Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[McBell]

Look who's talking......what an avatar!

What is it you claim I am denying?

 

[Aman777]

What is it you claim I am denying?

Dear Mestemia, He's talking about your face and your red eyes. i don't blame you for hiding them. You should do the same with your pet bug. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Riverwolf]

You didn't draw the line where you should have

There is no line.

....and you know it.

Dude, stop talking to that Straw Man. I'm over here.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dear Riverwolf, Then please explain HOW ancient men, who lived more than 3k years ago, knew that we live in a Multiverse composed of THREE other Universes.

They didn't, and it's not shown where you say it's shown.

Furthermore, what you speak of has no connection to anything I've seen in cosmological theory.

It's 100% more than anything offered by any Evol. If you disagree, then produce your map which dates the FIRST farming, city building, and every other trait of modern humans which separates us from Prehistoric people, who were NOT Humans. I won't hold my breath.

First of all, no map can show such a thing. Paleo-Archaeology is what shows such things.

Second of all, I dispute your map because it does not show what you say it does. The Emperor's got no clothes, dude.

I was speaking generally. When you show some Evols that their view is False, Historically, they dismiss Historic Empirical Evidence as nothing. It's because they CANNOT make it fit with their False Theory. Humans came to this Planet 10k years ago and Human civilization began, at that time, according to HISTORY AND Scripture.

You've provided absolutely no history whatsoever, nor have you explained why we should take the contents of the Biblical canon seriously.

With your massive understanding of ancient mythology, TRY and refute my view. You CANNOT because Genesis was authored by God Himself, and it is impossible to refute Him. God is the Supreme Intelligence of Creation and when you find His Truth, all of other part Truths of men, are easily understood.

I've seen no indication whatsoever that Genesis was authored by any God, and every indication that it shares at least three very human authors.

For example, the Sun existed well before the Earth did, and the Moon was formed when the Planet Xena crashed into us. The Moon is not a light of any kind, let alone a "lesser" light, because the light you see from it is actually just reflected Sun light.

In fact, every single thing you see is actually just light, either from a source (such as in a light bulb) or reflected.

This entire Solar System, in fact, is comprised of the body of an ancient Star now dead. If I were to follow the logic you're presenting, then I could easily claim that the Eddas were authored by Odin, since Voluspa states that the entire world is comprised of the body of Ymir, Father of Giants.

But I don't do that, because that's not at all what they were saying.

The Lake was NOT shaped by the Ark, but it does give us a better idea of just HOW big Adam's firmament was. Since the Lake is 75 miles wide, Adam's Biosphere could have been 50 miles wide and still fit within the Lake. In other discussions with Evols, it has been suggested that a firmament 25 miles wide, would allow for the FOUR Rivers of Adam's world, and the land of Nod, on the East of Eden.

There is no indication whatsoever that this lake is any indication of that. It's just another lake in the Fertile Crescent. It does have significance to geologists, but not archaeologists.

No wonder you are confused. Let's start at the beginning. God made THREE Universes or firmaments and placed them in our Multiverse. I gave you the Scripture above which agrees with the Tanakh, but does NOT agree with the Goatherder Theology of ancient men.

And what Theology would that be? After all, the "theo" in "Theology" means God, and so any Theology is dependent on the presence of Gods.

And why, again, should I believe the claim that Genesis is authored by any God?

 

[Thief]

There is no line.



Dude, stop talking to that Straw Man. I'm over here.

There is no line?
Then you have no definitive statement to make.

and you have become the Straw Man.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is no line?
Then you have no definitive statement to make.

It occurs to me, based on what I say below, that I don't actually know what's being separated by a line in your mind, with regards to this subject. Instead of debating further, I shall ask.

What is the line you speak of separating? The line between humans and other animals?

and you have become the Straw Man.

'Tis not possible.

The Straw Man impersonates me, and you, and makes us think the other thinks, or has said, something that is neither thought nor was said. You claimed I knew something, but I honestly don't even know what you're talking about. Thus the Straw Man has lied to you about my knowledge.

As another example, here's how the Straw Man fooled me: I thought that you and I meant exactly the same thing when using the word "animal". It now occurs to me that for you, "animal" means something quite different than it does to me.

What, then, are you referring to when you use the term "animal"?

 

[Thief]

It occurs to me, based on what I say below, that I don't actually know what's being separated by a line in your mind, with regards to this subject. Instead of debating further, I shall ask.

What is the line you speak of separating? The line between humans and other animals?

'Tis not possible.

The Straw Man impersonates me, and you, and makes us think the other thinks, or has said, something that is neither thought nor was said. You claimed I knew something, but I honestly don't even know what you're talking about. Thus the Straw Man has lied to you about my knowledge.

As another example, here's how the Straw Man fooled me: I thought that you and I meant exactly the same thing when using the word "animal". It now occurs to me that for you, "animal" means something quite different than it does to me.

What, then, are you referring to when you use the term "animal"?

And what term do you use in saying....human?

If you are comfortable that you are animal....and nothing more.....ok.

But it is considered an insult among humans.
(the line IS drawn...I hear it now and then)

 

[idav]

And what term do you use in saying....human?

If you are comfortable that you are animal....and nothing more.....ok.

But it is considered an insult among humans.
(the line IS drawn...I hear it now and then)

Animal is a broader term. and nothing more?

It gets more specific than just animal, like mammal and reptile.

 

[Thief]

Animal is a broader term. and nothing more?

It gets more specific than just animal, like mammal and reptile.

So you could be as that serpent...in the Garden?

 

[Delta-9]

And what term do you use in saying....human?

If you are comfortable that you are animal....and nothing more.....ok.

But it is considered an insult among humans.
(the line IS drawn...I hear it now and then)

Are you a mammal?

 

[Thief]

Are you a mammal?

Spirit...first.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

And what term do you use in saying....human?

If you are comfortable that you are animal....and nothing more.....ok.

But it is considered an insult among humans.
(the line IS drawn...I hear it now and then)

Facts are independent of how we feel about them

 

[Riverwolf]

And what term do you use in saying....human?

If you are comfortable that you are animal....and nothing more.....ok.

But it is considered an insult among humans.
(the line IS drawn...I hear it now and then)

Among some. Not among others. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say it is an insult universally among humans, but rather among humans who have a specific mindset.

In the context of this discussion, when I say "human", I mean nothing more than a member of the genus homo. It's the common term for a biological classification. (So, yes, following this, homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, homo habilis, etc. are also all human).

An animal, in the context of this discussion, is also nothing more than a biological classification, of which humans are a part.

In common vernacular, when used in a derogatory sense, "animal" is generally a reference to characteristics a given culture would regard as "unsophisticated". Personally, I turn away from such a mindset, as I find such class distinction toxic. When in reference to specific living beings, "animal" generally only refers to "vertebrate", so excluding animals such as insects, mollusks, etc.

As a result, common vernacular is completely useless when discussing things from a biological perspective.

 

[Riverwolf]

So you could be as that serpent...in the Garden?

Snakes evolved long after mammals. (And by long, I mean the distance separating snakes and the first mammals is several times longer than the time that separates us from the K-Pg extinction event). So in terms of that serpent's clade, no.

I certainly can't go for a month without eating. (I'd sure love to, though. I hate eating.)

 

[Sapiens]

And what term do you use in saying....human?

If you are comfortable that you are animal....and nothing more.....ok.

But it is considered an insult among humans.
(the line IS drawn...I hear it now and then)

Damn few zoologists would see it as an insult, are we not humans too?

 

[Thief]

Damn few zoologists would see it as an insult, are we not humans too?

And you actually want to draw the line? with you as...animal?

I suspect heaven seeks after spirit.
If you want to plead your flesh before the angels.....good luck.
(but I think your skin will end up rotting in a grave)

 

[Thief]

Snakes evolved long after mammals. (And by long, I mean the distance separating snakes and the first mammals is several times longer than the time that separates us from the K-Pg extinction event). So in terms of that serpent's clade, no.

I certainly can't go for a month without eating. (I'd sure love to, though. I hate eating.)

I read the reference of serpent as indication of character, rather than form.
And I say, Man diverged from the ape.

That there is an account of sudden divergence centuries before we realize it could be so.....doesn't surprise me.

And if you truly dislike eating.....you should be looking forward to a spiritual life.

 

[Thief]

Among some. Not among others. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say it is an insult universally among humans, but rather among humans who have a specific mindset.

In the context of this discussion, when I say "human", I mean nothing more than a member of the genus homo. It's the common term for a biological classification. (So, yes, following this, homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, homo habilis, etc. are also all human).

An animal, in the context of this discussion, is also nothing more than a biological classification, of which humans are a part.

In common vernacular, when used in a derogatory sense, "animal" is generally a reference to characteristics a given culture would regard as "unsophisticated". Personally, I turn away from such a mindset, as I find such class distinction toxic. When in reference to specific living beings, "animal" generally only refers to "vertebrate", so excluding animals such as insects, mollusks, etc.

As a result, common vernacular is completely useless when discussing things from a biological perspective.

So...you think you are above insult?
Stand before an angel and look him in the eye.....when He calls you...'animal'!

 

[Bunyip]

So...you think you are above insult?
Stand before an angel and look him in the eye.....when He calls you...'animal'!

Well it's sure better than vegetable or mineral - what's the problem? Don't you like animals?

 

[idav]

So you could be as that serpent...in the Garden?

Yeah cause serpents talk......:no: