How do creationists explain some recent hominid discoveries

score:7

Accepted answer

Here's what Ken Ham had to say regarding the news of this discovery:

No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and substituted their own fallible opinions in its place

...

The only way to find an ape-man—or a “bridge” between apes and humans—is to misinterpret fossils of either an ape or a human as something in between.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis provides a more thorough review and in her assessment claiming these bones are human is a stretch.

In general most Young Earth Creationists would recognize that claims such as this are based on the presuppositions and biases of the person making the claim. In other words the scientist(s) in question assume that Evolutionary Theory is true and interpret the facts to fit that framework. Other scientists would interpret the same facts based on the assumption that the Bible is true and reach a completely different conclusion.

Upvote:0

I am not sure why you mean this is a problem for young earth creationists. Old earth creationist have a much bigger problem to explain. God created Adam and Eve so that they would tend the garden. Also Genesis 4:2 shows that agriculture (tilling the ground, i.e. Cain, and keeping sheep, i.e. Abel) were from the beginning. Furthermore the story of creation shows that domesticated animals, cattle were created on Day 5 and man on Day 6. Since scientists unanimously agree that agriculture appeared around 9000 BC, so must have man according to the biblical record. Since Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, lived in a society where agriculture was practiced. They offered sacrifices from their livestock and in the case of Cain the harvest of the land. Young earth creationists, clearly point out that God did not create savages that were unable to worship him or farm the land, on the contrary he created man as he is today as far as the ability to keep cattle and harvest crops. With regard to any anthropologist or evolutionist that points to a fossil of a savage that lived 2 million years ago, the young earth creationist can do nothing but laugh at the foolishness of the hypothesis. The accuracy of the entirety of the fossil record, and the radiometric aging method has to be rejected simply because it is not in harmony with scripture. Let's face, all these anthropologists and evolutionary biologists are radical atheists that have an agenda, these are not true scientists but atheists disguised as scientists. WE as christians walk by faith and not by sight, one has to wonder why scientists at the time of Isaac Newton overwhelmingly thought that the earth was a few thousand years old and looked the same way as it looks now, pretty much. Even if it was possible through natural evolutionary processes to create species or through sedementation to create rocks over millions of years, it is just not the way that God did. Just because man makes wine from grapes, does not mean that God does it that way, Christ certainly turned water into wine at Cana. God does not use natural processes to make wine nor did he use them to make rocks over millions of years as the geologists teach. God speaks creation into existence. Science and the bible cannot be reconciled because the former looks at natural processes and the latter at super natural ways of creation.

More post

Search Posts

Related post