Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

You keep saying this across several threads. OK I posit one, Euclid's elements is a document with more 'provables' than the OT. Their 'mental prowess?' Does your lack of understanding of history, science and the NT require you to be a racist?

I find it strange that one can assert that the English language, which currently contains over one million words and which is easily at least four times as much as the nearest contender, is somehow more 'primitive' than any other, either now or in the past.As for epitomizing grammar (or being the most complex in not), exemplifying literature, or providing more concise definitions of concepts than other languages, let history, or for that matter the present, be the judge.

This statement is not true.Findings from the science of psychology clearly show that children subject to extreme abuse to the point where they are not exposed to human communication not only have tremendous difficulty in learning a language they are unable to completely learn the nuances involved in learning any and all languages. Therefore any 'switch' must be turned on by human communication during the first 6 months to 3 years of life, all learning at or beyond that point is done through parents, teachers, or other sources in the child's environment. I directly remember an article in Psychology Today in the 70s concerning a subject named 'Mary' that was subject to such abuse and directly showed this to be true. Worse for the anti-science crowd which can usually, yet unfortunately, be associated with conservative political beliefs, the findings concerning language acquisition directly supported the theories of language acquisition proposed by Noam Chomsky! Edited by anglagard, : change subtitle as per previous admin desires

Yeah, I was considering posting the same thing concerning human anatomy and speech. Of course I don't have to tell you that fossil evidence concerning the position of the larynx or the inter-cranial markings on the left side of the brain associated with language development provide evidence of speech far into the past. I'm also sure that we both agree that such developments were gradual and therefore placing an arbitrary date of 40,000 years ago is imposing an artificial boundary upon a continuous process.