popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 [quote name='bookwyrm' date='Jan 20 2005, 05:58 PM'] How so? That was not my intent. Please explain it to me. [/quote] I hope it didn't sound like I was accusing you of being a heretic. That was not my intention. The reason that idea would be heretical is that it is de fide that all humans (and therefore all corporeal beings with rational souls, which I am assuming from the description that they were very civilized) are descended from Adam. There can be no separate line of humans not effected by original sin.
spathariossa Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 20 2005, 05:14 PM'] I hope it didn't sound like I was accusing you of being a heretic. That was not my intention. The reason that idea would be heretical is that it is de fide that all humans (and therefore all corporeal beings with rational souls, which I am assuming from the description that they were very civilized) are descended from Adam. There can be no separate line of humans not effected by original sin. [/quote] Blech. Poor neanderthals. I always liked them. Just one more case of minorities being oppressed...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I believe Neanderthals were normal Homo sapiens.
crusader1234 Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I believe bookwyrm was stating that Homo Neandertalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo Sapiens (Humans) are two different species, or branches if you will, of an evolutionary progress. Thus, if they are a different branch of evolution, they would not be humans and thus have no 'rational soul'. At least I think thats what she was getting at?
popestpiusx Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 20 2005, 11:55 PM'] I believe bookwyrm was stating that Homo Neandertalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo Sapiens (Humans) are two different species, or branches if you will, of an evolutionary progress. Thus, if they are a different branch of evolution, they would not be humans and thus have no 'rational soul'. At least I think thats what she was getting at? [/quote] I took the words "it seems that they were very civilized . . ." to mean that they possessed rational souls, since civilization would be impossible without the faculty of reason. Maybe I misunderstood.
crusader1234 Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Yeah I'm not too clear on that. Anyways, how does the Catholic Church define humanity? Homo Sapiens?
Oik Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 The Church maintains that one may believe in evolution if it does not attempt to disprove the existence of God. I don't believe in evolution. I'm with the dude, basically. I believe that some minor "adaptions" (and i use the word very specifically aand lighty) may have occurred, but fundementally, humanoids are all the same. Any differences only implies to me either this, or that what is uncovered is not an ancestor, i.e. humans and apes are close, but it is obvious that humans are not apes and vice versa.
bookwyrm Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 20 2005, 11:55 PM'] I believe bookwyrm was stating that Homo Neandertalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo Sapiens (Humans) are two different species, or branches if you will, of an evolutionary progress. Thus, if they are a different branch of evolution, they would not be humans and thus have no 'rational soul'. At least I think thats what she was getting at? [/quote] Thanks, that's more like what I meant. I guess I didn't express it very well. -_-
Guest Aluigi Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 The Catholic Church defines humanity as the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve
Socrates Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Whether or not neanderthals were sons of Adam or human is entirely within the realm of speculation. The Church has no official teaching on neanderthals. There is much disagreement even among secular scientists as to the nature and humanity of neanderthals.
crusader1234 Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Well, this is all very complicated now. I think that Neanderthals, considering theyre from a different branch of evolution, would most certainly not be humans and have no rational souls. Homo Habilis or whatever? Maybe?
Socrates Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Homo habilis is much more primitive than a neanderthal.
crusader1234 Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 But it is at least in the same direct evolutionary progress as a Homo Sapiens, I believe.
crusader1234 Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [img]http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif[/img]
Socrates Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Remember, the relationships of the creatures on this "family tree" is pure speculation, and evolutionists all disagree about how the tree should be arranged.
crusader1234 Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Thats true, but it doesn't change the fact that different species of 'humanoid creatures' (hahaha) exist
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Just a thought: Neanderthals are normally classified (by evolutionary biologists) as "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis", while individuals such as myself are classified as "Homo sapiens sapiens." Not a distinct species.
bookwyrm Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jan 22 2005, 10:26 AM'] Neanderthals are normally classified (by evolutionary biologists) as "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis", while individuals such as myself are classified as "Homo sapiens sapiens." Not a distinct species. [/quote] That is incorrect. Nowadays scientists consider neanderthals to be a distinct species. (see crusader's chart.)
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='bookwyrm' date='Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM'] That is incorrect. Nowadays scientists consider neanderthals to be a distinct species. (see crusader's chart.) [/quote] We must be looking at different scientists...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now