• 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!

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Was the very first human so different from the modern one that he was no longer a human? No, because he was the first Human. In short: he was a human. Conclusion: the evolution of mankind did not happen.

Definition of humankind: a human gives birth to a human. Has Darwin an alternative definition?
If the changes are so severe, that the first human is in no way similar to the modern human, then he is not a human.

I demand respect.

If Bob does not give oxygen to Alice, it is murder. If John does not give respect to Steve, it is disrespect?

Respect, being God's name, is in origin. Respect and Love can get lost. For example, God of Love does not love Adolf Hitler and satan.
There are two sources only: evil spirit (satan), and Holy Spirit (God).
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Was the very first human so different from the modern one that he was no longer a human? No, because he was the first Human. In short: he was a human. Conclusion: the evolution of mankind did not happen.


Once again... see my avatar? Completely human yet we have evolved in the last 22000 years to have a lighter bone structure and smaller skull to house a smaller brain.

And that is just 22000 years. See what happens 7 million years

.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Once again... see my avatar? Completely human yet we have evolved in the last 22000 years to have a lighter bone structure and smaller skull to house a smaller brain.

And that is just 22000 years. See what happens 7 million years

.
I have a logical disproof of evolution.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I have a logical disproof of evolution.

No you don't, you have an uninformed idea that suites your confirmation bias.

The fossil record is not going to change because you don't agree with it. The copious genetic evidence is not going to change because you don't agree with it. The observational evidence is not going to change because you don't agree with it.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Was the very first human so different from the modern one that he was no longer a human? No, because he was the first Human. In short: he was a human. Conclusion: the evolution of mankind did not happen.

Your definition of 'proof' varies from mine.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Was the very first human so different from the modern one that he was no longer a human?

Depends on drawing a totally arbitrary line between 'human' and 'almost human' in what is actually a continuum. It's rather like asking on what day somebody became 'old'.

No, because he was the first Human. In short: he was a human.

According to some totally arbitrary criterion.

Conclusion: the evolution of mankind did not happen.

Non sequitur.

I have a logical disproof of evolution.

No you don't. Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Depends on drawing a totally arbitrary line between 'human' and 'almost human' in what is actually a continuum. It's rather like asking on what day somebody became 'old'.
Definition of humankind: a human gives birth to a human. Has Darwin an alternative definition?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Definition of humankind: a human gives birth to a human. Has Darwin an alternative definition?
Each and every time birth is achieved, the results vary from the parent some small amount. You at least MUST admit to this. You must. It is observable, undeniable, impossible to get around without being completely irrational (which, believe me, I know you are willing to do).

So, take that small, almost insignificant amount of change and multiply it by 10,000 generations. Do you honestly think that the "human" that comes out of that 10,000th birth will be extremely similar to the human who first gave birth in the line? Do you honestly believe that a series of small changes 10,000 times over cannot result in big change when comparing #1 to #10,000? Talk about being illogical. YOU are illogical if you can't understand and accept this SIMPLISTIC idea.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I have a logical disproof of evolution.
Your definition of "logical disproof" is a joke -- it is, literally, laughable -- so much so that it is very difficult to know where to begin, or even if engaging is worth the effort.

But let's pretend that it is. So, do me a favor:
  • read Wikipedia: Human Evolution ... all of it.
  • make a good faith effort to understand all the words.
  • try to understand and appreciate the thousands upon thousands of hours of scientific scholarship and methodological expertise spanning multiple disciplines and balance it against your current level of understanding
and then, perhaps, we can have something approximating an informed discussion.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Was the very first human so different from the modern one that he was no longer a human? No, because he was the first Human. In short: he was a human. Conclusion: the evolution of mankind did not happen.

Was the first telephone so different from the modern one that it was no longer a telephone? No, because it was the first telephone. In short: it was the first telephone. Conclusion: Evolution of the telephone did not happen.

7658812e807a65e095e49c4e17851cfe.jpg

DAPW4242-detail-front.jpg
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I demand more respect! I have proven many things in math and physics!

Everything you've posted here that claimed to be a proof and that I've bothered to look into, was no such thing.

You've also ignored the point here, which is that evolution happens in tiny steps and there is no strict dividing line between 'human' and 'almost human' unless you arbitrarily make one up.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Each and every time birth is achieved, the results vary from the parent some small amount. You at least MUST admit to this. You must. It is observable, undeniable, impossible to get around without being completely irrational (which, believe me, I know you are willing to do).

So, take that small, almost insignificant amount of change and multiply it by 10,000 generations. Do you honestly think that the "human" that comes out of that 10,000th birth will be extremely similar to the human who first gave birth in the line? Do you honestly believe that a series of small changes 10,000 times over cannot result in big change when comparing #1 to #10,000? Talk about being illogical. YOU are illogical if you can't understand and accept this SIMPLISTIC idea.
If the changes are so severe, that the first human is in no way similar to the modern human, then he is not a human.
 
Top