New prehistoric human unknown to science discovered in Israel

https://m.jpost.com/archaeology/new-prehistoric-human-unknown-to-science-discovered-in-israel-671949/amp

From the article:

" Tens of thousands of years ago, the busy central region of what is now a densely populated and traffic-jammed part of Israel, was a landscape that very much resembled the African savanna. It featured rhinos, wild horses and cattle and other large animals that were perfect game for ancient hunter-gatherers.

The site of Nesher Ramla, a few kilometers from the modern-day city, was probably close to a water reservoir where early humans could hunt animals. Today, the dig site is filled with many animal bones, stone tools for making fire and butchering, and human bones, including skulls, TAU anthropologist Prof. Israel Hershkovitz said.”

"We know that modern humans ”“ or Homo sapiens ”“ arrived in this area some 200,000 years ago,” he said. "When we started excavating and examining the different archaeological layers, we found that they dated back between 140,000 and 120,000 years ago, so we expected to find remains of Homo sapiens. We did not realize that another form of human was living alongside them.”

Lol!

Prof. Israel Hershkovitz said,

"We know that modern humans ”“ or Homo sapiens ”“ arrived in this area some 200,000 years ago,”

____________________

If we say that we know something is true, but that something is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.

Science simply means knowledge. Conscience simply means with knowledge.

This professor is not talking science as his conscience is seared.

https://youtu.be/HYyKIWu0Syc

All very good points.

I still think it is very interesting that animals like rhinos grazed in this area of Israel. If true(apparently they have found bones) when would this have been? Then again someone like Ken Ham says that dinosaurs were walking around with men in ancient Israel and every place else for that matter, so rhinos or elephants would be no big deal.

There are many mysteries that are hard to force into the scriptures. Not saying impossible (although I personally think some are) but very difficult.

Believing in creation is a matter of faith, not science

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

To believe in evolution, you need to sear your conscience:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

and do a lot of acrobatics to explain away clear evidence of creation. Even Darwin retracted some of his ideas at the end of his life.

Evolution is another way of saying, I do not believe in God and I hate him anyway. Without God, you cannot establish any moral responsibility at all.

I believe God created the universe, and I don’t believe in human evolution (ie that Adam descended from apes). But I can’t dispute the existence of Neanderthals etc.

"Neanderthals were a group of humans, descended from Adam and Eve, who lived in the harsh post-Flood world. Archaeology confirms they made instruments, make-up, jewelry, weapons, and ritually buried their dead. Many humans today share DNA with Neanderthals. This fully human lineage died out sometime after the Flood." From Answers In Genesis

Of course Ken Ham says that. Not saying they weren’t biological humans.

ADD: but I strongly question the timing.

If Ken Ham was the only person in the world saying this, and if it is indeed correct, it's still truth. Even Einstein said consensus opinion means absolutely zilch when contradicted by one man with facts (paraphrase).

Todd, your theology on Genesis befuddles me. You've said you don't believe it is literal history, but was written to those people at that time according to their limited understanding. That would mean it is, in fact, incorrect according to our "modern" understanding. We know Jesus lived roughly 2,000 years ago. If you go back before that, and add up the years from genealogies, the Flood was roughly 2,400 years before Jesus walked the earth (unless the genealogies can't be trusted?) Go back before that, about 1,600 years, again, adding up the dates, and God created Adam and Eve (Eve is called the "mother of all living" by Adam, unless he was wrong as well). So that is where we get 6,000 years. There were no humans or human-like creatures before that, because nothing existed; hence the "Neanderthals" must have lived after God created Adam and Eve.

How about the Flood? You say it was a local flood, but since there have been many local floods since Noah's days, God has broken His promise repeatedly. If there were humans living for hundreds of thousands of years before the flood, surely some of them moved from the valley where this local flood allegedly happened, so God would not have destroyed "all flesh" when it happened.

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/science/story/a-star-is-born-scientists-set-to-see-birth-of-the-first-stars-right-after-big-bang-1819368-2021-06-25

Todd, you can post all the articles you like. I don't interpret things I see through man's theories. I interpret scientific findings through the lens of God's revelation to man, the scriptures. I think God's word is not authoritative to some because they are afraid of looking like bumpkins to "educated" people.

Seeing as how no one has ever seen a star form, I won't hold my breath on this one. It supposedly takes 10 million years for a star to form, so actually observing it is impossible. The one way speed of light is impossible to measure. It is an agreed upon convention. What we observe could be happening in real time, even if it is millions of light years away.

It should give you pause to realize evolutionary theory had its beginnings in pagan religions, which in turn spread to Greek philosophers, which then spread to people like Erasmus Darwin and his grandson, Charles. Juxtapose what all these pagan religions said about origins, like "man evolved from fish" and "the universe is very old" to what the Bible says about origins. If read in an honest and straightforward way, no one would ever come up with "millions of years" from the scriptures. People try vainly to force evolution into the text of scripture.

But we do see stars forming, and this new telescope will see the earliest formed stars.

We also see stars in all points of their life cycle, ie red giants, white dwarfs, yellow dwarfs, neutron stars, blue super giants, supernovas and all stages in between.

I am not against the idea of someone having enough faith in the 6000 years construct to be able to force everything observed into it even if it takes a shoehorn.

But the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that it should make a reasonable person stop to think. They may maintain their 6000 year construct, but only by referencing Ken Ham or creation.org. By the way I am not knocking either organization and I reference them often, but they cannot be one’s only reference.

Nope, we don't. We see gas clouds with different densities and temperatures. Scientists can make guesses as to what will happen in the future, that's it.

There are many, many scientists that disagree with conventional theories about origins, i.e. big bang, Darwinian evolution etc. It isn't just Ken Ham and a few other people. In Einstein's day they called his theories completely anti-science and implausible, even Nobel prize winners disagreed with him; after all, they had "consensus" on their side.

I guess it boils down to this, and I am asking you a direct question Todd: What is your final authority on origins, the Bible or current scientific opinion?

Einstein did not believe in a young universe.

Truth is my final authority. God created the universe- that is truth. You believe the first chapter of Genesis and a literal interpretation of it is the sole bastion of truth on the matter. This is perfectly fine for you and whole lots of folks. Others think there is more evidence to consider and perhaps Genesis 1 was not intended to tell the whole story of all the mysteries of the universe. Would men 3000 years ago have comprehended all the mysteries of the universe? We still don’t.

It's sad to hear you say that. Outside of what scripture says, truth has a wide definition, and can be interpreted many different ways. Remember Jesus said "Thy word is truth." John 17:17 This is why so many people are blinded, because they have rejected the authority of God's word and define truth as they see it. Notice how christians generally do not do this with other areas of scripture? If someone who professes to be a christian says "I don't believe Jesus is God, just a lesser god", or "Science says a virgin birth is impossible" we immediately know they can't be born of God, because these truths can't have many different interpretations; the scriptures are axiomatic and clear as day. I am not saying one must be a young earth creationist to be a christian, let me be clear on that. But to say we know more than the inspired writers is dangerous.

I won't be commenting on your posts anymore as I don't want to argue with you. The last thing in the world I want is division in the body of Christ.

God bless you Todd.

I understand. I do appreciate the discussion.