• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I was wondering why I sometimes see this thread, and other times not.

Beats me. Are you a drug user? Maybe you've somehow sustained some damage to your brain and/or nervous system.

It has to do with 7D7 who started it- I have him on ignore. That's why I can't see the OP.

Here, you are admitting that you have not dealt with what I wrote in the OP. Not sure why you're proud of the fact that you have not dealt, and can not deal with it. You can't have dealt with what you've not read, and you can't have read what you've not seen.

And that's why the premise is so absurd and pseudo-logical.

To what (if anything) are you referring as "the premise"? You just admitted that you've not read what I have written in the OP, so you're obviously not referring to anything that I have written in the OP.

I'm rather disappointed that other creationists here have jumped on his bandwagon. Just because he is "on your side" doesn't mean he is making sense. More identity politics, I guess.

See you in some other thread someday.

You should stop begging for attention, and instead read what I have written in the OP, and elsewhere in this thread, and try to deal with what I have written. Well...not really...you shouldn't actually try to deal with it, because you will necessarily fail. :)

You've no way to make disappear the fact that Darwin cheerleaders (in your role as Adam and Eve deniers) are telling us that some number of humans (much) greater than one, and (much) greater than two, instantaneously appeared on earth.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
This is what you wrote in your first post in this thread (post #4):

Gentlemen & Ladies, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding evolution (and no- not from anti-evolution sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

Such nonsense as what? You admit you have not even read my OP (post #1):

I was wondering why I sometimes see this thread, and other times not. It has to do with 7D7 who started it- I have him on ignore. That's why I can't see the OP.

Who but a confused, undignified, self-defeating fool expects to be taken seriously when he responds to threads started by those whom he has "on ignore", whose OP's he's not even read?
 

Stuu

New member
Someone who actually believes in Darwinism may explain it better, but looking at it from my Christian standpoint, I don't see the logic or science behind Darwinism. We know the universe did have a beginning. It makes more sense that there is a God who created two human beings.
By which means do you believe humans arise?

The method in Genesis 2:7 (breathing into dirt)?
The method in Genesis 2:21 (rib transformation)?
The method in Genesis 4:1 (the generally accepted understanding)?
The method in Genesis 4:17 (magical appearance)?

Are you saying that makes more sense than science?

Stuart
 

Right Divider

Body part
By which means do you believe humans arise?
It depends on which one you're talking about.

The method in Genesis 2:7 (breathing into dirt)?
Only for Adam.

The method in Genesis 2:21 (rib transformation)?
Only for Eve.

The method in Genesis 4:1 (the generally accepted understanding)?
For Cain.

The method in Genesis 4:17 (magical appearance)?
How is this "magical"?

Gen 4:1 KJV And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen 4:17 KJV And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Seems to be exactly the same as before. These men both "knew" their wives and they conceived. Where is the problem?

Are you saying that makes more sense than science?

Stuart
It depends on what perverted definition you're going to use for "science".
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank

In other words, you've absolutely nothing to say that is relevant to this thread. Read the OP, and try to (if you're dumb enough to imagine you can) deal with what I've written in it. In any case, please stop trolling this thread.

As a Darwin cheerleader, by claiming that so long as there have been any humans on earth, there has always been some number of humans far greater than 1, and far greater than 2, you are necessarily telling us that some number of humans far greater than 1, and far greater than 2 instantaneously appeared on earth. As a Darwin cheerleader, you are necessarily telling us that, at one moment, there was nobody on earth, and then, at the next moment, there were somehow n humans on earth, where n > 2.

Feel free to try drawing a diagram, a timeline, in which you try to show us how you imagine there could go from being 0 humans on earth to being, say, 10,000 humans on earth, without there first being only 1 human on earth (and then only 2 humans on earth, and so on)--and yet, without that 0 to 10,000 transition being instantaneous. Have fun with that.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Darwinists despise logic. Darwinists despise the law of the excluded middle. Darwinists despise the fact that every thing is either a human or a non-human. Darwinists wish that something could somehow be neither human nor non-human.
What utter nonsense. With absolutely no valid arguments in their quiver, the creationist is forced to use smear tactics.
 

Stuu

New member
Feel free to try drawing a diagram, a timeline, in which you try to show us how you imagine there could go from being 0 humans on earth to being, say, 10,000 humans on earth, without there first being only 1 human on earth (and then only 2 humans on earth, and so on)--and yet, without that 0 to 10,000 transition being instantaneous. Have fun with that.
Would you like me to replace your fallacious strawman argument with an explanation for how populations evolve?

Stuart
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Would you like me to replace your fallacious strawman argument with an explanation for how populations evolve?

Stuart

No. If you think an argument is fallacious, you need to be able to explain why it is so without asserting the truth of your own religion.

You don't defeat what you call fallacies by being an illogical moron yourself.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
In other words, you've absolutely nothing to say that is relevant to this thread. Read the OP, and try to (if you're dumb enough to imagine you can) deal with what I've written in it. In any case, please stop trolling this thread.

As a Darwin cheerleader, by claiming that so long as there have been any humans on earth, there has always been some number of humans far greater than 1, and far greater than 2, you are necessarily telling us that some number of humans far greater than 1, and far greater than 2 instantaneously appeared on earth. As a Darwin cheerleader, you are necessarily telling us that, at one moment, there was nobody on earth, and then, at the next moment, there were somehow n humans on earth, where n > 2.

Feel free to try drawing a diagram, a timeline, in which you try to show us how you imagine there could go from being 0 humans on earth to being, say, 10,000 humans on earth, without there first being only 1 human on earth (and then only 2 humans on earth, and so on)--and yet, without that 0 to 10,000 transition being instantaneous. Have fun with that.

its clear your knowledge and understanding of evolution is less than basic. Got any junior colleges near you? Start there. Work your way up
 

Stuu

New member
Chair made some good points on p.1. Populations evolve. One of the difficulties of understanding biological evolution is to appreciate the scale of time involved. As I age I find it easier to comprehend what it might be like to live for a century, but that's still a stretch. I don't really have any idea what it would be like to live for 1000 years, it's not in my experience to understand it. So ask me what 100,000 years means and I have nothing to relate to it. Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years.

I'm going to set a completely arbitrary line by defining 'human' as all individuals descended from the first bipedal apes. There is a whole population 'coming down from the trees', but they don't all do that together. Some are better at walking upright than others because their physiology is better suited, but it's not easy for any of them. The ones who can walk upright on the forest floor or savannah can carry food because their arms are freed up. They have an advantage. They are the ones that have more children and so the next generation has more individuals with greater ability to walk upright. There will be still more with the next generation and more again with the next. The lines of descent of those with unlucky physiology will tend to die out. After many generations of living in a new environment, this whole population will start to look quite different. There will always be genetic variation, and the most advantageous traits will become more common over time.

By my definition of 'human' in this case, you can see there never was a time of only two humans. But maybe my definition isn't very good. This diagram from the Holy Wikipedia is updated quite often, and currently looks like this (the vertical scale is in millions of years):

So the situation really is that there was a time of many thousands or millions of homo erectus, and if you leap forward in time not by a single day, but by hundreds of thousands of years, sufficient changes have accumulated that you give them a different name, Heidelberg man. And leap again and we are Sapient man. This diagram has no hard borders between the different species in any line of descent. You can make legitimate arguments for us being modern humans for 200,000 years, or for 185,000 years, or for 100,000 years. Some would take it back 500,000 years. I could make a case for bipedalism four million years ago as a criterion for being called human, but others could made perfectly good arguments for other definitions involving other points in prehistory. The point is, naming an ever-changing population is arbitrary.

The OP is an irrelevant question. It is not a problem for biology because there never was a time when there were only two of any sexually reproducing species that has arisen since the evolution of sexual reproduction itself. Adam and Eve each had two parents, and four grandparents, and eight great-grandparents, and so on. And that has been how it has been for hundreds of millions of years.

Stuart
 
Last edited:
Top