Why think they are different species and not just slightly different versions of modern humans? By what I see, the differences are about the same as what you could find in living humans today also.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
30,000 feet of water?????
- Thread starter Curious#1
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It does not matter what you believe. You are pretty much admitting that you are wrong by not supporting your beliefs where you call God a liar.
I cannot do that if you cannot be honest with yourself. Are you willing to learn the basics of science?
Again, we know that they did by the evidence that they left behind. But you refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence.
Yes, you have. You have done so in almost every post of yours. You are not only scientifically illiterate, which means that you cannot know whether or not you make those claims. Even worse you are willfully ignorant. That means that if God is real he is not likely to to forgive you for calling him a liar. Aren't you supposed to confess your sins to God to be forgiven?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are not making any sense. 3000 animals vs 15500 species (which would be +30000 animals if you have breeding pairs). Make up your mind.
Depends on your starting point.
You might want to read up so that you have reasons.
Your willful ignorance is not an argument.
They aren't.
It isn't.
That is false.
The only illogical thing here, is your willful ignorance.
It really does.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You might want to look more closely and educate yourself a bit.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Science. Try it sometime
Can't argue with you on that one
That was sarcasm BTW
I suspect the real problem here is that you have no objective test for truth, and that all your problems with science hinge on that fact.
Is that correct, or do you have an objective test for truth?
If you do, what is it?
Some of the extinct species would look very different from modern humans.
And then there are the genetic differences.
I think they are the same as modern humans, just little different, the same way as you can today also see differences in the outlooks of people.
Can you give one example?
Do you have an objective test, and what it is? I don't think people have any objective test. To me closest to that is, if other people can see the same, it is probably objectively true. But event that can be said to be not purely objective.
Why do you think that is your distant family member?Can't argue with you on that one
I was talking about two separate things:
1) I believe there was about 3000 animals in the ark.
2) If we would go by modern definitions of species, the greatest number of species would be about 15500. This obviously would mean that the total number of animals in the ark would have been +30000.
From the point where they separated.
Please show one example of some bigger difference and that the being is still relative to modern humans?
Please show one example of such evidence.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Australopithecus afarensis, an early human
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are still not making any sense. How many were on the ark? 3000 or 30000?
What does it matter what modern definitions of species are?
Seperated, from what?
Huh?
I can't make sense of this question. Care to rephrase?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you cannot demand to see evidence when you do not even understand the concept. Scientific evidence is well defined. It puts the burden of proof upon the denier. An "I do not believe that" is not good enough. Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence?
By the way, the reason that scientific evidence is so reliable is because of how it is defined and the qualifications required for it be called "evidence" in the first place. It is an easy idea to understand.
For me, truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. (That's often called the "correspondence" definition.)
As you say, subjectivity can often be a problem for humans. That's why traffic cops use cameras, for instance. It's also why, if someone claims that unicorns, or Bigfoot, (&c &c) are real, the appropriate response will usually be, "Show me."
It's also a problem God has, since [he] never appears, never says, never does, and is only known to exist as a concept in an individual brain (overall, a wide variety of concepts in individual brains).
Don't ask others to do for you what you can do for yourself. Ask AI: Free AI Answer Generator: Tailored, Accurate Responses Fast.
A Neanderthal and maybe a Denisovian might be able to pull off a modern look, but older species like habilis or Australopithecus -- not. Just look at facial reconstructions from fossil skulls.
How do you think we can tell that many modern Europeans have Neanderthal DNA, or Australian natives, Denisovian DNA? They're are recognizable genetic differences.
Regional floods happened all the time, all over the world. They provided fodder for campfire stories, and later legends.