Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did God make early homo species?

jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
deetoodee
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 12:56:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM, deetoodee wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

You didn't read the article did you?

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

This sounds interesting. Source please... a link to articles about this research? Names? Something that supports your argument would give this more weight. Otherwise I will dismiss it and assume it is quack science.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.

I enjoy variety. What other scientific discoveries are you suggesting I read about? I'll look at it.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 1:02:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM, deetoodee wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.

That sounds like a VERY interesting story, and I am interested to see if it is true. I would appreciate a source please.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:15:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I respect Jodybird's opinion. First off I state that Jody's assessment is possibly the correct observation or opinion. But... it is not the same as my opinion based on certain experiences, my own observations, and obviously the hope in God and my faith in God. By faith I don't mean I believe He exists. If one doesn't think He exists, it gets hard to get to "faith". When I say faith in God, that is what I mean specifically. I mean faith like you have faith your brakes on your car will stop your car. You believe the car exists obviously. Now you trust the car to get you safely home. You have faith in your engine, your shocks, your brakes, your tires, and your lights to all work and get you home or to wherever you are headed. You expect it to do fine because it is usually fine. But from time to time there will be a bump in the faith in your car. A tire will blow out. But this teaches you to change a flat. You learn to change flats, become better, more knowledgable, and a slightly better person. Maybe you learn empathy for anyone else you see with a flat. So, the car seemed to have let you down on a very small level, but you still have complete faith in your car(if it is dependable). Why? Because you have seen it bring you to the destination so many times that you expect it to get you where you are headed. You know that the flat was an anomile and that you learned from the experience. You don't suddenly hate your car or quit believing it can get you down the road. Then a rainstorm or hailstorm comes along. Your faith in your car lessons slightly but you still expect it to get you to point "B". If a tornado is seen out in front of you it gets messy faithwise. Do you believe your car can get you through a tornado? Probably not. You know the tornado is probably too much for the car. This is where faith in God turns it up in the tornadoes of life. I see the tornado, close my eyes, take a deep breath, and decide that if God cannot get me through, then He is not who I think He is. I've been through enough tornadoes at this point that it takes something bigger to make me pull up spiritually. Now it takes a fullscale Tsunami/Earthquake/Hurricane/500 mile raging forrest fire, mixed with hail, lightning, meteor showers, and comets hitting Earth to freeze me. But I am human. If the threat is big enough, I can still freeze faithwise, but my faith has increased with answered prayers, deliverance from seemingly impossible parrel, and an optimistic viewpoint. If I'm bonkers or off my rocker then I have had an incredibly lucky life full of bizarre coincidences.

On the other hand, I am a skeptical person as well. To an Atheist this may seem counterintuitive, but it's not as much as one might think. To clarify I say this; if I see a "miracle healing", my first thought is,"Maybe but I doubt it." Why do I of faith and a person who believes he has been healed typically not believe a televangelist healing on tv? Because I believe in God, can vouch for my own "miracles" to myself, but don't trust millionaire televangelists as far as I can throw them. I believe in God's power, but I believe God uses the simple more often than the powerful to demonstrate His love, power, and omnipotence because that is how things have almost always seemed to go in my personal experiences. A poor, old, Bible believing old woman sems to have the most powerful prayers based ony observations. So my opinion is get a "God fearing", Bible believing 85 year old elder woman to pray for you.

Early Homo species:
We need logic, intelect, Biblical study, faith/or lack thereof, logic based resoning or theory, and a deeper understanding/education of the Bible to answer the OP's question fairly and logically.

Adam and Eve. This is the first point of Atheists typically in my past experiences. Bill Maher mocks the Adam and Eve story relentlessly, but Bill Maher doesn't have theologically versed Christians typically on his panel either to counter the claim. Sso he mocks the talking snake, gets an applause from a nontheologically educated Agnostic/Atheistic majority audience and gets an ego padding. Good for him. But...
What would a theologically based and intellectually sound Jew or Christian counter with? Several things. One counter is this. Adam means man in Hebrew. Eve in Hebrew is M16;awwah, meaning "living one" or "source of life", and is related to M17;aya, "to live". The name derives from the Semitic root M17;yw.
And as other theologians know, the translation gets funny from Hebrew into English. The next thought is this. Are these names or are these words?

Adam is put in a "deep sleep", and his rib is used to make Eve, which is a pun in Sumerian, as the word "ti" means both "rib" and "life". Literal or not? We can translate this two ways. God took Man's rib and made source of life. Or we can translate it God took life from man and made the source of life. If you look at 600 theologically thoughtout original translations of Genesis, you can get all kinds of
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:17:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
translations meaning all kinds of different things.

The woman is made to be "ezer kenegdo". This terminology is difficult to translate in reference to Adam or man. Kenegdo means "by the side, opposite, or a needed part to him", and ezer means jumping in and manipulating a situation or restricting a situation for a particular individual.

God's naming of the forces of the cosmos in Genesis implies his authority over the creation in my opinion. Adam's naming of the animals shows his authority in the world. (IMO)

The woman is named ishah, Woman, and this is because she was pulled from from ish, meaning "man". The two words are not linked. After the Eden story is finished, she is given the name Hawwah (Eve). It gets strange. I can take "living" in Hebrew, from the root that also means snake. An older way of translation could say the use of a rib from man's side emphasizes that both man and woman have equal power or authority. This comes from the idea that woman was created from the same general material as man, and also recieved life by the same exact proccess.

The word typically said to mean "rib" in English can also be claimed to mean side, chamber, or maybe even perhaps beam. Which one? You tell me.

In the KJV, the group of words is translated as 'one of his ribs'. A completely different position is that the word elaF3;, occurring many, many times in the Tanakh, is usually said to mean 'side'. Rib is the seemingly stronger meaning of the term. It comes from a root meaning 'bend'.

God takes "one" of Adam's M79;elaF3;, possibly one single rib. Yes, no, maybe so? The Septuagint has a group of Hebrew words where choosing a Greek thought like the Hebrew M79;elaF3;, could translate as 'rib' or 'side of a man'. In reality this is simply a generalized way of saying it in English.

Translation is complex. It is very hard. Sometimes a wording mimics the Hebrew word instead of giving literal interpretations.

I have personally tried to translate Genesis. It gets sticky. I have to decide whether the word means one of many choices sometimes. Other times I have to ask is this literal, kryptic, symbolic, parabalistic, etc? Now I ask again in a symbolic or literal translation, did I use the right English wording exactly? Sometimes you just try to convey or get generally close. Try it sometime. Any takers?

Love is one thought in English. In Hebrew it is 3 parts. I could go on and on, but to make it simple, love can mean basically 'giving'. It can mean an unconditional deeper fondness. To try to translate into the Cherokee Indian language gets very bizarre and frustrating because love is in 3 parts and not so specified as the English word. In English "love" is a very generalized concept. English speaking people have a saying,"What is love?". Hebrew speaking people could be confounded by the question because in 3 parts "love" is defined within itself. And in Cherokee, there is no word for love and no concept of a love word even if divided into 3 parts. You must explain how you feel. You can't say ,"I love you". It wouldn't make any sense. There is no good symbolic and absolutely no literal way to translate this concept. John 3:16 can go from about 24-30 words in English to 100+ words to convey the same thought in Cherokee. :-/

3rd century BC Septuagint translation into Greek if said literally says:
God took a single pleuron from Adam.

The word pleura in Greek means side, flank, and even of course rib. It is used to say "ton pleuron" in the Septuagint. Usage of the can also be said "tain pleurain" instead of ton pleuron, and would have pointed towards "one of his flanks" rather than towards "one of his ribs". In this way of translation it gets very dangerous because it is not really the said to be used in the Septuagint, as it had become obsolete in Greek by then. Therefore the Septuagint might be translated varying ways.

The term, "rib" Hebrew tsala or tsel can mean curve, limp, adversity and side. Tsala, being side, rib, beam or even something meaning a chamber. The old model that reads "rib" has been questioned by female translaters claiming it should be interpreted as "side", giving an interpretation that points to the idea that woman is man's equal and not the "weaker sex" for my lack of a better term.

Another idea, says that men and women have the same number of ribs, the bone was the baculum, a small structure found in the penis of many mammals, but not in humans. Uh, yeah. Moving on...
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:18:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, we know Cain is scared of someones out in the wilderness and marries somebody out somewhere that has a name, the land of Nod. It doesn't add up right does it? Or maybe it does.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:21:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a brutally long answer, I know.

Now we get to the oldest "son" named Cain. Cain means "spear" or "possessed" or 'Possession" as in demonic possession in my best understanding. A google search might get you a better way of saying this. It probably says possession or demonic possession. What does it mean that Cain means possession?

Abel means "breathing spirit". And?

Here's my take from a literal translation:
Demonic possession came from Man and the source of life. A breathing spirit or all breathing spirits came from Man and the source of life.

Now this is where I personally below feel that modern man has no exact way to know literally what the author of Genesis is really trying to say here. I think it's logical to say the author's story, if you will, was coherant to people of that day. But modern translation gets strange and language shifts over time. Even Hebrew.

Cain then finds a wife in the land of Nod. How? Aren't Adam and Eve the first man and woman? That's what I was taught as a child. But this story is way deeper than the simplistic and "safe" Sunday School version. The author finds his original story as coherant, logical, and reasonable. But it's not any of those things at first glance. How did Cain find a wife that did not come from Adam and Eve?

Cain is cursed by God and driven away. He tells God I will be killed by anyone who sees me out here in the wilderness. Cain recieves a curse almost identical to the serpant. And to boot, who is going to kill Cain? Weren't Adam and Eve the first "humans"? Well, we know Cain is scared of someones out in the wilderness and marries somebod

Well...
If you are familiar with Hebrew, translatory issues, and understand the different perspectives and opinions of Jews on this, you have a better grasp as to how the story is not a rejection of modern scientific timelines.

God created creation in 6 days in literal translation. 6 days according to what? The Bible says "A day is unto a thousand years as a thousand years is unto a day," which means time could mean anything. Some critics and even some Creationists will jump to the 6,000 year old Earth from a literal translation of this. Wrong. If this were true, Cain would have had no ability to find a wife who preexisted him, also meaning her parents or possible grandparents preexisted Adam and Eve. But, if Adam and Eve represent the beginning of "humans", who and what is Cain's wife and her family? Not humans? (Twilight zone music cues here...)

Who is Cain's mystery wife? Good question for now.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn"t find a mate"there was no one of his kind. Why was he looking around? Why did he think he could find a mate within the "animals"? The thought of Theological Evolution enters my mind. Maybe many of the "animals" were neanderthal in likeness. Maybe there was something slightly different about him from them. Perhaps he couldn't mate them for whatever reason. Logical? Maybe so. But remember, I have faith because of choice originally, and strengthened by my experiences not the words in a book. Now seeing translation and meaning gets circular and manial in attempts, unless you speak ancient Hebrew, you have no 100% way to know if your interpretation is "the true 100% authentic translation of the devine", if you will. Is it even meant to be some omnipotent transEarthly "word of God" devinely translated into 300+ languages? I don't think so. Why? Faith

-The Tower of Babel:
Genesis 11:5-7
5"But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6"The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

So they will not understand each other. And on purpose. And by God... """""?????

Even more bizarre:
According to ancient Babylonian and Hebrew beliefs, Adam was with "Lilith" at some point. Who? Lilith. Who? What? When? Where? How?
Lilith, which matches the "serpant". Say what? Lilith is a female demon possessing a humanlike body. She is depicted in art as a beautiful woman with a snakelike body wrapped around a tree in the garden of Eden. Remember that "stupid" talking snake Bill Maher mocks? (Cue twilight zone music again)
She is not literally a serpant. The serpant in Genesis is not literally a serpant(or a snake). In Genesis the serpant walks. Later on Jesus refers to the Pharisee priests by similar serpant/snake names. "Vipers" for example. What happens to the "serpant"? It's cursed right? What is the curse?

King James Bible
(Genesis 3:14)
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

And this is why snakes crawl on their belly even today... :-/
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:24:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or not...

It gets even wierder. What do people always say was the original sin? It's always a sexual sin. Every time. Okay. Let's piece it together.

The serpant gets Adam and Eve to participate in whatever the true original sin was. According to ancient Babylonian and Hebrew beliefs and scrolls Lilith was with Adam. Lilith is a beautiful demon possessed being that hooks up with Adam. Satan is referred to by Satan's beauty as one of Satan's notable characteristics.

(Cain)demon possession came from Man(Adam)and the source of life(Eve). Satan/beautiful demon possessed "woman" mates with Adam. Abel is replaced by Seth and breathing spirits are begatted. Cain/demon possession goes and mates with someone "not human" but somehow matable, neanderthals/cromagnums/Homo erectus, etc....

Abel is given in Adam and Eve's line of children in the begats and "replaced" by Seth. But Cain is not mentioned in this lineage. Why? He's not Eve's child?

Cain's lineage might end here if Noah and the flood are true right? Seth's lineage begats to Noah and not Cain. But one of the spouses on "the ark" could be from Cain or who knows where.

The Bible is so kryptic, symbolic, and parabalistic that it is almost impossible to read much of the Old Testament literally. It gets tough in translatory logic to determine what is what sometimes.

(Genesis 6:2)
2 The sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Uhhh...say what?

One theory rejects all of the above and says all human like beings came from Adam and Eve and that seeing the God vs. Time idea makes it impossible to know literally how long Adam and Eve were around and making babies("be fruitful and multiply" . Maybe they did and in mass.). Some say Adam and Eve had an unimaginable amount of kids and who knows, maybe their story crosses millions of years before the fall or even after. Some say the names of OT "people" represent kingdoms/ tribes, ideas etc. Some say the whole shabang is kryptic.

Okay. I can go on and on but you get the idea. Homo whatever from a million years ago could be Adam, Cain, other, etc. It's impossible to know. Of course there are those that claim they have found human skeletons that are 20+ feet tall. So you tell me.

But that Jesus gospel is clear and to the point. The words in red tell us what is truely important to know. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ and have had prayers answered in His name, so this is my true focus because the rest just becomes a blob of information that teaches me nothing of faith, Love, hope, or Christ's teachings. The technical or scientific comparisons are always there, but no matter the verbal wars on these ideas, Christ still taught love. He doesn't seem Biblically to be worried about Adam, Eve, Cain, Lilith, or any semantical baloney. I find solice in simply relying on my faith now, but this came from decades of overstudy and the search for a host of head knowledge, but in my life, I have found God uses the simple to get our attention and not a bunch of technical wannabe "truth" or so called "knowledge". What is true today scientifically is false tomorrow. Our very future ancestors(God willing we get that far in time) will think of us as intellectual wannabes and ignorant neanderthals. That's why faith is the neccessary focus for me. Who knows "how" God did any of it. Who knows if He's laughing at you or my attempts at "TRUTH"? I have the words of Jesus to guide and protect my life. That is all I need and I feel great about it. God bless.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:36:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And then again it could be simply some form of monkey, ape, chimp, arangatang or relative of. Next is this for me because I'm blinded by too many articles about fraudulant fossils, skulls, Nephtali findings, etc. And also the blind science of so many archailogical presepts and non scientific methodolgy. Who knows?

Of course if humans a million years from now found my skull, Ron Jeremy's skull, Carrot top's skull, Mini Me's skull, and a large monkey skull, who knows what their claims would be? 4 of the same species? 5 of the same species perhaps? Or probably five different species all together. My skull, Ron Jeremy's skull, and Mini Me's skull would look like 3 different species but in reality, we are all 3 homo sapiens. The science on this stuff is not really science at all to me. Even if the bogus claim supports my own beliefs, it is still bogus and bad science. Plus money drives bad science. If I could turn my above examples into 5 new species, it would be good for my reputation and career. The science on pharmaceutical drugs is manipulated at all costs because of the unsermountable amounts of money involved. Money has corrupted science. Money and funding got the public lied to and info withheld to keep money rolling in for space exploration. Now we know just how bad space effects the body's of astronauts. That's just how it is. We never will know what is true or not. Sad but true.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:49:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some references come from Wikipedia to get exact spellings etc. No, I could not remember every spelling/meaning 7 years removed from any Hebrew usage or study. If you don't use it,you lose a lot of it. Nevertheless, the OOP's topic is a complex answered question. And it has a deep answer. Too long of an answer it would seem.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Hawlucha
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 9:42:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
God is probably a power ape-like man for creating humanoid monkeys.

Also not to sound racist, but does anyone think the purest Negroid species in Africa are the true link between man and ape? It seems to me that's the case but scientists would never say anything like that unless they suffer a negative publicity backlash.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 1:17:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

Evolution is omitted because it is a fallacy which completely misinterprets the evidence of adaptation, a very different thing entirely.

Adaptation is a facility designed into the basic kinds which Jehovah created in order to allow them to survive in changing conditions and circumstances.

Mankind is a completely separate "kind" to all others and it's ability to adapt shows mainly in man's ability to adapt to different climate, by changing the levels of Melanin in his skin to give more or less protection from IV radiation. Hence we have the different shades of the differing peoples living in area's if varying climate.

It is an effect visible today in that some people lose some of their colour when they spend sufficient time in a less sunny climate.

Mankind was created pretty well as is, with little need to adapt, other than having to adapt, after the flood, to a meat diet rather than the purely vegetable diet all creatures were created with.

I personally believe that we will, after Armageddon, adapt back to a purely vegetable diet, though I could, of course be wrong.


So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

No, it is not possible, not even from other primates. Scientists may find what they believe to be "missing links" between the apes and man, but they will simply be deluding themselves, as those who support evolution are determined to do.

Evolution from one kind to another is wrong.

Adaptation within kinds is perfectly correct and in fact the only rational way to see the creation account for reasons I shall not go into now. It does not void the creation account in any way whatever.


Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intelligent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator.

Simply because it is the only rational explanation. There is no other. It covers all the "holes" in evolutionary theory, which are many and fatal to the theory.

Why do I say that?

For the same reason the Intelligent Design movement was formed amongst thinking scientists.

There are far too many complex mechanisms which either appeared fully developed, or could not have appeared at all, since natural selection would have left them too vulnerable for survival.

I would recommend anyone to watch the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", which graphically, and with video footage, reveals some of these mechanisms whilst interviewing some of the scientists involved in the movement. I found it fascinating and informative. I bought my copy from Amazon.

I would also recommend reading a book called "The Design Revolution" for similar reasons.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 5:59:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator.
First off, you're jumping a bit ahead of the game I think with this statement:

"Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found."

That is, if you're suggesting this is absolute proof of evolution. Yes, they've been found, but the question still remains, are they common ancestors, apes, or as human as you and I? It doesn't matter the alleged species, the question ultimately remains the same. It's not as if we've got anything established in terms of evolution, and then moving on from there. Even the good folks at patheos, an atheist website who believe this stuff understands the exaggerating effect of the media (and scientists) when it comes to alleged homo species (and this by all means includes National Geographic).

http://www.patheos.com...

What's interesting about the creationism/evolution debate, is that the evolution side uses lack of evidence of a creator (or Biblical God) in it's defense of evolution. It's not that Biblical creationism is impossible (the wording varies from impossible, unlikely, etc.) but that the lack of evidence of it's main component (the creator/God of the Bible) renders it void of further consideration.

What changes that view from time to time among actual scientists is an actual interaction with the God of the Bible. Then, the knee-jerk reaction to refer to Biblical creationism as fable/mythology is out, and Biblical creationism is no longer unworthy of consideration or unscientific.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:12:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 5:59:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator.
First off, you're jumping a bit ahead of the game I think with this statement:

"Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found."

That is, if you're suggesting this is absolute proof of evolution. Yes, they've been found, but the question still remains, are they common ancestors, apes, or as human as you and I? It doesn't matter the alleged species, the question ultimately remains the same. It's not as if we've got anything established in terms of evolution, and then moving on from there. Even the good folks at patheos, an atheist website who believe this stuff understands the exaggerating effect of the media (and scientists) when it comes to alleged homo species (and this by all means includes National Geographic).

http://www.patheos.com...

What's interesting about the creationism/evolution debate, is that the evolution side uses lack of evidence of a creator (or Biblical God) in it's defense of evolution.

No, it doesn't. Evolution stands on it's own and the most valid means for the development of the variety of life currently on Earth. The only ones who attack it are religious literalists who believe some ancient tale of creation that bears no resemblance to reality.

It's not that Biblical creationism is impossible (the wording varies from impossible, unlikely, etc.) but that the lack of evidence of it's main component (the creator/God of the Bible) renders it void of further consideration.

The problem is that biblical Creation ignores all the factual evidence that has been uncovered to support modern evolutionary theory in a wide range of disciplines in favor of the writings of ignorant primitives who had no idea about the most basic laws of nature when they wrote it.

What changes that view from time to time among actual scientists is an actual interaction with the God of the Bible. Then, the knee-jerk reaction to refer to Biblical creationism as fable/mythology is out, and Biblical creationism is no longer unworthy of consideration or unscientific.

Some scientists discard their scientific rigor and integrity to either make a profit of support their religious beliefs at the expense of their own credibility.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 6:13:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 5:59:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

What's interesting about the creationism/evolution debate, is that the evolution side uses lack of evidence of a creator (or Biblical God) in it's defense of evolution.

The one and only reason anyone would ever say that is due to the fact creationists put it forth as their claim. If the claim didn't exist, neither would that statement. Evolution doesn't need to say that at all, it stands up just fine entirely on it's own as a theory and a fact.

It's not that Biblical creationism is impossible (the wording varies from impossible, unlikely, etc.) but that the lack of evidence of it's main component (the creator/God of the Bible) renders it void of further consideration.

But, not just that, it is also the claims of creationists who say that all living things were created as they are today, which evolution shows is simply wrong. The facts and evidence of nature itself do not support creationism, with or without evidence for a God.

What changes that view from time to time among actual scientists is an actual interaction with the God of the Bible.

It doesn't matter whether or not a scientist believes they've had an interaction with your God or any other god, they would be irresponsible and irrational to simply reject the facts and evidence of nature and how natures demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt, evolution.

Then, the knee-jerk reaction to refer to Biblical creationism as fable/mythology is out, and Biblical creationism is no longer unworthy of consideration or unscientific.

And yet, creationism has yet to be considered worthy as it has yet to produce anything that aligns with the facts and evidence nature demonstrates. There is no knee-jerk reaction, it is simply that of the facts and the evidence of nature.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 7:33:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
dhardage and DanneJeRusse,

You're both jumping way ahead of the game.

You both (or at least one of you) used the term impossible in regards to Biblical creationism. Would you agree that creationism of a universe is scientifically impossible? Not the natural formation of a universe, not whether or not you discard the overall possibility of creationism of a universe, but the scientific impossibility of an intelligent being placing a universe into existence.
witness2
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 7:47:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 1:02:51 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM, deetoodee wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.

That sounds like a VERY interesting story, and I am interested to see if it is true. I would appreciate a source please. : :

This statement was in error; He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem.

Listen to this video and find about about the woman with only a brain stem and other stories. https://www.youtube.com...
witness2
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 8:11:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:56:25 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM, deetoodee wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

You didn't read the article did you?

Yes I did. Brain size is no evidence for intelligence. Check out intelligent people today with small heads.

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

This sounds interesting. Source please... a link to articles about this research? Names? Something that supports your argument would give this more weight. Otherwise I will dismiss it and assume it is quack science.
https://www.youtube.com...

I was wrong about the woman being deceased and that she was college educated but she was a valedictorian of her high school class. It's a very interesting video.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.

I enjoy variety. What other scientific discoveries are you suggesting I read about? I'll look at it. : :

Some people have open minds to take in all sorts of information without forming a belief system they adhere to. Most people have a belief system that keeps them close-minded. Check out these videos;

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 8:32:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 8:11:22 PM, witness2 wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:56:25 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM, deetoodee wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

You didn't read the article did you?

Yes I did. Brain size is no evidence for intelligence. Check out intelligent people today with small heads.

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

This sounds interesting. Source please... a link to articles about this research? Names? Something that supports your argument would give this more weight. Otherwise I will dismiss it and assume it is quack science.
https://www.youtube.com...

I was wrong about the woman being deceased and that she was college educated but she was a valedictorian of her high school class. It's a very interesting video.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.

I enjoy variety. What other scientific discoveries are you suggesting I read about? I'll look at it. : :

Some people have open minds to take in all sorts of information without forming a belief system they adhere to. Most people have a belief system that keeps them close-minded. Check out these videos;

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

That's just it. Jesus started no religion. The word Christian was a word used to degrade anyone claiming a belief in Jesus. Jesus never said,"start a religion." He fought with Pharisees because of religion and zealoutnous. He healed nonchristians. I know this necause the word Christian did not exist in his lifetime. He taught the law in one principle. Love. Love God. Love your neighbor.Love your enemy. He taught this,"By the measure you are merciful, so shall mercy be shown to you by God.", "By the measure you forgive, so you be forgiven by God.", and he taught it to nonChristians as I explained earlier. He taught a principle. He taught what he said was the truth. But a religion, he had no interest in. He taught faith, not religion. The Crusades, zealout Christianity, Islam, etc are all zealout religious thoughts and he stood against those thoughts. Even Gahndi loved Jesus' teaching and applied it. He was not of the "Christian" faith. Yet he lived his life based on Jesus' teaching. So acvording to the 2 above quotes from Jesus what canwe conclude? Religion so sn't help anyone. Jesus does.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
witness2
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 8:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 8:32:20 PM, Sooner wrote:
At 9/11/2015 8:11:22 PM, witness2 wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:56:25 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM, deetoodee wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

You didn't read the article did you?

Yes I did. Brain size is no evidence for intelligence. Check out intelligent people today with small heads.

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

This sounds interesting. Source please... a link to articles about this research? Names? Something that supports your argument would give this more weight. Otherwise I will dismiss it and assume it is quack science.
https://www.youtube.com...

I was wrong about the woman being deceased and that she was college educated but she was a valedictorian of her high school class. It's a very interesting video.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.

I enjoy variety. What other scientific discoveries are you suggesting I read about? I'll look at it. : :

Some people have open minds to take in all sorts of information without forming a belief system they adhere to. Most people have a belief system that keeps them close-minded. Check out these videos;

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

That's just it. Jesus started no religion. The word Christian was a word used to degrade anyone claiming a belief in Jesus. Jesus never said,"start a religion." He fought with Pharisees because of religion and zealoutnous. He healed nonchristians. I know this necause the word Christian did not exist in his lifetime. He taught the law in one principle. Love. Love God. Love your neighbor.Love your enemy. He taught this,"By the measure you are merciful, so shall mercy be shown to you by God.", "By the measure you forgive, so you be forgiven by God.", and he taught it to nonChristians as I explained earlier. He taught a principle. He taught what he said was the truth. But a religion, he had no interest in. He taught faith, not religion. The Crusades, zealout Christianity, Islam, etc are all zealout religious thoughts and he stood against those thoughts. Even Gahndi loved Jesus' teaching and applied it. He was not of the "Christian" faith. Yet he lived his life based on Jesus' teaching. So acvording to the 2 above quotes from Jesus what canwe conclude? Religion so sn't help anyone. Jesus does. : :

All God's people will live according to God's Law in Paradise. Religious people followed their own laws in this first age.

Jeremiah 31
31: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32: not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
33: But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34: And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 10:41:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 7:33:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
dhardage and DanneJeRusse,

You're both jumping way ahead of the game.

You both (or at least one of you) used the term impossible in regards to Biblical creationism. Would you agree that creationism of a universe is scientifically impossible? Not the natural formation of a universe, not whether or not you discard the overall possibility of creationism of a universe, but the scientific impossibility of an intelligent being placing a universe into existence.

Sure, no problem, I am open to a universe created by an intelligent being, it just doesn't happen to be the one we live in.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2015 11:34:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator.

Thanks for the article; that was interesting. I want to ask, why are you only subscribing to the idea that intelligent design has anything to do with any religion we know? Or that a creationist theory has to do with the Bible or Koran or other religion? Or does creationist theory only focus on the monotheistic religions we know? i may be ignorant to the definition.

I have been philosophizing on a creation idea that 'can' make sense. The way i look at it is the same as the science of humans. That immortality (consciousness) could have evolved similarly to how we have. For instance, the first humans are the mortal form of the first immortals that started becoming self aware. As in, this world is evolving to allow every creation to live their time. With some reincarnation thoughts as well, but i won't go there. Just the fact that consciousness could have evolved without a brain in a unbound type universe (non-physical) makes me think. It almost makes sense too. In this case, the question about who created "god" could be explored. The first source of "consciousness" doesn't need a creator since it is a non-physical reasoning thought... it just needed "time" to progress to where we are now. Idk, is there a flaw in my line of reasoning that i have overlooked?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:21:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 6:12:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/11/2015 5:59:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator.
First off, you're jumping a bit ahead of the game I think with this statement:

"Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found."

That is, if you're suggesting this is absolute proof of evolution. Yes, they've been found, but the question still remains, are they common ancestors, apes, or as human as you and I? It doesn't matter the alleged species, the question ultimately remains the same. It's not as if we've got anything established in terms of evolution, and then moving on from there. Even the good folks at patheos, an atheist website who believe this stuff understands the exaggerating effect of the media (and scientists) when it comes to alleged homo species (and this by all means includes National Geographic).

http://www.patheos.com...

What's interesting about the creationism/evolution debate, is that the evolution side uses lack of evidence of a creator (or Biblical God) in it's defense of evolution.

No, it doesn't. Evolution stands on it's own and the most valid means for the development of the variety of life currently on Earth. The only ones who attack it are religious literalists who believe some ancient tale of creation that bears no resemblance to reality.

It's not that Biblical creationism is impossible (the wording varies from impossible, unlikely, etc.) but that the lack of evidence of it's main component (the creator/God of the Bible) renders it void of further consideration.

The problem is that biblical Creation ignores all the factual evidence that has been uncovered to support modern evolutionary theory in a wide range of disciplines in favor of the writings of ignorant primitives who had no idea about the most basic laws of nature when they wrote it.

What changes that view from time to time among actual scientists is an actual interaction with the God of the Bible. Then, the knee-jerk reaction to refer to Biblical creationism as fable/mythology is out, and Biblical creationism is no longer unworthy of consideration or unscientific.

Some scientists discard their scientific rigor and integrity to either make a profit of support their religious beliefs at the expense of their own credibility.
It couldn't be for profit as their careers are at times in jeopardy.

You can (if you want) refer to my post# 18 in this thread addressed to Daniel and yourself.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 1:28:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 10:41:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/11/2015 7:33:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
dhardage and DanneJeRusse,

You're both jumping way ahead of the game.

You both (or at least one of you) used the term impossible in regards to Biblical creationism. Would you agree that creationism of a universe is scientifically impossible? Not the natural formation of a universe, not whether or not you discard the overall possibility of creationism of a universe, but the scientific impossibility of an intelligent being placing a universe into existence.

Sure, no problem, I am open to a universe created by an intelligent being, it just doesn't happen to be the one we live in.
This of course doesn't answer the question. And quite frankly I would be surprised if you actually did answer it, as typically you tend to skirt around questions.

In all honesty, it's quite alright that you don't. There's no expectancy of it from my part at this point. There's no frustration. But...keep in mind, whatever response you give to me in any post I make is meaningless because of your unwillingness (I trust not incapability) of answering very direct specific questions. You're wasting your time with every post you make.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2015 2:03:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/12/2015 1:28:44 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/11/2015 10:41:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/11/2015 7:33:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
dhardage and DanneJeRusse,

You're both jumping way ahead of the game.

You both (or at least one of you) used the term impossible in regards to Biblical creationism. Would you agree that creationism of a universe is scientifically impossible? Not the natural formation of a universe, not whether or not you discard the overall possibility of creationism of a universe, but the scientific impossibility of an intelligent being placing a universe into existence.

Sure, no problem, I am open to a universe created by an intelligent being, it just doesn't happen to be the one we live in.
This of course doesn't answer the question. And quite frankly I would be surprised if you actually did answer it, as typically you tend to skirt around questions.

I did no such thing, I answer your question. I said I'm open to that possibility.

In all honesty, it's quite alright that you don't. There's no expectancy of it from my part at this point. There's no frustration. But...keep in mind, whatever response you give to me in any post I make is meaningless because of your unwillingness (I trust not incapability) of answering very direct specific questions. You're wasting your time with every post you make.

I answered your question. Stop wasting my time. Just because you're incapable of understanding what people respond to you is not my problem, perhaps you need some reading comprehension classes.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 4:21:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 1:17:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

Evolution is omitted because it is a fallacy which completely misinterprets the evidence of adaptation, a very different thing entirely.

Adaptation is a facility designed into the basic kinds which Jehovah created in order to allow them to survive in changing conditions and circumstances.

Mankind is a completely separate "kind" to all others and it's ability to adapt shows mainly in man's ability to adapt to different climate, by changing the levels of Melanin in his skin to give more or less protection from IV radiation. Hence we have the different shades of the differing peoples living in area's if varying climate.

It is an effect visible today in that some people lose some of their colour when they spend sufficient time in a less sunny climate.

Mankind was created pretty well as is, with little need to adapt, other than having to adapt, after the flood, to a meat diet rather than the purely vegetable diet all creatures were created with.

I personally believe that we will, after Armageddon, adapt back to a purely vegetable diet, though I could, of course be wrong.


So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

No, it is not possible, not even from other primates. Scientists may find what they believe to be "missing links" between the apes and man, but they will simply be deluding themselves, as those who support evolution are determined to do.

Evolution from one kind to another is wrong.

Adaptation within kinds is perfectly correct and in fact the only rational way to see the creation account for reasons I shall not go into now. It does not void the creation account in any way whatever.


Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intelligent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator.

Simply because it is the only rational explanation. There is no other. It covers all the "holes" in evolutionary theory, which are many and fatal to the theory.

Why do I say that?

For the same reason the Intelligent Design movement was formed amongst thinking scientists.

There are far too many complex mechanisms which either appeared fully developed, or could not have appeared at all, since natural selection would have left them too vulnerable for survival.

I would recommend anyone to watch the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", which graphically, and with video footage, reveals some of these mechanisms whilst interviewing some of the scientists involved in the movement. I found it fascinating and informative. I bought my copy from Amazon.

I would also recommend reading a book called "The Design Revolution" for similar reasons.

What about Noah's Ark? I suppose that if you believe that there is ONLY adaptation and that evolution is impossible, then Noah had a lot of creatures on his Ark. He must have traveled all over the planet collecting hundreds of thousands of species. Not to mention animals and insects that are only found in certain places on Earth. Noah must have had a supersonic jet. He'd be pissed to find out that we ate all the dodo birds after he went through so much trouble traveling to a remote island to save them and then take them back home after the flood. Or maybe that story can't be taken literally?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 4:28:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2015 12:39:40 AM, deetoodee wrote:
At 9/11/2015 12:24:38 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
First, let me explain my position. I am by definition an athiest (no hate speech please), though open minded and willing to admit that there are some theological concepts that are still and always will be left for debate. With that being said, I keep my superstitions and imagination in check and prefer fact that has been proven by physical and biological evidence over folklore, superstitious mythology, and pure hearsay. That is my method for understanding our existence even though I have deep respect for life.

I came upon an article today that I find interesting. A new species of early homo has been discovered. Obvious small brain, small frame, multiple modern human like features, and they disposed of there dead in a cave designated for that purpose. The only reason that they would do such a thing is that they were concious of death on an emotional level and they had reverence for their dead. This is without argument a human trait. Not only that, but they had to navigate a pitch black cave to dispose of the bodies down a shaft. This indicates that they probably had the use of fire or torches regardless of having small brains.

The first question that popped into my mind is, "What would die hard creationists think of this?" I am very interested in religion because it's a very important part of human development and I love sociology.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here's my question, why would a story of creation (all religions have one) omit evolution that has been made obvious by pure and absolute physical evidence? Please read the article and keep in mind that this particular article highlights the remains of a new species of early human like creatures that have REALLY been found. There is physical evidence. Hundreds of scientists were involved in this discovery. There were dozens of eyewitnesses present at the site. There is video and photographic evidence of the discovery.

So, is it possible that we have all simply evolved from other life forms? Was it intellegence that designed it all or was it simply happenstance? Sense we evolved, then why believe any of the ancient explanations for existence? The evidence is tangible and real that proves we have evolved. Why even subscribe to half fact if the stories of creation are not real? That is what these discoveries prove... the ancient religious stories are not true... correct? Or does this discovery mean nothing and all the mythologies of creation remain intact and the Holy books remain true and divine to the last letter?

Considering all evidence, someone prove why anyone should subscribe to a creationist theory? My position is that there is zero proof of intellent design and therefore no real proof of the existence of a creator. : :

What evolutionists won't tell you is that there are many sizes of human brains in this world today. To use the size of a brain to suggest less intelligent humans of the past is a false teaching.

I have watched a video of a scientist who has studied human brains all his life. He studied the brain of a deceased college educated woman who had no brains other than a brain stem. His studies has revealed to him that brains are not where our consciousness is that gives us intelligence.

Did I say a small brain makes a species stupid? I stated that they had fire regardless of small brains. I was indicating that the size of their brains was not an issue.

You need to start reading other scientific discoveries other than just about evolution to get a well-rounded understanding that what we perceive to be true is not true at all.

Hard physical evidence always wins.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."