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
-
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
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
but you know the answer—evolution. which you already accept in terms of “branching out” after creation and or the flood
Feel free to define it here. I'll use your definition.
You said:
So, be specific. Since you said:
... how does "evolution" answer the question of whether there was a point with only one human on earth with a "no"?
I have said nothing about "branching out."
That was @Right Divider.
Right Divider
Body part
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).
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Magic!
Right Divider
Body part
Two at a time
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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.
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.
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
You don't even know what defining is.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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:
If by your word "populations" you are not referring to individuals, then to what (if anything) are you referring by it?
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
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
She was a professional biologist as I recall. A PhD in biology, taught it at the college level.
Well indoctrinated.
She was a lot of fun to pick apart
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
@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.
Last edited:
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@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.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
She couldn't be much worse at reading and writing than you've shown yourself to be.