Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

quote:

---

doddy

​

Why would you think cavemen would reproduce faster than medieval citizens?

---

Most of the deseases came with interaction between new groupings, and when an immunity had not been developed. Before this time, the planet was unpolluted, and people lived to greater lifespans. Wars and other deaths are common factors for all spacetimes. The bigger lifespans of biblical figures is true - people never ventured out of their communites and we have a fully intergrated calenderised diary of their lifespan datings, with no motive to fake or implement such a math vindicated historical account.

quote:

---

But who would be teaching speech to humanity?

---

Like all other pivotal factors which sustain the universe and this planet, speech is a bestowed phenomenon. It never emerged via coos and hisses, as is thought: speech arrived suddenly and in an already advanced state - in oral form first - independently in all areas of the planet. This is why million year old life forms never attained speech despite evolution, adaptation and every other facility available. Speech is a higher, exclusive form of communication unique to humans - as is a superior attribute of maths: neither are evolutionary results.Who would be teaching superior math to humanity and not any other life form despite every beneficial advantage of time and conditions?

quote:

---

Your evidence for this is?

---

When we consider what factors give longevity and what negates it, aside from wars and natural disasters, we find the positive conditions would have existed in ancient periods. Although medicine was not yet invented - its requirement would be less because deseases would be less common.In ancient times peoples seldom ventured out of their communities, so there was less interaction for spreading of desease, and the air would have been cleaner. This is also backed by the OT - a diarised historical account with dates, names and places over a period of 2500 years, and which evidence a gradual decline in life spans. The current increase in lifespan is likewise a reversal factor, whereby many deseases are being cured, indicating a longer lifespan existed in the past.

quote:

---

Your evidence for this is?

---

When we consider what factors give longevity and what negates it, aside from wars and natural disasters, we find the positive conditions would have existed in ancient periods. Although medicine was not yet invented - its requirement would be less because deseases would be less common.In ancient times peoples seldom ventured out of their communities, so there was less interaction for spreading of desease, and the air would have been cleaner. This is also backed by the OT - a diarised historical account with dates, names and places over a period of 2500 years, and which evidence a gradual decline in life spans. The current increase in lifespan is likewise a reversal factor, whereby many deseases are being cured, indicating a longer lifespan existed in the past.

quote:

---

I think for Mr A to answer that question, he would first have to understand what "internally derived factor" actually means. Otherwise, you have asked an essentially meaningless question of him.
Let me see if I can understand. Essentially, you are referring to a seed being part of the parent organism. This distinguishes the seed from external factors, such as soil acidity, sunlight and so on, that determine the appearance and characteristics of the seedling. Thus, you are then describing what I, as a scientist, would call either a zygote or an embryo. Perhaps you could look up those terms and see if they express what you are trying to.

---

Spot on! Soil and sunlight being externally impacting factors, as opposed the internally derived seed. An embryo is internally derived.

double post!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

There is not a shred of evidence to back this up, of speech being gradually developed and evolving. There are no grads of 40K, 30K, 20K and 10K years! All of what we associate with speech endowed human developments and its history are only seen in the last 6000. There is a clear reason for not acknowledging this blatancy - because of its inferences and impacts which give credibility to Creationism: go ahead - deny it! But no sector of humanity recalling via memory and oral transmissions, a single 'NAME' or event pre-6000 is an undeniable stretch. The retreat to cave markings, with no surrounding back-up, is what we are left with - but here, science becomes pseudo and surreal, akin to improvised sci-fi.

quote:

---

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!

---

You are going in a scenario where the 'switch' is not ignited, siting abuse and exceptional conditions. Denying one from breathing will have the same effect - though a child inherently possesses the breathing attribute. Speech is not an evolved phenomenon: apes are older than humans, and equally possess adaptation, have brains and communication faculties.Cholmsky has been wrong in almost everything he has ever said - exploiting knowledge he begat selectively via manipulation and for self-serving purposes.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

max

​

So you are defining humans as those who were around 6000 years ago, then concluding that humans have been around for 6000 years.

​

I am arguing that it has taken hundreds of thousands of years for humans to get to the point (physically and socially) where humans were 6000 years ago.

---

My arguement is that speech endowed humans like today, as opposed to skeletal formation classifications, is 6000 years old. This has not been overturned as of now.

quote:

---

Your only evidence that humans came into existence 6000 years ago is that thats when we started writing stuff such that modern humans can read it (stone/continually rewriting/etc).

---

This oft repeated counter is bogus: there was NO writings 5,500 years ago - the first picture writings on granite pyramids are less than 5,500 years old. Nor do the evidences tended for modern humans prior to 6000 indicate speech, including alledged cave markings & drawings as per carbon datings only, irrigation, communities, common burials, fireplaces, etc. Speech has definitive imprints not subject to this type of grey area retreats, such as names - of a city, king, war, etc; an array of ethnic songs or poetry recalled; a diety; sacrifices; imprints of different speeches/languages from different areas and periods; varieties of foods, fruits and vegetations; varied and differing cultures and traditions, etc: none of these require 'writings' to be evidenced. One must be critically fastidious in demanding such proof - and examine them with a total suspicion - if the enquirey is genuine and not agenda-based. It is an issue of pivotal importance.

quote:

---

Will you agree with me that it takes a lot more than just the ability to communicate to have pyramids, writings etc? A civilization where every member has to work all day long in order to get the food they need to survive probably can't build pyramids. They probably won't be too concerned about developing a written language when they don't have the time, nor need to read or write.

---

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt here, even though this seems most improbable: what are you saying? I say its improbable because pyramids require more than oral communication - it requires drawings (blueprints), maths and intelligence: modern man today could'nt build a pyramid without speech and writings. And we have no complex structures for any period before 6000: the fulcrum and operable factor here!

quote:

---

You seem to be assuming that once a being can speak that the ability and desire to write are going to happen at the same time. This is why others have cited the development of the larynx and the 40,000 plus year history of human speech.

---

Yes, only the examples which require no proof are tended! No other life forms seemed to develop a larnyx, nor do we have grads of grunts and elevated speech imprints throughout the last 120K years: it all co-incidently aligns with a document called Genesis. I thought you saw oral speech sufficient to erect pyramids - how about some other imprints just 50K years ago -or am I being too demanding?

quote:

---

doddy

​

I've already explained why other organisms didn't develop speech but hominids did - much the same reason that only elephants gained a prehensile nose. Why are you not claiming that an elephants trunk is bestowed, as no other animal, despite billions of years, has developed it.

---

That's a reasonable point - but it works against your premise: it does not overturn that speech is an exclusive attribute for humans - because only elephants have trucketed noses. Nor does it overturn that life forms possess attributes bestowed/acquired specifically, as opposed developing them via time-factored adaptation: elephants had trunkated noses as far as all time is concerned, and their only variances appear to be maybe smaller trunks and within a certain 'kind' (grouping) of that life form. The leap to cross-species via millions of years appear contradicted here, and aligning with Genesis' adaptation limited to a certain 'kind' - and not generically. It also indicates that speech endowed humans are not the result of adaptation from other life forms 120K years ago - but co-incidently synchronised with genesis. Is not the latter a terrible premise!

quote:

---

Evolution does not have any set "aim" or "goals". It is not a process with the intent to create as many smart creatures as possible, or as many talking creatures as possible, or as many creatures with long noses as possible. The only criteria is survival, and that can be solved in a myriad of ways, only one of which is intelligence and speech.

---

Fine. But how does this help you: the only criteria it fails in is 'survival' of any species!

quote:

---

If you agree that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens, what brings you to that conclusion?

---

The species categories we use today is new and arbitrary in relation to darwin's preferred research quest. Genesis' categorising is differently perspected: humans are classed as a 'kind' (category) with exclusive speech - nothing else impacts here. This does not invalidate our current categorising criteria at all, but from another POV, humans are correctly differentiated by genesis in its nominating of the only unique factor separating humans from all other life forms. It seems genesis is assuming a big picture view, from a zoomed out creational lens.

quote:

---

doddy

​

I can do nothing here until you accept evolution as true, because the disagreement between yourself and myself stems from that, so any debating we can do here is pointless.

---

What is evolution? To me, its one of the processes we see - no different from rain and gravity. So its fine to give this process a name, as representing 'changes' in life forms; its an academic, virtual reference, with no actual position existing. I mean we cannot capture a thing called evolution or its source, same as we cannot capture the equation or source of gravity in a lab. The issue of evolution becomes precarious when we consider that all systems in the universe are 'intergrated'; here we have to give evolution a place in a larger system.As a process, I see more credibility in the host 'seed' than anything else being responsible for reproduction and all graduations, and that this needs no cross-species factor impacting for its viability. The issue of cross-species enters the picture in the quest to track the source and thread of life, from an evidential scientific methodology. However, there is also another factor which propells this quest: science and anything appearing in a theology become mutually exclusive, and sometimes this can lead to an agenda-based error in deriving a scientific conclusion.What may be the problem here, is that when darwin encountered imprints of graduations in his research on life forms appearing in nature, he concluded that genesis was wrong, and his new found data correct. But another view could have been taken from the same research findings - without any conflict with genesis. This refers to the grads encountered by darwin can be limited to certain groupings of life forms, without cross-species, as stated in genesis. This validates darwin and genesis, excepting only in the tresholds of the graduations concluded by darwin's cross-species. But had darwin founded in alignment with genesis, it would conflict with the quest for a theology negating premise. I believe that in the latter mentioned quest, to promote cross-species and show it as a polar opposition to genesis, the cross-species premise had to be pursued, and controversial conclusions were made of the research data (retrovirus, etc). There is a blatant zeal to contradict anything in a theology - and this is understandable to a very large degree (there is hardly any science in most theologies), and the OT became cast in the same green bag. This even that Genesis is correct to a far positioned extent, contradicting only one aspect of darwin's theory.I think it calls for playing Devil's Advocate here, and assume that genesis is correct. What is the resultant premise, if there is no cross-species grads, and only 'within-species' grads (disregard the species categorising ratios here)? I think only one conclusion becomes pertinent here, and non-surprisingly, it is the only unacceptable one for a large sector of science, R & D grants, and vocational career status: Creationism remains intact! Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

doddy

​

I do not agree that they were the FIRST Homo sapiens, should they even exist at all, because Homo sapiens has existed for far longer than 6000 years, as has speech.

---

Genesis says they were the first life form with speech, the only values given them in the reference to 'kind'; this has nothing to do with today's species categorising criteria. That speech is proven before the genesis dating is not conclusive by any means - not even as a theory. We have not a name or any history before 6000 - which is not dependent on writings.

quote:

---

jar

​

What does that have to do with whether or not they were Homo sapiens or if they even existed?

---

Excellent point, and one I have been trying to impress. Genesis does not promote or negate a prototype for modern man. It is silent on this issue, while only declaring a distinction based on speech, this too via a special and deliberating reading of the texts as the applicable distinction; it is affirmed by the separation mode - all animals (without speech) are listed as one 'kind'. The latter kind includes all the species breakdowns applied to animals (canine, feline, etc), including any proposed protypes for modern humans - as separated from speech humans - without any contradictions to the text.The issue of variance between creationalists and evolutionists is with one facet, namely cross-species. But IMHO, even cross-species can fit into Genesis, because it is not negated or supported. For sure, cross-species within a 'kind' is actually promoted here - namely that a seed of one kind (read, all the species nominated by science today) can follow the seed of all life forms within that kind.I don't see the problem as cross-species per se, because speech endowed humans can be seen as such 'after' they evolved to this stage. The issue which does impact is that of 'A seed shall follow its own kind, with the ability to transmit (inherit) all factors noted by darwin; here, the factor of transmissions, which darwin allocates to speciation, is from the 'seed', according to Genesis. This says that speech humans are derived from speech humans. But there is a twist here: Genesis does not specifically reject that a speech human could not have evolved from a previous life form, as portrayed in Darwin. The latter is a position taken by Creationalists - but another reading of the text can argue that conclusion.Most Creationists assume a view or belief, that if life was 'created', instead of evolved, that evolution is thereby out of the picture. But this may not be correct, but I'm not sure - it comes down to correct textual assessment against a belief, with genesis being wrongly compromised. I say this because all the statements in Genesis are vindicated only via science, math and history, and all works of creation have at their base a logical, scientific mechanism and engineering structure.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.