scripture by studying the creation.
Reference: Youtube video titled Dr. Jack Couzzo the truth about ancient man
Thanks for Reading Please Share
No comments:
Post a Comment