• 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!

Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

idav

Being
Premium Member
UNLESS....you can explain HOW ancient goatherders knew to write this genetic explanation thousands of years ago.

No they didn't know about genetics. Genesis sounds just like other creation myths, explaining away our differences and of other animals through use of divine intervention. That has nothing to do with genetics. Far as humans were concerned, genetics is a deity endeavor so they would see us as gods then. Hardly. Myths trying to explain our cleverness, why snakes have no legs. Other myths like to explain things like why we have different languages and different skin tones but they are all just that, just mythology that science has had a much better time explaining.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Dear jonathan, Adam's world was much smaller than our world. The highest elevation was only 22 1/2 feet high. Gen 7:20 It had only 4 Rivers which all came from one River which ran out of the Garden of Eden. Gen 2:10 Our Earth has Thousands of Rivers. Adam's world was surrounded by a solid firmament which protected it from the water it was placed in. Gen 1:6-8 Adam's world was "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 in the Flood and Scripture could NOT have been speaking of our world since we live on a Rock which doesn't dissolve in the water.

The understanding seems convoluted because you haven't heard it before. From now on, every time you have a discussion of the Creation, this view will appear, simply because it's God's Truth. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Dude, seriously...

Where was this firmament? Was it a separate planet? Was it floating on a lake somewhere on Earth? Was the rest of the Earth completely barren and void of life?

This view of creation is actually going to go in one ear and out the other because aside from your claims, Aman, there is nothing else to back it up, not even in the book that you continually reference... Instead of explaining to me what you think went down, I just want you to show me something. Any piece of anything that will help to explain where all of this mumbo jumbo is coming from.

If the great flood only needed to flood Adam's "world", then doesn't that dispute the idea of a global flood (meaning the actual globe of the whole planet Earth)?

If you say 'No', then which ape-people did Noah's sons mate with? How would they have survived?

If you say 'Yes', then doesn't that throw your entire fundamentalist reading for a loop?
 

Aman777

Bible Believer
No they didn't know about genetics. Genesis sounds just like other creation myths, explaining away our differences and of other animals through use of divine intervention. That has nothing to do with genetics. Far as humans were concerned, genetics is a deity endeavor so they would see us as gods then. Hardly. Myths trying to explain our cleverness, why snakes have no legs. Other myths like to explain things like why we have different languages and different skin tones but they are all just that, just mythology that science has had a much better time explaining.

Dear idav, Read the following and tell us about the genetics discussed here and tell us the difference between men (Adam) and the sons of God (prehistoric man).

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric man) came in unto the daughters of men, (Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Paraphrase: Intellectual Giants (Humans) were in the Earth in those days; and would appear again after this, on Planet Earth, when prehistoric people married and produced children with Noah's grandsons and the children became Intellectual Giants and men of nenown, on our Earth.

The prophecy of and also after that is referring to the Fact that the SAME thing happened later on our Earth when Noah's grandsons married and produced today's men of renown, the Human beings of this Earth, with the prehistoric people of Planet Earth, who were already here when Noah arrived some 10k years ago. Below is empirical evidence of Noah's arrival which brought Human intelligence to our Planet of Apes. God Bless you.

Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

In Love,
Aman
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Just pointing out your postwork.
It isn't holding well.

It's holding just fine, as far as I can tell. Until you, or someone else, can actually explain what you mean, I will continue to regard my argument as solid.

That we're the only extent member of the homo genus left alive today (unless Bigfoot turns out to be real) does not, in any way, contradict my earlier arguments.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Dear idav, Read the following and tell us about the genetics discussed here and tell us the difference between men (Adam) and the sons of God (prehistoric man).

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric man) came in unto the daughters of men, (Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Exactly what makes you think the Nephilim are "prehistoric man" and not just exactly as the word is generally translated? (There's no genetics whatsoever in that passage, BTW).
 

Aman777

Bible Believer
Dude, seriously...

Where was this firmament? Was it a separate planet? Was it floating on a lake somewhere on Earth? Was the rest of the Earth completely barren and void of life?

Dear Jonathan, The firmament was in Lake Van, Turkey. No, it was on our Earth, but was a completely enclosed Biosphere, an incubator of Humanity. It was floating in the Lake because inside the firmament was water, soil, and Air, but that Earth was much smaller than our Planet. The firmament (Adam's world) was contained within the Lake, which is 75 miles wide and 1500 feet deep. The Scoffers of the last days have this attitude:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

When something is "out of the water and in the water", it is Floating. Today's Science will NOT believe that Adam's world was floating in the water and that it sank and released the Ark into our world as it was totally destroyed in the Global Flood of Adam's world. If it sounds like Atlantis, so be it.

This view of creation is actually going to go in one ear and out the other because aside from your claims, Aman, there is nothing else to back it up, not even in the book that you continually reference... Instead of explaining to me what you think went down, I just want you to show me something. Any piece of anything that will help to explain where all of this mumbo jumbo is coming from.

It comes from the AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History, which is shown in it's entirety in Genesis Chapter one. Here is empirical evidence of the arrival of these FIRST farmers on our Planet. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

If the great flood only needed to flood Adam's "world", then doesn't that dispute the idea of a global flood (meaning the actual globe of the whole planet Earth)?

No, since Adam's world was "clean dissolved" according to Isa 24:19. Our world IS covered with water but does NOT dissolve, like Adam's Earth did, because our Earth is a ROCK. The Global Flood completely destroyed Adam's Earth but NOT the present Earth. Most theologians are unaware of this Scriptural Truth. They are also ignorant of the THIRD Heaven of 2Co 12:2.

If you say 'No', then which ape-people did Noah's sons mate with? How would they have survived?

Noahs' sons were married and had no children when they arrived on our Planet. Their children, like Cain on Adam's Earth, had NO other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry. They married the Cro-Magnons who were already here when Noah arrived. These prehistoric people were NOT Humans since they did NOT descend from Adam. The mistake of Science is to Falsely classify prehistoric people as Humans since they had animal intelligence, and NOT the superior intelligence of Adam, the first Human, who had an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22

If you say 'Yes', then doesn't that throw your entire fundamentalist reading for a loop?

My understanding is based on Genesis and it has NEVER been refuted either Scripturally, Scientifically, nor Historically. That is simply because it's the Truth in every way. It's proof of God to those who believe and ruins the day of Godless Evols who have been forcing their Falsehoods upon our little children for more than 50 years now. Evols are now soundly trapped by their False teaching that Humans evolved from Apes. Our children are Humans and NOT animals, as they are falsely being taught. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
You're like some kind of weird psycho-babel bot...

If the global flood "clearly dissolved" Adam's magic bio-sphere floating world - and also completely covered the Earth that you and I live on - how did the "Cro-Magnon" people that Noah's sons mated with survive that flood? Where did they come from?
 

Aman777

Bible Believer
Exactly what makes you think the Nephilim are "prehistoric man" and not just exactly as the word is generally translated? (There's no genetics whatsoever in that passage, BTW).

Dear Riverwolf, The evolution from prehistoric mankind, whose origin was in the water beginning some 3.7 Billion years ago, into Humans, with an intelligence level like God's Gen 3:22 can only happen with beings of Flesh/genetics. Most theologians try to convince us that the Nephilim were fallen Angels, but this is totally UnScriptural.

Jesus tells us Angels don't marry. Mat 22:30 Jude tells us the fallen Angels are bound in chains under the darkness. Jde 1:6 Prehistoric people were made of Flesh, and looked like Adam did AFTER the fall, but they were NOT Humans. Angels are NOT flesh or they could never enter Heaven. 1Co 15:50 Pehistoric mankind (sons of God) was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day and could have children with Humans. Gen 6:4 For this and other reasons, the evolution from animal to Human intelligence is a Monumental event of the last 1% of time since mankind diverged from Chimps. I'm sorry you missed it. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman
 
Last edited:

Aman777

Bible Believer
You're like some kind of weird psycho-babel bot...

If the global flood "clearly dissolved" Adam's magic bio-sphere floating world - and also completely covered the Earth that you and I live on - how did the "Cro-Magnon" people that Noah's sons mated with survive that flood? Where did they come from?

Dear jonathan, Where did you get the idea that our world was destroyed in the Flood? Not from me. I posted that our Earth is a Rock and doesn't dissolve in water like Adam's world did. Adam's small world was contained within Lake Van, Turkey, which is STILL there since it was NOT "clean dissolved" in the Flood, which totally destroyed Adam's world. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Dear idav, Read the following and tell us about the genetics discussed here and tell us the difference between men (Adam) and the sons of God (prehistoric man).

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric man) came in unto the daughters of men, (Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Dude thats not genetics it doesn't say anything about genetics. They use something called, "intercourse". Thats how a son of god bares children with a daughter of man. :facepalm:
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
The evolution from prehistoric mankind, whose origin was in the water beginning some 3.7 Billion years ago, into Humans, with an intelligence level like God's Gen 3:22

The number "3.7 billion years ago" is your own number, not found anywhere in the Bible.

can only happen with beings of Flesh/genetics.

Which we only know nowadays. The writers of Genesis didn't know that.

Most theologians try to convince us that the Nephilim were fallen Angels, but this is totally UnScriptural.

It's fairly linguistically sound, however. While the etymology is a bit unclear, the general linguistic consensus is that it basically means "fallen ones."

Unless you have a linguistic understanding above that of those who have been studying it their whole lives.

Jesus tells us Angels don't marry. Mat 22:30

Not the ones in Heaven, anyway. I thought the "fallen" ones weren't in Heaven, anymore.

Jude tells us the fallen Angels are bound in chains under the darkness. Jde 1:6

Perhaps Jude never read Genesis.

Prehistoric people were made of Flesh, and looked like Adam did AFTER the fall, but they were NOT Humans. Angels are NOT flesh or they could never enter Heaven. 1Co 15:50

I've never much liked Paul's theology.

I note you're using the New Testament to interpret the Tanakh. Frankly, I don't buy such interpretations, in any case.

Pehistoric mankind (sons of God) was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day and could have children with Humans. Gen 6:4 For this and other reasons, the evolution from animal to Human intelligence is a Monumental event of the last 1% of time since mankind diverged from Chimps.

We didn't "diverge from chimps." We share a common ancestor with chimps. That ancestor was NOT a chimp; chimps didn't exist back then.

Anyway, you still have not said what, exactly, you think human intelligence, when distinct from animal intelligence, even is.

Props, though, you did answer my question as to why you think the Nephilim aren't the fallen angels they're generally regarded as being my Christians. I find the answer full of yet-unexplained assumptions, but it was given.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
And here we have one Sapiens who has never understood God at any significant level that he can believe what 99.9999 percent of believers will tell him about God, and the nature of God, yet we are expected to take his objections seriously because they are tied to his vast scientific understanding. I submit that this approach is foolish in the extreme. Talk about arguing from ignorance.

Judging from this post, I don't think you quite understand what an argument from ignorance is.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Judging from this post, I don't think you quite understand what an argument from ignorance is.

It is clear to me that nearly everyone's arguments on nearly all of these threads are arguments from ignorance. None of you have seen convincing evidences which cause you to believe what you believe. Nearly all of your knowledge of science, history, evolution, chemistry, physics, archeology, etc... is base solely on faith. And I'm okay with that. I have my faith too.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
It is clear to me that nearly everyone's arguments on nearly all of these threads are arguments from ignorance. None of you have seen convincing evidences which cause you to believe what you believe. Nearly all of your knowledge of science, history, evolution, chemistry, physics, archeology, etc... is base solely on faith.

And what position are you in that you can cast such a judgment?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It is clear to me that nearly everyone's arguments on nearly all of these threads are arguments from ignorance. None of you have seen convincing evidences which cause you to believe what you believe. Nearly all of your knowledge of science, history, evolution, chemistry, physics, archeology, etc... is base solely on faith. And I'm okay with that. I have my faith too.

There is a vast gap between how science works and how religion works. In science, we work with evidence, but in religion, beliefs are based on faith taught from sources thousands of years old written by people that we don't even know and whom had an extremely limited education as compared to those today.

On top of this, religious beliefs generally cannot be falsified, whereas scientific input can. For example, if I say our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, that the suns and planets were his spit-wads, what evidence can you put forth to prove that I'm wrong? OTOH, we now know that Einstein's Steady-State Theory is wrong because overwhelming evidence indicates otherwise.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
It is clear to me that nearly everyone's arguments on nearly all of these threads are arguments from ignorance.
And, again, this is further evidence that you don't understand what it means.

None of you have seen convincing evidences which cause you to believe what you believe.
Actually, we have. I wouldn't believe what I believe if I hadn't observed and understood the evidence for it.

Nearly all of your knowledge of science, history, evolution, chemistry, physics, archeology, etc... is base solely on faith.
Garbage. I don't have to deny observations in order to accept scientific ideas - all I need to do is understand them and the logic behind them. If a position is based on a reasonable understanding of the facts, it is not faith - even if the conclusion is inaccurate, or even incorrect. By a definition, a position reached by logic is not a position of faith.

And I'm okay with that. I have my faith too.
Please do not attempt to justify your beliefs by bringing science down to their level. It's a cheap tactic, and one that bears no relevance to reality.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
And what position are you in that you can cast such a judgment?

Well, it is because I am a reasonably intelligent human being just like you. While my ability to reason is not necessarily any greater than your ability to reason, I am certainly not less reasonable than you are either. I believe that if you are indeed a reasonable human being, you are indeed capable of admitting that you know far less than you claim to know.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Well, it is because I am a reasonably intelligent human being just like you.

The state of being "reasonably intelligent", as I'm sure you are, does not automatically indicate that you have sufficient knowledge to make that kind of judgment call.

While my ability to reason is not necessarily any greater than your ability to reason, I am certainly not less reasonable than you are either. I believe that if you are indeed a reasonable human being, you are indeed capable of admitting that you know far less than you claim to know.

I also question on your judgment of whether or not I'm "more reasonable" than you, since I wonder what standard you're using to measure "reasonableness". Is your stated qualification for being a reasonable human being all you've got?

If you have knowledge, you got that knowledge from somewhere. You've made positive claims, which are contradictory to my experience, and I'm asking you to support them.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Well, it is because I am a reasonably intelligent human being just like you. While my ability to reason is not necessarily any greater than your ability to reason, I am certainly not less reasonable than you are either.
And how exactly did you determine that? Surely you must understand that some people are more reasonable than others, right?

I believe that if you are indeed a reasonable human being, you are indeed capable of admitting that you know far less than you claim to know.
Sure it does. What relevance does that have to anything you or we have said?
 
Top