|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6103 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: My reading of Genesis says, Evolution of species and their chronological appearence, was introduced in Genesis, and each specie, according to Genesis, was independent and complete - because cross-specie is negated in this document ['A seed shall follow its own kind'/Gen].
quote: According to Genesis, the first speech endowed life form appeared less than 6000 years ago [5766 years today]. Genesis seems to separate and identify modern humans by speech, rather than skeletal formations - and this appears more credible. The factor which separates modern humans from all other life forms is 'speech' - not the bone frames, the brain or communication. While there are theories of humans possessing speech before writings appeared [which is less than 6000]- there is no positive proof of this. The evidences says oral speech would have not been prevailent - there are definitive consequences of speech - including writings, pyramids, names, nations, wars, kings, communities, etc. The sudden appearence of writings, and subsequently all modern human imprints, also indicates that speech did not develop from grunts and coos: we have no transitory evidences of speech for the extended periods allocated to it. However one looks at it - there does seem to be a quickening of the pace with regard modern humans around the 6000 year point in the Genesis calendar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Why so? The texts clearly indicates a complete new species by its negation of cross-specie transmissions. The Adam/Eve story may also be either metaphorical, or dualistic: the text says this event did not occur in this physical realm, but in a non-earthly paradisical garden from which they were 'cast out' to earth [after the fall], and re-entry barred by beings rotating firey swords. The historicity may apply in the following chapter, which is backed by the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence - with each day measurable from Adam. The second chapter also lists the first 'dialogue' [speech] - and this has never been disproven - which is amazing considering the period allocated to modern man by scientific theorisings. It appears the ancient texts is deceptively simple, and one must give it the relevence of being presented in a mode suitable for all generations of mankind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: According to Genesis, we emerged from a dual-gendered human ['MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'/Gen 1/1]. The single, dual-gendered human was later seperated to become separate male and female counterparts. There appears no alternative to this, and it would apply to ALL life form origins: the odds for a male appearing, then an exacting, synchronising counterpart female appearing independently is extremely improbable and far fetched. The enigma of the chicken and egg is here solved very adequately: the first fowl was dual-gendered, undergoing a separation, then producing an egg ['the seed'] able to repro and transmit all required adaptative attributes - including dna transmissions. There is nothing unscientific or illogical about Genesis, which introduced Creationism and Science: that 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS KIND, WITH THE ABILITY TO REPRO AND ADAPT' is arguably the first sceintific equation/constant on record. It is also vindicated. Science and Creationism are not conflicting: Creationism has to be vindicated by science, math and history. While there is a worldly mindset against religions in general - Genesis is the only theological document which deals with the universe origins, and should be seen in a separate premise. While I fully agree that anything in genesis has to be empirically vindicated - I have not encountered any aspect of Genesis' mode of creation as un-scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Thanks. We have no proof of that: can you prove a human with a 'name', date and address prior to Adam? of coz not - no record of such and no indicators. In contrast, we have a very bold, specific 'date', stating the first speech endowed human's emergence - with no controversy of alternate proof. From a scientific POV - the names listed in the 'generations of Adam' are scientifically vindicated: archeology's prime mode of proof is 'names' - which are exclusive to certain periods. One cannot 'select' what they want and disregard what are positive indicators.
quote: One must give credence to a text which admits another realm: this is - at least - not disprovable; the mythical factor is thus negated by a self-declared 'no contest' in the text.
quote: I'm afraid that many assertions made are not proven, not even as theories - admitted so by science. We have no proof or evidence of speech being derived by coos and grants. You use the period 200K + years - where are the transitory dots of the thread: have we found evidences of prototype speech 100K ago, more advanced speech 75K and 50K years ago? Nope. Contrastingly, languages are becoming simpler and less complex than the past ancient times. Secondly, ALL languages appear to have emerged around the same time - absolutely negating any possibility this occured independently and at far differing periods. Writings, which is the most obvious subsequence of speech - also appears to follow the genesis bold and specific dating - an incredible feat of vindicated datings - and also a formidable proof against the 200K year speech assumption! In fact, you should not/cannot reject that speech is less than 6000 years old: what's your scientifically verifiable reasoning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I did think about it - and I'm not presenting my arguement from a theological premise - only a scientific and logical one. English is easily traceable of its origins, being an osmosis of several languages, including latin, german, greek and hebrew [almost all ancient words are hebrew derived - including 'HELLO']. English is not one of the primal languages. The latin and greek did not possess the hebrew 'V' alphabet/sound - thus we read ABraham with a B instead of the original AVraham. So it goes. The greek begat its 'alph-beta' from the hebrew alef-bet, when greece became the first nation to translate the Hebrew bible in 300 BCE ['The Septuagint'] quote: That appears more sci-fi. Your term, 'mathing beings' leaves me unimpressed - we are not talking about finding a car part for a car - even of the right model car. In any case there is no proof or evidence for what you are professing: Genesis is logical in that the plausability of separation of a dual-gendered origin is the only sustainable premise for a positive/negative or male/female deriving.
quote: It only becomes vindicated as a sudden, evolution by-passing phenomenon, emerging in an already advanced state. This is provable with the Hebrew - it did appear to emerge suddently and in an already advanced state: that is why we have no alphebtical books around - even by older and mightier nations [phoenecia, sumerian] - even for a 1000 years after the Hebrew emerged and placed a vast amount of advanced, hebrew books - in an advanced state of literature which measures up to the best of literature today. Grammar was introduced via the OT.
quote: I was'nt referring to head-bashing dieties or mythical heavenly dieties like Venus and Zeus. Genesis introduced creationism in a premise which is the only counterpart debated in science forums today. Evolution was introduced in Genesis [vegetation, fish, mammals, birds, animals - and humans correctly presented as the last life form]. I see numerous omissions of viable and vital positive factors in your conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Middle-name, for the first human?! Son of 'whom'? Dates and addresses are given - but no street names!
quote: What do you think of the names listed in Adam's generation - also mythical? What also, do you think of the names listed in Abraham's generation? Are the names, dates and cultures of the canaanites authentic and contemporainous - or also mythical? I am trying to figure out your reasonings - if there are any. My reasonings are based on surrounding evidences - where a certain item is not provable or dis-provable. IOW - let the 'provables' be the measuring ruler?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Genesis does not negate prototypes, but it does specify the advent of speech endowed humans as 6000 years: this is provable by the lack of counter proof: we do NOT have any proof of more than two speech endowed humans!
quote: The applicable factor is limited to speech: this is vindicated.
quote: No sir - because the teapot orbiting the sun does not have any surrounding evidences of a written, dated diarised account of speech endowed beings - and a host of other surrounding indicators. These are evidences which tilt the no proof either way factor.
quote: Of coz! Try reading a 300 year olde english document - you will need a translator and it will take eons to read a single sentence - because it is ensconsed in far richer and more complex factors. Ancient hebrew has self-contained numerals, and caters to more sounds with less alphabets (22); it even cntains an exclusive 'perfect tense' - denoting past/present/future. Language is being simplified, beginning with american english spellings, and followed now by almost digitalised texts abbreviated/simplified modes.
quote: This is manifest and self-evident in all readings of history - and backed by hard-copy artifacts. All languages are presented as within the 6000 block - from picture writings on granite pyramids, to parchments, manuscripts and scrolls. In fact, there is no *HISTORY* per se prior to the 6000: name us a king, war, nation or country pre-6000?
quote: Genesis correctly posits speech as the factor separating modern humans from all other life forms. Speech is varied from 'communications', brains and skeletal formations, common to all life. The theoretical assumptions of 120K year modern humans are notoriously couched on imaginative assumptions - with an embarrassing disconnect with modern human populations and mental prowess grads - the key factors seen within the last 6000 with modern man. We should have - literally - millions of non-disputive evidences, everywhere on the planet - including transitory grads: these are non-existent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Rather, I think it is because Genesis was introduced to the world by two sources who claimed it as their own - but never followed or understood it for 2000 years before they emerged - and both those religions are mutually exclusive and contradicting of each other in their presentations - and of the OT understandings held before they emerged. The other factor is that both the NT and Quran are not historically vindicated, assuming all history from their own preferred end-point beliefs. This has resulted in anyone rejecting religions as myth instead of historically vindicated - as all in one bag. better, if each scripture be seen on its own merits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Equally, it is ubsurd to expect today's science termed proof from an ancient text - without appropriate relative considerations. There are 1000s of statues in the OT, including the world's first scientific cencus, in the millions, with gender and age sub-totals - well before numericals were used this way (Ex); there are thus stats of history and what becomes scientifically proven or not proven as yet. It is for mankind to determine the proof. There is no such thing as science or maths - without historical veracity, nor can these be separated. Eg: Kind david was assumed as myth by scholars till recently - this has now been overturned with the Tel Dan find, which scientifically established David as a 3000 year true historical figure: this shows histrical veracity. Science, maths and history are an aligned factor, and we have to determine these items - I would add correct comprehension to this list.
quote: This is a miscomprehension of the texts. The 6000 figure is limited to speech endowed humans only, which the OT calendar is aligned with. It does not refer to life forms and the age of the earth.
quote: The issue here is poor maths. The factor of time does not relate if trans-mutations are on-going. Consider a crystal ball changing colors continuously: this says the phenomenon is observable at all times - in all places. That traces do not exist after its destruction also says two other things: it is very convenient for certain scientific premises; and it is incorrectly termed as an elevation of the specie - it is a perishing of the specie. Only the 'seed' adaptation nominated in Genesis can be termed as an adaptation (elevation and preservement of a specie). It is also correct that 99.9% of all adaptation is verifiably conducted via the seed - including DNA transmissions. There is really no such thing as evolution - this is a recent term which serves as an intelligent placebo of the un-explained. Darwin's evlution differs from Genesis' evolution by the 'seed' factor ('within-specie' VS 'cross-specie'). From the greek word, 'evolve' - but evolve from what? Better, it be seen as "CREATION; EVOLUTION" - as opposed "CREATION VS EVOLUTION". Evolution is an after the fact phenomenon, operating only after the existence of pre-existing matter - else what will evolution evolutionise? Further, the process of evolution (graduations)cannot start in mid-term, as placed by darwin - all structures of the awesome universal engineerings are 'INTERGRATED' - alluding to an obvious, hovering program which can 'INTERGRATE' all systems. My point in all this was, Adam cannot be anything other than today's modern man - at least when he emerged as a speech endowed life form, which remains a unique entity today - in our midst: the reason for this is, Genesis negates cross-specie, while Darwin introduced this premise. Only one of these premises is vindicated in our midst. And the time factor is irrelevent because evolution, via both darwin and genesis versions - are on-going phenomenons. The perished specie is not required in this equation - we should see millions of in-transit cross-species. The latter has never occured outside of Darwin's novella.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Coherence is lacking in your analogy: while a novel can insert a fictional person into a true historical setting - there is no connection with the reporting of an ancient report which is vindicated as authentic - specially so if it is the only document which says that. The OT accounts for chunks of ancient history not available elsewhere for 1000s of years after its appearence.
quote: Writings is an effect of speech, not the reason we cannot prove speech before the 6000 date. We know this from this side of the 6000 setting: writings emerged a few centuries after speech - not so the 120,000 years allocated to alledged speec humans. Edited by IamJoseph, : spell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote:The simplification or streamlining is not related to medical technical terms, but to grammar, spelling and phonations. the word 'scuds' (missile) became commonplace only recently, with the Iraq war. But the older the language, the more complex, which contradicts the notion language started with grunts and coos. The hebrew OT is a complex work, representing the epitomy of grammar, taking the shortest route wordage, and this can require a math-like deciphering process, overturning past translations after deliberation. There is no past writing thread exemplying such literature, making it a msytery how it emerged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The operative factor here is, the mark of veracity is gauged by the vindicated - and all provable factors are vindicated in the OT. This is not dismissable when the factors relate to an ancient time, nor is this seen elsewhere. This is no document with more provables than the OT.
quote: NG does not have an original writings, this is true - but this does not impact that writings closely followed speech. Also, the millenia is inside the 6000 - not of a period when speech for 120k years is vindicated. This also applies to the alledged australian aboriginals being 60k years old, as per cave markings: their population and mental prowess grads do not sustain that period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I believe you are mistaking 'knowledge' prowess with the understanding what is referred to by 'simpler' in language and writings. These are different paradigms and not contradictory. 'simpler' refers to the expression process, not the new knowledge how things work; indeed the term simpler is derived from an advanced premise to discard the superflous and in the pursuit of speedier communications - to cater to the throwaway instant mindset. 'WORDS' and speech mode, as well as writings, was the ultimate science in ancient times: one had to be the equivalent of an esteemed PHD PROF to be a scribe, and enormous time and expense went into a manuscript or scroll - not only because of the masses being illeterate, but mainly because speech was more elaborate and connected to deeply held beliefs, in the absence of empirical sciences. Deseases were seen as curses and spells, and their antidote was via the spoken words and utterences. The protocol for appearing before a king or preist was formidable. What has intrigued me here, is that the hebrew alphabetical books (The Mosaic)appeared suddenly and in an already advanced form, without a trail of graduated advancements - from a small nation which appeared late in the scene. We have nothing of similar status from mighty nations such as Egypt, Phoenecia, Sumeria or the far east. All we have are stray bits of alphebets, theorised as prototypes due to similarities - but not a single historical book (a continueing narrative with multiple pages containing identifiable historical factors). This situation continues for almost a 1000 years after the OT emerged. We have nothing today which matches the OT in its grammar, literture and expressionism. It is an anomoly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not at all. The same would apply to any ancient peoples who do not exhibit the known ratios of time factored population and mental prowess: if any peoples are 60K years old - they would have most probably made it to the moon and back - 54,000 years ago, and their population would be some 100 trillion - even after factoring in all relevent issues such as deaths and deseases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: But I'm not trying to be too smart or dogmatic - we have to remember at all times that darwin's evolution - or the origins of humans - are unknown and not resolved even by *THEORIES*. It is not an anomoly to have a variant view based on science and logic. Re the calculations relating to human population and mental prowess ratios, guess what - I got this from a desolate, barren, dry and fully documented and evidenced region of this planet: its called the Middle-east!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024