It’s very impressive what scientists can do with samples this old. Here is a link to the research article - https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/10/27/2011765117
Very impressive!
Meanwhile, I still have Young Earth Creationist friends who tell me, “What scientists call Neanderthal man was just the skeleton of an old man afflicted with arthritis.”
Last I checked there is still a video on Youtube from Ray Comfort’s ministry which includes Kurt Cameron making that very claim.
So whenever I read fascinating articles like this one I reflect on how science continually marches forward in providing more and more information—while anti-science tropes and disinformation which I first heard in the 1950’s and 1960’s live on unchanged. There is no progress.
The knowledge “gulf” continues to grow. And that should actually encourage us to be compassionate towards our misinformed brethren. (Most are good people who have simply trusted the wrong “authorities”.)
What amazes me is the progress in ancient DNA.
They are referencing a particular Neanderthal man.
Any creationist who look into it seriously would believe all Neanderthals are human.
I wonder if any of the researchers actually have children. Breast milk has more calories per ounce than solid food. The main reason to introduce it at 5-6 months is because babies can swallow and because it’s fun to watch them learn something new. It is not necessary until later and breast milk is more than adequate. It shows the humanity of the parents (mom who wants a break from nursing 
) not the physiology of the child to begin weaning at that age.
Who were the Neanderthals? | Natural History Museum.
Then you agree humans existed 130,000 years ago??? Seems contrary to your YEC belief…
No, just that the dating is wrong 
Neanderthals lived during an ice age or soon after as far as I’ve looked at it. Until the climate settled, dating is confused. Couldn’t tell you why. Generally the order of events when using a particular method is correct. But mixing dating methods puts things out of order.
So, what I am hearing you say is that science that disproves YEC (the bulk of all geology, astrophysics and biology, basically all science) is wrong. You do realized that there was no ice age after 4000 BC, right? The “climate settled” well before 4000 BC.
Well, astrophysics will prove YEC right and probably in the next 5-20 years. Mainstream biology will prove YEC right and probably within the next 50-100 years. Geology will probably take longer.
You missed my whole post on Nimrod where I discussed how the Babylonian World Map shows evidence of a northern hemisphere ice sheet.
I am curious, why these date ranges?
Me too. Can someone provide a link?
What makes you trust creation scientists over mainstream scientists? What about faithful Christians who are also scientists?
The answers to these questions are not black and white, they do not fit into either/or categories. The answers are complex and require thinking and rethinking. Lets not throw out the baby with bathwater (either faith or science) by locking ourselves into narrow interpretations.
This Babylonian World Map?
Exactly where does this little broken clay tablet of a small region surrounding Babylon show any “evidence” of a northern hemisphere ice sheet? It doesn’t really show “evidence” of anything, other than perhaps the flow of water in and out of the city and surrounding areas. Not to mention that it is not in any sense an accurate depiction of the geography…
I am starting to equate YEC with flat-earthism…conspiracy theory at a very poor theological level, valuing ignorance above all. I don’t say that to be mean, I like you very much, I just don’t understand the intensity behind hanging on to a theory that is so easily contradicted through science (which is man discovering God’s natural order).
I strongly agree and inasmuch as I have given my life in service to Jesus, I know that His Word addresses truth, while science addresses fact. Science cannot address truth, and the Word rarely crosses into addressing fact (only historically, not scientifically). There will occasionally be confirmation between the two, but they are never at odds and one cannot be used to disprove the other.
Do you think the YEC model is not scientific? If so why?
I don’t see how you equate the two. YEC is a much more complex theory. If you state they both make claims that are problematic given empirical evidence then you have to lump many other theories into your conspiracy theory category.
Is the claim that all life on earth shares a common ancestor a conspiracy theory?
Do you throw out the science from astronomy and geology that show the age of the universe as being ~14 billion years and the evidence from biology, paleontology and genetics of common descent? If so why?
Regardless of YEC complexity both YEC and Flat-earthism are based on belief and the denial of established science.
I don’t throw it out as there is lots of evidence here. It is a theory to be strongly considered. I also would not through out the YEC model just based on the time issue you are surfacing. Nathaniel Jeanson has produced some very interesting evidence that supports the young life hypothesis.
The conflict in itself is interesting. Even if the time element is wrong other parts of the theory (model) maybe accurate.
I am, on the other hand, not considering a flat earth at this point 
The YEC model is not scientific because it isn’t based on scientific evidence. It’s based on a literal interpretation of a religious text. In science the evidence drives the conclusion. In YEC the conclusion is assumed and evidence twisted and cherry-picked to fit.
It’s hard to get much simpler than POOF! MAGIC! with absolutely zero details. The only “theory” with less value than YEC is Intelligent Design. At least YEC has a proposed timeline.