Religion and Fossil Man

Yeah, by realising that 'soul' is a harmful illusion and doesn't exist except in the mind.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 200x279px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 200x279px

>>2993016
I think that Neanderthals and denisovans were also humans with souls. For example If you look at a skull of an aboriginal Australian, it's grotesque like Neanderthal skulls compared to European or Asian skulls. And precolumbian Indians were shorter than Europeans because they had less protein in their diets and because of the traits their group inherited. Yet they still had languages, culture, and all things which make someone human. The same is true for the "Neanderthals" and other hominids because they could procreate with each other and have fertile offspring.

>>2993016

it could have turned worse if you told him 'made of clay' and 'ashes to ashes' means there is no difference betveen any given organism and the dirt it came from, that in that sense there is no 'difference in kind', since minerals, vegetables, animals, machines are all premutations, form-function reconfigurations, of the same shit, that there is nothing visible that is not a manifestation of what is invisible and non-local, which is present within without and beyond all things equaly, erectus or sapiens

or if you told him jesus is quoted saying ''split a piece of wood and I am there, lift a stone and you will find me''

you could of also told him the notion of a soul is the notion of a self and that a self needs to be known and realised or its just a potential

or you could have shown him a monty python sketch on how people arent wearing enough hats

File: c3927e691350d94323eb989560e4ca97cac585db5e9418930113f2a631cdee56_-original.jpg (3MB, 4547x1356px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4547x1356px

>>2993070
He'd probably counter by saying that there is no "direct" evidence supporting it (no murals, paintings, etc). Only thing I could find are etchings in a cave wall in Gibralter (39 kya), almost akin to those found on mollusk shells in Trinil (430-540 kya).

>>2993016
Art is in now way proof of the soul, its not even hard evidence those hominids were less advanced than us, though they probably were.

What your friend says is arguably in line with Catholic teaching on the matter. Though more liberal theologians would perhaps disagree.

>"errors of modern anthropology."

a nonsensical phrase from someone most likely unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that we are much closer to animals that Christian tradition suggests

File: pebble.jpg (83KB, 807x953px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 807x953px

>>2993381
>a nonsensical phrase from someone most likely unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that we are much closer to animals that Christian tradition suggests
The "errors" bit was mainly an approximation of him telling me I was acting too rushed with Pebble and the art, equating it to how DuBois made a big deal out of Java Man (which was called, "a skullcap, a few teeth, and a femur," in the passage from the book, as if that somehow negated the find and its significance).

To me, it just came off as him trying to gain the moral/intellectual high ground with rhetoric like (addressing the Pebble):

>This is a totally unscientific and baseless assertion. All you know is there was a dead person that had hands, in a cave, and there was a rock near him. The rock kind of looked like it had a face on it but it wasn't man made. That's literally it. You can't make any conclusions outside of that rationally and anything you do make will just serve as additional bias to make any future conclusions you draw to be even more detached from reality. You want that to be true, but there is no basis for it. Just because it would be nicer for you if it were true doesn't mean you can accept it as being true to disprove someones claim and hand wave it as "probability".