outhouse
Atheistically
There is nothing tough about people actively attacking something they know nothing about.
I refuse to deal with ignorance and derail attempts.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.
- Thread starter outhouse
- Start date
There is nothing tough about people actively attacking something they know nothing about.
I refuse to deal with ignorance and derail attempts.
outhouse
Atheistically
By where their bones were found. And by dating the bones to a specific time period.
That is a simple question with a complicated answer. The information is available to anybody who wants to read a few books. Judging by some of the questions you have asked on RF you might well need some more basic science to understand them.
But there is nothing arcane about this. Anyone can find out. But it is way beyond a post on a forum to explain.
Tom
Unification
Well-Known Member
You don't think/belief/have faith that I can comprehend history on an academic level and know nothing about it. Any Google search will just lead to my inability to discern between myth and history. It's why I asked the academic history master on text that claims to know about it.
You could have just said, "I don't know." No arrogance or arousal of the beast within necessary.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Great. i'm just trying to compare the scripture stories to the scientific ones.
Did Homo Sapiens evolve from the Homo erectus in Africa or from other parts of the world since Homo erectus had spread into
several parts of the world.
outhouse
Atheistically
Its just a pathetic derail attempt because this thread brings up credible knowledge that goes against their faith. They are trained at this type of methodology at an early age.
As Homo Sapiens who have been on the planet for 200,000 ish years, and only having history for 6000 ish years.
I don't think he will begin to grasp the fact Erectus was around for over 2million years and what that implies.
What are the odds he will comprehend any of this below?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
African genesis[edit]
Dmanisi skull 3, Fossils skull D2700 and D2735 jaw, two of several found in Dmanisi in the Georgian Caucasus.
From the 1950s forward, numerous finds in East Africa confirmed the hypothesis of an African genesis, providing fossil evidence that the earliest hominins originated there. It is now generally accepted that H. erectus descended from either: 1) the earliest hominin genera (such as Australopithecus, and possibly Ardipithecus—of which is still debated whether it is hominin or hominid); or 2) the earliest Homo-species (such as Homo habilis or Homo ergaster). East Africa provided sympatric coexistence for H. erectus and H. habilis for several hundred-thousand years, which tends to confirm the hypothesis that they represent separate lineages from a common ancestor; that is, the ancestral relationship between them was not anagenetic, but was cladogenetic, which here suggests that a subgroup population of habilis—or of a common ancestor of habilis and erectus—became reproductively isolated from the main-group population, eventually evolving into the new species Homo erectus.[23]
In the 1950s, archaeologists John T. Robinson and Robert Broom named Telanthropus capensis;[24] Robinson had discovered a jaw fragment in 1949 in Swartkrans, South Africa. Later, Simonetta proposed to re-designate it to Homo erectus, and Robinson agreed.[25]
In 1961, Yves Coppens discovered a skull of Tchadanthropus uxoris, then the earliest fossil human discovered in north Africa.[26] It was reported that the fossil "had been so eroded by wind-blown sand that it mimicked the appearance of an australopith, a primitive type of hominid".[27] Although at first considered it to be a specimen of H. habilis,[28] T. uxoris is no longer considered a valid taxon, and has been subsumed into H. erectus.[26][29]
In 2013, a fragment of fossilized jawbone, dated to around 2.8 million years ago, was discovered in the Ledi-Geraru research area in the Afar depression, Ethiopia.[30] The fossil is considered the earliest evidence of the Homo genus known to date, and seems to be intermediate between Australopithecus and H. habilis. The individual lived just after a major climate shift in the region, when forests and waterways were rapidly replaced by arid savannah, which was a domain favored by the early hominins.[31]
outhouse
Atheistically
False, because I do know. I try and be as honest as possible, your on ignore because I don't believe you are.
Then read the link I provided and learn yourself.
Moses and Abraham the Exodus and the flood and Noah are mythological characters for starters that factually have no historicity as ever existing.
Don't reply with rhetoric. If you have something to debate then research it before coming back.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Not true, i don't care if the whole earth chose to be atheists, not my business
200000 years with no civilization of any kind.
I don't think he will begin to grasp the fact Erectus was around for over 2million years and what that implies.
What are the odds he will comprehend any of this below?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
African genesis[edit]
Dmanisi skull 3, Fossils skull D2700 and D2735 jaw, two of several found in Dmanisi in the Georgian Caucasus.
From the 1950s forward, numerous finds in East Africa confirmed the hypothesis of an African genesis, providing fossil evidence that the earliest hominins originated there. It is now generally accepted that H. erectus descended from either: 1) the earliest hominin genera (such as Australopithecus, and possibly Ardipithecus—of which is still debated whether it is hominin or hominid); or 2) the earliest Homo-species (such as Homo habilis or Homo ergaster). East Africa provided sympatric coexistence for H. erectus and H. habilis for several hundred-thousand years, which tends to confirm the hypothesis that they represent separate lineages from a common ancestor; that is, the ancestral relationship between them was not anagenetic, but was cladogenetic, which here suggests that a subgroup population of habilis—or of a common ancestor of habilis and erectus—became reproductively isolated from the main-group population, eventually evolving into the new species Homo erectus.[23]
In the 1950s, archaeologists John T. Robinson and Robert Broom named Telanthropus capensis;[24] Robinson had discovered a jaw fragment in 1949 in Swartkrans, South Africa. Later, Simonetta proposed to re-designate it to Homo erectus, and Robinson agreed.[25]
In 1961, Yves Coppens discovered a skull of Tchadanthropus uxoris, then the earliest fossil human discovered in north Africa.[26] It was reported that the fossil "had been so eroded by wind-blown sand that it mimicked the appearance of an australopith, a primitive type of hominid".[27] Although at first considered it to be a specimen of H. habilis,[28] T. uxoris is no longer considered a valid taxon, and has been subsumed into H. erectus.[26][29]
In 2013, a fragment of fossilized jawbone, dated to around 2.8 million years ago, was discovered in the Ledi-Geraru research area in the Afar depression, Ethiopia.[30] The fossil is considered the earliest evidence of the Homo genus known to date, and seems to be intermediate between Australopithecus and H. habilis. The individual lived just after a major climate shift in the region, when forests and waterways were rapidly replaced by arid savannah, which was a domain favored by the early hominins.[31]
2 millions years then disappeared from all parts of the world and my question was from which part of the world did Homo sapiens evolve, Is it Africa too
outhouse
Atheistically
you just don't understand. This is factually not an atheist position or opinion.This is credible knowledge.
Knowledge is power, don't debate unarmed.
After the last ice age population levels were to low for nomadic people to exist.
Around 13,500 years ago RIGHT after the least ice age the population started to rise and agriculture started.
Soon after these nomadic people turned into semi nomadic. This went on until about 6000 years ago when the good climates increased food production and human population's became large enough TO FORM A CIVILIZATION.
Did you go to grade school? Here our children are taught these facts at a very early age. This is now considered common knowledge.
outhouse
Atheistically
Like Neanderthals they were probably absorbed into previous species or our species by breeding
outhouse
Atheistically
My 4 year old when she had questions, she uses this really cool feature called GOOGLE, when she has questions she wants answered.
Unification
Well-Known Member
Maybe you are misunderstanding.
I already know that is mythological and not historical.
I want to know what is NOT mythological and what IS historical in text.
Augustus
…
Someone 1500 years ago providing interpretation/commentary on pre existing religious traditions is not plagiarism in any useful sense of the word.
Which credible sources make the 'plagiarism' claim? I've honestly never seen it used by any scholars. It is the sort of claim made for ideological reasons, rather than a reasoned analysis. Maybe some credible scholars do make the claim, but, even amongst the more radical revisionists, the term is never used as far as I know. Sources?
This is because they realise there is a big difference between the Quran and 'plagiarism'.
According to your logic, the pastor plagiarises the Bible, rabbis plagiarise the Torah, etc.
You are assuming that discourse based on pre-existing tradition always = plagiarism. This is a simplistic and inaccurate way of viewing things. This is why almost all credible scholars don't use the term.
How is an Abrahamic monotheist supposed to discuss Abrahamic monotheism without referring to anything recognisable as Abrahamic monotheism in his discourse?
JaiKaliMaa
Maha Kali Devotee
This could potentially be a very controversial topic, as it would connect modern day Islam to the tribal polytheism of ancient Arabia -- something that is hated in Islam. But it's worth looking into, to see if it holds any elements of truth.
P.S. some say that there is a Shivling inside the Ka'ba in Mecca.
P.S. some say that there is a Shivling inside the Ka'ba in Mecca.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your very smart but your not following the reasoning here if you make this claim.
No pastor plagiarized the bible. The unknown authors of the NT plagiarized Judaism, not up for debate
No rabbi plagiarized the OT, the unknown authors plagiarized Canaanite and Mesopotamian mythology and traditions. Its not up for debate. Take Noah for example, this was Mesopotamian mythology Israelites plagiarized and rewrote for their needs.
The same way the warrior plagiarized the biblical mythology for islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology
Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[9] and Ibrahim (Abraham)[10] form parts of Islam's scriptures
This means islam plagiarized biblical mythology, which includes ANY tradition of moses and or abraham
moses and abraham are not even historical characters, they have no historicity as ever existing.
There is a reason no credible scholars worldwide uses the Koran for any historical connection to jesus or any israelite history, that's because plagiarized pieces have no historical value.
pla·gia·rize
[ˈplājəˌrīz]
http://www.religiousforums.com/javascript:void(0)
VERB
- take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Fanaticism hates the truth, that is certain.
Before the Islamic traditions, and besides the people who were in that geographic region already following Christianity, were they not already polytheist?
JaiKaliMaa
Maha Kali Devotee
Oh for certain, the regional people at the time were avid polytheists. Islam prides itself in how pure and monotheistic it is, so an unveiling of truth like this could either make them rethink their beliefs (which will never happen), or you'll have a group of radicals try to destroy the source of the discovery calling it "blasphemy."
outhouse
Atheistically
Agreed.
If these dates did show up early, it would not change the faith of islam at all.
Evolution is fact, and has been for a long time and no YEC would ever accept the real truth or fact.
Truth and facts never change faith, as faith was not built on logic or reason.
Augustus
…
The adaptation and evolution of common religious tradition in pre-modern societies is not best though of as plagiarism. You are thinking of the ancient world as if it were the modern world with copyrights, intellectual property laws, academic referencing and legal ownership of ideas. You think that discussing something = plagiarising it.
Explaining the meaning of or reinterpreting common mythology is not plagiarism. Providing commentary on existing tradition is not plagiarism. Saying an angel told you is not plagiarism.
The reformation wasn't plagiarism. Arianism wasn't plagiarism. The Sunni/Shia divide wasn't plagiarism.
Your understanding of plagiarism is facile and seemingly used for rhetorical rather than logical reasons.
Did you manage to find any credible scholars who use the term 'plagiarism'? There is a reason for this...
outhouse
Atheistically
pla·gia·rize
[ˈplājəˌrīz]
VERB
- take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.