Hambo Says Neanderthals Were Fully Human

As you know if you read Hambo and His Neanderthal Relatives, which we wrote a few months ago, Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else — claims:

Neanderthals were a human variety, descended from Adam and Eve, through Noah and his sons, and eventually died out.

He continues that theme in the newest post at Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Did Neanderthals Live Violent Lives? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Neanderthals have long been considered our evolutionary cousins and are usually portrayed as brutish and uncivilized as shown in some kids’ TV programs. But this view has consistently been shown to be wrong. We now know Neanderthals wore jewelry and makeup, made instruments and tools, and more.

They could have been brutes who wore makeup. Anyway, Hambo says:

Of course, this is exactly what we’d expect starting with God’s Word, which teaches humans are all one race.

No, it just mentions Adam & Eve, the authors of Genesis being unaware of anything else. Hambo continues:

Neanderthals simply reflect the incredibly variety within humans. And with yet another study, another evolutionary idea about Neanderthals bites the dust.

Hambo links to this article in Science News: Skull damage suggests Neandertals led no more violent lives than humans. He tells us:

Due to many Neanderthal fossils with head injuries, evolutionary scientists have long believed Neanderthals lived very dangerous lives and were frequently injured due to fights, cave bear attacks, and hunting accidents. But this new study shows that other humans [Hee hee!] living at the same time had a similar number of head injuries.

Those were difficult times. Lots of head-bonking. He continues:

Therefore, it appears their lives were no more violent than the lives of what they call early modern Europeans (peoples who lived after Babel, just like Neanderthals). [Yeah, right!] After all, human nature has always been the same — permeated by sin!

The article in Science News doesn’t mention sin. And somehow, Hambo makes no reference to the article’s statement that Neandertals [their spelling] inhabited Europe and Asia between around 400,000 and 40,000 years ago. He ends his brief post with this:

Contrary to popular opinion, Neanderthals were not backwards brutes that were less evolved than us. They were fully human [Like Hambo], made in the image of God. Time and time again, what we observe in the world confirms what we expect starting with God’s Word.

And what do we learn from this, dear reader? We learn that if you refer to Neanderthals as pre-human, you’re insulting Hambo, because he considers himself to be much closer to the Neanderthals than that. And he’s equally certain that he ain’t no kin to no monkey.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “Hambo Says Neanderthals Were Fully Human

  1. I think Hambone got his views of Neanderthals from children’s comic books. They’ve long been considered a species or subspecies of Homo: Homo neanderthalensis, or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Many people of European ancestry have bits of their DNA; according to 23 and Me, I have about 4.5% neanderthatl DNA, and I’m proud of it. Being related to Hambone, not so much.

  2. So that’s settled. Now what about Denisovans, Australopithecus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Naledi, …. ? When is Hambo going to enlighten us further?

  3. Hambo says “Neanderthals were a human variety, descended from Adam and Eve, through Noah and his sons, and eventually died out.”
    I’m checking MY bible Hammy and darn it I just can’t find the passage you’re referencing / inventing. I think you’ve just manufactured a new denominational dispute !!!! Well done !!!!
    Will you making up more trash pies for the camels across the street or is that it for today?

  4. And remember that Noah’s Flood happened about 2450 BC.

  5. @hans435
    I believe creationists — including the Discoveroids — relegate Australopithecines firmly to the “ape” lineage, with all the others you
    mention as reflecting the “incredibly [sic] variety within humans.”

  6. Neanderthals were a human variety, descended from Adam and Eve, through Noah and his sons, and eventually died out.
    A. Strange the Bible makes no mention of these “black sheep” members of the other bible heroes.
    B. Obviously any dating of neanderthal fossils is totally wrong.
    C. Did the Neanderthal kin suddenly undergo large, negative genetic changes?

  7. Let me add
    D. Isn’t it strange that we can find the remains of these kinfolk, but no remains of any other bible heroes like Adam, eve, Noah, et. Al?

  8. @ChrisS
    The distinction between the “ape” and the “human” lineage is not that clear-cut. There are still disputes in creationist circles.

  9. Of course Ol’Hambo carefully avoids mentioning any name of any paleontologist of last say 50 years who entertained such ideas. Also he carefully doesn’t mention the novel Clan of the Cave Bear, which described Neanderthals as far less violent than Homo Sapiens. I can’t be bothered to look it up, but I remember that that was suggested as one of the causes that they died out. Given human preferences for genocide it was not unlikely.
    But hey, when was the last time Ol’Hambo honestly presented all relevant facts? Exactly, I can’t remember it either.

  10. @hans435
    Yes, often they can’t agree on which category to assign certain hominin fossils, which argues for their transitional status to begin with. But most creationists — whether it’s AiG or Casey Luskin — have argued for an unbridgeable divide between the australopithecines, and the genus Homo, rather than, say, the distinction paleoanthropologists make between those fossils on the general hominin line, and those that are apes proper.

    I believe paleoanthropologists regard species within the genus Paranthropus as hominin, but as a side branch, not on the direct evolutionary line that led to Homo. Creationists would see P. Boisei, for example, as just another extinct ape.

  11. “There are still disputes in creationist circles.”

    Creationists can’t even agree on the definition of “kinds”. Every time one of them comes up with a definition literally any biologist/paleontologist can point to a second “kind” that is so close to the first “kind” that creationists have to backpedal.

  12. See the Talk.Origins FAQ on creationists deciding which is an ape and which is a human:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

    I think that there are other sites about the differences between creationists about which is ape and which is human.

  13. Of course Homo naledi is an ape. So is Homo self-styled sapiens. Otherwise you have an impossible line-drawing problem.

    Is it H. neanderthalis (a sister species) or H. sapiens neanderthalis (a variety of the same species)? That depends on where you draw the line round the fuzzy concept “species”. Darwin was aware of this essentially semantic problem.

    But creationists must regard neanderthals as the same species, since the concept of “sister species” is alien to them.

    But then they do have the concept of “same kind” which includes different species and even genera.

    I give up

  14. Paul Braterman says: “Homo self-styled sapiens.”

    That’s excellent.

  15. If one were to stick to the Bible, then we see the Bible makes it clear that humans do not belong to a “kind”. The sequence of creations of life forms in Genesis follows a pattern of using “kind” with regard to plants, aquatic animals, flying animals, and terrestrial animals, and then pointedly does not use the word “kind” with regard to the origin of humans. Humans are in the image of God. Nowhere in the Bible does the Hebrew word MIN (“kind”) apply to humans.
    If one assumes that the word “kind” means something other than “species”, then there is little to guide us as to what it does mean in Biblical Hebrew. There is very little in the way of taxonomy of life in the Bible. The important tihing distinguishing animals is “clean” vs. “unclean”, and any clean animal can become unclean by what happens to it. There is no reason to believe that “kind” is any exception to the lack of interest in taxonomy. There is no indication that “kind” behaves like a taxonomic term: that there is a concept of “being of the same kind”, for example; or that “being of the same kind” is inherited, or fixed over the life of an individual, or that any individual living thing belongs to exactly one and only one kind; let alone that there is any “fixity of kinds”, preventing the appearance of new kinds or the extinction of kinds.
    And, of course, there is nothing in the Bible about what we now know to be the majority of life, such as microbes.

  16. Our Curmudgeon speculates

    They could have been brutes who wore makeup.

    Unaccountably, an image of Kellyanne Conway has sprung up in my mind…

  17. …followed by an image of Ann Coulter!

    MAKE IT STOP!

  18. Speaking of Neanderthals, Megalonyx has joined the conversation. How appropriate!

  19. Hey, dear SC, why are you so nasty towards Neanderthals?!

  20. I thought that those hominid skeletons which are not quite Homo sapiens’s where summarily dismissed as humans with a horrible deforming disease. Probably caused by eating too much sin.

  21. FrankB, I’m not “nasty” towards Neanderthals. But I prefer Sapiens — except for creationists.

  22. SC, are you going to post someting about the study in today’s Science as reported in phys.org “The whole of Africa was the cradle of humankind”?

  23. @Megalonyx: re: brutes wearing makeup (Kellyanne Conway, Ann Coulter) — Thanks a lot, Megs. Now I can’t get the vision of a charcoal-eyed Sarah Huckabee Sanders out of my head.

  24. Science News: “Skull damage suggests Neandertals led no more violent lives than humans”
    Ken Ham: “Did Neanderthals Live Violent Lives?”

    It’s only two words “than humans”.
    Ignore the fossil dating to between 80,000 and 20,000 years ago.
    Ignore the comparison to “ancient“ humans.
    No, Kenny Ham manages to turn the article on its head and ignore humans altogether.

    Ken Ham – a man without peer in the pantheon of the cherry pickers.
    His gravestone will read “Liar for God, and proud of it!”.