When your kids see this in class, or at the museum of natural history, what is the reaction? Is it an indoctrinating scene? Told of Neanderthals, beginning to walk upright. Even the term Neandrethal naturally invokes images of brutish hairy cave-people. Did you know that it is simply named for the Neander Valley, a small valley of the river Düssel in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, located about 12 km east of Düsseldorf.
Did you know that every time we see an image of cave people, it is purely dependent upon artist renderings, and subject to the presupposition of an evolutionary timetable? They will ask artists to draw, or mold a model based on bones, to which they reply, what would you have him look like? Many times, a find will consist of a bone, or a foot print. You have to be a pretty good artist to know what a guys wife looks like by looking at his footprint. But that is the exact way you and your children are receiving this information. And they receive it as fact.
Let us consider, the oldest known footprints ever found are human. In 1974, it was Leaky who discovered some “3.5 million years old” which showed no difference in ours today. Then the first in England during the ice age at around “800,000” years old showing England was inhabited by man at that time (probably ancestors of Japheth). There are African ones, Chilean ones, and per the fossil record, depending on how they are uncovered and what sedimentary layer they are found in, a date is attributed, and someone gets further funding for their dig. But the truth is, the Laetoli footprints of 1974 show man walked upright, and have shown no signs of evolution since, despite the many pictures suggesting otherwise. Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelry, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and have even been found wearing armor. This information comes to us from evolutionary anthropologists. Interestingly enough, they declare the DNA of Neanderthal to be almost identical to modern man.
Despite tee-shirts and pictures in text books, the fossil record holds no slowly evolving creature that goes from the ground to bipedal,and there is no evidence of information being added to bipedal, modern man in order to evolve him. There have been several finds of “out of place” fossils, or strange anomalies that garner no attention due to the inability to fit them within the evolutionary framework. Many adults of today still remember being taught of Java Man, Piltdown Man, Rhodesian Man, Taung African Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, all of which didn’t hold water. Then we had the Calaveras skull of 1866 that was dated in the tens of millions because it was potentially pre-flood and fully human. Also the Guadalupe Woman, taken off display because of the controversy of finding a perfectly formed 5’2″ woman in a limestone casket from “25 million years” ago.
I would ask that you share, comment, and ask questions, but would leave you today with this thought? Have you been indoctrinated to believe you are nothing more than an evolved mammal? People are extremely susceptible to visual stimulus, and coupled with the respect we have for teachers and for elders, when they tell us this is the case, we listen. But there is no evidence out there, despite our myriad of drawings, paintings, and sculptures, to indicate we have ever been anything but a creation of the Most High.
Share this:
J.R. Cooper - Author 
It is more than possible; it’s absolutely true, and an excellent point, one I am not ashamed to admit. I have found through many debates on creation vs evolution, one of the great divides between camps has been simply admitting we all come to the table with a presupposition, and would also suggest that good science demands it. A theory is postulated, a supposition upon a suspected result, and then an experiment to find out if said hypothesis is observable, demonstrable, and repeatable.
What continues to occur in academia, however, is the notion that evolution is fact, and any evidence found must be molded and forced into that model, or it is invalid. Evolutionists regard creationism as non-science, and do not consider evolution a presupposition, but merely truth, of which we are too ignorant to ascertain. Rather than harming this sacred cow, and letting intelligent design’s foot in the door, all manner of artistry and showmanship is applied. But that is not real science. That is faith in a man-centered theory, and it is my contention that facts fit the creation model perfectly. But I do admit this as a starting point, and what a starting point it is, proudly beginning with the word of God as a basis with which to view creation.
While you are correct that in every corner of history, present day not excluded, violence has been perpetrated upon those who would not assimilate to certain religious ideals, this was not the directive of Christ or the great commission found in the New Testament. Instead the bible states, “let us reason together,” If one is honest about his or her starting point, and the presupposition is above board at the onset, I feel it gives us a good jumping off point. Most of the time though, I cannot even get an evolutionist to admit they have any presuppositions at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your reply.
What we arrive at here is an impasse, though hopefully not a wedge driver. People on both sides of this coin will argue the other side sees their view as the truth and that the opposition manipulates the facts to fit the theory rather than seeing to it that the theory fits the facts. We could probably debate this all day, but I suspect we would spin around in circles, and I don’t want to waste your time or mine doing so. I respect your perspective, even if I don’t agree with everything, and I wish you well 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish you the best too, and concede that both sides think their interpretation fits their theory, and appreciate your perspective as well. All I can comment on is my own experiences talking to teachers, geologists and the like. Incidentally, as long as someone is truly searching, and is respectful, I’d never consider a back and forth a waste of time, and do enjoy the conversation. I welcome any comments or questions in the future, and hope you get some great writing in for 2016!
LikeLiked by 1 person
In order to present a differing perspective, it is not possible that the power of suggestion runs both ways?
For centuries, people have been indoctrinated to respect and obey the teachings of priests, vicars and bishops, without question. At one time, the very idea of deviating from these ideas could meet with deadly punishment. The very same indoctrination could be considered to be happening with creationist supporters – is not a site like Answers in Genesis doing exactly the same thing, presenting an unquestionable set of writings that seek to manipulate and lead readers into accepting certain claims?
I guess what I am saying is, the original premise of your article is a double-edged sword.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I go to answers in genesis.org to find amazing facts to blow the evolutionists “theory`out of the water. It also amazes me how Jehovah did what He did
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great site, and terrific resource. I highly recommend a family trip to the creation museum in Kentucky if you haven’t gone yet. 😊
LikeLike