David Livingston<\/b><\/p>\n
A display in the Field Museum showing early concepts of Neanderthal Man. Although still in use, it is hopelessly out of date<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
Modern anthropology teaches that \u201cman\u201d has been developing for a very long time \u2014 as much as five million years. On the other hand, the Bible indicates that man has only been around for a few thousand years. Can the two positions be reconciled, or must one be rejected with only the other being acceptable? Which position does the scientific evidence really support?<\/p>\n
Man\u2019s Life Directly from God<\/b><\/p>\n
What does the Bible actually say about the origin of man? Genesis 2:7 says, \u201cAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.\u201d Notice first in this verse that man was not<\/i> created out of some lower form of life (ape, chimpanzee, or homonid<\/i>) as some theistic evolutionists claim. He was made, or fashioned, by the very hand of God out of \u2018aphar<\/i> \u2014 inanimate dust, dirt, or clay. The Hebrew word for \u201cformed\u201d is the word used when a potter shapes his vessels. As a pottery vessel is lifeless, so man\u2019s body was originally lifeless. Life in man\u2019s body came directly from God\u2019s spirit, or \u201cbreath.\u201d When God gave life to man, he became a \u201cliving soul.\u201d<\/p>\n
To further emphasize that man was not related to lower forms of life, this \u201cliving soul\u201d is the same kind of life animals have (Gn 1:30, 7:22). That is, although <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 5<\/p>\n
man is infinitely above animals, his \u201canimal life\u201d came directly from God<\/i>, not from some other animal. Thus, the Bible portrays an anti-evolutionary beginning for man. There is no way to reconcile the philosophy of human evolution with the Biblical narrative of the creation of man by God.<\/p>\n
The \u201cDevelopment\u201d of Man<\/b><\/p>\n
Another area of major conflict between the Bible and evolutionary philosophy is in the development of man. Evolutionary anthropology postulates a scenario of early man as brutish with low intelligence. The theory is that over many tens or hundreds of thousands of years \u201cman\u201d evolved enough intelligence to move into caves, accidentally learned to make and use fire, and after tens of thousands of years as a hunter-gatherer, eventually domesticated grain and animals. Of course, the accoutrements of civilization did not appear until relatively recent times \u2014 within the last five thousand years.<\/p>\n
The Biblical scenario is much different, with man highly intelligent from the beginning (Gn 4:1\u20134). When Cain and Abel, the sons of the Adam and Eve, came with their sacrifices Cain was a \u201ctiller of the ground.\u201d The text does not say that Cain brought in wild wheat or wild barley. It says he brought that which he had raised by farming, his produce of the ground \u2014 \u201cdomesticated\u201d crops. Thus domesticated grain or vegetables are available at the beginning of man\u2019s existence. (The Hebrew is not clear as to what he actually brought.)<\/p>\n
Next, the text does not<\/i> say that Abel brought wild sheep; it says he was a \u201ckeeper of sheep\u201d. He offered from the flocks of his field \u2014 \u201cdomesticated\u201d animals \u2014 in the very beginning.<\/p>\n
Domestication implies a long process of change from a wild to a tame state. But the Bible seems to imply that God created<\/i> some things wild and some things for man\u2019s use \u2014 already \u201cdomesticated,\u201d and intelligent man used them immediately. Even if God did create them \u201cwild,\u201d Adam and his descendents \u201cdomesticated\u201d them very early, not<\/i> over a long period of time.<\/p>\n
In the Biblical account, man knew how to talk from the very beginning<\/i>, knew how to use fire, knew how to do all kinds of things that we are given the impression took hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary development.<\/p>\n
Not long after the events related in Genesis 4:1\u201316, Cain\u2019s close descendents exhibited all the elements of \u201ccivilization.\u201d Lamech\u2019s son, Jabal, was the \u201cfather\u201d of those that live in tents and have livestock This indicates knowledge of the cultivation of fibrous plants and weaving and, of course, the continuation of raising domesticated animals. Jabal\u2019s brother, Jubal, was known as the developer of both stringed and wind musical instruments which would, of necessity, include the knowledge of music composition, and probably included other fine arts as well. A stepbrother, Tubal-cain, forged implements of bronze and iron. Bronze is not copper only; it is an alloy of both copper and tin. This indicates an early knowledge of smelting and metal combinations. And, with the knowledge of smelting, iron was already in use. So we see that according to the Bible, arts and industry had already developed during the very lifetime of the first man and woman \u2014 Adam and Eve were still living \u2014 as well as Cain.<\/p>\n
Can Discoveries of Early Man Be Reconciled with the Biblical Account?<\/b><\/p>\n
How can one reconcile scientific theories with the third and fourth chapters of Genesis, and even the second chapter of Genesis, where we have the activities of Adam and Eve and their children? These first people appear to be highly intelligent. They knew how to make fire from <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 6<\/p>\n
the very beginning \u2014 they offered sacrifices. Furthermore, on the face of it, it seems that it was not very long ago. Can that be reconciled with modern archaeological discoveries?<\/p>\n
In what follows, we will examine the evidence presented for pre-historic man in museums in the U.S., and in the British Museum of Science. One should examine museum evidence for himself, being careful to read everything in the display captions.<\/p>\n
We will consider two models: one is the evolutionary model, the other is the creation model. If there is a third model, it might be that man came to earth from some other terrestrial body. But that possibility reverts to one or the other of the first two models. Either God made man, or man evolved from some lower form of life.<\/p>\n
If evolution can be falsified and it can be shown that the evolutionary story for man\u2019s origin lacks evidence to support it, then one of the two models will have been displaced, leaving only one. It is not necessary to prove creation. Nor is it likely that we will find evidence for creation anywhere but in the Bible (except for several ancient near eastern creation myths); it happened such a long time ago. There can be no question that accepting the creation model is a matter of faith. On the other hand, evolution is a statement of faith also because, as will be seen, there is little, if any, evidence for it<\/p>\n
Stone-Age Is Not Necessarily Early<\/b><\/p>\n
Was the Stone-Age a period of time long ago? Not necessarily, there are people living in the Stone-Age today in many places. They know how to make stone tools and weapons. Because people used stone implements does not mean they lived a very long time ago. Time<\/i> magazine pictured people in Suriname who live in the stone-age. They are called \u201cStone-Age Tribesmen.\u201d In Mindanao, Philippines, National Geographic<\/i> magazine (August 1972) introduced the world to the Tasaday people who live in caves and are in the Stone-Age. The title of the article was, \u201cFirst Glimpse of a Stone Age Tribe.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Tasaday are stone-age cavemen, but they are intelligent people. They can make a fire by simply twisting a stick. They know a lot of other things that we do not know; we know a lot of things they do not know. The fact that they do not know what we know does not make them unintelligent. One must remember this concept as he investigates stone-age people.<\/p>\n
The following quotation from the National Geographic<\/i> (mentioned above) shows how completely fooled anthropologists were about the Tasaday, \u201cThey were making stone axes and, catching my fascinated stare, a man rose and brought them to me. They were crude, as crude as the oldest tools of the European Paleolithic.\u201d Paleolithic is the Old Stone-Age. \u201cPaleo\u201d is old; \u201clithic\u201d is stone. These are not Neolithic \u2014 New Stone-Age people, nor Mesolithic \u2014 Middle Stone-Age people; they are Paleolithic<\/i>. They are making implements today, this very moment, that as soon as they are finished, look to experienced anthropologists as though they are several hundred thousand years old!<\/p>\n
Since the intensive research on the Tasadays by experienced anthropologists, it has been discovered that the \u201cstone-age\u201d Tasadays of the Phillipine Islands are frauds. They were only acting out the part of stone-age, cavemen, apparently as a tourist gimmick. Yet they were the subject of a full-length article with pictures in the National Geographic<\/i>. They completely fooled experienced anthropologists who went to study them.<\/p>\n
But there are legitimate stone-age people today. In New Guinea, Bornea, Africa, Central America, and other places where civilization has not yet gone, men <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 7<\/p>\n
still use stone implements of all kinds, Throughout history, in every generation, some people have used stone implements and lived in caves. Not everyone, of course, but in any age there are always some stone-age cavemen.<\/p>\n
It was this way even as America developed. Indians used stone implements while \u201ccivilized\u201d settlers used metal implements and firearms. It was true in the Middle Ages as well as at the turn of the first millenium. It was also true that, while the empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia flourished with high civilizations, some around them used stone implements and lived in caves. Even the Israelites lived in caves from time to time (Jgs 6:2). Somehow, if one uncovers evidence of the stone-age, he has to prove that those remains are actually from a very long time ago by some other means than the fact that stone implements were in use. When caves are excavated, one should not assume that he will find remains of earliest, or even early, mankind. Finally, when it is said, \u201cThe Stone-Age was a period in man\u2019s development a long time ago \u2014 hundreds of thousands of years ago \u2014 now we are in the modern period,\u201d it is not necessarily so.<\/p>\n
Natural caves like this, found by the hundreds in Israel, are used to shelter animals. In a similar cave the Son of Man was born<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
Cavemen Today<\/b><\/p>\n
In Cappadocia, Turkey, a large area with unusual geological oddities has been developed as a cave-city. Everyone in the area lives in caves hand-hewn into these strange geological formations. But they have electricity and wear clothes. Actually it is a nice place to live. In the summer it is cool, and in the winter it is warm. No one thinks of these people as having regressed. As a matter-of-fact, these are very inexpensive dwelling-places, unusually well insulated and highly habitable.<\/p>\n
You might think that it\u2019s that way only in Turkey. But today along a stretch of the Rhone River in France, many families live in caves. Pictured is a \u201ccaveman\u201d and his family. Behind him is what looks like a stone house. It is actually the blocked-up entrance to a cave in the hillside. Along the Rhone River for 50 <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 8<\/p>\n
A French family at their cave home<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
A cave home near Phoenix<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
miles there are dozens of French families living in caves. In the morning they climb into their Renaults and Peugeots and go to work, returning in the evening to their caves and a normal life \u2014 with electricity and other modern niceties.<\/p>\n
In our country people have realized with the energy crunch that perhaps a cave is not such a bad place to live. A man in Phoenix, Arizona, found a cave nearby on a hillside, modified and furnished it. People in Phoenix are jealous of this man because he is in a cave which did not cost him anything except a little refurbishing.<\/p>\n
What I am trying to point out is that we are not so intelligent. We build our houses on top of a hill, and the wind and cold in the winter drive us out because it is so hard to heat. But cavemen, using their heads, utilized these ready-made shelters. They were every bit as intelligent as we are.<\/p>\n
There are thousands of caves in Palestine. Shepherds use them to shelter their animals at night. Caves were used as <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 9<\/p>\n
stables in ancient times, while travelers stayed in a building above. Thus the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born in a cave.<\/p>\n
In Nazareth a huge church has been built over a cave because this cave was, traditionally, the grotto of Joseph and Mary, the cave where Jesus may have lived as a child<\/i>. So Jesus, in a sense, was a \u201ccaveman.\u201d Whether it is true that Jesus actually grew up in this very cave or not, someone in Nazareth did.<\/p>\n
So much for Stone-Age caveman. Even though some people lived that way does not mean that they lived along time ago, nor that these were brute homonids<\/i> developing into homo Sapiens<\/i>. Their remains, when found, may not be very old.<\/p>\n
An Evolutionary Myth<\/b><\/p>\n
There is a myth in human evolutionary theory which says that as the brain increases in size, intelligence increases. Based on this theory, the chimpanzee with a smaller brain is less intelligent, and modern man with the largest brain, is the most intelligent (see below).<\/p>\n
In the American Museum of Natural History in New York City one can find a display which says, \u201cIntelligence is the most outstanding trait of the hominids. The best index of it available to us in the fossil record is the brain size as measured by the capacity of the bony brain case.\u201d Above that caption are various brain models (seen above) with the cubic content of each brain represented by a cylinder with stripes. What is most astounding is that Neanderthal Man had a larger<\/i> brain than modern man. In this exhibit, Homo sapiens<\/i> (top) has a brain size of 1,450 cc, while Neanderthal (just below) has a brain size of 1,625 cc.<\/p>\n
Now what do we make of the statement, \u201cThe larger the brain, the greater the intelligence?\u201d If that were true, Neanderthal Man should have gone to the moon and we should be back in caves. How inconsistent the statement below the display is compared with the actual display!<\/p>\n
Another myth is that a low, sloping forehead is an indication of less intelligence.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 10<\/p>\n
Roman ruler with low, sloping forehead<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
This falsehood is not as strong an idea among evolutionists, but the transitional forms from ape to man are always shown with low, sloping foreheads. Neanderthal man is always shown with a low, sloping forehead. But a bust of a Roman ruler of Egypt a little after the time of Christ has a low, sloping forehead. He could not have been an unintelligent man. Indeed, even King Gustav of Sweden, on a 100 Kroner banknote, has a sloping forehead (see picture on cover). This characteristic is no indication of a lack of intelligence.<\/p>\n
Impressions Rather than Facts<\/b><\/p>\n
Consider a display in a museum which begins with modern man, then points back toward an ape ancestor. There are no actual connections between them. Skulls are simply lined up and pointed backward to give the impression<\/i> that man came from apes. It is easier to produce artistic impressions than to present factual data.<\/p>\n
Evolutionists often deny that they say, \u201cMan came from an ape.\u201d But in the British Museum of Science in London, one of the largest natural science museums in the world, a display once and for all belies that fact (assuming it is still there). No evolutionist should deny saying that man comes from an ape. Here, in a museum seen by thousands of people every year, a sign plainly says, \u201cMan is an animal.\u201d In another section one discovers a caption claiming that \u201call human beings are animals, mammals, primates, and apes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other displays declare that we are related to apes and that our closest living relatives are probably gorillas and chimpanzees. The next time someone denies that they say we came from apes, simply tell them the British Museum of Science is telling that to thousands of people every year.<\/p>\n
Another representation is found in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Here one can see a painted impression that man and ape come off the same stem. It looks like they branched off from the same ape-like ancestor. But it does not display the missing links. It is not a case of one \u201cmissing link\u201d; there are no connections at all!<\/p>\n
Skulls lined up to give impression man evolved from apes<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 11<\/p>\n
Paucity of Evidence for Human Evolution<\/b><\/p>\n
A Time\/Life children\u2019s book in the Emergence of Man series says, \u201cIt is now a proven scientific fact that man was millions of years in the making. The path of his evolution is marked by dead ends and new beginnings, the way-side strewn with relics of his various forms. Although many of these remains are at best minimal, they are enough to sketch out the key stages of his march through time. The chief problem facing anthropologists today is to fill in the gaps.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wait a minute! Read that first sentence again, then the last. How can it be a proven fact if the biggest problem is to fill in the gaps?<\/p>\n
Several museum displays will be examined to see what is used to prove human evolution. At Fossil Man\u2019s Hall of Fame in the Field Museum in Chicago a caption reads, \u201cIn the study of human evolution there will always be room for differences of opinion and for doubt. Although occasional finds of fossil human remains may contribute greatly to knowledge of human development, theories of human evolution should not be based on specimens that are exceedingly fragmentary and lack important parts.\u201d Is evolution based on specimens that are exceedingly fragmentary and lack important parts, or do they really have solid evidence? The principles are: the evidence should not be fragmentary, and the specimens should not lack important parts. Let us examine the actual evidence \u2014 from all over the world \u2014 presented in museums. Most of the examples are well-known; almost everyone has heard of them.<\/p>\n
Java Man<\/b><\/p>\n
Thigh bone of Java Man with modern human bone for comparison<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
First let\u2019s look at Java Man, or Pithecanthropuserectus<\/i>\u2014\u201derect ape man.\u201d The remains were found in a gravel bed on the island of Java, Indonesia. The man who found them in the 1890s was Dr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, who went to Java to find a missing link. And guess what \u2014 he found it!<\/p>\n
But how<\/i> did he find it? He dug through a gravel bed as big as a gymnasium for a full year, finding dozens of bones \u2014 animal bones and human bones \u2014 but he selected only three for Java Man. It was not a burial; they were just random bones, and probably the three bones are not even associated with each other. But he came back to Europe announcing, \u201cHere is the missing link!\u201d Today school children everywhere know about Java Man; they are told about it from the early grades in public schools.<\/p>\n
One of the bones is a thigh bone (seen above). It is on display in the American Museum of Natural History. It has an accretion on it, a calcium deposit, which can be ignored. Notice the dark bone and a (white) modern bone behind it for comparison. There is no difference except <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 12<\/p>\n
that the darker bone is larger. Scientists agree that the dark bone, the bone of supposed Pithecanthropus erectus<\/i>, is exactly like a modern leg bone, and, as seen in the picture, it obviously is.<\/p>\n
The jaw bone has been judged by scientists to be a modern jaw bone. The skull cap has a low, sloping forehead. Dr. Dubois originally thought it was a human skull cap, but before he died, he finally agreed with his accusers that it was actually the skull cap of a gibbon, a great ape, and not human at all.<\/p>\n
Dr. Dubois claimed that Pithecanthropus erectus<\/i> \u2014 Java Man \u2014 is a \u201cmissing link\u201d 500,000 years old. Where did he get that figure? He simply pulled it out of the air; there is no support for it.<\/p>\n
Why must our children be required to learn about Java Man in school, as if he were one of the pillars of human evolution? The entire evidence available is only two modern bones and the skull cap of an ape, not even from a burial, but found scattered throughout a gravel bed.<\/p>\n
It is ludicrous that anyone should be expected to believe that this is an authentic missing link.<\/p>\n
Peking Man<\/b><\/p>\n
Next, consider highly-touted Peking Man, supposedly 400,000 years old. What about him? We cannot show any remains of Peking Man because they were all lost in World War II. A display in the Field Museum in Chicago says 40 individuals were found. It says they were \u201cfrom 350,000 to 500,000 years ago according to different geological estimates.\u201d What is another word for estimate? A \u201cguess.\u201d They guess<\/i> they are that old.<\/p>\n
Although no bones remain of Peking Man, this display is still seen in the Field Museum<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
But the next paragraph falsifies the first one because it says, \u201cThe cranial capacity of the known specimens range from 850 to 1,300 cc, an average of 1,075; the upper end of the range overlaps with modern man.\u201d So they are small<\/i>, modern men.\u201d The following paragraph reads, \u201cThe limb bones of Homo erectus, including both Java Man and the Peking varieties, are indistinguishable<\/i> from those of modern man.\u201d So how can it be said they are 350,000 to 500,000 years old? They may be only a few thousand years old, for all we know. They are no different from modern man, so what does this show us about missing links and about human evolution?<\/p>\n
Nothing. The bones have disappeared anyway.<\/p>\n
So much for another pillar of human evolution \u2014 Peking Man.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 13<\/p>\n
Nebraska Man as reconstructed in the London Illustrated News<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
Nebraska Man<\/b><\/p>\n
A third example is Nebraska Man. It was reconstructed from one tooth<\/i> found in Nebraska in 1923. In 1925, at the famous Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow held up this very tooth as evidence of human evolution. The London Illustrated News<\/i> (6\/24\/22), out of that one tooth, reconstructed a complete man and woman and published a drawing seen here on the front page. The problem with all this is that in 1927 scientists took a better look at that tooth and realized it was the tooth of a peccary \u2014 a pig (Science<\/i> 66:579).<\/p>\n
This is the case of a pig making a monkey out of a man.<\/p>\n
Piltdown Man<\/b><\/p>\n
Evolutionists do not like to be reminded of Piltdown Man. May be that is because he was featured as a pillar of human evolution in museums around the world until the 1950\u2019s. Piltdown Man was discovered about 1910 in England. In the early 1950\u2019s researchers did some detective work and discovered that finds associated with Piltdown Man were planted by someone at the spot where the skull was found. There is an elaborate display of what detectives found in the British Museum of Science. When the jaw bone and pieces of the skull bone were dated it was found that the jaw bone was only a little over 500 years old, and the skull was only 600 years old. When first found it was claimed that Piltdown Man <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 14<\/p>\n
was 500,000 years old. After more investigation, it was concluded that Piltdown Man was a hoax; he was deliberately planted by somebody who was anxious to prove evolution (see Recommended Readings). Now everyone knows that he was a fake. In the meantime, he had been used as one of the pillars for human evolution.<\/p>\n
Take away Piltdown Man, wipe out Nebraska man, Java Man and Peking Man; they were all modern men. What is left of the original specimens used to formulate theories of human evolution?<\/p>\n
Not much.<\/p>\n
Heidelberg Man<\/b><\/p>\n
Heidelberg Man has been presented as one of the best examples of human evolution. All that is available, however, is a jaw supposedly 500,000 years old found in the 1860\u2019s in Germany. The jaw was found in a gravel quarry at a depth of about 80 feet. This quarry is located in a river valley. You would expect a river, the Neckar River in this case, to deposit many feet of gravel as it floods year after year. Instead of dating it 500,000 years old because the jaw was found 80 feet deep in river gravel, there is no reason to think it is more than a few thousand years old.<\/p>\n
For instance, in Korea we excavated some pottery from the pre-Christian era near the surface of the ground. But, in the nearby river bed, while excavating the basement for a bank building, the very same type of pottery was found at a depth of 25 feet \u2014 25 feet of deposit in only a little over two thousand years!<\/p>\n
Scientists generally agree that the Heidelberg jaw is modern. Its apparent young age does not support the theory of human evolution, even though it has been used as one of the main supports for it.<\/p>\n
Neanderthal Man<\/b><\/p>\n
Next consider Neanderthal Man. First in importance is that we find Neanderthal remains in burials<\/i>. At the Carmel Caves in Israel several actual burials were excavated. One of them has been mounted in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, and is identical to modern man (see cover). Most astonishing here is that buried next to Neanderthal Man is modern man. Instead of being separated by tens of thousands of years, it looks like they were contemporaries.<\/p>\n
Neanderthal Man in the Field Museum (most recent concept). Compare with page 4<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
For many years, Neanderthal Man was represented as an imbecilic, bent-kneed, stoop-shouldered type in the Field <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 5:1 (Winter 1992) p. 15<\/p>\n
Museum in Chicago (see page 4). But over the years researchers have developed a new view of Neanderthal Man. This new view is prevailing, fortunately. That is, that Neanderthal is really a modern man, one of us. Note the new display in the Field Museum showing an erect, intelligent person (see opposite page).<\/p>\n
At the Smithsonian Institution (in Washington, DC) is this very important statement, \u201cBecause Neanderthal and modern man share these two important characteristics, an average brain size of 1,330 milliliters and burial of the dead, they can be grouped together in the same species, homo sapiens<\/i>.\u201d Neanderthals then were homo sapiens<\/i> \u2014 modern man.<\/p>\n
At another display the caption under a skull replica says, \u201cHomo sapiens neanderthalensis<\/i>.\u201d Most people are not aware that modern man used to be called Home sapiens<\/i>, whereas he is now called \u201cHomo sapiens sapiens<\/i>\u201d because we have a new brother. Our brother is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis<\/i>; he is a modern man just as we are with living examples still found here and there.<\/p>\n
So he can no longer be a \u201cmissing link.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cro-Magnon Man with his sophisticated art forms and paintings (see front cover) is even more advanced than Neanderthal Man, and was obviously a highly intelligent race of modern man.<\/p>\n
What has happened to the pillars on which the original theories of human evolution were built? We have examined most of the evidence on which the theory was originally based, and found it entirely lacking<\/i>. Other early examples only make the situation worse; later examples do not help the theory, rather they bring it more than ever into question.<\/p>\n
The Biblical Story of Man\u2019s Creation Has No Competitor<\/b><\/p>\n
There is no need to doubt what the Bible says about the creation of man. God created him out of the dust of the earth. It is a matter of faith; we cannot prove it. But our connection is with God, not with monkeys and apes. God made apes. He made man. But He did not take an ape and make a man. He made man special out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life; so our life has come directly from the Lord.<\/p>\n
Finally, for Christians, the special creation of Adam (the first man) by God is of primary importance. Both Adam and Jesus must be historical persons for two reasons at least. First, \u201cFor as in Adam all died (spiritually), even so in Christ shall all be made alive\u201d (1 Cor 15:22). (See also Rom 5:12f.) It would have been pointless for Jesus Christ to give his life for sinners if there was no original sin by the first man Adam (Gen 3).<\/p>\n
Secondly, Jesus\u2019 very own geneology begins<\/i> with Adam(Lk 3:23\u201338). It is very difficult to understand how anyone could claim to be a Bible believer and maintain that the first man, Adam, was made from a brute beast.<\/p>\n
For Further Reading:<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cGetting at Our Roots,\u201d \u201c\u2018Lucy\u2019 and Dating Fossil Finds.\u201d ABR Newsletter<\/i> May-June, 1991.<\/p>\n
M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy?<\/i> 1977. Kent, England: Sovereign Publ.<\/p>\n
Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man<\/i>. 1971. Emsworth, England: A.E. Norris & Sons.<\/p>\n
Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record<\/i>. 1985. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publ.<\/p>\n
J.S. Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery<\/i>. 1980, New York: Dover Publ.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
David Livingston A display in the Field Museum showing early concepts of Neanderthal Man. Although still in use, it is hopelessly out of date. Modern anthropology teaches that \u201cman\u201d has been developing for a very long time \u2014 as much as five million years. On the other hand, the Bible indicates that man has only … Continue reading “WAS
\nADAM A CAVE MAN?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15111\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}