|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6097 days) Posts: 65 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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 mean, other peoples in the earliest recordings of and by mankind never had this problem? Now that's more funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: This is common with all humanity - whether 6000 or 60,000. How does it apply?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: A 'seed' can include anything which is an internally derived factor.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Is there really any need to think about it if a seed causes data transfer to be inherited from the parental host?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No. The OT describes a past 2500 years before Moses, retrospectively. Writings emerged later - the picture writings (heiroglifics) appeared before the OT.
quote: 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: 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: This does not impact - unless you are saying 60K humans did not reproduce?
quote: 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: 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: Does that mean an offspring does not inherit via the parental seed - the relevent point here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: One is allowed grammatical and spell-check liberty in a forum, where speed applies. But thanks anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Here's another one I made up: WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY MADE-UP STATEMENT - IS A SEED NOT AN INTERNALLY DERIVED FACTOR?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: More impacting here is, you cannot say the previous bacteria existed.
quote: 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: Population does not depend on writings but on the ability to reproduce. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: Speech is an inherent intergrated attribute with humans. I meant, parents to not inculcate it: it cannot be thought to non-humans.
quote: But if it was, it is potentially catered to in the text.
quote: 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: Let the attribute of speech replace electricity here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: We're talking about 100K years ago - before the word 'pollution' was invented.
quote: Yes, but the reverse applies pre-4500 years.
quote: Teaching; encouaging; prompting. Its akin to a bird teaching its offspring to attempt the first flight - an inherent attribute with birds.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024