• 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.

more Darwinist self-defeat

Avajs

Active member
So how did a population go from "non-human" to "human"?
well first question is to define “human”. all genus Homo or just H sapiens?
but you know the answer—evolution. which you already accept in terms of “branching out” after creation and or the flood
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
well first question is to define “human”. all genus Homo or just H sapiens?

Feel free to define it here. I'll use your definition.

but you know the answer—evolution.

You said:

i have asked specific questions expecting answers i should expect to respond to specific questions with specific answers as much as possible

So, be specific. Since you said:

individuals don’t evolve. populations evolve.

... how does "evolution" answer the question of whether there was a point with only one human on earth with a "no"?

which you already accept in terms of “branching out” after creation and or the flood

I have said nothing about "branching out."

That was @Right Divider.
 

Right Divider

Body part
well first question is to define “human”. all genus Homo or just H sapiens?
but you know the answer—evolution. which you already accept in terms of “branching out” after creation and or the flood
The point being that all life does NOT share a "single common ancestor" (some supposed single-celled creature).

All kinds of life share THEIR own originally created ancestors.

Creationists have no problem with "speciation" (i.e., branching out).
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
taxonomy is the classification of things
In other words, taxonomy is saying things -- affirming propositions (whether true propositions or false propositions). 'Cause that's what you're doing if you're classifying: you're affirming that "A is a B", "X is not a Y", "Dogs have four legs", etc. If you're not affirming one or more propositions, then you're not classifying, you're not doing taxonomy.
according to their characteristics.
Accordance to characteristics is not of the essence of taxonomy, since things are often classified not according to their characteristics. Like when Darwinists classify humans as descendants of fish, despite the fact that -- since humans are not descendants of fish -- being descended from fish is not a characteristic of humans, whereas being not descended from fish is a characteristic of humans.
i think we are speaking of the classification of living things according to their characteristics.
Darwinists are not classifying anything when they say things like "Hominins are..." or "Avian dinosaurs are...", any more than they would be when saying things like "Oompa Loompas are..." and "Hobbits are..." The phrases "hominins", "avian dinosaurs", "Oompa Loompas", and "Hobbits", are not names of any things -- neither of any living things, nor of any not-living things.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
but you know the answer—evolution.
LOL

Thanks for your non-answer, Professor Evolutiondidit!

Q. What is Earth's all-time lowest, non-zero human population number?

Have fun with your inability and failure to respond rationally to this question! And, while you are failing to answer it, you might enjoy bearing in mind the facts that 1) "Evolutiondidit!" is not a number, and thus, is not an answer to the question you're being asked, and that 2) some of your fellow Darwin cheerleaders claim that for at least 4.5 billions of years (or however many years old you reasonless loons are currently claiming Earth is) humans have been living on Earth. For example, here is one of your fellow Darwin cheerleaders asininely claiming that Earth's human population number has never been 0:
the current scientific consensus is humans never got below a population of about 10,000 individuals.
That's a claim that Earth's human population number was never 0. And, by claiming that Earth is 4.5 billions of years old, and that Earth's human population was never 0, you self-defeating Darwinists are claiming that humans have been living on Earth for 4.5 billions of years. Which means that you Darwinists are glaringly contradicting yourselves out the other side of your mouth when you claim that humans have not been living on Earth for 4.5 billions of years. It must be rough for you Darwinists, being so stupid that you cannot even get it right about the fact that Earth's earliest human population number was 0!
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
individuals don’t evolve. populations evolve.
Is a population individuals? Yes or No?

If by your word "populations" you are referring to individuals, then this is what you've handed us in your display of self-defeat:
individuals don’t evolve. [individuals] evolve.

If by your word "populations" you are not referring to individuals, then to what (if anything) are you referring by it?
 

Avajs

Active member
LOL

Thanks for your non-answer, Professor Evolutiondidit!

Q. What is Earth's all-time lowest, non-zero human population number?

Have fun with your inability and failure to respond rationally to this question! And, while you are failing to answer it, you might enjoy bearing in mind the facts that 1) "Evolutiondidit!" is not a number, and thus, is not an answer to the question you're being asked, and that 2) some of your fellow Darwin cheerleaders claim that for at least 4.5 billions of years (or however many years old you reasonless loons are currently claiming Earth is) humans have been living on Earth. For example, here is one of your fellow Darwin cheerleaders asininely claiming that Earth's human population number has never been 0:

That's a claim that Earth's human population number was never 0. And, by claiming that Earth is 4.5 billions of years old, and that Earth's human population was never 0, you self-defeating Darwinists are claiming that humans have been living on Earth for 4.5 billions of years. Which means that you Darwinists are glaringly contradicting yourselves out the other side of your mouth when you claim that humans have not been living on Earth for 4.5 billions of years. It must be rough for you Darwinists, being so stupid that you cannot even get it right about the fact that Earth's earliest human population number was 0!
alate who you referenced seemed to have a pretty good handle on niology.
but please provide evidence for your claim that darwinists have been on earth for 4.5 billion years.
it pains me to say this to someone who has a command of english, but you are simply brutally ignorant. i would do better talking with my dog—and she is really dumb
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
What is Earth's all-time lowest, non-zero human population number?
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>
alate who you referenced seemed to have a pretty good handle on niology.
🤣

Did you ever hear her play Handel on niolin?
but please provide evidence for your claim that darwinists have been on earth for 4.5 billion years.
Please provide evidence for your claim that I have claimed that Darwinists have been on earth for 4.5 billion years, you illiterate retard.
it pains me to say this to someone who has a command of english, but you are simply brutally ignorant. i would do better talking with my dog—and she is really dumb
You should stop letting her write your posts for you.
 
Last edited:

Avajs

Active member
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

🤣

Did you ever hear her play Handel on niolin?

Please provide evidence for your claim that I have claimed that Darwinists have been on earth for 4.5 billion years, you illiterate retard.

You should stop letting her write your posts for you.
actually she is not very good at reading or typing. lacks a certain amount of brain power and manual dexterity. she can run really really fast though and can her ability to smell things is really really much better than mine. different evolutionary branches on that tree of life
 
Here's another hilarious article from the Smithsonian.


-I personally go to my lab every day and use FIVE species definitions to conduct research,” says Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis, a molecular ecologist at Fordham University, and co-author of the new dolphin study, published in Molecular Ecology. “And I sleep just fine amidst this uncertainty. 🤪
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Here's another hilarious article from the Smithsonian.


-I personally go to my lab every day and use FIVE species definitions to conduct research,” says Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis, a molecular ecologist at Fordham University, and co-author of the new dolphin study, published in Molecular Ecology. “And I sleep just fine amidst this uncertainty. 🤪
Ah yes the Humpty Dumpty approach to science. Popular among those "scientists" who create work that is not reproducible. 😁


IMG_20240924_111022.jpg
 
Top