There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Eli G]

When you rely on "the results" that some scientists share from their experiments,
when you accept that the interpretation of these results should align with what someone tells you,
when you choose to believe one group of scientists over others who hold different views,
when you trust in events that cannot be substantiated with solid evidence simply because you trust the narrators

... then you require faith much like believers.

 

[Eli G]

But we know that there were never two first humans...

No, you don't.

Given that only a father can pass the Y sex chromosome to a male child and only the mother can transmit mitochondrial DNA, it logically follows that there must have been an initial man and an initial woman.

By this reasoning, one must deduce that there was a first man and a first woman based on the exclusive transmission of the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA by the father and mother, respectively.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you rely on "the results" that some scientists share from their experiments,
when you accept that the interpretation of these results should align with what someone tells you,
when you choose to believe one group of scientists over others who hold different views,
when you trust in events that cannot be substantiated with solid evidence simply because you trust the narrators

... then you require faith much like believers.

Sorry, but your inability to understand how the sciences work or even rational reasoning is done does not mean that others have faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you don't.

Given that only a father can pass the Y sex chromosome to a male child and only the mother can transmit mitochondrial DNA, it logically follows that there must have been an initial man and an initial woman.

By this reasoning, one must deduce that there was a first man and a first woman based on the exclusive transmission of the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA by the father and mother, respectively.

No it does not. You keep forgetting that people are the product of evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals. Our titles such as "man" "kangaroo" are only temporary place holders that describe populations of organisms. You might want to research the concept of "emergent processes". There are quite a few throughout biology and the other sciences as well.

 

[Eli G]

A single genetic alteration (microevolution) can only be inherited if there is an initial individual whose DNA has undergone a change.

Evolutionists entertain the illogical notion that whole populations can evolve without one individual of each sex experiencing transformation initially.

How can a rational person think so illogically?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, you don't.

You don't know that (that there were no original pair of humans), but I do as do many millions of others not influenced by religious mythology do. The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, and it allows us to understand that there was never a human born to a nonhuman.

Why? Because human is an imprecise predicate. There is no definition of human so precise that one can say that a mother and her offspring that differ by a single intergenerational mutation are not the same species.

Given that only a father can pass the Y sex chromosome to a male child and only the mother can transmit mitochondrial DNA, it logically follows that there must have been an initial man and an initial woman.

Your science is correct, but your logic is flawed. Thise facts don't support the conclusion you draw from them.

A single genetic alteration (microevolution) can only be inherited if there is an initial individual whose DNA has undergone a change.

Do you think that that supports your claims? If so, you are incorrect

Evolutionists entertain the illogical notion that whole populations can evolve without one individual of each sex experiencing transformation initially.

It seems that you're unfamiliar with the theory. Parents don't need to mutate to produce genetically original offspring. Meiotic reshuffling can do that.

And regarding mutation, only one parent need have a given mutation for it to be inherited by the next generation, not "one individual of each sex experiencing transformation initially."

Why are you arguing science you've never learned? You seem to know only what creationist sources teach. They are neither reliable nor honest. They are not interested in your scientific literacy, [just] maximizing pro-Christian voters and tithers.

 

[Eli G]

...Why are you arguing science you've never learned? You seem to know only what creationist sources teach. They are neither reliable nor honest. They are not interested in your scientific literacy, maximizing pro-Christian voters and tithers.

Do ad hominem answers any questions?
While using them gives you a false sense of triumph, it shows me that you have nothing serious to say.
Have a great day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A single genetic alteration (microevolution) can only be inherited if there is an initial individual whose DNA has undergone a change.

Evolutionists entertain the illogical notion that whole populations can evolve without one individual of each sex experiencing transformation initially.

How can a rational person think so illogically?

That is the problem, There never was only one person. There were never only two people. There were populations of people and their ancestors.

Tell me, who was the first person to speak Spanish.

You misused a facepalm because only your posts have merited one.

 

[Eli G]

Only in evolutionary fantasies do apes become humans without there being a real woman and man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do ad hominem answers any questions?
While using them gives you a false sense of triumph, it shows me that you have nothing serious to say.
Have a great day.

He did not appear to use any "ad homs". You do not seem to understand that concept either.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes I guess the early Jewish Christians saw themselves as Jews and under the law of Moses but some of those early Christians seem to have seen the law of Moses as obligatory for themselves

"Saw" themselves as Jews? Before Cornelius, all the believers in Jesus WERE Jews, and they WERE obligated to the Law.

and for the Gentiles who wanted to be under the New Covenant.

No, this is a mistake. The council of Jerusalem absolutely declared that Gentile believers did not need to become Jews. This decision was binding on all the Christian churches.

What they did not realise is that both Jews and Gentiles had been put under grace with the New Covenant and being guided by the Spirit replaced being guided by the Law.

Well, that's what you believe, and you are entitled to believe anything you want. But it is not the teaching of Acts 15, which never ever rescinded the understanding that Jewish believers were bound by the Torah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in evolutionary fantasies do apes become humans without there being a real woman and man.

And yet we have endless scientific evidence supporting that fact and you have nothing but a religious book. You keep claiming that God is a liar when you insist that it has to be read literally. That is why most Christians do not make your mistakes.

 

[Eli G]

There is not any real proof that some apes became humans.

Your ad hominem don't add anything useful to the topic.

Apes don't become humans through those fallacies.

 

[Valjean]

Only in evolutionary fantasies do apes become humans without there being a real woman and man.

What does that mean?
Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand that evolution usually results from accumulated small changes?

 

[Eli G]

First: It seems you have lost your way. Note above what topic you are on and get back on track.

Second: The change from ape to human is a punctual change. It cannot occur over time; it must begin with at least two births: a human female is born from an ape and a human male is born from another ape.

Since you are discussing a different topic in the wrong thread, I'll end this dialogue. After all, you will repeat the same cliches from your manual to the point of nausea and that is well known.

Good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is not any real proof that some apes became humans.

Your ad hominem don't add anything useful to the topic.

Apes don't become humans through those fallacies.

There is plenty of evidence for that fact. The problem is that you are too afraid to learn. I cannot force someone to be brave enough to go against their indoctrination. I can only point it out.

And yes, like it or not you are still an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First: It seems you have lost your way. Note above what topic you are on and get back on track.

Second: The change from ape to human is a punctual change. It cannot occur over time; it must begin with at least two births: a human female is born from an ape and a human male is born from another ape.

Since you are discussing a different topic in the wrong thread, I'll end this dialogue. After all, you will repeat the same cliches from your manual to the point of nausea and that is well known.

Good night.

No, and this is the point that you cannot seem to understand. Humans are apes. They never stopped being apes. That is impossible. If you deny being an ape you are claiming that you are not a man.

 

[Valjean]

There is not any real proof that some apes became humans.

Your ad hominem don't add anything useful to the topic.

Apes don't become humans through those fallacies.

There's no real proof that germs cause disease, either, or that the Earth circles the Sun. But, as with evolution, there's a great deal of good evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do ad hominem answers any questions?
While using them gives you a false sense of triumph, it shows me that you have nothing serious to say.
Have a great day.

It's not an ad hom to point out that you do not understand what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do ad hominem answers any questions?
While using them gives you a false sense of triumph, it shows me that you have nothing serious to say.
Have a great day.

I examined the quote you gave very carefully, and found no ad hominem. I'm thinking perhaps you don't understand what an ad hominem is. Disagreeing with you, or pointing out the flaws in your thinking, are not ad hominems. An ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than their argument. For example, if someone says you are stupid, or of Satan, or just being dramatic.