Wooster

If you actually knew anything about history and European history specifically. you would know that the tool most used in converting Europe to Christianity was this type of tool:



Europe was not converted to Christianity because it was such an awesome religion or because the christian gods were any more plausible than the current gods, but because of the awesome power of the sword.

bacht

Maybe Joseph would enjoy the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, lots of speculation about origins, elements etc

spamandham

No, Genesis does not say that. It does not say that the talking snake was outside this physical realm (whatever that means), nor does it say it was cast down to earth. You can easily prove me wrong by quoting Genesis in this regard. Not that it matters. The idea is absurd regardless.

...and the flying machines in the Vedas are para-norm...and the after life of the pyramid texts is para-norm.. Ancient paranormal claims are just as much bunk as modern ones.

Of course they have bearing. They demonstrate that the text is not inerrant (which is not the default assumption anyway), and should be treated like any other ancient text in regards to historical analysis. If the OT talks about certain kings and empires, they might actually have existed. If it talks about talking snakes or a 35 mile 20 story temple, we dismiss such nonsense as ancient fantasy.

Well it's good to see that you realize Genesis is not literally true and was probably never intended to be read that way. There's hope for you yet.

I'm satisfied treating the Bible as any other ancient text in regards to historical analysis. I don't feel the need to try to prove whether or not ancient Israel existed, or whether it had a king named 'David'. Typically, mundane claims are presumed likely true until disproved or unless such an assumption complicates rather than simplifies. Fantastic claims are assumed false until proven true.

This is exactly how I would have treated it before fundies came along trying to claim it's inerrant.

fatpie42

Once again, I understand that you think this is a good analogy, but I'm afraid it doesn't fit in with the discussion of a 'first human' at all well.

Humans developed from earlier mammals as a group. It's like the "paradox of the heap". If I have a small pile of straw and I add more and more straw to that pile, at what stage does it become a heap?

A certain group of apes were developing differently from other apes. At what stage are any of them viewed as human? So when our supposed 'first human' breeds with a supposedly 'non-human' what are their children? Are they half-human, half-ape? Of course not, because then we could never reach a stage where we had a human race! It is a gradual transition with parents and children resembling what we now know as human more and more over a series of many generations. The idea of a singular 'first human' is a nonsense.

Do explain further. This analogy is so awful I can't even begin to work out where you made the mistake.

And this is relevant how?

If you need a minimum of two, why are you insisting that we must have begun with one? What are you trying to tell me?

fatpie42

Like God and the afterlife.

fatpie42

You are telling me that a form of development in animals such as, for example, dog breeding, does not take time?

fatpie42

A first 'human' became a ridiculous claim in science when it was recognised that it was impossible. What more do you want? :huh:

fatpie42

Who would that be? Jurassic Park is a great piece of science fiction but it is completely implausible in the real world. We already knew this.

Well yes, naturally we can populate a planet with only one of some things because some things do not reproduce in the way we do. For example, some fungus will reproduce by separating into two rather than through sexual reproduction. However, the focus here was human beings and, as with many other mammals, you cannot populate a planet with just one human couple.


What they stated was that, in order for a singular couple to populate the world, there would need to be years and years of inbreeding. This is not only true, it is undeniable. A population which can only continue through inbreeding would be unsustainable.

It doesn't matter whether you believe in magic, God or the Loch Ness Monster. Human beings didn't develop from a singular couple. It has been scientifically demonstrated.

IamJoseph

No, I'm not saying that. The time factor does not apply - however long it takes before a dog/s emerged - there was first one [singular] dog with a male/female duality - then came 'dogs' plural. There is no alternative to this, and this applies to all life and things in the universe. This is what Genesis's science is saying, al beit saying it in biblespeak.

IamJoseph

Slight of hand casino science! The heap does not apply - we are not discussing a new species [heap analogy]; we are discussing the emergence of the first member of a heap.

Analogy: red marbles become green postive [male] and green negative [female] marbles every 10 million years. Here, we do not ask when was the 'BOX' [heap] of green marbles appear, but at what point and how, do red marbles become green positive and green negative. This answer requires a zooming in to the first nano point of change. We arrive at a first marble harboring both positive and negative traits - the heap of green positive and negative are post this point. No alternatives apply.

Your last line shows you why your thread is not possible. Q: Can you locate the glitch - as opposed accepting all that you read in mandated neo science with a harsh penalty if you question it? This is a Galeleo syndrome, only we have a new church at the helm.

A: humans cannot reach human stage, not because they have to come from apes [where no 'human' attribute exists or ever existed before]; thus the extra bit came from....????? Note, there is no such thing as 'NATURE' in actuality. Apes have not become humans for 5 Billion years - and the time factor does not apply in an on-going process [# 101 math] - which means we must see this process unceasingly, every second, wherever we look, or which ever zoo or lab we house apes.

The glitch is not the commonality factors applying but the differential factors which can only apply! Here, what ToE is saying, the genes, which do NOT possess the Human code, manufactures or adapts to this - in a realm where this facility does not exist - and did not exist ever before. Basically, ToE is saying that a gene not just mutates - but becomes something new - in a realm where there is nowhere for that new to be found. Here, the gradual is irrelevent - the where does the new come from is! ToE says the genes pop their head out and look around - then determines it will be beneficial to have speech - then just tickles its ribs and it happens. Really - then the speech mechanism must have always been hiding in the rib but the genes never saw it before - how else!?

A sub-Zoom analogy here: can a red marble become green - if there is no green in the red to start with?

Its NOT a gradual transition. Examine the issue more deeply, and independently of ToE. Transition is a contradiction of on-going process; measure the time factor for ape to human - 1 million years [let's say]. This process does not cease 1 million + 1 second ago. This gives a ratio of trillions of transit states occuring all the time, in compound increments. The reverse is the case.


We do NOT begin with one is my point - this is an impossibility. We begin with one 'duality'.