Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neanderthals
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

  
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]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024