Neandertals - are we related?
- Thread starter Knucklez
- Start date
We are even related to amoeba
Everything in the universe is related. The Vedas inform us that there are 8,400,000 species of life in the universe, and 400,000 species are types of human.
Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo sapiens, Sapiens, Austropolithecus afarensis, etc. All these are is different types of species which all exist within the 400,000 species of human form of life. We cannot see or know all 400,000 species of human because many of them are not present on this planet. Likewise the other 8 million species do not all reside here among us. So far modern science has identified a little over 1 million species on Earth.
The twist is that Homo sapiens DID NOT evolve from earlier species. The number of species is unchanging. Some live during certain periods and others vanish. Right now there are no Austropolithecus walking amongst us, but that species still exists. That is natural selection, but it is not evolution.
What actually evolves is our soul, gradually rising upwards *through* the different forms of material bodies toward the human form of life, where we are given the ability to determine the next destination of our soul. We can either end the cycle of birth and death or we can remain here and transmigrate.
Everything in the universe is related. The Vedas inform us that there are 8,400,000 species of life in the universe, and 400,000 species are types of human.
Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo sapiens, Sapiens, Austropolithecus afarensis, etc. All these are is different types of species which all exist within the 400,000 species of human form of life. We cannot see or know all 400,000 species of human because many of them are not present on this planet. Likewise the other 8 million species do not all reside here among us. So far modern science has identified a little over 1 million species on Earth.
The twist is that Homo sapiens DID NOT evolve from earlier species. The number of species is unchanging. Some live during certain periods and others vanish. Right now there are no Austropolithecus walking amongst us, but that species still exists. That is natural selection, but it is not evolution.
What actually evolves is our soul, gradually rising upwards *through* the different forms of material bodies toward the human form of life, where we are given the ability to determine the next destination of our soul. We can either end the cycle of birth and death or we can remain here and transmigrate.
Re: We are even related to amoeba
Damn homie you toss'ed me a curve with that one..
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think your refering to creationism.. So I guess you don't believe in the theory of evolution..
"Homo neanderthalensis", some anthropologist are argueing isn't a member of the homo species.. but damn.. as a go back to your post I keep getting lost in what you said..
you are talking about creationism right
Damn homie you toss'ed me a curve with that one..
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think your refering to creationism.. So I guess you don't believe in the theory of evolution..
"Homo neanderthalensis", some anthropologist are argueing isn't a member of the homo species.. but damn.. as a go back to your post I keep getting lost in what you said..
you are talking about creationism right
Well, "evolution vs. creationism" seems to be the inevitable direction of this discussion, but I was just talking about how we are all related in one sense, yet there is also an obvious separation of species. Without gettin way off into it, I will say that I definitely do not fall for the "theory of evolution".
Reason being, "evolution", if traced back to the beginning of life itself, results in the theory of abiogenesis (life coming from inert matter).
The plain truth is that there never has been, nor will there ever be, an instance in which inert matter becomes sentient. There have been numerous experiments to see if it is possible, but none have been successful. Life can only come from living beings. And even if science WAS able to produce life from mixing particular chemicals, that STILL is not an example of abiogenesis, because the scientists would have had to be present to manipulate the chemicals in order to bring forth life.
Abiogenesis means that life came about as a random interaction of chemicals. So if it is random, then it cannot be demonstrated, and if it cannot be demonstrated, it will forever remain a theory.
The truth is that life comes from life. It takes a living being to reproduce and bring forth new life. Rocks do not give birth to baby rocks.
The theory of evolution is simply an observation of the material bodies within nature. That theory is strictly focused on the gross body (outer covering of earth, air, fire, water, ether), and does NOT take into consideration the subtle body (mind, intelligence, false ego), nor does it examine the living force (soul) which exists BEHIND both the subtle and gross bodies.
Darwin's theory is purely materialistic and even though it coincides with natural selection, no one ever seems to question that if nature is *selecting* what species flourish and which ones perish, doesn't that mean that nature ITSELF must possess consciousness, and exist as an entity capable of making *selections*?
Like I said, this subject gets real deep and I don't want to take you away from your original post. If you want to chop it up bout evolution vs. creationism let me know and we can discuss it, for me at least the shit is real interesting.
Reason being, "evolution", if traced back to the beginning of life itself, results in the theory of abiogenesis (life coming from inert matter).
The plain truth is that there never has been, nor will there ever be, an instance in which inert matter becomes sentient. There have been numerous experiments to see if it is possible, but none have been successful. Life can only come from living beings. And even if science WAS able to produce life from mixing particular chemicals, that STILL is not an example of abiogenesis, because the scientists would have had to be present to manipulate the chemicals in order to bring forth life.
Abiogenesis means that life came about as a random interaction of chemicals. So if it is random, then it cannot be demonstrated, and if it cannot be demonstrated, it will forever remain a theory.
The truth is that life comes from life. It takes a living being to reproduce and bring forth new life. Rocks do not give birth to baby rocks.
The theory of evolution is simply an observation of the material bodies within nature. That theory is strictly focused on the gross body (outer covering of earth, air, fire, water, ether), and does NOT take into consideration the subtle body (mind, intelligence, false ego), nor does it examine the living force (soul) which exists BEHIND both the subtle and gross bodies.
Darwin's theory is purely materialistic and even though it coincides with natural selection, no one ever seems to question that if nature is *selecting* what species flourish and which ones perish, doesn't that mean that nature ITSELF must possess consciousness, and exist as an entity capable of making *selections*?
Like I said, this subject gets real deep and I don't want to take you away from your original post. If you want to chop it up bout evolution vs. creationism let me know and we can discuss it, for me at least the shit is real interesting.
Don't most people who believe in creationism believe it happened 10,000yrs ago? The universe has been unchanged since creation, with no new species? These are the two biggest statements (if they are true) I have a problem with in creationism.. For one, if Homo Sapiens are around 100,000yrs old, how come creation doesn't record until 10,000yrs ago? (if these stats are correct, I could be wrong). Then if the universe has been unchanged since creation, then does that mean anything that happened before that 10,000yr marker never happened? Thus Erectus, Habilis and etc never really exsisted?
Your right, Anthropology is very interesting.. I'm still learning a lot about it thou, so forgive me if somethings I say don't make 100% sense..
Your right, Anthropology is very interesting.. I'm still learning a lot about it thou, so forgive me if somethings I say don't make 100% sense..
Yeah, those people adhere to the Judeo-Christian version of creationism believe that, but I do not fall under that category.
The Vedas explain that there are 4 yugas, or ages. Satya yuga is the age of virtue and wisdom, and those who live in that age live for 100,000 years. Then there is Treta yuga, which sees the begin of the decline in virtue and religion, and those who live in that age live for 10,000 years. Then the Dvarapa yuga sees even more degradation of the conditions of life, and those who live in that age live for 1,000 years. Finally, there is the Kali yuga which we are in now, which is marked by quarrel, vices, irreligion and violence. People in this age live at most to be 100, and most don't even make it that far.
So, this clearly is not compatible with the 10,000 year old creationism argument.
The Vedas explain that there are 4 yugas, or ages. Satya yuga is the age of virtue and wisdom, and those who live in that age live for 100,000 years. Then there is Treta yuga, which sees the begin of the decline in virtue and religion, and those who live in that age live for 10,000 years. Then the Dvarapa yuga sees even more degradation of the conditions of life, and those who live in that age live for 1,000 years. Finally, there is the Kali yuga which we are in now, which is marked by quarrel, vices, irreligion and violence. People in this age live at most to be 100, and most don't even make it that far.
So, this clearly is not compatible with the 10,000 year old creationism argument.
We had an "evolution versus creationism" thread a while bacc on here...
I agree with Vyasadeva on the point that life does not come from inert matter. Something does not come from nothing. The idea that evolution started with complete randomness can be discarded when we realize there is no such thing. In the thread of creation versus evolution I suggested both (creation and evolution) to be true in ways. I have had this discussion with my father many times. Who, might I add, leans more toward atheism. He describes the events in the creating of our planet and of life a "random" thing that could have easily happened given billions of years and infinite possiblities. Looking at it from a relative perspective it appears to be random. I suggested to him that infinity must be infinite in all aspects or it isn't worthy of the title "infinity". Meaning it must be infinite in intelligence. And from an absolute viewpoint there is a Mind behind all that appears random.
Creation, according to the bible, is only the beginning of the physical universe as we know it today. Existence is eternal because God is eternal. Everything that is here now has always been here, but in another form, perhaps.
The following is an excerpt from a post I made on the "Random chance versus specific design" thread:
"I feel what most of us think about creation is the idea literally portrayed in the bible of an "empty" existence with things all of the sudden being created. In reality, because creation never had a beginning, the creation of our world as we know it was merely an evolution of what was already here."
I agree with Vyasadeva on the point that life does not come from inert matter. Something does not come from nothing. The idea that evolution started with complete randomness can be discarded when we realize there is no such thing. In the thread of creation versus evolution I suggested both (creation and evolution) to be true in ways. I have had this discussion with my father many times. Who, might I add, leans more toward atheism. He describes the events in the creating of our planet and of life a "random" thing that could have easily happened given billions of years and infinite possiblities. Looking at it from a relative perspective it appears to be random. I suggested to him that infinity must be infinite in all aspects or it isn't worthy of the title "infinity". Meaning it must be infinite in intelligence. And from an absolute viewpoint there is a Mind behind all that appears random.
Creation, according to the bible, is only the beginning of the physical universe as we know it today. Existence is eternal because God is eternal. Everything that is here now has always been here, but in another form, perhaps.
The following is an excerpt from a post I made on the "Random chance versus specific design" thread:
"I feel what most of us think about creation is the idea literally portrayed in the bible of an "empty" existence with things all of the sudden being created. In reality, because creation never had a beginning, the creation of our world as we know it was merely an evolution of what was already here."
"The idea that evolution started with complete randomness"
No it was not, the hypothesis came from observations of the environment all over the world and observing how similar species developed different features based on their environment. It became a theory after the ample amount of evidence including fossils being found all over the world.
"can be discarded when we realize there is no such thing"
Evidence would prove otherwise... There is huge amounts of evidence supporting evolution and none that would disprove. Something you need to understand about a scientific theory, one of the main objections of scientence is to try and disprove a theory, and when they are inable to it further supports the theory, and as of yet, it has not been disproven, but has been proven many times...
"events in the creating of our planet and of life a "random" thing"
Ive said this a million times, evolution is NOT RANDOM, it is a SLOW DIRECT PROGRESSION. Their is nothing random about a branching out tree, one branch devolops off another, and that devolops off another branch, down to the base of the tree. Their are no random branches floating in mid air, everything is connected, everything is related, purely syntactical....
No it was not, the hypothesis came from observations of the environment all over the world and observing how similar species developed different features based on their environment. It became a theory after the ample amount of evidence including fossils being found all over the world.
"can be discarded when we realize there is no such thing"
Evidence would prove otherwise... There is huge amounts of evidence supporting evolution and none that would disprove. Something you need to understand about a scientific theory, one of the main objections of scientence is to try and disprove a theory, and when they are inable to it further supports the theory, and as of yet, it has not been disproven, but has been proven many times...
"events in the creating of our planet and of life a "random" thing"
Ive said this a million times, evolution is NOT RANDOM, it is a SLOW DIRECT PROGRESSION. Their is nothing random about a branching out tree, one branch devolops off another, and that devolops off another branch, down to the base of the tree. Their are no random branches floating in mid air, everything is connected, everything is related, purely syntactical....
You are misunderstanding. If the theory of evolution is traced back to the beginnings of life itself, the only theory which can support it is abiogenesis, which says that life sprung randomly from inert matter. Then, after life magically arose from nothing, the theory of evolution says that life has evolved into what it is today.
Evolution and abiogenesis are inherently related.
I think he meant that there is no such thing as randomness. Unfortunately, although nature is SELECTING which species thrive and which do not, the theory of evolution when traced back to it's beginning, can ONLY be supported by the idea that long ago before there was life there where chemicals (where did these chemicals come from?), and that a RANDOM INTERACTION of these chemicals (it must be random, because if it were controlled that would mean an intelligent conscious being is responsible, and evolutionists CAN'T have God doing things), LIFE SUDDENLY AROSE.
Nevermind that this has never been observed or demonstrated, nevermind that we have PLENTY of evidence which says that LIFE comes from LIFE. If the theory of evolution is correct that means that some ridiculous theory must be correct and that our testifiable and verifiable evidence must be incorrect.
Yes, but this is simply your observation of the current state of life. The question is from where did life spring? The theory of evolution cannot answer that, and the theory which SUPPORTS it, abiogenesis, says that life arose randomly and by chance. So if abiogenesis is a random occurrence which results in life, then the evolution of that life is ALSO random. If the beginning of life is NOT random, meaning it has a particular fixed origin, then the evolution of life is NOT random.
Evolution and abiogenesis are inherently related.
I think he meant that there is no such thing as randomness. Unfortunately, although nature is SELECTING which species thrive and which do not, the theory of evolution when traced back to it's beginning, can ONLY be supported by the idea that long ago before there was life there where chemicals (where did these chemicals come from?), and that a RANDOM INTERACTION of these chemicals (it must be random, because if it were controlled that would mean an intelligent conscious being is responsible, and evolutionists CAN'T have God doing things), LIFE SUDDENLY AROSE.
Nevermind that this has never been observed or demonstrated, nevermind that we have PLENTY of evidence which says that LIFE comes from LIFE. If the theory of evolution is correct that means that some ridiculous theory must be correct and that our testifiable and verifiable evidence must be incorrect.
Yes, but this is simply your observation of the current state of life. The question is from where did life spring? The theory of evolution cannot answer that, and the theory which SUPPORTS it, abiogenesis, says that life arose randomly and by chance. So if abiogenesis is a random occurrence which results in life, then the evolution of that life is ALSO random. If the beginning of life is NOT random, meaning it has a particular fixed origin, then the evolution of life is NOT random.
This is a very astute observation. I both agree and disagree with it. Let me explain:
The external energy of the Lord (material energy) exists eternally. This external energy is what we consider matter, the universe. Although it is eternally existing as an energy of the Lord, it is not eternally *manifest*. There is a period in which no material universes are manifest, and at this time, althought the external energy of the Lord is existing, it is not existing in the form of cosmological manifestation.
So on one hand it is true that the universe itself *IS* created, that is, it has a definite beginning point, middle period, and it will be annihilated. Yet on the other hand it is also true that the ENERGY which the universe consists of, is eternal and has no beginning.
I hope this is understandable. Very intricate subject matter, to say the least.
The external energy of the Lord (material energy) exists eternally. This external energy is what we consider matter, the universe. Although it is eternally existing as an energy of the Lord, it is not eternally *manifest*. There is a period in which no material universes are manifest, and at this time, althought the external energy of the Lord is existing, it is not existing in the form of cosmological manifestation.
So on one hand it is true that the universe itself *IS* created, that is, it has a definite beginning point, middle period, and it will be annihilated. Yet on the other hand it is also true that the ENERGY which the universe consists of, is eternal and has no beginning.
I hope this is understandable. Very intricate subject matter, to say the least.
That's a typical misconception people have about creationists.
Biblically speaking, the flood occured just a few thousand years ago. And there's no telling when creation occured, according to the bible. One can speculate, but that's all it is....
Did you know that there's evidence that suggests humans and Neandertals lived together? There is evidence suggesting that they were another breed of human, and not ape.
They had language, religion, etc....
Biblically speaking, the flood occured just a few thousand years ago. And there's no telling when creation occured, according to the bible. One can speculate, but that's all it is....
Did you know that there's evidence that suggests humans and Neandertals lived together? There is evidence suggesting that they were another breed of human, and not ape.
They had language, religion, etc....
@Vyasadeva, evolution is not the root of the tree, its the proceeding branches that evovle out of the tree. It is not there to explain how the tree got there, its there to explain how we evolved to this state. Now as far as how the first form of living matter existed, there is a theory that a reaction in the atmosphere caused it, but I'll have to double check that and get back at ya. Thing is tho, what makes you think the most logical answer is that a being created it? To me thats extreemly more far fetched and has no evidence supporting it...