Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No! Stop babbling incoherently. I never said the never lost any primate characteristics.

At any stage of the evolutionary development of man, there was a mix of primate and human survival characteristics. In varying degrees. Your problem as I keep pointing out, is you think only in opposites. I have told you there were thousands of shades of grey, or combinations of primate and human survival mechanisms.

I guess the "movie" of facial features changing slowly, has to be run again much more slowly to match the intellectual slowness between your ears. Repeat after me:


T-H-O-U-S-N-D-S

O-F

S-H-A-D-E-S

OF

G-R-E-Y




There Always was some "color" bunky.
FYI, grey is a color of varying combination of white and black. As is most of the universe

Yeah, and at some point, light gray becomes distinctly dark gray, doesn't it? Or vice versa! And when light becomes dark, or dark becomes light, real change has taken place, hasn't it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I forgot.
Mrs. boxcar

Are you sure you're not projecting your feminine side?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The "Out of Africa" theory is just that -- theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

"The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to theory for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

"The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

"Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Actually, he does, since I'm an ambassador of Christ, and as such a spokesperson of God.

The God Delusion. Strike Christ and substitute Napoleon and they would lock you up.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...the "smarter" ones became physically weaker because of the death of the dumber ones?

You imply that the smart ones deliberately killed off the strong ones. That's not at all what I said.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Doesn't sound so smart to me. Seems to me the smarter ones would want to retain their physical strength.

What they want and what they get are seldom the same thing. That's not how natural selection works. Survival of the fittest does not necessarily equate to survival of the strongest. In the end what counts is the survival of the group, not the individual. I've explained this to you before but you are happiest being ignorant.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How did the thing that existed in the transition period between the "great ape" (or chimp or spider monkey or whatever) and your "Homo Habilis" mange to survive in a such a hostile environment when those things were greatly outnumbered by predators who were around for gazillion of years before they arrived on the scene?

The odds for that 1 sperm to survive what was needed to create you was 500 million to 1. That's the average sperm count of a human male.

So I could ask you the same question you keep asking . How could that one sperm that was needed to become you survive 500 million other sperm? It's odds of survival was many times the odds of early man surviving.

The answer is that you were meant to be as you are, just as the human race was meant to survive in its infancy even if you are right in your incorrect assessment that we were just sitting ducks for predators. God did not allow our destruction.

Many of the 15 to 20 species of man lived concurrently with the others species of man. One did not necessarily give birth to another. And as I said, we were the last of the Homo Genus line. The earliest in our Homo Genus line called Homo Habilis were named that because that name means "handy Man" because they made tools, contrary to your idea that we were not much more than walking food waiting to be devoured.

And yes there are ancestors to Homo Habluis but not in the Homo genus line. And there are ancestors to those ancestors. You can keep going back and asking your same question of all those other vulnerable periods when our species may have never come to fruition. But God and Nature found a way and just because its not in the Bible does not mean it did not happen.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm an ambassador of Christ, and as such a spokesperson of God.

Says who?

Show us your credentials.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, and at some point, light gray becomes distinctly dark gray, doesn't it? Or vice versa! And when light becomes dark, or dark becomes light, real change has taken place, hasn't it?

Only more change bunky.

When we add 1 to 100 we have changed the sum. haven't we? Add 50 and we have changed it more. Being able to evaluate the way things work requires quantity as well as quality.

We knew all along your qualitative analysis was lacking, it is also clear you have no idea how to count. As does your version of god. When humans judge events and their consequences, to do it properly humans sum up things. Justice administered by humans uses metaphorically balancing scales, in order to weigh the just outcome to a crime.

When Jean Valjean the protagonist of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel Les Misérables. steals bread to feed his sister's children during a time of economic depression and is imprisoned and then persecuted endlessly by Police Inspector Javert, Hugo perfectly expresses the black and white unjust thinking of very stupid fools who can only knee jerk their way through life and follow "rules" without properly using "scales" and weighing and summing up what is significant.

When your unjust god murders in 1 Samuel 15:1-3 ..

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

And you take this literally, shows how you lack any ability in "weighing and counting" things to know what justice really is.

Your inability to understand balancing things, or "shades of grey" in physical and biological phenomena, leaves you clueless most of the time as it has as far as evolution goes.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Says who?

Show us your credentials.

Sez me 'cause the bible sez so.

2 Cor 5:20
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
NASB

God has always spoken through his chosen people.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Only more change bunky.

When we add 1 to 100 we have changed the sum. haven't we? Add 50 and we have changed it more. Being able to evaluate the way things work requires quantity as well as quality.

We knew all along your qualitative analysis was lacking, it is also clear you have no idea how to count. As does your version of god. When humans judge events and their consequences, to do it properly humans sum up things. Justice administered by humans uses metaphorically balancing scales, in order to weigh the just outcome to a crime.

When Jean Valjean the protagonist of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel Les Misérables. steals bread to feed his sister's children during a time of economic depression and is imprisoned and then persecuted endlessly by Police Inspector Javert, Hugo perfectly expresses the black and white unjust thinking of very stupid fools who can only knee jerk their way through life and follow "rules" without properly using "scales" and weighing and summing up what is significant.

When your unjust god murders in 1 Samuel 15:1-3 ..And you take this literally, shows how you lack any ability in "weighing and counting" things to know what justice really is.

Your inability to understand balancing things, or "shades of grey" in physical and biological phenomena, leaves you clueless most of the time as it has as far as evolution goes.

Good grief! Get off on tangents much?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

The odds for that 1 sperm to survive what was needed to create you was 500 million to 1. That's the average sperm count of a human male.

So I could ask you the same question you keep asking . How could that one sperm that was needed to become you survive 500 million other sperm? It's odds of survival was many times the odds of early man surviving.

The answer is that you were meant to be as you are, just as the human race was meant to survive in its infancy even if you are right in your incorrect assessment that we were just sitting ducks for predators. God did not allow our destruction.

Many of the 15 to 20 species of man lived concurrently with the others species of man. One did not necessarily give birth to another. And as I said, we were the last of the Homo Genus line. The earliest in our Homo Genus line called Homo Habilis were named that because that name means "handy Man" because they made tools, contrary to your idea that we were not much more than walking food waiting to be devoured.

And yes there are ancestors to Homo Habluis but not in the Homo genus line. And there are ancestors to those ancestors. You can keep going back and asking your same question of all those other vulnerable periods when our species may have never come to fruition. But God and Nature found a way and just because its not in the Bible does not mean it did not happen.

God and Nature -- another tag team, heh?

Anyhow...thanks for your non-answer. Your post doesn't explain how earliest man was able to survive in a hostile world when he was greatly outnumbered by predators and came into this world with no natural survival mechanisms to ward off his enemies. Don't forget: All the lower animals were here [b]before[/b/ man AND since those prehistoric times, billions of species have become extinct, which means the earth was populated with far more animals back in that prehistoric period compared to now. To try to put things in a little accurate perspective, study the stats from the link below -- and I guarantee that whatever modern stat you read about a particular kind of species of animal, that number could probably increase 100-fold.

http://reducing-suffering.org/how-ma...als-are-there/

By the way...how many "species of man" are in the world currently?

And finally, just because something is in a book of scientism, doesn't mean it happened either.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God and Nature -- another tag team, heh?

Anyhow...thanks for your non-answer. Your post doesn't explain how earliest man was able to survive in a hostile world when he was greatly outnumbered by predators and came into this world with no natural survival mechanisms to ward off his enemies. Don't forget: All the lower animals were here [b]before[/b/ man AND since those prehistoric times, billions of species have become extinct, which means the earth was populated with far more animals back in that prehistoric period compared to now. To try to put things in a little accurate perspective, study the stats from the link below -- and I guarantee that whatever modern stat you read about a particular kind of species of animal, that number could probably increase 100-fold.

http://reducing-suffering.org/how-ma...als-are-there/

By the way...how many "species of man" are in the world currently?

And finally, just because something is in a book of scientism, doesn't mean it happened either.

Dear Mr. self proclaimed ambassador to Christ.

First if you are an ambassador to the most high you should follow the advice of your ambassador and not call me a pathetic sack of cow manure. Because Jesus said Love your enemies.

Secondly you show great weakness in your faith when you do that and your credibility as an ambassador is greatly doubted.

Lastly, I have already answered your question in that if you don't believe the evolutionary explanation, you should believe that the one you claim to be an ambassador to allowed it to happen in a way that is beyond the Bible and more in line with the ones you call sacks of cow manure. Makes great fertilizer BTW.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I will focus on only three huge obstacles to slowly evolving hominids in their "infancy" stage of evolving to become humans. The first, is human reproduction. The second is human growth to maturity. (The third I'll discuss below.) In either one or both of first two regards, humans are unlike animals. Therefore, when "mother nature gave birth" (evolved) to the earliest humans, humans didn't come into this world like a litter of cats or mice or dogs or rabbits. In most cases, one human was born to a mother. Common sense should tell most of us, therefore, that the earliest humans were vastly outnumbered by all manner of wild beasts that would have presented all kinds of dangers to physically weaker, slower creatures who were also deprived of natural survival mechanisms.

The second problem is that the maturation rate for humans, in spite of our slowly evolved superior intelligence, is considerably longer than in other mammals. This, too, presented an additional handicap to "families" of humans, because of all the demands youngsters would have placed on their parents.

The third problem would have been competition for food. At some point in the evolutionary cycle, humans' dietary/nutritional needs would have changed and humans would no longer be able to sustain themselves on only the food of "great apes" or "spider monkeys". Humans would need substantial amounts of protein in their diet so that they could develop physically. How were earliest humans going to hunt for food before slowly developing to the point of making weapons, tools, etc.? Everything they would have hunted would have been faster and/or stronger than them.

The best you evolutionists can do is offer a lot of conjecture on how earliest man managed to overcome all these obstacles to not only survive but thrive. (Good job of back-fitting to get your evolution model to work!) In all cases, you have to appeal to various aspects of animal behavior and apply that behavior to humans. But even if the earliest humans inherited a family social structure, that kind of "team work" would not have been sufficient to overcome their vastly inferior population compared to their competition as a whole.

Of course, Creationists don't have these kinds of problems to overcome because evolution never happened. Evolution is the world's biggest fairy tale -- the very big lie foisted on the minds of men by the Father of Lies. So, let's see how the bible addresses these kinds of issues. We'll start by looking again at the Deuteronomy 7 text.

Deut 7:22
22 And the Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you.
NASB

Let's add some historical context to this passage. The setting is in the Wilderness, probably relatively close to the end of Moses' life. The ancient Hebrews were to inherit a huge parcel of land that was occupied at that time by seven nations that greatly outnumbered them. God, could have wiped out the seven nations in a heartbeat, which would have greatly facilitated Israel's God-ordained land grab, but because the land area was so big and the Hebrews so few, God would have had to kill many wild beasts over time or just "raptured" all that were already in the land and dropped them off to some other place on the planet. But instead of doing that, God told the ancient Israelites what the plan would be: slow and gradual occupation. And the reason should be obvious to everyone who has an IQ higher than his belt size. With so few Hebrews occupying such a large land area, this would have facilitated rapid population growth of all the "wild beasts". Animals reproduce and multiply many times faster than humans do. The Promised Land would have literally been overrun by wild beasts, making human habitation, even back then, very problematic. And the land was filled with all kinds of carnivores and scavengers -- bears, large cats, wolves, hyenas, jackals, alligators, large snakes, etc. As I implied in another post earlier today, those wild beasts, and all other animals below them on the food chain, would have rushed in to fill the void left by all the dead bodies of the peoples of those seven nations; thus, giving credence to the old adage, "Nature abhors a vacuum".

So then, how much more problematic would this kind of scenario have been for the earliest humans in the infancy stages of their evolutionary development? Look at the parallels. Huge amount of land and so few humans! And those earliest humans wouldn't have been nearly as well developed as their ancient Hebrew counterparts. Not only that, but the land that earliest man would have been born in was already occupied 100% by animals! The earliest humans, then, would have started out life behind the proverbial eight ball, coming right out the gate. The Hebrews, at least, would have lived for a brief period in the Promised Land before facing numerous hungry wild beasts. But the earliest humans would have been confronted by all kinds of hungry predators immediately.

So then...how did Adam and Eve, who came into this world stark naked, and all their immediate progeny after them manage to survive once ejected from the Garden of Eden? They, too, were kicked out into a huge land mass, (i.e. the rest of the planet!) that was occupied by animals -- animals that became wild and predatory after the Fall. How did Adam and Eve and their kids, and grandkids, and great, great grandkids, and great, great, great grandkids, etc. manage to survive? While Adam and Eve were vastly more intelligent than evolutionists' version of earliest primal humans, we find in scripture that sheer superior intellect alone would NOT have been sufficient for our first parents to have survived and thrived in a hostile environment wherein they would have been greatly outnumbered. Two passages address this very issue from slightly different perspectives.

Gen 1:28
28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
NASB

So, at the very beginning, Man was made head honcho over all life. Man's stewardship over the world, included the animals. And this is why God brought the animals to Adam to be classified and named.

But even after the Fall, God made it very clear that man would not only rule over the animals but would now also be at the top of the food chain.

Gen 9:1-3
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
NASB

So, again...the historical context is postdiluvian. And even though Noah and the seven members of his family were cast out into a hostile world containing far more animals than what they numbered, and even though that number still paled by comparison to the number of animals that existed during the advent of earliest primal man -- nevertheless, God would have to instill the fear of man into the animals that survived the flood in order for Noah and his family to survive and thrive. The collective smarts of Noah's family would not have been sufficient for them to survive.

This is one of the most uneducated, ridiculous, inconsistent, and moronic posts we may ever see.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good grief! Get off on tangents much?

We were speaking of how your version of god was lacking any all-knowing, any all doing, all loviving qualities during his do-over of man by Noah and the Flood, when you went off the straight and narrow tangentiazing off on how early man could not have survived as portrayed by evolution and that everyone in the world got it wrong according to your totally UNJUSTIFIED analogy of early man being somehow the "infancy" of mankind,

LITERALLY

What else is new bunky?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

This is one of the most uneducated, ridiculous, inconsistent, and moronic posts we may ever see.

He has quite a few equally uneducated, ridiculous, inconsistent, and moronic posts.

I have read them going back to 2002. However he is getting worse. Senility or too much 700 club, not sure.