Carter's Notification on His Post

Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons · Carter's Notification on His Post

Myself, Robert Carter, and David Palm are known writers (including bloggers). The other two, MC and DC have been left with initials' wise anonymity.

Robert Carter

3.II.2019, 15:57 ·

An excellent question. Have you ever wondered where Neanderthals fit into biblical history? Were they pre-Flood?

Are Neandertals pre-Flood people?
Published: 2 February 2019 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/neanderthals-pre-flood

I

MC

Very interesting. Could they have had burials before the flood that the flood didn’t destroy. Not sure how that would work but it’s the first question I thought of.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Depends on how deep they were buried and how much the Flood destroyed right there.

Robert Carter

Your Flood model is wanting. The fossil record was produced by the Flood, thus it matters not 'how deep they were buried'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The fossil record was produced by the Flood"

And why would the dino fossils have to be older than the Neanderthals?

"Depends on how deep they were buried"

Refers to if they were buried deep enough, and the Flood destroyed little enough right there, that means they would remain where they were buried.

If they were buried shallowly on a place where the Flood destroyed much, obviously they would probably not remain.

Update(s)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am inclined to take the following video, strategically published days after our debate, as subreptitiously answering me without actually mentioning me, so as not to "give me a platform" according to some para-Jewish gatekeeping morality.

Here is the video I talk about:

Boulders moved over 500km!
CMIcreationstation | 6.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUjL5KodAl0

Comprehensible implication for this exchange, if Neanderthals had also been transported 500 km away, why is there anything left of them at all? The boulders are probably just half the diameter they started out as.

Well, if the whales at Linz and Vienna had been transported 500 km they would not have arrived where they were as recognisable whale skeleta. Nothing to do with spurious whale evolution, pretty clearly whale creatures, hardly differing from many modern species.

And you can hardly have a geological event after Flood in which whales get trapped there.

So, they are from Flood.

Ergo, some things were less transported and less destroyed than others, why not the Neanderthals?

II

DC

What do you make of Fuz's claims they weren't human? Have you ever addressed his claims elsewhere?

Robert Carter

His claims fly in the face of all the genetic data. If you search creation.com you will see enough articles (several written by me) to see where we stand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd simply agree on that one.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm begging to differ, and I am putting your genetic argument first of what I answer:

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/02/answering-robert-carters-four-reasons.html

If I'd admit arguing weakly on one point, it would be why there were pre-Flood caves.

I might perhaps venture to add - between us non-geologists - that smaller caves could have become very much deeper during Flood and still have kept some nook with a Neanderthal burial.

Also I wonder if the 12 in El Sidrón weren't trying to huddle from the Flood in the cave and then drown in it.

Btw, if you get sn asking hard questions on baraminology called David Palm, I directed him to you.

IV

David Palm

The questioner in the article mentioned "Homo erectus", "Homo heidelbergensis" and "Homo denisova". I've been reading also recently on Dr. Todd Wood's blog about "Homo naledi" and "Little Foot". Like the questioner in the article, I'm struggling to see how these could all be post-Flood. Would you assign those finds to the post-Flood time frame as well?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For my part, I would consider "erectus" dubious in the Classic form of Java and Peking man, while Heidelbergian and Antecessors share morphology, basically and Antecessors and Denisovans share pretty much of the genome. Ergo, I would take Heidelbergians, Denisovans and Antecessors as one race of pre-Flood mankind. And one where mixed heritage, as for Neanderthal, was on the Ark.

Now, awaiting Carter ....

Robert Carter

You might have to wait a long time. This is not our first interaction and none of the others have gone well. Why would I respond?

David Palm

Alas, mine was a serious question.

Robert Carter

David, yes these all have to be post-Flood as well. We can debate the species names and argue about whether or not they they are human, but they must be post-Flood. This is especially true of the Denisovans, since some people can have up to 5% Denisovan DNA (and 3% Neanderthal at the same time).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Accounted for if the Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA came via Noah's daughters in law.

And not all of them.

"This is not our first interaction and none of the others have gone well."

I agree you have been somewhat churlish at times.

Robert Carter

Uh huh.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, I have dealt with people calling me creatard ... I'm fairly jaded about your degree of churlishness and was making a polite if facetious verbal agreement ....

On the other subthread, I noted you did not appeal best to genetics, since you knew I had answered that part, but to geology, btw ... which is not churlish, just devious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Palm "Dr. Todd Wood's blog about "Homo naledi" and "Little Foot"."

Wd you mind to link?

I'd say, without extracted DNA we cannot absolutely definitely settle human or non-human, and without carbon dates, I am for my part not willing to settle on pre- or post- ... Robert Carter, while I await David Palm's link, your turn ...

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By the way, David Palm, as Carter is a geneticist, wasn't there something you wanted elucidation from one about?

The subjects on which we, Robert Carter and me, did clash previously were:

• Robert Carter thinks mutations are rapidly dooming mankind;
• Robert Carter thinks it was bad enough to "give a platform" to Sungenis
• Robert Carter thinks the blockade agains linking to blogs must stand.

David Palm had a question about a geneticist (which Robert Carter is) saying his say about the theory that the kinds correspond to mainly families, and that he thought rapid speciation after Flood needed very great genetic diversity at Flood.

Either he did not care to ask the question to a Young Earth Creationist geneticist, or he did not care to risk me documenting the interchange by reblogging. Which presupposes two things. There is a high risk or chance of my doing that (touché), and that is bad, so more of a risk than a chance (I'm more or less nonplussed about that attitude, as we are Christian writers on a subject, not bankers discussing business options for the next week's stock market).