Who Created God? Homo Sapiens or Neanderthals?

1. 73

   jainismusposted 12 years ago

   <image removed>
   I wanted to know that who created God? I mean who is father of God?  Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There's no proof that "Neanderthal" ever existed.
      Nope.  Not even naked ones like in the picture.
      Why don't you use Paint or something and cover up the nudity, please?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         OMG, how hard did you have to LOOK for that nudity Brenda?  I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out.
         
         Get your mind out of the gutter.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            
            I don't believe you.  Who would?

            replyreport
            1. 57

               MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Believe me or not Brenda, I actually didn't see it until you pointed it out.
               
               You did.  I'm just pointing that it might say something about where your eyes automatically wander.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You would of course draw that conclusion.  And actually, it's perfectly normal for people to notice nudity when it's in front of them.  If people think "neanderthal" man existed, I guess they think neanderthal man didn't have enough sense to hide his nakedness, huh?
                  
                  The picture is inappropriate.  Especially since I've seen pictures of babies in the womb that got deleted.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Actually, the conclusion I really drew was closer to Ron's post in another thread..
                     
                     Some people secretly enjoy being offended.  They get off on finding something to be morally outraged about.
                     
                     I did enjoy you insinuating that I was a liar though.  That was fun. 
                     
                     And doesn't the Adam and eve thing say they were naked before they sinned?  Maybe neanderthal was sinless as well. 
                     
                     And no, I didn't notice the nakedness on the painting any more than I notice the nakedness on animals.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Being offended is far easier than having to provide an evidenced argument to substantiate a perspective.

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        If I deliberately wanted something to be offended about, I could find lots of pictures elsewhere. 
                           If you say you didn't notice it at first, then maybe you didn't.  I apologize.  However, it really wasn't the first thing I noticed either!  So I didn't enjoy your insinuation either.  Especially since I confined my comments to the original post/picture, while you did not; you immediately tried to make it personal.

                        replyreport
                        1. 57

                           MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Yeah, I probably did make it personal.  Your comment offended me.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              What comment?  The one where I said neanderthal man never existed?
                              Because....you made your personal insinuation after that first post of mine, not after I said I didn't believe you.  You must be very easily offended if my belief that neanderthals never existed got you riled up.

                              replyreport
                              1. 57

                                 MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 No, actually your insistence that the photo be removed offended me. I don't really care about the origin of the human species and have no real opinion on how we got here.  As a writer though, I don't like censorship.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    What does that mean?   It's...eh...a picture, not written word!
                                    And if it's okay to show a nude picture of a theoretical man, it should be okay to show a harmless picture of a baby in a womb.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 57

                                       MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Artwork can be censored too.  Any limiting of self-expression doesn't sit well with me.  I don't know what image you are talking about, I wasn't there for that one.  I don't think I would have called for it to be removed though.
                                       
                                       Some of the most beautiful artwork in the world contains nudity. I don't consider the picture particularly beautiful, but somebody created it.  I wouldn't want anyone to take a paintbrush to the Sistine Chapel to "edit", I wouldn't want someone to come in and change something I had written to "edit" and I don't see why we should tell someone to "paintshop" a piece of art that somebody dedicated time and effort to.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          What one person may call "artwork", another may call deliberate exhibitionism.

                                          report
                                          1. 57

                                             MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             And that's the rub.  Which of them should get to make the rules?
                                             
                                             In this case, a pair of boxers on neanderthal man would have been a bit out of place, considering the level of advancement that neanderthal was theorized to have, so the painting is actually pretty apt.
                                             
                                             Regardless, it was created by an artist, and is representative of his vision.  Who are you or I to ask that that vision be removed or altered to fit our opinions?

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                Who said anything about boxers?
                                                Even the theoretical "neanderthal man" surely knew how to wrap a scrap of animal fur or something around himself. 
                                                Oh wait----theories don't know anything really!

                                                report
                                                1. 69

                                                   Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                   

                                                   report
                                                2. 57

                                                   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                   No Brenda, they don't.  That's why they are called theories.  However, those theories apparently didn't lead the painter to believe that clothing was part of the neanderthal experience.  So, why would he have painted clothing?
                                                   
                                                   You still are arguing evolution with me while I am arguing censorship.  I'm not taking the side of science here, because I don't care.  That's also why I'm not taking the side of religion, because I don't care.  I have no opinion whatsoever.  I know both sides of argument and am completely neutral.

                                                   report
                                                3. 66

                                                   2uesdayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                                   I thought the religious reason for clothing was that two people ate an apple they were told to leave alone. So how could a theoretical being know that nudity is a sin?

                                                   report
                                    2. 61

                                       Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Please give us more details about the abort...er, I mean deletion of a post showing a baby in a womb.

                                       report
      2. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I quite like the nudity. Sexy.

         replyreport
      3. 63

         Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Um, there is ample proof neanderthals existed, and even that we still carry some of their DNA.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, our DNA's are similar.  Remarkable similar.  But the current theory is that they are a cousin at best.  Neanderthal man is not theorized to be an ancestor of modern Humans.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Depends on how you define it.  That we carry some small amounts of neanderthal genes is indicative that there was probably some amount of interbreeding. 
               
               In this respect, neanderthal could be considered an ancestor - we are the result of Homo Sapiens mating with Brenda's fake bones and mixing their genes.

               replyreport
               1. 63

                  Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Indeed, not a direct ancestor but that does some to have been some co-mingling

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     That would indicate that they were close enough "cousins" to produce a live offspring... that's weird.  Usually even when a subspecies is close enough to mate and produce a living offspring, that offspring is sterile.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Yep - "kissing cousins" to a neanderthal. 
                        
                        Guess G'G'G'G' grandpa wasn't too choosy...
                        
                        For all we know they could have lived side by side in the same great house.  Lots of intermingling, just most of it was sterile.

                        replyreport
   2. 63

      Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I vote for Homo habilis

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Or maybe Australopithecus.  Lucy must have thought about something.

         replyreport
   3. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There's evidence from at least three caves showing Neanderthals buried their dead and practiced rituals going back as far as 80,000 - 100,000 years ago. They are front runner contenders for the creation of religions as a result.

      replyreport
2. 96

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   Neanderthal apparently buried their dead, a religious gesture, and preceded Homo Sapiens, at least in that part of the world.
   
   They certainly didn't invent the Christian God (that came many millenia later and followed a plethora of other Gods) but it is probable that they had their own Gods.

   replyreport
3. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Neanderthal:
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

   replyreport
4. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago

   jainismus, God doesn't have a father.  God just always has existed, exists, and will exist.  Forever.
   
   
   "Neanderthal" is a theory, not a fact.  The idea of neanderthal man was "created" (actually, dreamed up) by someone.  God only knows exactly who dreamed it up.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      alexsaez1983posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, how I love that argument. Christians always say "atheists are so dumb. They think something came from nothing," yet Christians have no problem believing in a deity with no known origins. Hypocrites much?

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Only a die-hard religious person would say something like this.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe so.  Because die-hard Christians believe God, not so-called scientists (who are human and therefore fallible.   And some scientists and researchers (and just theorists) sure do believe that most other people are gullible!

         replyreport
         1. 57

            MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, the presence of neanderthal doesn't specifically affect religious argument.  I don't believe they are considered to be a part of the evolutionary chain of humans anyway.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Really?
               So, "neanderthals" were...what?  just animals, according to what you believe?

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't really have a belief, because as stated above, I don't care.  I just know what the scientific community says about them.

                  replyreport
               2. 58

                  Alexcalotescuposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I think we can't say if neanderthals existed, just because they, may existed, too many years ago in the past. and if they existed i think they had a God to warship like all the ancient civilizations.

                  replyreport
               3. 96

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Neanderthals were either animals that used fire and cooked their food, made jewelry and art and buried their dead
                  
                  or
                  
                  God buried the bones there to confuse man and make us believe a fraud.  Perhaps to cause disbelief in Himself and thus have more sinners to send to Hell.
                  
                  Your choice...

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            alexsaez1983posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "So-called scientists"? Really Brenda? You mean the so-called scientists who brought us modern medicine, communication, clean water, transportation? That's very ungrateful of you. And of course you'd just revert to the "people are fallible" garbage. Do you realize that scientists operate on PROVEN research, that is rigorously tested, re-tested and scrutinized by their peers? Tell me, what evidence do you have for God beyond your blind faith? I believe that bacteria and viruses cause disease because SCIENCE proved it. I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun because SCIENCE revealed it (oh, did I mention the church opposed this proposition when Gallileo mentioned it?). What has the Bible proven? Tell me one contribution that "God" made to the betterment of our quality of life.
            
            And Brenda, the reason some "theorists" feel people are gullible is because they're QUALIFIED to point out other people's ignorance. Crack open a book about radiometric dating, biological evolution, or anything else that you people deliberately ignore.

            replyreport
   3. 0

      alexsaez1983posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Neanderthals were "dreamed up"? Wow, this must be Inception or something, because we're dreaming those same fossils and artifacts right now. Seriously Brenda, please tell me what you're smoking, because I want some.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

   
   
   I'll try to offend the moderators and the prudes with one post.

   replyreport
6. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport