• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

religion and the two species of man

Goat

Member
I think both creationism and evolution are dangerously close to absolutism. Evolution doens't permit the idea that life was transplanted here therefore excludes discussion of any scientificly possible argument that it did. If there was evedence that life was perhaps transplanted here to colonize the planet it would take a long time for scientists to allow the idea to be come plausable. Rigidity.
Creationism is absurd unless you want to be a dellusional book-worshipping mystic. I come down harsh on creationists because I throughly believe that God himself never revealed those beginnings to us- at least in such a factual way as to allow us to believe that adam and eve were in fact real people. The archatypes are stunning and they should be left at that. But also in this idea- Rigidity.

Seems easier sometimes to just not believe in anything. You know the root of the word believe is 'to wish' I think.
 

kai

ragamuffin
Goat said:
I think both creationism and evolution are dangerously close to absolutism. Evolution doens't permit the idea that life was transplanted here therefore excludes discussion of any scientificly possible argument that it did. If there was evedence that life was perhaps transplanted here to colonize the planet it would take a long time for scientists to allow the idea to be come plausable. Rigidity.
Creationism is absurd unless you want to be a dellusional book-worshipping mystic. I come down harsh on creationists because I throughly believe that God himself never revealed those beginnings to us- at least in such a factual way as to allow us to believe that adam and eve were in fact real people. The archatypes are stunning and they should be left at that. But also in this idea- Rigidity.

Seems easier sometimes to just not believe in anything. You know the root of the word believe is 'to wish' I think.


this is not intended as a anti anything, i would like to know how people feel about two species of man think about it its wierd, how does it affect your religion or whats your opinion.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Goat said:
I think both creationism and evolution are dangerously close to absolutism. Evolution doens't permit the idea that life was transplanted here therefore excludes discussion of any scientificly possible argument that it did.
Ignorance of evolution is shameful but hardly a crime. Flaunting it, however, is at least questionable.
 

kai

ragamuffin
this thread has been going for 24 hours and i cant beleive that this has no implacations for anyones belief system or creation theory. it made me think very hard when i imagined that there were two species of man contemporary with each other,it didnt stand very well with any christian teachings or old testement that i knew.
well perhaps its me ,perhaps i am wrong perhaps someone may have an opinion after all.
 

kai

ragamuffin
PolyHedral said:
Wasn't it natural selection that wiped the Neanderthal out? I don't have a problem.

yes it was , and thank you for coming into the light.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
I believe that Evolution is cannot be discounted; there is enough evidence to make it as near to empirical proof as possible.

I do believe though, That Something/one acted as a catalyst to "breathe the first breath of life" in the first living creature to inhabit our planet. Until I see human scientists replicating every component of life from 'raw materials', I'll still believe that "God did it".
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
If there were two species of humans, I'm sure that God loves each of us the same.
 

kai

ragamuffin
michel said:
I believe that Evolution is cannot be discounted; there is enough evidence to make it as near to empirical proof as possible.

I do believe though, That Something/one acted as a catalyst to "breathe the first breath of life" in the first living creature to inhabit our planet. Until I see human scientists replicating every component of life from 'raw materials', I'll still believe that "God did it".

i understand that but how does it sit with you that there were once two separate species of man living at the same time. although reading your post again i see that it wouldnt really affect you.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
kai said:
i understand that but how does it sit with you that there were once two separate species of man living at the same time. although reading your post again i see that it wouldnt really affect you.

Good.:biglaugh: Sorry, couldn't help it.
 

Rejected

Under Reconstruction
I really don’t see how religion has anything to do with it.

Here you have two species, each significantly more advanced than the species that they coexist with, both fighting for that top spot on the food chain in a very dangerous environment. You could probably throw Smilodon on the lost if you wanted to. Those species who were ill equipped to adapt to the environment and procure recourses essential to survival died out by default. Those who were able to survive on their own then had the other species to contend with. Smilodon was a major threat to early humans, and it stands to reason that they were eradicated wherever humans could find them. Since they both had the same prey population then that’s pretty much everywhere. Bye-bye kitty.

You could use the same theory applying it to the Neanderthals. The two species probably competed with each other for just about everything: food, shelter, trade routes, you name it. The difference is that Cro-Magnon man had a distinct advantage when it came to brain power. They were physically inferior to their cousins the Neanderthal, and in a fist fight would probably get ripped limb from limb, literally, then eaten. But Cro-Magnon had the great equalizer - they could make weapons. More specifically, the bow; it would allow them to safely bring down prey, resulting in less injury than with simple spears and stone knives, decreasing death rates due to infection, etc. The bow would also allow them to kill their slope-headed cousins without fear of direct physical confrontation.

Let the Genocide begin.
 

kai

ragamuffin
Rejected said:
I really don’t see how religion has anything to do with it.

Here you have two species, each significantly more advanced than the species that they coexist with, both fighting for that top spot on the food chain in a very dangerous environment. You could probably throw Smilodon on the lost if you wanted to. Those species who were ill equipped to adapt to the environment and procure recourses essential to survival died out by default. Those who were able to survive on their own then had the other species to contend with. Smilodon was a major threat to early humans, and it stands to reason that they were eradicated wherever humans could find them. Since they both had the same prey population then that’s pretty much everywhere. Bye-bye kitty.

You could use the same theory applying it to the Neanderthals. The two species probably competed with each other for just about everything: food, shelter, trade routes, you name it. The difference is that Cro-Magnon man had a distinct advantage when it came to brain power. They were physically inferior to their cousins the Neanderthal, and in a fist fight would probably get ripped limb from limb, literally, then eaten. But Cro-Magnon had the great equalizer - they could make weapons. More specifically, the bow; it would allow them to safely bring down prey, resulting in less injury than with simple spears and stone knives, decreasing death rates due to infection, etc. The bow would also allow them to kill their slope-headed cousins without fear of direct physical confrontation.

Let the Genocide begin.

yes i agree but i was hoping for a religious view you know adam and eve kind of thing

or god created man in his neandertal image but changed his mind to cro--magnon after the flood kind of thing
 

updoc101

New Member
The bible as an authority of the origins of man is totally empty. The book itself is simply a compendium of oral traditions compiled primarily by a group of rich white men with political agendas. Evolutionary theory has changed tremendously since Darwin’s original papers were written, much as Newton’s theories have been expanded on over the centuries. Even Einstein’s theories had room for improvement. That does not make them wrong. They did the best they could with the science available in their respective eras. My question is why has the church always been so afraid of learning how the universe really works? Religion consistently continues to paint itself into a smaller and smaller intellectual box from where there is no retreat. There should be no fear in discovering what truths science has to tell us. The universe is most certainly populated with organisms of every imaginable (and unimaginable as well) species. How did they get their start? Is the answer panspermia? The seeds of life are perhaps ubiquitous in the Universe. Of course the religious will say, “Well but even if that is true, then where was the original seed derived from? Surely that is evidence of a creator.” The most plausible explanation is that the universe itself is the creator and that it is the nature of a universe to create nature. It opens up so many questions that science cannot answer, yet. But in a hundred years, or 500, or a thousand many of these questions will be answered. It is my fervent hope that by then religion will be as much a relic of antiquity as Pompeii.
 
Top