How do we explain Neanderthals?

[jckstraw72]

except, how to understand the creative acts of God, the origin of death, the world before the Fall, etc - this is theology.

 

[jckstraw72]

Nope. Kids are too smart for that. They are not going to believe that the Earth is 7500 years old.

cause unquestioningly believing what their biology teacher says is like, totally the summit of smart

 

[Kristos]

at least on the issue of man's mortality, which Army Matt was speaking about, there is no ambiguity on the subject. we often here on this matter that "the Church has not expressed itself" -- meaning it's not been dealt with by an Ecumenical Council, but, at the very least, the issue of man and death has in fact been addressed by Ecumenical Council:

Canon 109 of African Code, (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at the Ecumenical Councils of Trullo and Nicea II.

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.

Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.

superfluous - this doesn't "prove" anything on the subject since no one has claimed that Adam, first human was subject to death before the fall.

 

[Kristos]

except, how to understand the creative acts of God, the origin of death, the world before the Fall, etc - this is theology.

Yep - stick to theology.

 

[Kristos]

cause unquestioningly believing what their biology teacher says is like, totally the summit of smart

As opposed to believing you?

 

[stephen583]

Anthropologists estimate that the Neandertal population never was more than about 25,000 at any one time so they were quite widely scattered. You are correct that their last stand seems to have been in Spain in the region of Gibraltar but IIRC it was more like 30,000 YBP. Just why they went extinct is still not settled but it seems likely to me that modern man simply pushed them aside in some way.

What we've learned about Neanderthals from their artifacts and their skeletal remains, is that they were surprisingly similar to modern humans. They wore animal skins, used fire and had stone tools and weapons, created cave art, played crude bone flutes, probably had a spoken language (they were according to most anthropologists anatomically capable of speech), apparently traded goods between different clans, and they buried their dead. If I'm not mistaken, science also maintains their brains were either larger than modern man, or around the same size.

The prevailing theory is, that Neanderthals (being much stockier and slower) than modern humans simply were not able to compete with modern hunters. After the last Ice Age, huge slow creatures like Mammoth Elephants were replaced by faster moving, smaller game. Not exactly good targets for Neanderthals wielding large heavy spears. For example, the same decline occurred in the early American Indian population, when buffalo were almost hunted to extinction by the whites.

Nevertheless, something extraordinary and inexplicable did occur around 12,000 years ago when modern man appeared out of nowhere, which science has been unable to thoroughly explain. It took primordeal man hundreds of thousands of years to develop their primitive skills. After the appearance of modern man, there was an explosion of innovations in a very short period of time, a few thousand years... Domestication of animals, agriculture, building dwellings, cities, all of which are described in the Genesis narrative, especially as it relates to the biblical story of Cain and Able, and their descendants.

So IMHO, there is no contradiction between science and religion.. it only exists where fundamentalist "interpretation" is concerned. In fact, the way I see it, science merely confirms the Biblical account of creation. Which is exactly what I should expect to find.

 

[jckstraw72]

Yep - stick to theology.

exactly ... so the good ol' argument of "oh, the Fathers didn't have modern science" is meaningless on this whole issue

 

[jckstraw72]

superfluous - this doesn't "prove" anything on the subject since no one has claimed that Adam, first human was subject to death before the fall.

this only shows that you're wholly unaware of the issues at hand.

 

[Raggedyman]

I am reading a book called "Sapiens" and it tells the story of humankind. So far most of it has been about neanderthals and the other species of humans who existed at the same time. Eventually, all but one species went extinct and homo sapiens (us) made it to the top of the food chain.

These species, such as neanderthals and homo erectus, existed two million years ago.

What is the Orthodox explanation of this?

I wonder if the Pygmys had died out 2000 years ago and there were only bones left, would we call them sub human.
Tasmanian Aboriginals, totally wiped out, almost Neanderthal in their skull, shoulder, brow ridge and nose.
The Neanderthal was stronger and assuming brain size, much smarter than you and me

Orthodox explanation, they where human, homo sapien sapien, just like you and me
Just a little smarter and stronger
I believe dating methods are all based on false geology, 200 year old false geology

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Give that man a cigar!

"Why he's just a Raggedy Man!"

I wonder if the Pygmys had died out 2000 years ago and there were only bones left, would we call them sub human.
Tasmanian Aboriginals, totally wiped out, almost Neanderthal in their skull, shoulder, brow ridge and nose.
The Neanderthal was stronger and assuming brain size, much smarter than you and me

Orthodox explanation, they where human, homo sapien sapien, just like you and me
Just a little smarter and stronger
I believe dating methods are all based on false geology, 200 year old false geology

 

[Raggedyman]

Hey guys, girls
Thought this was a creation evolution forum, didn't realise Eastern Orthodox, I am sorry to but in, my apologies

 

[JackRT]

Nevertheless, something extraordinary and inexplicable did occur around 12,000 years ago when modern man appeared out of nowhere, which science has been unable to thoroughly explain.

Modern man dates to about 200,000 YBP perhaps more and emerged into Asia and Europe about 60,000 YBP. They did not inexplicably appear out of nowhere. What did happen around 12,000 YBP is a migration of humans into the Americas.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hey guys, girls
Thought this was a creation evolution forum, didn't realise Eastern Orthodox, I am sorry to but in, my apologies

No problem ... This thread IS getting too much outside attention, but we do understand how folks end up here without realizing where they are. It was gracious of you to apologize. God be with you!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Personally, I have no problem accepting the existence of Neanderthals, or any of the many other prehistoric proto-humanlike creatures identified by science with the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis. God created modern man, (homo sapien sapien) in His own image, and then He instructed them to go forth and be fruitful, multiple and replenish the earth.

The word "replenish" according to Merriam Webster means to "fill up again, that which has been diminished". To "refill", or "replace" something that has disappeared. Just like you would have to replace the gasoline in your automobile when the fuel indicator reaches "empty". Certainly that was the case with Neanderthals, who according to science were pretty thin on the ground when modern man arrived on the scene. According to archeological evidence, their population was confined to a few hundred isolated, individuals surviving in caves on the Western shores of Spain around twelve thousand years ago. After that, their remains simply disappear from the archeological record.

Perhaps if more Christians took a scientific view of the creation, than a pseudo-science fundamentalist view of the creation, 70 percent of Christian kids leaving home would not be abandoning the faith they were raised in shortly after leaving the nest.

Just something to think about.

The "pseudo-science" makes me cringe as well, and for certain segments of Christianity, I agree it is a problem with too loosely connecting their children with the faith. That is something I am extremely familiar with. However, please understand that fundamentalist pseudo-science is NOT what we are discussing, and this is an Orthodox congregational forum. Folks who agree and folks who disagree with you here very likely have a different foundation from which they are discussing, and likely you are actually talking past one another in at least some cases.

What we are discussing is something else entirely. Thank you for understanding.

 

[gzt]

But it is what we're discussing.

 

[~Anastasia~]

But it is what we're discussing.

I meant specifically fundamentalist (typically Evangelical) pseudo-science, which is a large body all it's own.

You may indeed be aware of it and knowledgeable about it. But I suspect most Orthodox don't have those arguments in mind at all. It rarely enters any conversation I have with other Orthodox on the topic, regardless of their position.

And I am attempting to keep this discussion according to the rules of this forum, which should be limited to discussion between Orthodox Christians on THEIR views, not someone inserting complaints about (again typically Evangelical) issues on the topic. That just further muddies an already-difficult topic, and belongs in GT rather than TAW.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And FTR, I agree with Stephen on some points, but it was my guess that overall there could be some misunderstandings going on.

 

[rusmeister]

Actually, it's the unphilosophical theology-denying pseudo-education taught in our modern schools that is the real problem.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What in their experience is/was the opposite of evolution?

when St John Chrysostom says the sun was intentionally by God created after vegetation, that is opposite. when St Nektarios of Aegina says evolution is false, that is opposite. when St Paisios of Mt Athos says it is blasphemy, that is opposite.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, yes - and the Sun actually rotates around the Earth. We know all these things already. It is clearly part of our Tradition to use Scripture/Tradition as preeminent evidence proving ourselves right in all things outside the realm of theology. Ballyhoo!

well, I never said that the sun rotates around the earth, and even if earlier saints did, those that followed the discovery of a heliocentric solar system affirmed it. you see no such thing with evolution.

This is the OPPOSITE of our Tradition! A lover of truth does not obfuscate the issues to serve their own preconceptions.

well, I never said this is anything I came up with, and I used to believe in evolution. so my preconceptions have nothing to do with it. a lover of Truth also knows when you come to know Truth, all opinion ceases. the saints know Christ.

Our hymns and our prayers reject the theory of evolution? Really? Oh wait - you believe the Sun does rotate around the Earth - nevermind.

well, our hymns do pretty clearly refer to Adam in the literal, and death as having entered in when he sinned. they speak nothing of development from single cells into other life forms. and no, I do not believe the Sun rotates around the earth.