Replies

I can,t call you a liar because i don,t know exactly what you are saying.

Also i take with a grain of salt what scientists say on many things.

Science starts either by accident or theory and is usually built on from there, for instance the idea of the air plane most likely started with a theory, we now have the airplane but how many theories were tried and failed before one was proven.

Archaeology is a different can of worms because there is no way of knowing if they got every thing to gather right because there is no end product.

Or how do they prove that what they call the conclusion is like the real thing.

Neanderthal DNA turns out to be almost exactly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee

This would indicate that the Neanderthal was half man and half monkey which would contradict the idea that man came from the Neanderthal.

He walked on two feet, made stone implements and weapons including thrusting spears, scrapers, and knives, and was certainly more intelligent than any other creature in his environment prior to the arrival of modern humans

If he was half man and half monkey as the dna suggests then he could not have been here before man, i think the scientists have gotten so overloaded on information that it has crossed their wires.

I believe Archaeology scientists are a lot like the climate scientists in the sense that they do a lot of assuming due to information that may have been false in the first place and no product to prove them right or wrong.

Personally i believe there were two parts of the creation, the first part on the sixth day God created man and woman.

Gen1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God rested on the seventh day and it was after that that he made Adam and Eve.

Just my theory.