• 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!

The biogeographic evidence for evolution

nPeace

Veteran Member
Then once again I point out to you, you have utterly failed in what you thought to do. Acts refers to human beings -- and only human beings. And the plain, simple truth is this -- humans are one (count them, one, 1, not 0 or 2) species. And so Acts 17 does absolutely nothing of the kind.

I confess, it seems obvious to me that, as other posters have suggested, you think that there are various "species" of human, but no, I'm afraid you are completely wrong. The Hutus are every bit as human as the Tutsis, and even Donald Trump is every bit as human as Robert Mugabe, now deceased.
Then you don't agree with the science.
The 7 Homo Species Close to Present Humans That Existed on the Earth
The 15 types of Human Species discovered till date.
Homo erectus (meaning 'upright man') is a species of archaic humans...
A number of varieties of Homo are grouped into the broad category of archaic humans...


I can live with that.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

There is only one species of human *living at the present time*. Those others died out.

Sheesh.

Just to note, here is a direct quote of what you wrote that inspired this little diversion:

"Who said God created individual species? :shrug:
Did God make Caucasians, and then make dark skinned people, and then...? Have you read the Bible Hubert?"

Now, what you wrote seems to suggest that you think Caucasians and 'dark skinned people' are different species. Otherwise, why have that question right after mentioning individual species?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I guess once you know the Bible, there's nothing else worth knowing...in the search for happiness, one must never forget that old saw "ignorance is bliss."
I have proven the Bible to be true.
I didn't pick it up one day, read it, and say, "I believe."
tenor.gif

Sorry you guys feel so miserable that you can't disprove it, nor get over the fact that millions - actually billions - believe it.
Actually, I'm not sorry.
AgitatedWillingBudgie-size_restricted.gif

We prove the truth for ourselves. We don't just gulp down "camels".
[GALLERY=media, 8807]DarWine by nPeace posted Dec 18, 2018 at 5:01 PM[/GALLERY]
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

There is only one species of human *living at the present time*. Those others died out.

Sheesh.

Just to note, here is a direct quote of what you wrote that inspired this little diversion:

"Who said God created individual species? :shrug:
Did God make Caucasians, and then make dark skinned people, and then...? Have you read the Bible Hubert?"

Now, what you wrote seems to suggest that you think Caucasians and 'dark skinned people' are different species. Otherwise, why have that question right after mentioning individual species?
I'm sorry to say this... Does not compute.
[url=http://www.mysmiley.net/free-msn-smileys.php] [/URL]
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
And you are not paying attention to the simplest fact of all --- only one of those species is still here. Travel the world, and find a single example of the genus "homo" that is not also of the species " H. sapiens."

Before you start to critique my understanding of the science, I think you'd be best advised to learn a bit about it yourself.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And you are not paying attention to the simplest fact of all --- only one of those species is still here. Travel the world, and find a single example of the genus "homo" that is not also of the species " H. sapiens."

Before you start to critique my understanding of the science, I think you'd be best advised to learn a bit about it yourself.
This thread has now become a circus, imho.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I have proven the Bible to be true.
Not even close...
We prove the truth for ourselves. We don't just gulp down "camels".
Then you are using a more archaic meaning of the word "prove," which was (in Shakespeare's day, for example), "test." You can see this in the old expression, "the exception that 'proves' the rule," which actually meant, if you have an exception, that test shows that the rule no longer holds (and therefore, of course, the precise opposite of what everybody now supposes it means).

I have no idea what you mean by gulping down camels, but suspect it comes from Christ's admonition (I'll frame it in Shakespeare's words from Richard II), "It is as hard to come as for a camel to thread the postern of a small needle's eye."
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have proven the Bible to be true.
I didn't pick it up one day, read it, and say, "I believe."
tenor.gif

Sorry you guys feel so miserable that you can't disprove it, nor get over the fact that millions - actually billions - believe it.
Actually, I'm not sorry.
AgitatedWillingBudgie-size_restricted.gif

We prove the truth for ourselves. We don't just gulp down "camels".
[GALLERY=media, 8807]DarWine by nPeace posted Dec 18, 2018 at 5:01 PM[/GALLERY]
No, you only fooled yourself.

Seriously if you think that you can prove the Bible, at least scientifically, you will need to learn what is and what is not evidence first. I can guarantee you that you do not understand the concept, that is assuming that you are not a liar.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Your fairy tale has been refuted to death. But there is quite the army of dishonest Christians out there that are will to lie to you for Jesus.

Tell me, why don't you ever rely on people that have done actual science? Why don't you use a source where people have published their works in a well respected professional journal rather than at a creationist circle jerk.?

And I watched the your trailer until the first clear lie. At 40 seconds in you can hear an obvious lie. Tell me, since when is it okay to lie for Jesus? I will be repeating this question until you respond to it.
You mean "most geologists have jettisoned" the idea that the Colorado Canyon was cut by the river over millions of years? Yes that certainly sounds like lies.

I'd be intrigued to learn what evidence @whirlingmerc - or other creationists - can produce to support that statement. Can any of them produce evidence that most geologists now think that is wrong? I won't hold my breath. ;)
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
After reading three pages of nPeace desperately trying to avoid admitting he made a simple linguistic (or biological) error when implying that humans with different coloured skin constituted different species, I really start to wonder whether he remembers that pride is a sin...

Dude, it was a simple error. Just admit it and move on.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You mean "most geologists have jettisoned" the idea that the Colorado Canyon was cut by the river over millions of years? Yes that certainly sounds like lies.

I'd be intrigued to learn what evidence @whirlingmerc - or other creationists - can produce to support that statement. Can any of them produce evidence that most geologists now think that is wrong? I won't hold my breath. ;)
That's the one. When I heard that I was done. The speaker looked like it might be Steve Austin. He has a legitimate PhD in geology. He became famous among creationists when he dated rocks to disprove radiometric dating. The only problem was that he made errors that a geology undergrad would not make. So either he was lying, or he is so incompetent that not only should his PhD be revoked, he should even have his basic BS or BA questioned.
 
Top