Evolution and the soul...

[Kadagar_AV]

I wondered about this after some christians claimed that yes indeed, you COULD be a christian and believe in evolution.

This had made me wonder...

Have I got this right now, christianity is much based on two things:
1. There is a heaven.
2. We have a soul.

With me this far?

Good, so a christian who then believes in evolution, at what stage did we get the soul?

Take the neanderthals as an example, not far from us on the evolutionary tree, and they had rituals for their dead. Would they be in heaven?

Have christian science yet determined an exact point as to where we grew a soul, or should we expect heaven to be absolutely PACKED with dinosaurs (now, that is actually a selling concept if you ask me. Go to heaven and hang out with ****** DINOSAURZ!!).

[Fragony]

For a christian that it's too easy to counter that one, does a big fat T-rex believe in god? No, a big fat T-Rex doesn't and that's kinda is a requirement to go to heaven. It's safe there, no big fat T-rex there

[Centurion1]

You guys don;t know anything about most major religions actual current dogma so it simply makes telling you anything annoying and fruitless. LOLZ RELIGION IS STUPID is at the end of the day the summation of your arguments. This isn't reddit.

I am Catholic and as a denomination our church leadership believes in evolution.

First of all Fragony animals do not have souls so no kadagar and fragony, no dinosaurs would be in heaven because as I am sure you know most scientists posit that they were not sentient intelligent life. Also Fragony in my christian religion at least it does not matter what religion in terms of going to heaven only that you live a life according to the right values (i.e. a good person)

Religion dictates that humanity is defined by our sentience and thusly our souls. Souls and sentience are tied in together and in the mind of religion it is our soul which separates us from simply being an intelligent animal and allows for things like free will or other uniquely human concepts.. Sentient beings have souls which allows for alien races to be converted I suppose.

[Papewaio]

So an AI would have a soul and a human whom is no longer sentient either by genetics/accident or drug damage/impairment to the brain is soulless?

[Fragony]

I didn't intend to attack your religion Centurion1, sorry if it looked like that but I didn't mean to

[Kadagar_AV]

You guys don;t know anything about most major religions actual current dogma so it simply makes telling you anything annoying and fruitless. LOLZ RELIGION IS STUPID is at the end of the day the summation of your arguments. This isn't reddit.

I am Catholic and as a denomination our church leadership believes in evolution.

First of all Fragony animals do not have souls so no kadagar and fragony, no dinosaurs would be in heaven because as I am sure you know most scientists posit that they were not sentient intelligent life. Also Fragony in my christian religion at least it does not matter what religion in terms of going to heaven only that you live a life according to the right values (i.e. a good person)

Religion dictates that humanity is defined by our sentience and thusly our souls. Souls and sentience are tied in together and in the mind of religion it is our soul which separates us from simply being an intelligent animal and allows for things like free will or other uniquely human concepts.. Sentient beings have souls which allows for alien races to be converted I suppose.

Well, that doesn't answer my question.

WHEN in the evolutionary chain did we get a soul? That animals don't have one but that the human variation do I have understood, what I wonder is what line is drawn between animal and human on the evolutionary chain.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, that doesn't answer my question.

WHEN in the evolutionary chain did we get a soul? That animals don't have one but that the human variation do I have understood, what I wonder is what line is drawn between animal and human on the evolutionary chain.

This is stupid. Thinking for a minute you can guess that the likely answer would be that the moment when humans began to become sentient enough to recognize god (as their maker) is when they got souls and were allowed into heaven.

Trying to force a christian to point at a specific year is either going to make the christian look dumb or you look dumb.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is stupid. Thinking for a minute you can guess that the likely answer would be that the moment when humans began to become sentient enough to recognize god (as their maker) is when they got souls and were allowed into heaven.

Trying to force a christian to point at a specific year is either going to make the christian look dumb or you look dumb.

So by your logic, neanderthals would have a place in heaven?

[Fragony]

This is stupid. Thinking for a minute you can guess that the likely answer would be that the moment when humans began to become sentient enough to recognize god (as their maker) is when they got souls and were allowed into heaven.

Trying to force a christian to point at a specific year is either going to make the christian look dumb or you look dumb.

Yep, this gets filed under M for Militant atheism. It's called faith for a reason, can they have it it doesn't bother me

[a completely inoffensive name]

So by your logic, neanderthals would have a place in heaven?

Learn some science before you talk. Modern humans != neanderthals. We split off from them ~550,000 years ago. Evidence shows they were not inventive nor creative with their tools and not as adaptive as modern humans in the regions they lived, indicating that despite bigger brain sizes they were probably not on the same level as homo sapiens.

[Kadagar_AV]

Learn some science before you talk. Modern humans != neanderthals. We split off from them ~550,000 years ago. Evidence shows they were not inventive nor creative with their tools and not as adaptive as modern humans in the regions they lived, indicating that despite bigger brain sizes they were probably not on the same level as homo sapiens.

Well, their burial traditions points to neanderthals believing in an afterlife. So...?

[Fragony]

Learn some science before you talk. Modern humans != neanderthals. We split off from them ~550,000 years ago. Evidence shows they were not inventive nor creative with their tools and not as adaptive as modern humans in the regions they lived, indicating that despite bigger brain sizes they were probably not on the same level as homo sapiens.

Not true, we share an ancestor, just like we share an ancestor with primates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, their burial traditions points to neanderthals believing in an afterlife. So...?

You are going to have to elaborate and bring sources. When you start getting under a million years ago, the evolutionary chain for hominids has them already developing social skills and primitive cultures. By primitive cultures, don't delude yourself to think they had a concept of a society. Most likely they had the very basic notions of kinship for immediate family, which would lend itself to ceremonial burials since groupings of hominids during that period still consisted of very small groups of 15-40 people. Mostly 1-3 large families.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not true, we share an ancestor, just like we share an ancestor with primates.

Shoot, that is what I meant. Modern humans and the neanderthals split off from the same ancestor around 550,000 years ago. Thanks for the correction though.

[Fragony]

You are going to have to elaborate and bring sources. When you start getting under a million years ago, the evolutionary chain for hominids has them already developing social skills and primitive cultures. By primitive cultures, don't delude yourself to think they had a concept of a society. Most likely they had the very basic notions of kinship for immediate family, which would lend itself to ceremonial burials since groupings of hominids during that period still consisted of very small groups of 15-40 people. Mostly 1-3 large families.

Neanderthalers buried their dead like a foethus, along with various tools that come in handy. It isn't that far a stretch that they believed in an afterlife of some sorts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Neanderthalers buried their dead like a foethus, along with various tools that come in handy. It isn't that far a stretch that they believed in an afterlife of some sorts.

I am not an anthropologist, so if someone can post some links I would be grateful. But I try not to get into the habit of attributing reasons to people without solid evidence to support it. Burying someone with the tools they probably used to provide can symbolize something other than an attempt to prepare someone for an afterlife.

Last time I came into a discussion saying "they probably thought this" or "this is what probably their motivation was" I was ridiculed by many people (wasn't on this forum).

Obviously someone is going to show evidence and I am going to look like a fool, which means it's a lose-lose situation for me either way.

[Fragony]

I am not an anthropologist, so if someone can post some links I would be grateful. But I try not to get into the habit of attributing reasons to people without solid evidence to support it. Burying someone with the tools they probably used to provide can symbolize something other than an attempt to prepare someone for an afterlife.

Last time I came into a discussion saying "they probably thought this" or "this is what probably their motivation was" I was ridiculed by many people (wasn't on this forum).

Obviously someone is going to show evidence and I am going to look like a fool, which means it's a lose-lose situation for me either way.

You cannot of course, but it at least indicates they were concious of their existance. There is obviously nobody to ask as they are kinda extinct at the moment, please hold

Edit, here are some pics http://www.google.com/search?q=neand...w=1024&bih=644

[Kadagar_AV]

You are going to have to elaborate and bring sources. When you start getting under a million years ago, the evolutionary chain for hominids has them already developing social skills and primitive cultures. By primitive cultures, don't delude yourself to think they had a concept of a society. Most likely they had the very basic notions of kinship for immediate family, which would lend itself to ceremonial burials since groupings of hominids during that period still consisted of very small groups of 15-40 people. Mostly 1-3 large families.

Well, every sign points to them looking after their elderly, showing a sense of morals. Also, when someone died they had rituals around it, and buried bodies have been found with much needed items around.

You wouldn't leave equipment that would do the family/clan well behind for no reason, no? Homo Sapiens did it to help the dead in the afterlife, I see no reason thinking the Neanderthals would be different, specially since the groups intermingled.

[Sigurd]

Christianity has a "simple" answer.

The first soul was Adam, the next Eve... then the whole inter marriage began giving birth to humans with souls..and then the flood killed off any unwanted species making Noah the new father of humans.

They really don't touch the pre-adamites or dinosaurs. None of the denominations have a good answer for that.
The problem starts when some take the bible texts literally and tries to explain away the bones found in the strata (pseudo science).
They should really just let it lie... and answer: we don't know, it has not been revealed to us.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You cannot of course, but it at least indicates they were concious of their existance. There is obviously nobody to ask as they are kinda extinct at the moment, please hold

They definitely had a sense of the self it would seem. But the concept of a God or gods is an abstract answer to a deep question. Exactly where our ancestors were able to reach that point is impossible unless you had a time machine and a lot off patience. Thus back to my original point that Kadagars argument is silly because it demands that the opposition somehow come up with a convincing argument for a specific date.

[Kadagar_AV]

Christianity has a "simple" answer.

The first soul was Adam, the next Eve... then the whole inter marriage began giving birth to humans with souls..and then the flood killed off any unwanted species making Noah the new father of humans.

They really don't touch the pre-adamites or dinosaurs. None of the denominations have a good answer for that.
The problem starts when some take the bible texts literally and tries to explain away the bones found in the strata (pseudo science).
They should really just let it lie... and answer: we don't know, it has not been revealed to us.

Well, the whole basis of my OP was about believing in God AND evolution.

Of course I know the easy answer of Adam and Eve, but it's not really what this is about. If people want to believe in wacky things it's fine by me, it's only when they try to incorporate it with science that I start to question their beliefs.

ACIN, I generally don't bother supplying sources to things covered by education lower than university, and that can also be found in about 2 seconds using google.

I mean, you COULD, say, google "neanderthal burials" or something. It's not like it's super science hidden in some dark corner of the web.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, every sign points to them looking after their elderly, showing a sense of morals. Also, when someone died they had rituals around it, and buried bodies have been found with much needed items around.

You wouldn't leave equipment that would do the family/clan well behind for no reason, no? Homo Sapiens did it to help the dead in the afterlife, I see no reason thinking the Neanderthals would be different, specially since the groups intermingled.

Morals != religion or faith. As an atheist (which I am as well), you should agree with that.

Tools can be explained through personal relationships with individuals and tools they use frequently. People assign sentimental value of inanimate objects all the time. Someone who has been using a tool for decades can show sadness if it breaks after so many years of dependable use. For close knit tribes where people fulfilled vital functions, a hunter who hunts all his life could have his weapons and tools be seen as an extension of himself (through his and others eyes) and thus when he is buried his tools are buried with him.

[Fragony]

They definitely had a sense of the self it would seem. But the concept of a God or gods is an abstract answer to a deep question. Exactly where our ancestors were able to reach that point is impossible unless you had a time machine and a lot off patience. Thus back to my original point that Kadagars argument is silly because it demands that the opposition somehow come up with a convincing argument for a specific date.

Oh I am with you there. It's a bit silly to ask religious people to explain themselves, people should just leave them be, why do they insist on proving they are wrong anyway. What good does it do, nothing at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

Morals != religion or faith. As an atheist (which I am as well), you should agree with that.

Tools can be explained through personal relationships with individuals and tools they use frequently. People assign sentimental value of inanimate objects all the time. Someone who has been using a tool for decades can show sadness if it breaks after so many years of dependable use. For close knit tribes where people fulfilled vital functions, a hunter who hunts all his life could have his weapons and tools be seen as an extension of himself (through his and others eyes) and thus when he is buried his tools are buried with him.

Interesting... So you claim that neanderthals who had much the same ceremonies as homo sapiens, would have a completely different basis for it? Not really applying Ockhams Razor, are we?


Bodies have been found in set positions, with flowers, food and trinkets around. What would that at once remind you of?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, the whole basis of my OP was about believing in God AND evolution.

Of course I know the easy answer of Adam and Eve, but it's not really what this is about. If people want to believe in wacky things it's fine by me, it's only when they try to incorporate it with science that I start to question their beliefs.

ACIN, I generally don't bother supplying sources to things covered by education lower than university, and that can also be found in about 2 seconds using google.

I mean, you COULD, say, google "neanderthal burials" or something. It's not like it's super science hidden in some dark corner of the web.

The wiki page on Neanderthal behavior:
Although much has been made of the Neanderthals' burial of their dead, their burials were less elaborate than those of anatomically modern humans. The interpretation of the Shanidar IV burials as including flowers, and therefore being a form of ritual burial,^[25] has been questioned.^[26] On the other hand, five of the six flower pollens found with Shanidar IV are known to have had 'traditional' medical uses, even among relatively recent 'modern' populations. In some cases Neanderthal burials include grave goods, such as bison and aurochs bones, tools, and thepigmentochre.

Here is my source, "Maps of Time" by David Christian (Chapter 6)
"Neanderthals first appear in the archaeological record about 130,000 years ago, and they vanish from the record as recently as 25,000 years ago. Their brains were as large, and perhaps even larger than, those of modern humans, but their bodies were tougher and stockier. They clearly has the ability to hunt, and this enabled them to occupy Ice Age landscapes that had not been inhabited by any earlier hominines-for example, in parts of modern Ukraine and southern Russia. However their hunting methods were inefficient and unsystematic in comparison with those of modern foragers, or even humans of the upper Paleolithic era. Their stone tools, usually described as Mousterian, are more complex than those of erectus, but show far less variety and precision than the stone tools of modern humans. There are hints of Neanderthal art or burial ritual, both of which might have signaled an increased use of symbolic communication (but the evidence is ambiguous). And there is little sign of great social complexity. Like earlier hominines, Neanderthals seems to have lived primarily in simple family groups that had limited contact with each other. There is no evidence that Neanderthals could have had the same impact on the planet as modern humans."

[Papewaio]

Neanderthals had a common ancestor to ancient homo sapiens and are ancestors to modern homo sapiens.

Yeap we did our cousins.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Interesting... So you claim that neanderthals who had much the same ceremonies as homo sapiens, would have a completely different basis for it? Not really applying Ockhams Razor, are we?


Bodies have been found in set positions, with flowers, food and trinkets around. What would that at once remind you of?

As I just replied in the above post, my point is that you are too bold in assigning the meaning of scientific findings that go beyond what can be considered safely said by a majority of the people in that field. The jury is out so far because there is insufficient evidence. Occams Razer does not apply when you might only have 10% of the full picture.

[Fragony]

Neanderthals had a common ancestor to ancient homo sapiens and are ancestors to modern homo sapiens.

Yeap we did out cousins.

Que? That is kinda conflicting Pap's. I did do my Australian niece though you got me there

[Sigurd]

Well, the whole basis of my OP was about believing in God AND evolution.

Of course I know the easy answer of Adam and Eve, but it's not really what this is about. If people want to believe in wacky things it's fine by me, it's only when they try to incorporate it with science that I start to question their beliefs.

Yes, this is what it is all about. You notice that I said soul and not human. By doing this, they cover their backs. In this way they open up for evolution AND Christianity. The ones that firmly hold to the six days of creation should rething their position, which is not IMO the orthodox position, but rather a fringe neo-christian/evangelical thing.

By reading extra canonical material - you will stumble over many pieces about how God agonized about whether to blow the soul of Adam into a tabernacle of clay/dust and other container synonyms, or not.
Knowing a thing or two about interpreting such, you could conclude that the first soul was put into a human form, a form prepared for this event. And there is nothing that really persuades against this form coming through evolution.
Reading genesis with evolution in mind is not impossible.

[Papewaio]

Mainly for Europeans...
"According to the study as much as 1–4% of the genome of the population that populated Eurasia was contributed by Neanderthals" - Wikipedia