• 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!

How did sex start?

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We didn't come from primates then. Because if we did there had to be that first homosapien baby born to a primate.

No, there was never a first human being. There was never a human being born to a nonhuman mother.

There was a graphic on the Internet I can't find again. It was a long paragraph of several hundred words that began in red text that gradually transitioned into blue text, and you were asked to identify the first blue letter. There was no first blue letter despite the fact that the piece began red and ended blue.

This is called the sorites paradox. You start with a pile of sand and remove one grain/ Is still a heap of sand? Sure. Now repeat, then again, until there is one grain left. Is that a heap? Not to me. When did the heap become not a heap?

I just had this discussion in a thread on the historicity of Jesus. Did Jesus live, or is he a mythical character? When skeptics consider the question, they remove the supernaturalism, and ask, apart from virgin birth and resurrection, apart from raising the dead, walking on water, and changing water to wine, did such a person exist? If so, I suspect that most people including atheists would say that a historical Jesus existed. How about if the other claims are mostly correct - maybe there were only eight disciples. Still a historical Jesus? I'd say yes. What if one were named Felix and one a woman? How about if we remove Nazareth from the story, or the Last Supper, or the trial by the Jews?

Hopefully, you see my point that there is no clear line. There are dozens of examples of this. When was the first second of your consciousness today, the one before which you were unconscious?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
We didn't come from primates then. Because if we did there had to be that first homosapien baby born to a primate.


Wrong. You are asuming that 'being human' has a well-marked boundary. But that is precisely what does NOT happen in evolution. The transitions are gradual, taking many generations, with different characteristics arising at different times.

So there is no way to clearly mark 'human' from 'not-human' in our ancestors.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Wrong. You are asuming that 'being human' has a well-marked boundary. But that is precisely what does NOT happen in evolution. The transitions are gradual, taking many generations, with different characteristics arising at different times.

So there is no way to clearly mark 'human' from 'not-human' in our ancestors.
I've tried to make that point so many times it's impossible to count them all. I've tried making comparisons to things (like movie films, for example) where tiny changes are almost indistinguishable from one frame to the next, but frames minutes apart (or hundreds of frames apart) usually don't resemble each other in the slightest.

As I've said before, what I see is a complete failure of the imagination -- the inability to think across spans of data samples, rather than merely adjacent ones.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Not porn. Perfect love making in a perfect world and you reduce it to porn?
That tells me something about your misunderstanding about what sex is intended to be.
Evolution: " Two chimps have mindless sex and a human baby pops out." Boring. And kinda gross

Two perfect humans frolicking in Eden? That's beautiful and pure and even Holy.
Good grief! You do not even know what you don't know.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Pseudo-science tells, that the first life in Multiverse was primitive one-cell organisms.
There was no male-female distinction. How that has happened and when?
This cannot be a million years-long evolution, because the very first sex must have happened in one single second: the female organ was penetrated by the male organ. The very first time in history! Was it a good one, or a disappointment?

It probably involved a WAP...

[ [
]]
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Pseudo-science tells, that the first life in Multiverse was primitive one-cell organisms.
There was no male-female distinction. How that has happened and when?
This cannot be a million years-long evolution, because the very first sex must have happened in one single second: the female organ was penetrated by the male organ. The very first time in history! Was it a good one, or a disappointment?

How is biology 'pseudo-science' ??
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Wrong. You are asuming that 'being human' has a well-marked boundary. But that is precisely what does NOT happen in evolution. The transitions are gradual, taking many generations, with different characteristics arising at different times.

So there is no way to clearly mark 'human' from 'not-human' in our ancestors.

Yup, basically this. ^^

400wm.jpeg


This guy looks damn human to me. This is a recreation of Nariokatome Boy. A wonderfully complete example of H. Erectus.

Edit: This Neanderthal looks darn human too.

d41586-020-02202-x_18205060.jpg
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Yup, basically this. ^^

View attachment 55256

This guy looks damn human to me. This is a recreation of Nariokatome Boy. A wonderfully complete example of H. Erectus.

Edit: This Neanderthal looks darn human too.

View attachment 55257

These hominin recreations are really fascinating, particularly with modern graphics.
If you line up every hominin on the 'human' line in a digital recreation, say one
individual every ten thousand years - you would be hard pressed to see the subtle
differences between adjoining faces.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Wrong. You are asuming that 'being human' has a well-marked boundary. But that is precisely what does NOT happen in evolution. The transitions are gradual, taking many generations, with different characteristics arising at different times.

So there is no way to clearly mark 'human' from 'not-human' in our ancestors.

Neanderthal woman from Gibraltar and a dark skinned European homo Sapien

Neanderthal and Sapien.jpg
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A human theist is in bodily human comparison as old bodily as science told you were first.

You have sex as a human conscious equal human equated biological science word use of sex. Meaning human conscious word use of sex as sex as a scientific human quantified meaning.

As you are not the cell it is not having sex. It has nothing in fact to idealise in life now as old as you are only. As science is biological humans self evidence first.

The age you define science is linked to studying is a human biological form destroyed over and over again. Maybe equal to how many billions of humans you as a conscious human self says is a number value quoted to human life.

Might be why humans said science was trying to destroy the whole human earth population by a number count. Of our bodily non existence.

Why using words was a holy human condition which said use the human applied descriptive analogy correctly.

Time does not go backwards.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
How is biology 'pseudo-science' ??
As consciousness psychic innate aware is AI subliminal taught by theisms owned by machine scientist AI encodings. Human first designer himself.

The reason why.
So teachers natural human life says our life human is holy versus occult machine human liars. We said Jesus is non sexual man image owns no cell DNA or Phi inferred so you would not theory Phi is a biolgical cell that had sex as a image cloud man Jesus.

Sex by not having sex thesis as themed microbes just exist in space womb atmosphere veils. A mother by no sex. As theoried are manipulated by want first.

How one human can use bible info and completely abuse its advice.

As Satanists whose theories are all about nature not existing whatsoever first.

The destroyer theist mind.

As the theist who thinks inequality by ego never says my life is your life the same as the ego of abstracts of human reality form self inclusion pretends.....is speaking as the creator creating. As pretence of.

Only because they want to know everything.

So then we have to ask what purpose would knowing everything give in theism..answer to design a reaction against all things to cause nothing the highest state of my satanic belief.

What the study is studying how to invent nothing first as theists claim in satanism nothing is the first position.

As it does not rationally exist they have to invent it first to equate ego gratified theisms.

Rational life says water heavens oxygen mass is what we live inside of and billions of self owned variant bodies all live within water oxygenated mass at the same instant moment.

The only extra to water status is oxygen and tree nature already bio puts it there.

Is the human actual science answer.

Theists today don't want the science answer they want to exert a new science answer.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Ever notice how boring the evolution story is?
Compared to a perfect garden and the two naked firstborn of creation having perfect love making.
God's story is so much more appealing.

Ow I disagree very much. A sadistic all powerful voyeur setting people up for failure and then punishing them for that failure, doesn't sound very appealing at all to me.

Regardless though, what is "appealing" has no bearing on what is actually true.
 
Top