Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

quote:

---

Dr adequate
54,000 years ago their main technology involved banging rocks together. This would not allow them to fly to the moon.

---

Exactly. But it happens to be the scenario in the middle-east, but only between 5000 to 6000 years ago - but w/o dispute!

quote:

---

You have not factored in all relevant issues.

​

For one thing, you forgot that people have to eat.

​

It's these little oversights that make creationism so funny.

---

You mean, other peoples in the earliest recordings of and by mankind never had this problem? Now that's more funny.

quote:

---

adequate

​

What are you talking about? What scenario? Banging rocks together? Flying to the moon? How does this relate to technolgy 54,000 years ago?

---

The banging of rocks and eating were items posited by yourself as pertaining to ancient humans. Now if the world pops and its mental prowess are known and observed - applicable over the last 6000 years from verifiable sources such as writings, nations, wars, kings, names and dates - then I put it to you that early mankind would have confronted these issues in the M/E - yet they manages to evolve from that point to now without resorting to 60,000 years: how do you account for it?I nominated 54,000 because we know for a fact that from ancient, non-writting ancient peoples in the M/E upto now, and all the current world population and mental developments took 6000 years, so I subtract that figure from the alledged 60,000 given for aboriginal history. Unless they never emulated the known ratios of population and mental prowess of the known?

quote:

---

What I mean is that you have not factored in all relevant issues; for one thing, you forgot that people have to eat.

​

This is why I wrote: "You have not factored in all relevant issues. For one thing, you forgot that people have to eat."

---

This is common with all humanity - whether 6000 or 60,000. How does it apply?

quote:

---

noseyned
So show the calculations where you factored in death and diseases. You can now show how you used some information about the middle east in those calculations.

---

This is in our face: we know the current world pop and its mental prowess status. It only becomes vindicated for 6000 years. We can safely assume this because it is recorded, with historical events and graduations of humanity - contrasted with nothing else. There is no history per se before 6000!

quote:

---

That looks like another thing you can explain in a new thread. From here it looks like utter gibberish produced by sticking pins in a dictionary. But maybe it is just my limited skills at reading English. You could explain it with simpler words perhaps.

---

It cannot be expressed more simpler. I asked which is vindicated: cross-specie or within-specie? That's hardly a gibberish question. We have genesis stating that all reproduction and mental prowess, including dna transmissions across generations of humanity (memme?) occurs via the 'seed' - is it gibberish or 100% vindicated? My reading says the theory f cross-specie is not vindicated.

quote:

---

jar

​

Of copuirse they were. Dood, you need to study your crazy insane ignorant Bible toatin' culture a little better

---

Before toatin homosaps, first determine what makes modern humans different from all life forms - is it their skeletal formations or minds - or are these common to all life? The tools used are contrived and selective - catering only to an end point assumption - and based solely on what fits. For the same reasons, we cannot allocate oxygen or hairs as the conduit of proof: these too are common factors for all life. Only the factor unique to humans can be the applicable one in determining what influenced modern man. And the only factor that's not common to all life, and which makes humans as human (different) is: SPEECH. And speech is not time factored nor accumulative: else the oldest life form would be transcendent in the acquisition of it. As it happens, only the most recent life form has this feature. Nor can we say that another life form will in the future or is about to beget speech: apes have already been around as long as it takes.Will you say you are a Neptunite - because IODINE was also found in Neptune?

quote:

---

vacate
You have mentioned similar a few times. What do you mean by seed? You earlier included a chickens egg as a seed. Do you also include Mitosis as seed?

---

A 'seed' can include anything which is an internally derived factor.

quote:

---

A decent place to start would be here -
Observed Instances of Speciation

​

This was just a quick search. There is a lot of information available about the topic. Unfortunatly much of it is behind subsciption fees in science journals. I am sure, however, that more information is available online. A search of these forums is likely to result in a few hits also as I am sure this topic has been covered here before.

---

Been there, seen it, had it. The problem with these sites is they assume a Talibanic, religious attitude: they never address the inconsistancies of their premies, as if they are not 'theories' but fact; and they consider no alternatives. Check it out again - you will find no mention of a direct seed linkage - despite that it is indisputable that 99.9% of all similtitudes and all known attributes are derived that way - directly from the seed.Is a pineapple a pineapple - because of a pineapple seed - or because of cross-specie adaptation?

quote:

---

dr adequate:
You have still not explained how people 54,000 years ago could have gotten to the Moon.

---

I did. Evidenced humanity's history says this took 6000 years to achieve. This means a 60,000 humanity should have performed this feat 54,000 years ago. There's no need to think about it - its based on the known ratio of mental prowess on this planet.

quote:

---

Given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people. This is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account.

---

Are you saying someone is monitoring this situation - that 54,000 years ago, the population looked like it was going to overwhelm this planet - and this process was averted? And does this also satisfy the issue of mental prowess? Does'nt make sense!

quote:

---

vacate
What does that mean? Reproduction, including DNA transmition, occurs from an internally derived factor? Could you be clear, because this makes little sense at all, and can hardly be said to 100% vindicate Genesis.

​

they never address the inconsistancies of their premies

---

A seed represents a part from a host, so it is internally derived, as opposed from external souces in nature. And reproduction, bodily features and heriditary data is passed on via the seed.

quote:

---

The new species cannot breed with the old species. Doesn't that about cover it?

---

How so - any and all life forms derived their imprints from its parental seed, rendering the different species millions of years ago issue superfluous. Also, a new specie means the destruction of any precedent one, so the issue of 'they cannot breed' becomes muted.

quote:

---

Do you have any math that supports your 99.9% or did you just make it up? What does the .1% include?

---

When we allocate an offspring acquiring its imprints from the host parent seed, it covers all known inheritences. There are other factors such as planetary environmental ones, which are generic and not related to inheritence: a population can inherit darker skin for example, by generic environmental impacts, which is outside the seed's source, but nevertheless transmitted via the seed.

quote:

---

I ask you the question - Is a pineapple still a pineapple after it has had enough mutations to no longer consider it the same species?

---

There are two issues here. One is that a pineapple results only from a pineapple seed - this is the immediate and total inheritence factor (Genesis). A secondary, alledged issue is that the pineapple originally emerged via cross-specie adaptation/leaps millions of years ago via mutations(Darwin): but we do not see this in the pineapple and seed phase - it is outside of the pineapple phase and is embedded in a non-pineapple premise of millions of years, whereby it is not a pineapple. There is no error that a seed performs the function described in Genesis. With regard your question, is the pineapple a specific specie or grouping, and whether this is derived from other species - we find that it still conforms with Genesis - at the point when we can call a pineapple as a pineapple: here it performs as per genesis. yes/no? Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

quote:

---

chirop

​

There's no need to think about it....

​

Ah. That explains how you reach your conclusions.

---

Is there really any need to think about it if a seed causes data transfer to be inherited from the parental host?

quote:

---

dr adequate
And this tells us that it took 6000 years after the point at which we started writing history.

---

No. The OT describes a past 2500 years before Moses, retrospectively. Writings emerged later - the picture writings (heiroglifics) appeared before the OT.

quote:

---

60,000 years ago, we were not writing history, hence we could not have gone to the Moon 54,000 years ago.

---

Exactly. But this also says that the first 6000 in the 60,000 period never elevated in mental prowess, which the last 6000 is manifestly a series of graduated elevation, culminating in man going to the moon. Further, unlike the last 6000 again - there are no graduated imprints of human development interspersed at different intervals in the last 60,000 years. Eg: we don't see community imprints at 55K; pyramids at 50K, nations and wars at 45K; in fact not a single histrical feature to represent speech humans and what it represents.

quote:

---

Are you saying someone is monitoring this situation - that 54,000 years ago, the population looked like it was going to overwhelm this planet - and this process was averted? And does this also satisfy the issue of mental prowess? Does'nt make sense!

​

No, I am not saying that. You are saying that. This is why it doesn't make sense.

---

What I am saying is, we should see a population increase for a 60,000 year humanity: we do not. The current world population of some 6B is the result of the last 6000 years - not 60,000. So in both, population, and mental prowess, we find a disfunction with the 60K claim.

quote:

---

What I am saying is that given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people, and that this is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account.

---

This does not impact - unless you are saying 60K humans did not reproduce?

quote:

---

This is why I said: "Given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people. This is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account."

---

I don't think so. It means reproduction is not a mute factor, and subsequently it means there were no 60K speech endowed humans - else the world population would not align only with the last 6000.

quote:

---

A 'seed' can include anything which is an internally derived factor.

​

The phrase "internally derived factor" gets zero hits on google. This is because it is a meaningless phrase which you made up.

---

The same would apply to any sentence from your post. I used a made up descriptive term to express a point - its not a scientific term that it can be googled.

quote:

---

Of course you will find no mention of a "direct seed linkage". This phrase also gets zero hits on google. This is because it is a meaningless phrase which you made up.

---

Does that mean an offspring does not inherit via the parental seed - the relevent point here?

quote:

---

max

​

Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years (we come to this conclusion due to many independent scientific studies spanning many different fields) and it has taken all of that time to get people to the moon.

---

The point of humans is misleading here: better we apply the term, speech endowed life form - which is what genesis refers to, and the factor which separates modern humans from all other life forms. The 6000 figure does not apply to any other life forms. The issue of 100s of 1000s of years must thus apply not to alledged skeletal similarities but speech. Speech endowed life forms align with what we see of modern humans within the last 6000 phase: pyramids, writings, wars, nations, names and dates - and there is no 'history' prior to the 6000.

quote:

---

I used a made up descriptive term to express a point ...

​

Yes. You keep on using "made up descriptive terms".

​

Now, can you say what you want to in English, rather than in some private stupid language that you made up in your head?

---

One has to make up descriptive statements. What's so wrong in expressing a seed as internally derived - differentiating it from externally impacting evolution as per darwin?

quote:

---

heiroglifics

​

Please continue to teach me about ancient history, you know so much about it.

---

One is allowed grammatical and spell-check liberty in a forum, where speed applies. But thanks anyway.

quote:

---

dr adequate
What's wrong with it is that it's a language you've made up which no-one else speaks. "A seed as internally derived"; "externally impacting evolution"; these are phrases which you have made up and which do not mean anything.

---

Here's another one I made up: WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY MADE-UP STATEMENT - IS A SEED NOT AN INTERNALLY DERIVED FACTOR?

quote:

---

doddy
Well, the natives of New Guinea did not put a man on the moon, nor build pyramids, nor even write anything. However, they are indeed speech-endowed human beings. The same thing can be said of many sub-saharan African tribes and the Australian Aborigines.

---

The point concerns 'when' that speech emerged, not if it emerged with humans. And speech has surrounding indicator evidences, seen with the aboriginals today and the last 6000 years - but this is 'time' factored: it did not occur 120K years ago.

quote:

---

So, perhaps the presence of such things as pyramids and lunar landers is not a good indicator of whether the populance had speech or not. Why? The link between speech and writing is not always present. Perhaps the environment is much harsher than in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and thus the people spend so much time trying to work out how to get the next meal and how to keep their children alive that they don't have time to think about astrophysics or even an alphabet. So, perhaps it was the case that before a few thousand (10,000 plus) years ago, all people worldwide were doing the same thing. Then, in those areas where some major advances were made, namely agriculture and domestication, and the climate was suitable for this to occur easily, then only did people start recording their history.

​

Speech, on the other hand, is biological, so should be expected across all human cultures, regardless of their environment.

---

Agreed that some speech endowed humans did not attain writings - perhaps due to isolation. But there are a host of other evidences for speech endowed humans - and apes and zebras do not evidence this - nor do we have evidence of speech 120K years ago. Nor is speech biological - else every life form would have it: they predate humans! Parents and teachers do not 'teach' a child to talk - they merely ignite a switch and the rest happens.

quote:

---

Thus, could I say that bacteria must not have existed before one year ago, as we don't see enough? No, I can't, because the majority of bacteria die before they undergo fission. They run out of room, food, air, get killed by chemicals or sunlight etc.

---

More impacting here is, you cannot say the previous bacteria existed.

quote:

---

The same thing happens with humans - infant mortality and disease was commonplace even up until a hundred years ago, how much worse would it have been without safe water and easy food sources? It is only with the advent of a stable food source (agriculture), a body of knowledge to prevent disease and infant mortality (writing) and so on, that we humans have been able to reproduce so rapidly. Why, for a modern example, look at the drastic rise in population since the Industrial Ages (where agriculture and industry took a massive leap forward, so too did the population growth), and even more recently, the growth of Third World nations since the introduction of modern medicines and agricultural practices. In fact, the majority of the 6.5 billion population we see today is a result of the last 200 years, rather than the last 6000.

---

The factors of desease and death are common to all scenarios and thus factored in. Unless you are saying it was not present in the middle-east? The current population is a result of natural prevailing conditions on this planet the last 6000 years - they apply for any period you select.[/quote]

quote:

---

Thus, as population growth in fact depends on writing (and related advances), why then are you so surprised to see it only start to grow consistently after writing was invented? Doesn't that reasoning seem a bit circular to you?

---

Population does not depend on writings but on the ability to reproduce.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

doddy
That's right. Writing is not the only way to tell if speech was around.

---

Certainly. There are also, pyramids, wars, nations, kings and historical events. We know of no 'NAME' of any human prior to the genesis datings - in fact no history per se - and this is not because of no writings.

quote:

---

You are contradicting yourself. Why would there be the 'switch' (the brains capacity to pick up language) if it wasn't biological?

---

Speech is an inherent intergrated attribute with humans. I meant, parents to not inculcate it: it cannot be thought to non-humans.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
More impacting here is, you cannot say the previous bacteria existed.

---

But if it was, it is potentially catered to in the text.

quote:

---

It is true that diseases have been around for many years. But antibiotics haven't. It is true that famine is ever-present, but farms haven't been. It is true that child mortality has been ever-present, but hospitals and midwives haven't been. Unless you factor in health care, agriculture, domestication of animals and so on, your calculations will be incorrect. You cannot assume that the rate of death from all causes will remain static when humans have endeavoured to decrease them.

---

Deseases were also less prevalent then. But even if all those items are factored in, they'd account for a small fraction of the population: 120K years would still amount to 1000s of trillions.

quote:

---

Analogy:Lightbulbs don't depend on me turning on the switch, but on electricity passing through a filament.

​

Flicking a switch is what causes the electricity to drastically increase from a tiny, tiny amount to that needed for the light bulb. Analogously, writing causes reproductive success (the probability of raising a child to adulthood, when he or she can reproduce) to increase from a small percentage of children born to almost all children.

---

Let the attribute of speech replace electricity here?

quote:

---

doddy

​

What about fossil anatomy, as the above posters and myself have alluded to?

---

Out of my window it goes, crashing to ground zero with a mighty THUD! Its a big con - not that there are no fossil relics found - but the conclusion construed by it. IMHO, fossil and dna are secondary back-ups, once the issue is established; while on their own,without hard-copy and actual proof - it is a con or a great error. This is also the reason I reject 60K year aboloriginals based solely on alledged cave marks.

quote:

---

On the contrary. Diseases would account for a large fraction of the population. One need only look at the family history of a pre-Industrial Age figure, say Marie Antoinette, to learn of this (and this is given some idea of health and care of children, and the fairly good diet of the royal family).

---

We're talking about 100K years ago - before the word 'pollution' was invented.

quote:

---

Even in the Middle Ages, living to 40 would have been considered a long life. I'm sure many, many died before they made it to 20.

---

Yes, but the reverse applies pre-4500 years.

quote:

---

When reproductive success was electricity, the switch was technology (writing, for example). If speech is the electricity, what would you say the 'switch' would be?

---

Teaching; encouaging; prompting. Its akin to a bird teaching its offspring to attempt the first flight - an inherent attribute with birds.