A short explaination of the human-nature

[Tjufsen]

The first man, was in Africa, they lived in tribes, or as natives then, but man has a slightly capricious nature, they sin, so they were not satisfied with having everything, having the best that nature can offer, so they started to spread out, migrate to different parts of the world, all of them were black, and they first migrated to a place called Tanna, Vanuatu, what is now the Yakel village, they are still black and live as nature intended, nurturing the ties of each other and nature and the animals around them, they eat root vegetables, eggs, chicken, wild boar, yes whatever is around them, the wild boars are tame too, so it's just a small wound in the throat so they pass out and bleed to death, no pain, the meat from the wild boar is, some would say, around ten times better than the pig then, the pig is a result of us living in society instead, it eats everything like the wild boar, but has lost its fur, now the Yakel village is not perfect, they have started walking around with knives, and do not accept strangers who want to live there, but they still nurture bonds with each other and the nature and animals around them, and they dance and sing and clap their hands, not all of them are singers from nature, it depends a bit on the intelligence, if it is high enough then only the others do it,

man has always been a separate species, they do not come from monkeys, and the reason is quite simple then, we cannot mate with them since they are animals, and if a human child were suddenly born in a group of monkeys, it would probably get killed, we have a lot in common with animals, but that's only because it's logical design, we have similar traits because it's logical to have these traits, but what makes us human perhaps the most then, is intelligence, and then we became whiter and whiter in skin due to the fact that we live further north with less light and more in cabins (houses), man has never been able to settle down since they migrated from Africa, so there have been constant wars and new trends and societies until now, and religions, they seek a home but never quite find it, Jesus tried to make them feel better by forgiving them of their sins by dying for them, but they still feel rootless to a certain extent degree, now we are exploring space, so you can think that this is the last new society, new trend, since space exploration will always be, but you never know, maybe they get bored? Attaching a small picture of those in the Yakel village:

 

[Tjufsen]

It wasn`t any good?

 

[Derf]

It wasn`t any good?

I dont think anyone understands what you're trying to do. Seems like you want to syncretize the message of the Bible with the current secular creation myth. Why?

 

[Estrid]

The first man, was in Africa, they lived in tribes, or as natives then, but man has a slightly capricious nature, they sin, so they were not satisfied with having everything, having the best that nature can offer, so they started to spread out, migrate to different parts of the world, all of them were black, and they first migrated to a place called Tanna, Vanuatu, what is now the Yakel village, they are still black and live as nature intended, nurturing the ties of each other and nature and the animals around them, they eat root vegetables, eggs, chicken, wild boar, yes whatever is around them, the wild boars are tame too, so it's just a small wound in the throat so they pass out and bleed to death, no pain, the meat from the wild boar is, some would say, around ten times better than the pig then, the pig is a result of us living in society instead, it eats everything like the wild boar, but has lost its fur, now the Yakel village is not perfect, they have started walking around with knives, and do not accept strangers who want to live there, but they still nurture bonds with each other and the nature and animals around them, and they dance and sing and clap their hands, not all of them are singers from nature, it depends a bit on the intelligence, if it is high enough then only the others do it,

man has always been a separate species, they do not come from monkeys, and the reason is quite simple then, we cannot mate with them since they are animals, and if a human child were suddenly born in a group of monkeys, it would probably get killed, we have a lot in common with animals, but that's only because it's logical design, we have similar traits because it's logical to have these traits, but what makes us human perhaps the most then, is intelligence, and then we became whiter and whiter in skin due to the fact that we live further north with less light and more in cabins (houses), man has never been able to settle down since they migrated from Africa, so there have been constant wars and new trends and societies until now, and religions, they seek a home but never quite find it, Jesus tried to make them feel better by forgiving them of their sins by dying for them, but they still feel rootless to a certain extent degree, now we are exploring space, so you can think that this is the last new society, new trend, since space exploration will always be, but you never know, maybe they get bored? Attaching a small picture of those in the Yakel village:

View attachment 336114

That is so mixed up.

I dont think anyone understands what you're trying to do. Seems like you want to syncretize the message of the Bible with the current secular creation myth. Why?

What us the "secular creation myth"?
Plz include how it is a myth.

 

[Derf]

That is so mixed up.

What us the "secular creation myth"?
Plz include how it is a myth.

The "out of Africa" idea that is part of evolutionary theory of man's origins. More evidence has come to light recently that suggests mankind came out of the Mesopotamia region, which is more in keeping with the biblical origin story.

 

[Estrid]

The "out of Africa" idea that is part of evolutionary theory of man's origins. More evidence has come to light recently that suggests mankind came out of the Mesopotamia region, which is more in keeping with the biblical origin story.

You might check dictionary for the meaning
of "myth". Prejudicial mislabeling improves no
argument.

But never mind that.

Where do you get this info that mankind originated
in the middle east? Sounds like AIG or the like.


Just for curiosity, by biblical story do you mean
Literal Adam and Eve?

 

[Derf]

You might check dictionary for the meaning
of "myth". Prejudicial mislabeling improves no
argument.

Would you like to offer a definition of myth that doesn't fit what I wrote?

But never mind that.

Where do you get this info that mankind originated
in the middle east?

Earliest cities, agriculture, kingdoms, language/writing are all acknowledged to have been in the middle east. Mankind is always recognized as intelligent, and these things are signs of intelligence.

Sounds like AIG or the like.

Is that a problem?

Just for curiosity, by biblical story do you mean
Literal Adam and Eve?

That's certainly part of it, but the flood story (Noah) is another part. Civilization seems to start up right about where the Bible says Noah and his family left the ark.

 

[Aaron112]

Would you like to offer a definition of myth that doesn't fit what I wrote?

How about everything the political and religious and economic and scientific

people make up to sound smart , to gain power, and to get tons of money ?

 

[Estrid]

Would you like to offer a definition of myth that doesn't fit what I wrote?

Earliest cities, agriculture, kingdoms, language/writing are all acknowledged to have been in the middle east. Mankind is always recognized as intelligent, and these things are signs of intelligence.


Is that a problem?

That's certainly part of it, but the flood story (Noah) is another part. Civilization seems to start up right about where the Bible says Noah and his family left the ark.

No tnx on writing my own definitions.
That's what you seem to have done tho.

City building etc does not define mankind, which only originated there in the story, not in physical evidence.
I don't know why you talk evidence if
you only look at what matches the bible.

AIG is a bad source as contributors have to agree to abandon intellectual integrity. You didn't know that?

As for the flood, the story is readily disproved with hard cold facts.

Much like the facts that show people lived in the middle east-and all over the rest of the world, thousands of years ago.

Why did you say humankind originated in the middle east?

 

[Derf]

No tnx on writing my own definitions.

You could copy one from the internet. No need to write your own. Since you're not willing to discuss the point YOU brought up, shall we consider it moot? (That would be the less used definition of "moot", in case you wanted to know.)

That's what you seem to have done tho.

Based on what evidence?

City building etc does not define mankind, which only originated there in the story, not in physical evidence.

Which evidence you will be happy to provide, right?

I don't know why you talk evidence if
you only look at what matches the bible.

Why do you think that's what I'm doing?

And at least I'm offering some kind of evidence, unlike certain others in this conversation.

AIG is a bad source as contributors have to agree to abandon intellectual integrity. You didn't know that?

Since you're so knowledgeable about sources, can you show me where AIG requires that?

As for the flood, the story is readily disproved with hard cold facts.

Which facts you will be happy to provide, right?

Much like the facts that show people lived in the middle east-and all over the rest of the world, thousands of years ago.

Why did you say humankind originated in the middle east?

Why do you say they didn't?

 

[Estrid]

You could copy one from the internet. No need to write your own. Since you're not willing to discuss the point YOU brought up, shall we consider it moot? (That would be the less used definition of "moot", in case you wanted to know.)

Based on what evidence?


Which evidence you will be happy to provide, right?


Why do you think that's what I'm doing?

And at least I'm offering some kind of evidence, unlike certain others in this conversation.


Since you're so knowledgeable about sources, can you show me where AIG requires that?

*
Which facts you will be happy to provide, right?


Why do you say they didn't?

One thing at a time.
Most important first


If you have not recently looked up the subject of
what constitutes intellectualual integrity, you may want you review it.
AIG Is the poster child for scientific / intellectual
dishonesty

Intellectual honesty - Wikiversity

en.m.wikiversity.org

If you are don't like to read, skip to the bullet points.


Here are link for AIG Statement of Faith

They are very specific about their putting beliefs ahead of
any actual data, and allowing no possible consideration
of facts contrary to a literal reading of the Bible.
They do however select bits here and there that they
can present as corroborating evidence.

Conclusion first though, and contrary facts are summarily thrown out...

If you were on trial the problems with that would be very clear. The perp had a grren shirt! The defendant had a green shirt. So you are guity.

Proof that you were in Paris that day, not at
at the waterfront bar in Capetwn is inadmissible.

Thats how AIG works.

Trusting AIG shows very poor judgement.

 

[dwb001]

If you have not recently looked up the subject of
what constitutes intellectualual integrity, you may want you review it.
AIG Is the poster child for scientific / intellectual
dishonesty

Here are link for AIG Statement of Faith

They are very specific about their putting beliefs ahead of
any actual data, and allowing no possible consideration
of facts contrary to a literal reading of the Bible.
They do though select bits here and there that they
can present as corroborating evidence.

Conclusion first though, and contrary facts are summarily
thrown out...

If you were on trial the problems with that would be very clear. The perp had a grren shirt! The defendant had a green shirt. So you are guity.

Proof that you were in Paris that day, not at
at waterfront bar in Capetwn is inadmissible.
Thats how AIG works.

Trusting AID shows very poor judgement.

I have skimmed through the AIG statement of faith and have not seen what you say.
Now if you could please copy from their site the references you are relying on I will gladly take a look.
What paragraph are you referring to?
Just a copy paste of the offending passage and we can discuss it. Cuz I didn't see what you are offended at.

 

[Derf]

One thing at a time.
Most important first


If you have not recently looked up the subject of
what constitutes intellectualual integrity, you may want you review it.
AIG Is the poster child for scientific / intellectual
dishonesty

Intellectual honesty - Wikiversity

en.m.wikiversity.org

If you are don't like to read, skip to the bullet points.


Here are link for AIG Statement of Faith

They are very specific about their putting beliefs ahead of
any actual data, and allowing no possible consideration
of facts contrary to a literal reading of the Bible.
They do however select bits here and there that they
can present as corroborating evidence.

Conclusion first though, and contrary facts are summarily thrown out...

If you were on trial the problems with that would be very clear. The perp had a grren shirt! The defendant had a green shirt. So you are guity.

Proof that you were in Paris that day, not at
at the waterfront bar in Capetwn is inadmissible.

Thats how AIG works.

Trusting AIG shows very poor judgement.

This is called an "ad hominem" attack. It is a logical fallacy.

Trying to lump me in with AIG, when I hadn't mentioned them, is an example of "association fallacy".
Logical fallacies are listed in your link as evidence of intellectual dishonesty. So, by your own admission, YOU are being intellectually dishonest.

Would you like to get back to the topic?

 

[Pythagon]

The first man, was in Africa, they lived in tribes, or as natives then, but man has a slightly capricious nature, they sin, so they were not satisfied with having everything, having the best that nature can offer, so they started to spread out, migrate to different parts of the world, all of them were black, and they first migrated to a place called Tanna, Vanuatu, what is now the Yakel village, they are still black and live as nature intended, nurturing the ties of each other and nature and the animals around them, they eat root vegetables, eggs, chicken, wild boar, yes whatever is around them, the wild boars are tame too, so it's just a small wound in the throat so they pass out and bleed to death, no pain, the meat from the wild boar is, some would say, around ten times better than the pig then, the pig is a result of us living in society instead, it eats everything like the wild boar, but has lost its fur, now the Yakel village is not perfect, they have started walking around with knives, and do not accept strangers who want to live there, but they still nurture bonds with each other and the nature and animals around them, and they dance and sing and clap their hands, not all of them are singers from nature, it depends a bit on the intelligence, if it is high enough then only the others do it,

man has always been a separate species, they do not come from monkeys, and the reason is quite simple then, we cannot mate with them since they are animals, and if a human child were suddenly born in a group of monkeys, it would probably get killed, we have a lot in common with animals, but that's only because it's logical design, we have similar traits because it's logical to have these traits, but what makes us human perhaps the most then, is intelligence, and then we became whiter and whiter in skin due to the fact that we live further north with less light and more in cabins (houses), man has never been able to settle down since they migrated from Africa, so there have been constant wars and new trends and societies until now, and religions, they seek a home but never quite find it, Jesus tried to make them feel better by forgiving them of their sins by dying for them, but they still feel rootless to a certain extent degree, now we are exploring space, so you can think that this is the last new society, new trend, since space exploration will always be, but you never know, maybe they get bored? Attaching a small picture of those in the Yakel village:

View attachment 336114

Man should have remained in Yakel Village?

 

[Estrid]

This is called an "ad hominem" attack. It is a logical fallacy.

Trying to lump me in with AIG, when I hadn't mentioned them, is an example of "association fallacy".
Logical fallacies are listed in your link as evidence of intellectual dishonesty. So, by your own admission, YOU are being intellectually dishonest.

Would you like to get back to the topic?

I said a lot of your "facts" read like AIG.

You asked what wrong with AIG

So I told you.

And you call that an ad hom.

You sound ridiculous not just with your
nonsense facts but using Latin terms you
don't understand.

 

[Derf]

I said a lot of your "facts" read like AIG.

You asked what wrong with AIG

So I told you.

And you call that an ad hom.

You sound ridiculous not just with your
nonsense facts but using Latin terms you
don't understand.

You have yet to offer any problem with what I wrote - except that I sound like AIG--or any solution. Would you like to offer anything useful to the conversation? If you don't agree with something, say what it is you disagree with, and offer an alternative understanding.

Otherwise, if you have nothing to offer to the conversation, please don't enter it.

 

[Estrid]

You have yet to offer any problem with what I wrote - except that I sound like AIG--or any solution. Would you like to offer anything useful to the conversation? If you don't agree with something, say what it is you disagree with, and offer an alternative understanding.

Otherwise, if you have nothing to offer to the conversation, please don't enter it.

If you dont find it " useful" to get an answer,
then don't ask a question.

I went to the effort to give a thorough answer to
your question, which upset you into making outlandish accusations against me.

Two of your beliefs are that there was
a biblial flood, and that humankind originated
in the middle east, is this not so?

Both have been disproved ten thousand times over,
as anyone who has looked at actual dara from valid
sources is well aware.

Other than by choosing the Bible as the correct source,
and then choosing how to interpret it to fit a
chosen pov. I don't know where you'd get the idea
that the events you speak of really happened.

Perhaps you could share that, being the one
who has made the assertion of facts not in evidence.

 

[Derf]

If you dont find it " useful" to get an answer,
then don't ask a question.

I went to the effort to give a thorough answer to
your question, which upset you into making outlandish accusations against me.

Two of your beliefs are that there was
a biblial flood, and that humankind originated
in the middle east, is this not so?

Both have been disproved ten thousand times over,
as anyone who has looked at actual dara from valid
sources is well aware.

Other than by choosing the Bible as the correct source,
and then choosing how to interpret it to fit a
chosen pov. I don't know where you'd get the idea
that the events you speak of really happened.

Perhaps you could share that, being the one
who has made the assertion of facts not in evidence.

Since you call it a "biblical" flood, you actually know that there's that evidence.. In addition, there are fossils of huge animals and small, land animals as well as air and sea found all over the world. Have you ever read any accounts of scientists explaining how fossils form? Except for volcanism, they all seem to form starting with water.

The fossils are sitting in geologic layers that often have flat boundaries between layers, which require water to form and then not be disturbed for millions of years, potentially, while the layers above are applied, all over the world.

Not believing in some kind if world-wide cataclysm that killed multiple millions of species was so inane that secular scientists eventually had to come up with another source other than water, so they envisioned large rocks hitting the earth, killing a bunch of animals with, yes, you guessed it, tsunamis, giving much credence to the bible's account. Tsunamis are made with water, in case you forgot.

 

[Estrid]

Since you call it a "biblical" flood, you actually know that there's that evidence.. In addition, there are fossils of huge animals and small, land animals as well as air and sea found all over the world. Have you ever read any accounts of scientists explaining how fossils form? Except for volcanism, they all seem to form starting with water.

The fossils are sitting in geologic layers that often have flat boundaries between layers, which require water to form and then not be disturbed for millions of years, potentially, while the layers above are applied, all over the world.

Not beliing in some kind if wirkd-wide cataclysm that killed multiple millions of species was so inane that secular scientists eventually had to come up with another source other than water, so they envisioned large rocks hitting the earth, killing a bunch of animals with, yes, you guessed it, tsunamis, giving much credence to the bible's account. Tsunamis are made with water, in case you forgot.

Giving me lessons.

Where DO you get this crap?


Unlike you, I've a degree in geology,
I've done lab and field work, and actually
have knowledge of the topic you try
to address.

There is a yec paleontologist,
a Dr K. Wise who addresses the matter
of data v faith.

"... even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec I'd still be yec as that
is what the Bible seems to indicate".

He if anything knows far better than I
that yec has zero data. And you know
less than nothing about geology, fossils etc.

You could avoid the gross scientific /
intellectual dishonesty of Dr. Wise,
or posting falsehoods, by just sticking to
faith and not attempting to introduce
"science facts" that you dont begin to
understand.

 

[Estrid]

You have yet to offer any problem with what I wrote - except that I sound like AIG--or any solution. Would you like to offer anything useful to the conversation? If you don't agree with something, say what it is you disagree with, and offer an alternative understanding.

Otherwise, if you have nothing to offer to the conversation, please don't enter it.

In case you forgot you didn't explain why you'd ask
if it's useless to answer.

Or say where you got your data about human origins.