That would require me to take your obvious attempts at being funny, seriously. Newsflash, the conversation was over when I stated "Or in other words, the story of Adam and Eve and God creating man in his image is false.". I've merely been mocking you ever since. Please try and keep up.
help me understand this; in your vision, what are neanderthals? (or for the case, any of the human-shaped hominids) they weren't humans because they didn't leave written stuff?
What part of "written stuff" don't you understand? Did they not record anything at all, while they were swinging "through the trees, without a Trapeze, in their B-V-D's"? Somebody dig up some monkey bone and tell you that they're 1,000,000 years old, and you buy it hook, line, and sinker because Science tells you so; yet you are too bat-blind to see and understand that before Science ever existed, THE WORD of GOD gave it any semblance of veracity that it has today. . .right there in HIS BOOK (aka "The Bible") No "vision" (necessary there). . .just observation.
well it's not that simple. hominids have been walking like us for quite a while (even earlier than 1,000,000 years (example). 1MY hominids didn't really looked like circus monkeys swinging in trees, and even more so for more recent things (e.g. Neanderthals), which I'm still curious whether you consider them humans or not
OK I may have been mistaken here.... The questions and idea you pose were so silly I immediately assumed you were joking. I am starting to get the impression that you might not be. I couldn't fathom it before but it's just beginning to dawn on me that you're not trying to be funny. You just might be an idiot and I've been making fun of you assuming you possessed at least average intellect Why so harsh? Well... 1) You seem to be under the impression that Neanderthal man does not pre-date man and is in fact nothing more than scattered "monkey bones". -- I could rest my case on the fact that you believe that... but I'll continue 2) You asked "Did they not record anything at all". Now.... given that your average 3rd grader knows about prehistoric man and cave drawings the fact that you seem to be oblivious to them means you are either severly mentally handicapped by your religious crutch or there is a deeper psychological problem there. Not only are these evidence that the ridiculous notion that Adam & Eve were "created" with the ability to speak right from the start is absurd, but they are also evidence that civilizations of prehistoric man were everywhere. Europe, Africa, Australia, and Southeast Asia to name a few. The story of Adam & Eve is flawed, absurd, illogical, and down right funny, to put it as nicely as I can. You've been begging for someone to give you an inconsistency. You've avoided it for a few posts now but here it is in bold. I just gave you an example of how the book of Genesis is inconsistent with common sense.... Now if I'm mistaken and you really are just trying unsuccessfully to be funny... then I must apologize. But then, I have no choice but to say this..... People who make fun of things they obviously don't fully grasp as ridiculous while at the same time believing in a magical sky daddy that tucks them in at night while watching over them are an enigma to me. You lightly brush off solid fossil evidence as "monkey bones" not because you have any solid argument to back your claim but because you so obviously don't understand it. It demonstrates you ignorance on the high school level topics of human anatomy (how the skulls are far more similar to humans than any monkey), and rational thinking (it obviously proves they pre-date man, unless you want to show me where it talks about Neanderthal man in the bible). So again what we've demonstrated here is that your sheer lack of knowledge is what compels you to make what on the surface appear to be attempts at humor but are in fact tiny little betrayals of your intellect.
Where is the "inconsistency". . .in all of your ranting and raving, you neglected to point out what you, personally, believe to be the "inconsistency" that you claim to have given?; Did you think better of putting it out there because you know that I'm going to make you look like the monkeys, that you believe predated Adam, just as soon as I respond to it? So come one with it. . .you don't like being labeled? Then stop labeling. You don't believe THE WORD of GOD ("The Bible"), fine! But, Down even think about attempting to put down those of us who do. Because some of us believers, like me, will put you monkey bones believers in your place. Now then, where that "inconsistency"??? And post it (the part applicable to your conversation/argument); I don't do links from secular sources about THE WORD of GOD ("The Bible"); especially when its obvious to me that they know less about Scripture(s) than you. I want to, and will only deal with what you, specifically, have to say and/or think about a perceived "inconsistency", that someone else had to point out to you, and you, unlike the monkeys you believe to have predated Adam and Eve, didn't/haven't bother(ed) to check it out. . .yourself. Take your time, I'll wait.
Quote: Originally Posted by GeorgeB. View Post In other words you never argue with anyone who has facts on their side FACT: Neanderthal man is undeniable irrefutable and absolutely in your face proof that man was not the first humanoid to exist on this planet. Or in other words, the story of Adam and Eve and God creating man in his image is false. Now unless you want to go ahead and admit here for us all that God made a mistake and Neanderthal man was Adam & Eve BETA I think you should continue your present clumsy attempts at humor as a way to avoid having a discussion with me. Because you will lose. Please proceed with the monkey making of me. You have given us your opinion "Neanderthal man is undeniable irrefutable and absolutely in your face proof that man was not the first humanoid to exist on this planet." and then all you state after your opinion is, "Or in other words, the story of Adam and Eve and God creating man in his image is false.". So where's the beef??? Or rather, where's your documentation supporting what you assert/claim???
The story of Adam and Eve are false, it is too fairytale to be true, besides their are no facts supporting other than what is written in the "bible" which of course a fictional literature. How can anyone win with you, when you decline the facts and proceed with whatever things that you see with what you read on that book it is like talking to a wall with someone. Fossils, those are proofs and with god? There are no proof that god exist. Pray all you want as many times as you want, god will not answer as there is no god to answer your prayers. Show us God!
What happened to you making a monkey of me? I'm sorry.... that question is just too ridiculous for me to believe you are being serious. Did you just ask me "where's the documentation" that supports the fact that Neanderthal man existed? Are you really so desperate for a rebuttal against the clear and obvious that you're just asking ridiculous questions to avoid the inevitable here?
I don't have to; you've done that quite well all on your own. You're proof positive that, "Nothing ruins a duck, but its bill". And to top it all off, you just don't know when to leave well enough alone. I've tried to ignore, but just like a fly, you're constantly eat dong and bother people. Here's how you are continually "making a monkey of" yourself, from a previous post (#71) in this very thread: "According to the Bible (story of Adam & Eve). Man was created in his own image and were able to speak upon creation. According to those of us in the real world.... there is vast fossil evidence of neanderthal men who's only similarity to us is that they were humanoid in shape. There is also plenty of evidence that mankind did not posses the power of intellectual speech patterns until well into our homosapien evolution." Now let's stoop real low, and analyze your thought process: The dug up monkey bones, that you call, "vast fossil evidence of neanderthal men", weren't able to talk. And you know this just from the "vast fossil evidence of neanderthal men". Now that's got to be what you're saying, because you presented not one shred of evidence and/or argument otherwise, other than your claimed monkey bones (vast fossil evidence of neanderthal men), that they were unable to speak. Pssstttt; let me let you in on something important about your monkey bones argument: If you're going to claim that they couldn't talk, you need more evidence than the monkey bones. . .and your word. So you see George, I wasn't going to do this, but you practically begged me for this butt whipping, and I just want you to know, it hurt you more than it hurt me.
Are you wearing a plastic helmet? Did you not see my MULTIPLE mentions of cave drawings? First they're "monkey bones" then you tried to get cute at the end by contradicting your own argument telling me I need proof that "monkey bones" couldn't talk? Which is it? You are not mentally qualified to continue this discussion. Trying to say that all I used was "neanderthal man" is patently absurd for one and intellectually dishonest at best. You're a joke that tries to make jokes and it's embarrassing. Don't try to pretend that you were protecting me by not replying.... It's as transparent as your argument. You avoided answering the question for 2 days. After I posted it over and over again and you saw I wasn't going to just go away. You then took a day off to think about it and the best you could come up with was to ignore part of what I said and claim I never said it? I am very thankful that people like you represent religion. You're the reason why the world is becoming more and more secular. Because the latter choice is to believe someone like you
See, you just keep on "making a monkey" of yourself. Your "cave drawings" mentioning, are about as much proof that your monkey bones people couldn't talk, as a Beetle Bailey comic strip is proof that Mort Walker can't talk. I don't have to sit around "thinking" about anything you state here. . .its as plain as, the dumb is, in every comment you make. You really think more of yourself than you ought. Unlike you seemingly have done, according to what you just stated, I don't think about you, or even consider you, until I'm here and run across one of your posts. And again, you're nothing more than a fly to me. I don't represent "religion". . .any of them. THE WORD of GOD is about RELATIONSHIP. . .not "religion". How many time do I have to tell you that? Never mind, it patently obvious you don't know the difference between the two. Do you suffer from a-d-d like some of those "3rd graders", you mentioned elsewhere?
Mr. Nehemia, I've presented you with a clear consistent argument that you have failed to debunk over and over again. Your posts are proof positive that you clearly believe you have a grasp of what you are talking about when it is clearly obvious that you do not. FIRST - You like to call them "monkey bones". Fact is..... the cave drawings are only the tip of the iceberg. Sorry to say there is plenty of proof that neanderthal man was humanoid and intelligent. Guess what they found alongside those "monkey bones". Tools for hunting, evidence of their use of fire to keep warm, the list goes on. All studied, documented, and yes my uneducated friend, even photographed. Hide scrapers, points, backed knives, stick sharpeners, tiny saws, and borers. Please go educate yourself. Please stop making a fool of yourself by denying what is obviously before you. Or at the very least stop making it so painfully obvious that you haven't even tried to research the very subject you are trying to mock. Mocking a subject that you are ignorant about makes you the fool. It's not funny... it's sad. SECOND - The cave drawings ARE proof that neanderthal man did not possess a full spoken language like the bible claims the first humans did. Unless Mr. Nehemia you'd like us all to believe that they had a full working language but chose to record their lives and history with primitive cave drawings. But before you go there... you need to first make up your mind whether these were "monkeys" or if you are now admitting that they actually were Neanderthal men that had a full language, and could create legible cave drawings. Were Adam and Eve running around hunting sabertooth tigers with primitive tools and drawing on caves even though they could speak? You seem a bit confused on that part. Bad jokes will only get you so far... at some point you're going to actually have to make a cohesive argument. Sorry
You have "presented" me with ONLY "a clear consistent argument" that you're delusional, and hallucinate constantly. I'm sure you also enjoy watching paint dry. You'd have to if you believe for one iota of a second, that your beliefs and/or arguments are rationally, intelligently, and reasonably sane. I have read all this crap. I wasn't always a believer. I was once as du, well I was once as you are now. I found there to be no clear cut consensus. NONE! All of Science can only come to a clear cut consensus about ONLY ONE THING. And that ONE THING is in Scripture itself. Put there long before Science ever came to be. And you haven't a clue as to what it is. . .and you and your fellow delusion-eers are afraid to ask what it is. See, you can even get that correct. My BOOK/Documentation pegs you twice (Psalm 14:12 and 53:1) as being "The fool", while your "monkey man" drawings are still in the process of being deciphered. And the only thing you have "before" you, and me, is proof positive that folks who knew less than you should know, found some graffiti, and speculated that this is indicative of their theory that whoever did this couldn't talk. But we all know that you just recently come up with this addition to the garbage that you've bought into hook, line, and sinker. GeorgieBee, if this is what you'd like to believe, then fine. I've been there, done that. . .and it just don't float with any rationally sane person. Your "monkey bones", when then they still have some live monkeys around them, probably hijacked a Sherwin-William shipment, went back to the cave, and had a paint party. You want to know what "Adam and Eve" were doing? Read the Scripture. Quit trying to decipher "monkey men cave graffiti". Go watch some paint dry. Tell me something, how do you and other worshippers of "monkey bones" account for the following: 1) All of Gravity is accidental/chance? 2) The distance between Earth and the Sun is accidental/chance? closer, we'd burn up; farther, we'd freeze. 3) The revolution of Earth around the Sun is accidental/chance? 4) The rotation of the Earth on its axis is accidental/chance? faster, we'd be hurled off into outer space. 5) Water and atmosphere are accidental/chance? 6) Your self-conscience awareness is accidental/chance? 7) And without outside/exterior help, you cannot even take your own life?
Once again- Atheists worship nothing. And you might be more well served to call them 'hominid bones', since calling Neanderthal fossils monkey bones is just plain stupid. I suppose it rather reflects on you. Arguments 1-6 can be negated very simply: It's a VERY VERY VERY VERY big universe. There is one earth, but are ~10^23 other stars in the universe. That is 100 thousand million million million stars. There would have to be an earth around one of them. Then there is also the anthropic principle, which is basically that were circumstances any different, we would be asking why they were that way, instead of the way they are now. 7 is just plain wrong. Also, for scientific inaccuracies: 2. There is actually a reasonably wide range of distances where earth life could live. Also, we evolved to handle this temperature. Closer, we would evolve for hotter. Farther away, for colder. 3. I suppose you mean that the earth orbits the sun? This is caused by inertia and gravitation, both of which are properties of matter, and nothing more. 4. First of all, the earth would have to rotate 17 times as fast in order to fling us off. Also, the same argument as # 2 applies- were it slower, or faster, we would have evolved for such. 6. Evolution.
In summary: You didn't answer a single question directly. All you did was keep spouting about how I don't know anything while quoting the very postings where I demonstrated I clearly know a lot more than you do. So instead of addressing my points directly you came at me personally as your entire argument against what I'm saying and then tried to change the subject with 7 different directions. Not a single thing you said here makes the 2 points I made any less true I'm afraid. Pretending you know something I don't know for 5 posts straight but being seemingly afraid to say is a bit weird to me. Do you actually have any knowledge to impart to me that makes my last post any less true? Please, by all meas, show us all what all the evidence an artifacts I've presented to you here truly mean if they don't mean what I said they do. Show us beyond any reasonable doubt how you are correct. That's all I'm asking.