Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9079 total)
116 online now:
Newest Member: Test Moose
Post Volume: Total: 895,215 Year: 6,327/6,534 Month: 520/650 Week: 58/232 Day: 35/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neanderthals
maxm007
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 159 (1183)
12-24-2001 11:31 AM


I'd like to hear the oppinion of creationists about Neanderthals.
They had art (soul??) , made simple tools, burried their dead , made fire. And then they vanished... We think it's either because Homo Sapiens interbred with them , exterminated them (probably that one) or maybe they just died out.

There is hard evidence that they existed.
How does god fit in between 2 selfaware species?

"and on the eighth day he created the Neanderthal and he saw that it wasn't good"

Maxime Hillaert
Belgium

- There is no spoon -

[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-24-2001]

[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-26-2001]


  
RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 159 (1296)
12-26-2001 10:29 AM


I know very little of the Neanderthals so please do not stereo type what I say as to representing other creationist as this is purely my own thinking without doing any research on the subject as of yet.

Firstly, I find it strange that you consider art to represent a soul. How do you know it was art that they were doing? Your perception of art could not be what they perceive as art and I'm doubtful they even new the concept. Did they some how leave recorded documents as to art so we can know what they perceived as art. Could they have just been doing what comes by instinct following the cycle that God had set into motion. Now, saying they had simple tools is proof of nothing. I was watching an evolution show on monkeys the other day and they were raving on about how incredible it was how they were poking sticks into some ant holes. They said how incredible it was seeing them using tools. Since when had science became so primitive? Thirdly, many animals dig holes and bury stuff, could it not just be instinct. I always wonder how you can draw such conclusions from so little evidence, can you really know they did any of these things you speak of through looking at some fossils? No you can't, just like I heard them saying how the T-Rex may have become extinct from depression resulting in them avoiding the opposite sex. Please, how can they shout such false claims for something of which they have know way of truly knowing, what, did they find the T-Rex's diary or something? Just like you said they made fires, unless they had video cameras how are you to know this, much like everything else you say there. Perhaps us homo sapiens went through, with simple tools, killed them, cooked them over the fire, buried there bones and accidently left some of there art behind. The truth is, what I just said is really ridiculous, much like claiming they can be so certain on the way they lived. You never lived there, so you do not know what really went on. The evidence that is left behind could be taken to form many different ideas. Unfortunately, main stream science is a little caught up in evolution so the evidence will only be taken with straight out bias.

quote:
We think it's either because Homo Sapiens interbred with them...

Wow, I'm doubtful you speak for any real evolutionist there. Since when could two different species successfully mate?

quote:
There is hard evidence that they existed. I don't think the bible says : "and on the eighth day he created the Neanderthal and he saw that it wasn't good"

How does the existing of an extinct animal prove evolution, was it not just another one of Gods creatures, the world has gone through some catastrophic times so all animals are not going to still exist. Why would they get an extra spot in the Bible and why are you trying to bring an 8th day into the picture? I'm sure something along the lines of a Neanderthal existed and when God says He created all the animals I'm sure that is where it is to be included.

Sigh, I'm kinda getting tired of this evolutionary thinking. You have all just become products of society being told exactly how to think. It's both boring and sad.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 12-26-2001 11:08 AM RetroCrono has not replied
 Message 5 by maxm007, posted 12-26-2001 1:03 PM RetroCrono has not replied
 Message 7 by nator, posted 12-27-2001 1:44 PM RetroCrono has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4514 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 159 (1298)
12-26-2001 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by RetroCrono
12-26-2001 10:29 AM


"Wow, I'm doubtful you speak for any real evolutionist there. Since when could two different species successfully mate? "

There is evidence that there was neanderthal/human interbreeding. Some Europeans do have neanderthal adaptions such as heavy bone structure. This evidence isn't particularly conclusive IMO.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RetroCrono, posted 12-26-2001 10:29 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by maxm007, posted 12-26-2001 12:59 PM mark24 has not replied

  
maxm007
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 159 (1304)
12-26-2001 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
12-26-2001 11:08 AM


Thx for that friendly reply, retrocrono.
Why so much obvious frustration?
Read my previous post (Why Creationists panick) , cause you just have proven one my points there.

quote:

I know very little of the Neanderthals so please do not stereo type what I say as to representing other creationist

Here you go!
http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/

quote:

Firstly, I find it strange that you consider art to represent a soul. How do you know it was art that they were doing? Your perception of art could not be what they perceive as art and I'm doubtful they even new the concept.

Well I just called it soul to speak in your language. I refer to it as conscience.
And yes they had humanlike conscience and made jewelry , hundreds of different stone tools, made clothes ánd they made flutes and thus played music. If I'm not mistaken we're the only species with selfawerenes enough to play selfmade melodies with selfmade intruments. So they must have been selfaware.

quote:

Did they some how leave recorded documents as to art so we can know what they perceived as art.

No there is no evidence that they had writing. But that's just a ridiculous argument. We homosapiens didn't even have writing capabilities at that time. Hey even now there are tribes in the amazon who don't write. Are you calling them animals?
You don't need a written report to conduct science and find evidence about their behaviour.

quote:

Thirdly, many animals dig holes and bury stuff, could it not just be instinct. I always wonder how you can draw such conclusions from so little evidence, can you really know they did any of these things you speak of through looking at some fossils?

Animals don't put in gifts and weopons and tools belonging to the cadaver in their holes. They don't put them in fetal position with their heads facing west 99% of the time.
Neither do animals remove the brains from the deceased by widening the nose cavity in the skull (much like egyptians did).
If that's not ceremonial burial, then what is.

quote:

Wow, I'm doubtful you speak for any real evolutionist there. Since when could two different species successfully mate?

Firstly, you quoted me out of context. I had two more possible theories. (adaptation or war with homo sapiens).
The theory you critisize is the least probable. (Ofcourse that's the you chose to critisize)
If two branches of a common ancestor haven't been seperated long enough and thus don't differ too much genetically, it may be possible to crossbreed. But it'd have to be a very small difference.
Recent findings of remnants of neanderthal DNA suggest that they probably couldn't have crossbred. But that wasn't my favorite theory about Neandertal extinction anyway.

quote:

Sigh, I'm kinda getting tired of this evolutionary thinking. You have all just become products of society being told exactly how to think. It's both boring and sad.

Yes, alas I rely for my information on hard working scientist all over the world. Would be nice to get a direct line to god like you.


[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-27-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 12-26-2001 11:08 AM mark24 has not replied

  
maxm007
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 159 (1305)
12-26-2001 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RetroCrono
12-26-2001 10:29 AM


test

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RetroCrono, posted 12-26-2001 10:29 AM RetroCrono has not replied

  
RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 159 (1311)
12-26-2001 10:55 PM


Thanks for the link, I found it very informative, from a bias evolution perspective. But all the same, I learnt a bit. I learnt that science can never really be right, since it made a point at the start of saying how Boule was wrong and since scientific advances we've got a new perspective. How do you know this won't again be the case in 50 years? Anyway, I find it hard to believe they have artist conceptions of it with skin. How do they know, there looking at bones. So saying it is so similar to humans by adjusting the pictures to look like humans does little for know one. I wasn't trying to take you out of context, it's just I found it strange you actually suggested that as "gene flow" is fluff. mark24, why can you not look at the evidence as it really is, just because some Europeans have a heavier bone structure means they have a heavier bone structure. Simple. Why can you not look at the evidence for what it is. I find the creationist stand point for why there are so many races is very credible, logical and feasible. All races of humans are pretty much biologically the same. So, observing the evidence you can draw a conclusion evolution didn't work for the evolving of the humans. Why you ask? Well, lets take a look on all the different languages around, atleast 200, even more. Now, animals make there noises pretty much from instinct. However, humans are different, each grouping into there own languages, why is this so? Well, from an evolutionary perspective, every single group of languages would have had to evolved seperately. So, for them to be biologically the same is either, a chance coincedence since they would have had to evolve in all the different environments from around the world yet ended up pretty much the same. That is not possible. So, they all must of come from a homo sapien that had evolved to what we are today, then branched out from there. However, there is the language problem, it doesn't work. A language isn't something that you can just come up with, with no prior knowledge. Through history there are cases of children being locked away and never hearing any language. Even when they are adults they do not speak any real descriptive language. However, they have the brain capacity to do so. Now lets look at the creationist stand point. God made the two original human with one language. Through tests, we can see that close interbreding of such can quickly result into many different races, so that explains that. Now we have the languages, well it explains that to. Try knocking that argument. You can't, simply because that is how it probably happened. I never panick at anything any evolutionist have to say, if I did then I would have to re-think my faith. So don't come to such bias conclusions, perhaps you should use a bit of Jesus philosophy when making such rash judgement.

All I see of the Neanderthals is that they were very smart creatures. Without first hand seeing what the evidence points to, then I'll have to take there bias evolutionary views for stuff that is a lot of guess work when fitting it into what evolved into what. But all the same, I do not see how this disaproves creation, I'm sure there are 1000's of creatures that are no longer around, both smart and well, not so smart. God is an incredible designer and the Neanderthals are just more testimony to his incredible creations.

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-26-2001]


  
nator
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 159 (1328)
12-27-2001 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RetroCrono
12-26-2001 10:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RetroCrono:
I know very little of the Neanderthals so please do not stereo type what I say as to representing other creationist as this is purely my own thinking without doing any research on the subject as of yet.

I really must know why it is that you feel confident to have any opinion at all about Neanderthals if you admit to knowing nearly nothing about them.

It would be like me holding forth about the details and nature of black holes, even though I know very little about black holes.

quote:
Firstly, I find it strange that you consider art to represent a soul. How do you know it was art that they were doing? Your perception of art could not be what they perceive as art and I'm doubtful they even new the concept.

How can you doubt something you know nothing about?

quote:
Did they some how leave recorded documents as to art so we can know what they perceived as art.

Of course not, and recorded documents are not needed in order to make a valid inference about the past. The field of Paleoanthropology wouldn't exist if one always needed a document. Hell, a lot of crimes wouldn't ever be solved if you couldn't tell what happened in the past without a document.

quote:
Could they have just been doing what comes by instinct following the cycle that God had set into motion.

Ritual burial practices are instincual?

quote:
Now, saying they had simple tools is proof of nothing. I was watching an evolution show on monkeys the other day and they were raving on about how incredible it was how they were poking sticks into some ant holes.

It was probably chimpanzees, not monkeys.

quote:
They said how incredible it was seeing them using tools. Since when had science became so primitive? Thirdly, many animals dig holes and bury stuff, could it not just be instinct.

Actually, there is a great deal of first-hand evidence that tool use in Chimps is learned.

Also, the idea that only humans used tools was recent (meaning in the last 40 years or so).

http://chimpanzoo.arizona.edu/study/tools.html

"For many years, humans had distinguished themselves from the rest of the animal world by their ability to make and use tools. In the 1960's, this distinction was shattered when Dr. Jane Goodall reported several observations of chimpanzees making and using tools. She learned that chimpanzees not only used various tools for different tasks, but modified objects for tools so that they were better suited for the tasks. Humans were faced with the fact that they were not as far from their primate relatives as they had liked to believe.

In the forests of Tanzania, Dr. Goodall observed chimpanzees carefully choosing sticks and then stripping them of their leaves so that they could be used to fish for termites and ants. The twigs are broken, shaped with fingers and teeth, and inserted into termite mounds to capture insects whose bites are very painful. The termites attack and cling to the stick, allowing the chimpanzee to quickly pull the stick out and eat the termites. The use of a twig as a tool allows the chimpanzee to avoid being stung.

Almost as fascinating as the fact that they make and use these sticks for tools is the process by which they learn to do so. Chimpanzees are not born with these skills, they must learn them by watching adults, usually their mothers. Female chimpanzees seem to have more success in termite fishing, perhaps only because they are more patient during the learning process and do not give up frustrated as the males are apt to do.

Termite fishing is not the only example of tool use in chimpanzees. In addition, leaves are chewed until softened and used for sponges to clean wounds or to absorb liquids for ingesting. Certain groups of chimpanzees use rocks as hammers and anvils to crack open palm nuts so they can eat the meat inside. One troop of chimpanzees has been observed using pieces of bark to protect their hands and feet as they climb trees with prickly branches. Chimpanzees sometimes eat plants that they would normally avoid because they are hard to swallow or bitter. Research has shown that these plants have medicinal qualities, such as controlling intestinal parasites.

The differences in tool use between different troops of chimpanzees can be seen as a form of culture. There are many groups of chimpanzees who have access to palm nuts and rocks and yet do not engage in nut cracking. The techniques used for termite fishing differ between groups of chimpanzees. Some will use a short stick which they use to collect the termites and then remove the termites with their mouths. Others choose a longer stick and quickly sweep the termites off the twig with their hands and then into their mouths. Just as in humans, much of chimpanzee behavior is learned and passed down from generation to generation."

quote:
I always wonder how you can draw such conclusions from so little evidence, can you really know they did any of these things you speak of through looking at some fossils? No you can't,

It's much more than just fossils. We also have a lot of artifacts, and the evidence that Neanderthal buried their dead with ritual paining and special objects.

quote:
just like I heard them saying how the T-Rex may have become extinct from depression resulting in them avoiding the opposite sex.

Please list your source.

quote:
Just like you said they made fires, unless they had video cameras how are you to know this, much like everything else you say there. Perhaps us homo sapiens went through, with simple tools, killed them, cooked them over the fire, buried there bones and accidently left some of there art behind.

The truth is, what I just said is really ridiculous, much like claiming they can be so certain on the way they lived. You never lived there, so you do not know what really went on. The evidence that is left behind could be taken to form many different ideas.


Again, considering you know nothing about Neanderthals, why should any of your ideas be given any credence at all?

quote:
Unfortunately, main stream science is a little caught up in evolution so the evidence will only be taken with straight out bias.

Bias towards credible evidence is a good thing.

quote:
quote:
We think it's either because Homo Sapiens interbred with them...

Wow, I'm doubtful you speak for any real evolutionist there. Since when could two different species successfully mate?


the book is still out on this in Biology, but it is certainly possible.

quote:
Sigh, I'm kinda getting tired of this evolutionary thinking. You have all just become products of society being told exactly how to think. It's both boring and sad.

The study of the diversity of life on the planet is exciting and amazing; hardly sad.

It is a wonderful unraveling of a puzzle.

You would have me simply, simplistically, say "Godidit" according to your particular interpretation of the Christian Bible.

If you had not been raised in a Christian country, you wouldn't be thinking like this, you know. If you were born in India, you would probably be a Hindu, and if you were born in China, you wouuld either be an Atheist or a Buddhist. If you were born in Italy, you would have been Catholic, which has no problem with the ToE.

[Fixed quoting. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 09-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RetroCrono, posted 12-26-2001 10:29 AM RetroCrono has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 159 (53146)
09-01-2003 1:54 AM


Where are they now?
Can someone explain to me why none of the "in between" species of the whole "monkey to man" thing, exist today? Why do we have monkey's, and humans.... Yet evolutionists believe there were a whole bunch of other species in between "evolving" to where we are today. How is it that non of them survived? If we come from monkeys.... It's odd that they still exist, but none of the other half-man/half-monkey things in between are around.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Karl, posted 09-01-2003 7:24 AM rabair has not replied
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 09-01-2003 8:25 AM rabair has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 159 (53174)
09-01-2003 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by rabair
09-01-2003 1:54 AM


Re: Where are they now?
If you're going to take it back to a common ancestor that's monkeylike, then the descendants of the actual transitional species would be all the extant great apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 1:54 AM rabair has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4514 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 159 (53178)
09-01-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by rabair
09-01-2003 1:54 AM


Re: Where are they now?
Rabair,

We didn't evolve from extant monkeys. The great apes & old world monkeys share a common ancestor, in the meantime there have been a lot of casualties, but the species that survived to the present day are OWM & great apes.

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 1:54 AM rabair has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 11 of 159 (53216)
09-01-2003 11:26 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 159 (53240)
09-01-2003 2:24 PM


Where are they now (again)?
Okay, I posted this in the Neanderthal thread, which I got 2 mumbo jumbo replies to before the thread was closed. Can someone please tell me where all the species between monkey and man, are today. How is it that monkey's are around, and men are around, yet there aren't species of hunched over nuckle dragging guys around. Where are like the previous 2 or 3 versions of man? I find it hard to believe that they would somehow go extinct completely. Don't give me this "we didn't come from extant", or whatever. If you have a real answer, tell me why none of them are here today.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 09-01-2003 4:20 PM rabair has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 159 (53241)
09-01-2003 2:25 PM


quote:
Can someone please tell me where all the species between monkey and man, are today.

Dead. You can find them in the fossil record. I don't know why this is such a hard anser to grasp. Most species that ever lived are dead. The same goes for our ancestry.

quote:
How is it that monkey's are around, and men are around, yet there aren't species of hunched over nuckle dragging guys around.

You just described the great apes.

quote:
Where are like the previous 2 or 3 versions of man?

Dead.

quote:
I find it hard to believe that they would somehow go extinct completely.

Why? Most species have gone extinct, and more go extinct every day. It happens. The fact is that we were never a very successful branch. Our particular line is the only one that survived.

quote:
Don't give me this "we didn't come from extant", or whatever.

Lol... even if it is true? Think about it. Assume our line diverged from the rest of the hominids 1 million years ago. That means we have had 1 million years to change. Well, it also means that all those other hominids have had one million years to change. Insisting that we evolved from something that is alive today is opposite to common sense.

quote:
If you have a real answer, tell me why none of them are here today.

Because they have had as much time to change as we have, and as much time to go extinct. We managed to survive, but just barely. Evidence suggests that our ancestors once numbered only a few thousand.

There is no rule demanding that once a species appears, it stays around forever. Most species don't stay around long at all.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 4:46 PM John has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 159 (53255)
09-01-2003 3:02 PM


Coming back to Neanderthal's, what makes us so sure they were not just men with prominent foreheads ?
Afterall Aboriginees are human but we don't call them 'Neanderthals'. It is an unfortunate misconception that Neanderthals are portrayed as half man , half monkey. I simply think they were men, or 'human'. If I am totally wrong about this please tell me. Why aren't they human ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DC85, posted 09-01-2003 4:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 15 of 159 (53266)
09-01-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by rabair
09-01-2003 2:24 PM


Re: Where are they now (again)?
rabair writes:

Okay, I posted this in the Neanderthal thread, which I got 2 mumbo jumbo replies to before the thread was closed.

Perhaps you didn't intend to express it this way, but your reference to "mumbo jumbo replies" and thread closure makes it sound like you think the thread was closed in order to prevent further discussion. Precisely the opposite is the case. The thread was not closed, it was moved to the Human Origins forum because it is a more appropriate venue that will likely draw increased attention. A closed copy with a comment about the new location was left in The Great Debate forum from which it was moved so that people looking for it in the old location could easily find it here.

------------------

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 2:24 PM rabair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by rabair, posted 09-01-2003 4:36 PM Admin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022