Health and Religion

[af_newbie]

...

I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.

Instead of looking proof consider asking yourself a question.

Are you willing to embrace a worldview you cannot empirically prove i.e. requires faith if you can prove that adopting such a worldview improves both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well?

What is the point believing in anything without proof?  That just makes a person look foolish... particularly when they claim to know it as fact, and they can't prove shit...

Why would I waste 1 second on religion?

Don't give me Pascal's Wager, because it's a bullshit argument... basically a fallacy... you could say the exact same thing about Hinduism, or Islam... what if they are right, and Christianity is wrong?  What if the great Ju-Ju of the mountain is the real God?

Why waste time on speculation without a shred of evidence?

One reason people are attracted to religion is that it gives them confidence and assurance that everything will be ok.  That the problems they are experiencing in this life are temporary and that they will be rewarded in afterlife.  The psychopaths among us might find religion useful as it tells them directly which actions are moral and which are not.  Some people lack this moral compass and religion fills that gap.
It helps them hide their psychopathic tendencies.  

There are of course others with great imagination who imagine ghosts, angels, God, hell of fire, heaven with roads paved in gold etc. Those people don't care if their day dream is true or not.  They find it useful and they stick to it.

[1715453344]

1715453344

[organofcorti]

...

I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.

Instead of looking proof consider asking yourself a question.

Are you willing to embrace a worldview you cannot empirically prove i.e. requires faith if you can prove that adopting such a worldview improves both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well?

What is the point believing in anything without proof?  That just makes a person look foolish... particularly when they claim to know it as fact, and they can't prove shit...

Why would I waste 1 second on religion?

Don't give me Pascal's Wager, because it's a bullshit argument... basically a fallacy... you could say the exact same thing about Hinduism, or Islam... what if they are right, and Christianity is wrong?  What if the great Ju-Ju of the mountain is the real God? I can't possibly follow the thousands of different religious beliefs, hoping one of them is true...

Why waste time on speculation without a shred of evidence?



Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

As long as having this "faith" that he mentions doesn't actually change anything I do or think, then why not have one? I'd also faith the shit out of goblins if I had incontrovertible proof that it would grant my grandchildren a long and prosperous life.

[CoinCube]

organofcorti you mentioned you wanted more evidence to look at. Moloch has kindly provided us with more studies to look at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

In a global study on atheism, sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted that countries with higher levels of atheism also had the highest suicide rates compared to countries with lower levels of atheism. He concludes that correlations does not necessarily indicate causation in either case.[24]

A study on depression and suicide suggested that those without a religious affiliation have a higher suicide attempt rates than those with a religious affiliation.[25]

A study into mental well-being in religious and non-religious people found that mental well-being for both religious people and non-religious people hinged on the certainty of their belief, and that previous studies had not controlled for the effect of belonging to a group when studying churchgoers.[26]

...

If it can be proven without a doubt that by adopting that POV (religion) and none other my lifespan would increase and it didn't actually require me to do anything that might be detrimental to my quality of life or take up my spare time, then why not?

In the interest of full disclosure this approach would be a bad idea.

Both the Gallup data I linked upthread and the analysis provided by Moloch above indicate that only the highly religious are better off.

In the Gallup poll only those who reported that religion was an important part of their daily life and regularly attended worship services had the reported substantial advantages in wellbeing. The religious who were lax in their beliefs scored lower than the atheist.

Perhaps pretending to have a code but not really following it is the worst choice? If that is the case maybe the reason Mormons do so well is because they are observant. More than eight-in-ten Mormons report that they pray daily. Orthodox Jews are also very observant.

What is the point believing in anything without proof?  That just makes a person look foolish... particularly when they claim to know it as fact, and they can't prove shit...

Why would I waste 1 second on religion?

Don't give me Pascal's Wager, because it's a bullshit argument... basically a fallacy... you could say the exact same thing about Hinduism, or Islam... what if they are right, and Christianity is wrong?  What if the great Ju-Ju of the mountain is the real God? I can't possibly follow the thousands of different religious beliefs, hoping one of them is true...

Why waste time on speculation without a shred of evidence?

Thanks for sharing that link. I had not heard of Pascal’s renewed wager before but I agree it is a similar argument to the one provided in this thread.

Pascal's renewed wager states that, all other reasons aside, it is better to believe, rather than disbelieve in God because such belief has tangible benefits. Pascal's wager appears incomplete due to the requirement for true observance I mentioned above.

The argument presented in this thread is the following:

If you are able to wholeheartedly believe in God and follow his guidance do so for such belief is natural and healthy.

In the end it does not matters if you cannot prove whether Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is ultimate truth. What matters is finding a healthy moral and spiritual code that will protect you and can be reliably passed on to your children.

I have little advice to give on which denomination to choose as I have yet to make this choice myself. I have determined only that I am capable of belief and that I will make a choice.

Others have argued that above-replacement fertility is necessary (but not sufficient) for a valid religion.

[organofcorti]

If it can be proven without a doubt that by adopting that POV (religion) and none other my lifespan would increase and it didn't actually require me to do anything that might be detrimental to my quality of life or take up my spare time, then why not?

In the interest of full disclosure this approach would be a bad idea.

Both the Gallup data I linked upthread and the analysis provided by Moloch above indicate that only the highly religious are better off.

In the Gallup poll only those who reported that religion was an important part of their daily life and regularly attended worship services had the reported substantial advantages in wellbeing. The religious who were lax in their beliefs scored lower than the atheist.

Ah, well then it seems I'd be better off taking medication than being superstitious, eh?

[CoinCube]

Ah, well then it seems I'd be better off taking medication than being superstitious, eh?

Perhaps but the best outcome might result from successfully reconsidering your assumptions.

It is hard, usually impossible, to induce a re-examination of fundamental assumptions. What you currently regard as 'evidence' is in large part choice and dictated by assumptions, which are not compelled. Looked at this way, to choose modern nihilism rather than the natural, spontaneous, 'biological' tendency to religious explanations is not just foolish, but incoherent - since the choice of nihilistic assumptions makes that choice itself meaningless.

[BADecker]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working.

I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims.

You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof.

If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it.

[BADecker]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

However, this isn't always true. One needs to consider the size and weight of the vehicle as well. Neanderthals, being generally smaller with bigger brains, would naturally have a far greater thinking ability and capacity.

[BADecker]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

+1
Exactly right.  Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals.  With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals.

Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples.  Neanderthals did not stand a chance.

Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that.

[BADecker]

If atheists went into their closet, and didn't even propagate, we could all wait until the cancer of atheism died out. We could tell by the stench coming out of the closet.

But now because atheists are spreading their poisonous cancer to many people, especially to the children, the only thing left for GOOD religious folks to do is to attempt to stamp out the cancer of atheism in every way possible.
...
Since atheists are genociding themselves simply by being atheists, why no be amicable with them, and help them along a little? Oh yes. We want to give them every opportunity to change their minds and be saved for everlasting life in Heaven.

Well it was a nice conversation until someone came along promoting the values and morals of the inquisition.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm

In 1244, the Council of Harbonne ordered that in the sentencing of heretics, no husband should be spared because of his wife, nor wife because of her husband, and no parent spared from a helpless child. Once in custody victims waited before their judge anxiously, while he pondered through the document of their accusation. During the first examination, enough of their property was likewise confiscated to cover the expenses of the preliminary investigation.
 
The accused would then be implicated and asked incriminating and luring questions in a dexterous manner of trickery calculated to entangle most.

This type if thinking represents the misguided and horrific idea that embracing evil will lead to good.

BADecker I do not know if you are a misguided zealot or a clever atheist promoting his true beliefs by deliberately peddling falsehood.

In the end it does not matter. In the 2+ years I have followed this forum I have seen many bad posts. However, prior to you my ignore list was empty. Congratulations you now have this space entirely to your yourself.

Well, for those who want to look, it was the slight tendency towards atheism that brought Adam and Eve into the sin of doubting God and eating the "apple." Today atheism has fully blossomed and bloomed. It is only by the grace and mercy of God that we have a little peace, and little destruction. But God won't put up with the cancer of atheism forever.

[valta4065]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working.

I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims.

You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof.

If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it.

And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong...

[valta4065]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

+1
Exactly right.  Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals.  With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals.

Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples.  Neanderthals did not stand a chance.

Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that.

DID YOU JUST TALK ABOUT NEANDERTHALS?

So it means you DO believe and consider evolution then BADecker! Or is Neanderthal also a creation of God? xD

[BADecker]

Yet the factual science that I have shown you, which proves God exists, trumps all that theoretical science, that nobody knows exists the way the theories state. You would rather have the make-believe than the reality.

You haven't actually shown any factual science, just your own unprovable hypotheses and incomprehensible jargon. You still don't have a proof that god exists.

I've shown you the proof over and over.

No you haven't. I understand your ideas quite well, but they're not science and not factual.

I have shown you the science law over and over. You might have said it is not law, but the books and experiments show differently. In fact, Internet search shows that what I have said is fundamental science law. So, show why it is not law when the whole body of science says that it is law.

But since you don't understand it, no wonder you don't understand that you haven't proven God to NOT exist.



So you set yourself up with god-strength by saying that God doesn't exist, when, even with your poor understanding of things, even you understand that He might exist. Then you shoot yourself in the foot (head) by saying god/you doesn't exist.

There is no need to prove God doesn't exist. What's the need? Bertrand russell illustrates why, but simply put the burden of proof  lies with the claimant. Otherwise, why not start with the tooth fairy? Or invisible pink unicorns? Can you prove either don't exist?

The fact that we have responded to each others' posts over and over, shows that we both have claims. The claim of atheism in the light of the possible existence of God, makes atheism a religion.

Make atheism a fact by proving that God doesn't exist. After all, I have shown over and over how standard, fundamental science proves that God DOES exist.

If you had been only agnostic, you might have a sliver of an excuse. But no. You have to stick to the faith of your religion, atheism, even though you are contradicting yourself all the way through it.

I don't have faith in a religion. You call me atheist because I often argue against organised religion, but the truth is I just don't care about the supernatural. I do however care about logic and truth, so if you really need to label me with a religion, call it Truth or Logic, not Atheism.

I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.

The fact that you adamantly state things that you believe, which are not necessarily backed up by proof, shows that you have a religion within yourself.

When you state that you don't care about something, you are essentially stating that you believe that the thing exists, and you just don't care about it. So, to you supernatural exists.

The kind of proof you are asking for can only be given to you by God, Himself. If you don't accept the simpler scientific proof that God exists, you will never find Him until He reveals Himself to you. But then it will be too late to change your acceptance of God in a way that will save you.

[BADecker]

...

I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.

Instead of looking proof consider asking yourself a question.

Are you willing to embrace a worldview you cannot empirically prove i.e. requires faith if you can prove that adopting such a worldview improves both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well?

What is the point believing in anything without proof?  That just makes a person look foolish... particularly when they claim to know it as fact, and they can't prove shit...

Why would I waste 1 second on religion?

Don't give me Pascal's Wager, because it's a bullshit argument... basically a fallacy... you could say the exact same thing about Hinduism, or Islam... what if they are right, and Christianity is wrong?  What if the great Ju-Ju of the mountain is the real God?

Why waste time on speculation without a shred of evidence?

One reason people are attracted to religion is that it gives them confidence and assurance that everything will be ok.  That the problems they are experiencing in this life are temporary and that they will be rewarded in afterlife.  The psychopaths among us might find religion useful as it tells them directly which actions are moral and which are not.  Some people lack this moral compass and religion fills that gap.
It helps them hide their psychopathic tendencies.  

There are of course others with great imagination who imagine ghosts, angels, God, hell of fire, heaven with roads paved in gold etc. Those people don't care if their day dream is true or not.  They find it useful and they stick to it.

Exactly why people live their lives in religion all the time. Nobody knows what the future holds, even in the next second. Part of every personal religion is to base the future on experiences of the past so that he has security, even if it is a false security.

[BADecker]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working.

I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims.

You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof.

If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it.

And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong...

Does anybody know why carbon dating is wrong? I don't know why it is wrong. I can guess why it might be wrong. But the reasons why it is wrong aren't important to anyone who is not trying to make it work right, right? The important knowledge for the rest of us is the statistical data that it IS wrong, not why it is wrong.

[valta4065]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working.

I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims.

You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof.

If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it.

And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong...

Does anybody know why carbon dating is wrong? I don't know why it is wrong. I can guess why it might be wrong. But the reasons why it is wrong aren't important to anyone who is not trying to make it work right, right? The important knowledge for the rest of us is the statistical data that it IS wrong, not why it is wrong.

Oh ok, you mean it doesn't matter that NOBODY EVER PROVED IT WRONG? As you KNOW it is wrong?
I feel really convinced here. It's ok. You know it.

[BADecker]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

+1
Exactly right.  Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals.  With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals.

Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples.  Neanderthals did not stand a chance.

Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that.

DID YOU JUST TALK ABOUT NEANDERTHALS?

So it means you DO believe and consider evolution then BADecker! Or is Neanderthal also a creation of God? xD

You must have missed a lot of my conversation in these semi-religious threads.

According to the most fundamental laws of science, everything happens because something else caused it to happen. This goes for the causes, as well. Something caused the causes to happen. It goes all the way back to whatever beginning there was to the whole universe.

Because of this, Neanderthals were programmed to exist as they did, just the same as everything that exists right now was programmed to exist the way it does. Whoever or Whatever started the batch of causes and effects that gradually became our universe, is the thing that pre-programmed it all.

Whatever evolution is, it was pre-programmed to do exactly what it did, whatever that was. There is no known pure random. Nothing happens by chance. The reason we call something "random," is we are not able to see all the things that cause them to happen. This is the whole reason that Quantum Physics, the greatest probability scheme, was developed... to help us envision the causes that we cannot "see" because of our extremely limited abilities.

[valta4065]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

+1
Exactly right.  Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals.  With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals.

Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples.  Neanderthals did not stand a chance.

Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that.

DID YOU JUST TALK ABOUT NEANDERTHALS?

So it means you DO believe and consider evolution then BADecker! Or is Neanderthal also a creation of God? xD

You must have missed a lot of my conversation in these semi-religious threads.

According to the most fundamental laws of science, everything happens because something else caused it to happen. This goes for the causes, as well. Something caused the causes to happen. It goes all the way back to whatever beginning there was to the whole universe.

Because of this, Neanderthals were programmed to exist as they did, just the same as everything that exists right now was programmed to exist the way it does. Whoever or Whatever started the batch of causes and effects that gradually became our universe, is the thing that pre-programmed it all.

Whatever evolution is, it was pre-programmed to do exactly what it did, whatever that was. There is no known pure random. Nothing happens by chance. The reason we call something "random," is we are not able to see all the things that cause them to happen. This is the whole reason that Quantum Physics, the greatest probability scheme, was developed... to help us envision the causes that we cannot "see" because of our extremely limited abilities.

Not what I meant.

You're actually saying that humanity evolved from great apes to humans in 6 000 years then? Cause if Neanderthal exists it means it disappeared in less than 6 000 years too.

Don't you feel like it's really fast even for God program?

[BADecker]

...
Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens.

Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens.

I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working.

I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims.

You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof.

If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it.

And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong...

Does anybody know why carbon dating is wrong? I don't know why it is wrong. I can guess why it might be wrong. But the reasons why it is wrong aren't important to anyone who is not trying to make it work right, right? The important knowledge for the rest of us is the statistical data that it IS wrong, not why it is wrong.

Oh ok, you mean it doesn't matter that NOBODY EVER PROVED IT WRONG? As you KNOW it is wrong?
I feel really convinced here. It's ok. You know it.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You asked the question, "And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong..." Well, I guess it isn't exactly in question form. But I am not into working with the carbon dating system at all. Maybe if I were into it, I could tell you why it is wrong.

The fact that carbon dating is wrong doesn't have anything to do with the reasons why it is wrong. You seemed to be asking for proof of why it is wrong. I don't know that. I'm not a carbon dating scientist or theorist. Shouldn't you ask someone who is qualified to answer that question? The thing that I have seen is evidence that it IS wrong. You can search the Internet to see the evidence for yourself.

Is that what you are asking about?

[Losvienleg]

So it seems that Neantherdal men have the biggest brain capacity. Now I understand why the Europeans are the most intelligent and the Niggers the least ...

[BADecker]

But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.

+1
Exactly right.  Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals.  With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals.

Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples.  Neanderthals did not stand a chance.

Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that.

DID YOU JUST TALK ABOUT NEANDERTHALS?

So it means you DO believe and consider evolution then BADecker! Or is Neanderthal also a creation of God? xD

You must have missed a lot of my conversation in these semi-religious threads.

According to the most fundamental laws of science, everything happens because something else caused it to happen. This goes for the causes, as well. Something caused the causes to happen. It goes all the way back to whatever beginning there was to the whole universe.

Because of this, Neanderthals were programmed to exist as they did, just the same as everything that exists right now was programmed to exist the way it does. Whoever or Whatever started the batch of causes and effects that gradually became our universe, is the thing that pre-programmed it all.

Whatever evolution is, it was pre-programmed to do exactly what it did, whatever that was. There is no known pure random. Nothing happens by chance. The reason we call something "random," is we are not able to see all the things that cause them to happen. This is the whole reason that Quantum Physics, the greatest probability scheme, was developed... to help us envision the causes that we cannot "see" because of our extremely limited abilities.

Not what I meant.

You're actually saying that humanity evolved from great apes to humans in 6 000 years then? Cause if Neanderthal exists it means it disappeared in less than 6 000 years too.

Don't you feel like it's really fast even for God program?

Regarding fast things, look at it like this... as an example. Think about your favorite drink. Maybe it's milk. Maybe it's wine. Maybe it's some kind of juice. Maybe it is simple water. Whatever it is, you like it partially because of its flavor, or how smooth it is, or whatever. How fast can you drink down an 8 ounce glass of it? Perhaps in 2 or 3 seconds. But it tastes so good that you make it last a good 10 seconds because of its flavor.

God could have built the whole universe faster than you can snap your fingers. But He took the time that He did - 6 days - because He was savoring the good "flavor" so to speak. He was enjoying it.

I don't see any place where I said that humanity evolved from apes. But, yes, Neanderthals disappeared in less than 6,000 years. I mean, how long will you last? The graves are full of people who last way less than 100 years.