I was watching a show on The Discovery Channel about early, early man. They portray the humans as so savage and it doesn't seem accurate to me somehow. This is prehistoric man being discussed...
I feel they were a lot more intelligent and maybe even spritually evolved than we are today. We have so many distractions to keep us from being spiritual beings, where ancient man did not...
Then I thought of how the Bible is telling a completely different tale about the evolving of man...
I think we know very very little about our distant ancestors and scientists and religious scholars are just speculating when they make all these claims...
So does anyone have a theory about any of this? I'd like to hear it...
2006-11-25 10:39:41 · 10 answers · asked by a_delphic_oracle 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
it is like animals..
because we dont understand the language ... we assume there is no communication
but i feel animals communicate instinctively along with some basic communicative noises ... this is how i feel about prehistoric man
that our 6th sense so to speak was more finely tunes when we didn't have the same vocal communication
i was thinking earlier about how the Adam and Eve story fits with prehistoric man ... and tried to fit them together
and if early man didn't communicate vocally , does this mean Adam and eve didn't either ?
i have a lot to ponder on this for now though
2006-11-25 10:45:49 · answer #1 · answered by Peace 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Our Galaxy is expanding, so if you made it go 1,000,000 years in the past, it wouldn't exist. The bible is real, and actually the most correct historical document of our time. Why should I beleive this, couldn't this just have been some man who was really good at geography and history? What I think: The predictions of the future.
There are something like 352 predictions (which were inspired by God and Jesus) and since science is great and you can age things many of these predictions came true, and sometimes 200 hundred or more years before the predictions actually came true.
LIfe can not start without life, God is life. No eveidence of evolution what so ever. Every little peice of evidence was fake. Many morw things to tell, but I don't like writting long things. Evolution is just a scientiific theroy that is just widley know so (some) scientists accept it as fact because it envolves no God or a higher being.
At least that's what I believe.
2006-11-25 10:46:21 · answer #2 · answered by Elizabeth T 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
"If human beings coming from apes have been real with the aid of evolution because of the survival of the species, then why are there nonetheless apes around?" in accordance to the evolution thought, human beings and monkeys progressed from a user-friendly ancestor. That ancestor not exists, yet the two us and monkey are believed to have descended from the comparable ancestor and we are diverse because of the fact we progressed in diverse the right thank you to conform with our atmosphere. i'm sick of Creationists too, claiming their God created us from airborne dirt and airborne dirt and dirt (could i take advantage of your individual style of arguing and ask why there continues to be airborne dirt and airborne dirt and dirt?) even nonetheless there isn't something that helps that thought different than words written in an previous e book. yet you recognize what? I in basic terms stay and enable stay. believe what you pick and that i will believe in what i choose. each and all the arguing on the subject of the evolution and the advent gets us nowhere because of the fact creationists will by no ability settle for medical data and evolutions will by no ability settle for theocratic data, so what's the element?
2016-10-13 02:49:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, other than a "theory", I can only go by what the bible and history tell me, and labeling it as a "theory" to me is not correct.
I do agree with you however on the intelligence level that man was very much so, but I also agree that yes, there was probably more spiritual beings then for there was not the distractions there are today as we know ours, but I am sure they had distractions and tempations as well. Just in a diffrent form and time.
2006-11-25 10:49:48 · answer #4 · answered by yeppers 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who said ancient man did not have many distractions:
Not having a supermarket - each day you could starve from hunger or worse, be a meal of some nice animal.
Not having running water - yeah, with some luck a running river nearby.
No electricity - there goes the light and it's so cold...
No medical help - ....
Sorry for the somewhat ironical remarks, no offense meant.
Just making a point.
2006-11-26 15:25:48 · answer #5 · answered by Yuri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you look at isolated populations of humans that evolved (socially) independently until the age of exploration, you will find a mix of peaceful and warlike tendencies. Evolutionary tends towards war or peace would depend on competitive pressures. There is nothing to suggest your thoughts of higher intelligence or "spiritual evolution".
2006-11-25 11:03:27 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have to get rid of this idea of the "Noble savage" living at one with nature. Prehistory wasn't some kind of "Garden of Eden". I would imagine that three words to describe then are Nasty, Brutal and Short.
Being far more a part of the natural world, we would have been just another animal, albeit a smart and adaptive one. Hunter and hunted could quite easily swap roles, and 40 probably would have been very old. The cave painting and other shamanistic rituals - to me - suggest that the more we became aware of the world around us, the more terrified we were. Hence religion.
2006-11-25 10:45:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your opinion doesn't matter until you become a biologist and a psychologist and can discuss their brain makeup and how such evidence would explain the actual behavior of prehistoric humans.
Science isn't like religion. You can't just say what you think and call it a theory. A scientific theory is one built on evidence, not ignorant speculation, and you have no evidence for your question.
2006-11-25 10:44:19 · answer #8 · answered by Michael 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There is a very fundamental part of us that is capable of immense cruelty. I doubt our primitive brothers and sisters were much better.
As far as evolution goes, you can look at our bodies and see we are not really designed for fierce conflict though (no real 'claws', soft skin, dull teeth).
This tells us that violence is mainly a mental state and not a dominant physical one.
2006-11-25 10:53:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were too busy looking for something to eat and trying not to get eaten to worry about it.
2006-11-25 10:47:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋