Looking for all the missing links

[USincognito]

You could not be further from the truth. They use the Bible all the time to understand the ruins that they find from that period of time in the Middle East. If you want to study European History I suppose the Bible would not have much value for you.

"They" who? Certainly not historians and archaeologists.

The Bible goes back 6,000 years.

No it does not. The closest thing you get to history in the Bible starts about 1500 BCE and even then it doesn't jive with the archeological record.

 

[good brother]

I hasten to add that such insulting and lamentable behavior is not representative of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Then why do you insist upon insulting me?

It also stands in sharp contrast to the Apostle Paul's address on Mar's Hill. Even though his audience held views sharply different from his own, Paul looked for ideas shared in common and did not insult his audience.

We hold vastly different views on origins, and yet you have done nothing but mock me, belittle me, insult me and my chosen ministry, and treat me as less than a dog. You are calling someone else out for a supposed offense when you have done that same offense over and over and over again to me. Shame on you!

Again and again I find myself embarrassed by the behavior of some who claim to reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ in their lives but their conduct shows an entirely different pattern.

You should be embarrassed of your own actions! You have verbally assaulted me time and time again with your despising of me and my chosen ministry. You have not reflected the teachings of Jesus at all in many of your posts. Some of the hatred you spew absolutely makes me sick.

So all I can say is that a great many of us are appalled at that behavior.

I am appalled at your behavior. And not because you are some random guy insulting another random guy on the internet, but because you claim to know the Bible forwards and backwards, in the Greek and the Hebrew, you claim to have taught in Christian colleges or universities, you claim to be a world renown speaker on all things biblical, and yet you have repeatedly failed to show any kind of meekness, gentleness, respect, or love to those who you disagree with. You claim to know the Bible so very well and yet you have not shown love to your enemies, nor have you given an answer for the hope that is within you with gentleness and with respect.

And once again, such rude and dishonest behavior is not at all in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Your behavior is not in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ! You have mocked and berated anyone who has a view in opposition to yours. Over and over again you have mocked ME and my chosen area of ministry.

Does anyone actually believe that this kind of conduct is what Jesus intended for his followers?

Your kind of behavior is definitely not the kind of behavior Jesus intended for His followers.

Is anyone drawn to the Kingdom of God by such behavior?
.

No one is drawn to the Kingdom of God by your behavior.

In Christ, mark bell

 

[Split Rock]

You still owe me one: what is the definition of human?

Here's one from freedictionary.com:
hu·man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person

 

[juvenissun]

Here's one from freedictionary.com:
hu·man (hymn)
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person

1 is a classification by morphology. It does not define.
2 is a nonsense. You can call a dog a "person".

Why don't you use one which is not free?

 

[Split Rock]

1 is a classification by morphology. It does not define.
2 is a nonsense. You can call a dog a "person".

Why don't you use one which is not free?

You can call a dog a person... or a corporation a person... or a potted plant a person.... you would also be wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

You can call a dog a person... or a corporation a person... or a potted plant a person.... you would also be wrong.

No. If I set up a definition, I WILL NOT be wrong. That is why I push for a definition of human.

 

[Astridhere]

No. If I set up a definition, I WILL NOT be wrong. That is why I push for a definition of human.

This is my definition of human....

A human being is a species where the majority of its adult cohorts exhibit the traits of higher reasoning ability, sophisticated language and abstract thought. These are the traits instilled in mankind by way of being created in the image of God.

These traits are required to understand the concept of an afterlife, God, sin, wright, wrong and obedience.These traits separate mankind from any other beast.

As you observe evolutionists do not have a definition of 'human' that is in any way useful.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is, for the most part, not. And the parts that are, are almost unusable for historical purposes.

There is no support for that statement.

 

[Split Rock]

No. If I set up a definition, I WILL NOT be wrong. That is why I push for a definition of human.

So you "will not be wrong?" LOL! Is that a matter of will? Are you asking me for a definition, or telling me you already "set one up?" If so, what is it?

 

[SkyWriting]

You can call a dog a person... or a corporation a person... or a potted plant a person.... you would also be wrong.

Except for the corporation part. A corporation is considered the same as a person in all legal matters.
And dogs have personalities.

...and people talk to plants.

 

[SkyWriting]

Please forgive me but I keep getting this niggling feeling that it's not your chosen ministry, it was chosen for you.

Many scientific types forego data and information and go by feelings and hunches. It's quite common to wing-it.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is my definition of human....

A human being is a species where the majority of its adult cohorts exhibit the traits of higher reasoning ability, sophisticated language and abstract thought. These are the traits instilled in mankind by way of being created in the image of God. These traits are required to understand the concept of an afterlife, God, sin, wright, wrong and obedience. These traits separate mankind from any other beast.

As you observe evolutionists do not have a definition of 'human' that is in any way useful.

There is one more, the ability to voluntarily give up ones life for another
and to choose how to react to circumstances.
No animal can purposely submit to death to save another's life.
Viktor Frankl wrote on this topic extensively.

 

[NailsII]

This is my definition of human....

A human being is a species where the majority of its adult cohorts exhibit the traits of higher reasoning ability, sophisticated language and abstract thought. These are the traits instilled in mankind by way of being created in the image of God.

These traits are required to understand the concept of an afterlife, God, sin, wright, wrong and obedience.These traits separate mankind from any other beast.

As you observe evolutionists do not have a definition of 'human' that is in any way useful.

I don't live in a cohort, I don't understand the concept of an afterlife, god or sin - and I am sometimes confused about right & wrong because I see a a grey area in between.

Does this mean that I am not human?

Except for the corporation part. A corporation is considered the same as a person in all legal matters.
And dogs have personalities.

...and people talk to plants.

A corporation may be treated like a shower curtain, it isn't a shower curtain - and it isn't a person.

All animals have personalities - that does not make them 'persons'.

If people talk to brink walls, can we call them persons?

 

[NailsII]

There is one more, the ability to voluntarily give up ones life for another
and to choose how to react to circumstances.
No animal can purposely submit to death to save another's life.
Viktor Frankl wrote on this topic extensively.

Wrong!

Animals have been seen to risk their own lives and even die for members of the ame species, and others.

Animals on the whole also react and choose.

The reason that there is actually so little to seperate us from other animals is...... wait for it........... WE ARE ANIMALS!

 

[Astridhere]

Nails11. Your reply is ridiculous and no refute to my definition of human what so ever. Being silly is a great evo escape.

If you are able to respond to my post as you have, then you obviously have the ability to engage in abstract thought. You understand the concept of God and afterlife, regardless of whether or not you believe. Hence you are human, like it or not.

If you have a physical or cognitive disability and are as silly as you are making out you are, then you are simply a human being with a disability, and still a part of the group/cohort denoted as human.

My definition stands and at least has some application is discerning mankind from chimp. Creationists have yet to see an evo definition of human that is of any use in separating mankind from any other primate.

 

[Split Rock]

There is one more, the ability to voluntarily give up ones life for another
and to choose how to react to circumstances.
No animal can purposely submit to death to save another's life.
Viktor Frankl wrote on this topic extensively.

I didn't see anything in the list of quotes you linked concerning animals... only humans. It should be clear that non-human animals can purposely submit to death to save another's life. Bees sacrifice themselves for the hive, though this may be entirely do to instinct. Non-human mothers will risk their own lives to save their offspring. Even dogs will risk their lives to save a human they have bonded with.

 

[NailsII]

Nails11. Your reply is ridiculous and no refute to my definition of human what so ever. Being silly is a great evo escape.

Yes it is, because your definition is vague.
The reply wasn't silly, it was to demonstrate the frailties of your post.

If you are able to respond to my post as you have, then you obviously have the ability to engage in abstract thought. You understand the concept of God and afterlife, regardless of whether or not you believe. Hence you are human, like it or not.

I never said I don't understand abstract thought.
I don't understand the concept of god, nor do I understand why people need a concept of god. Same goes for an afterlife. I don't know how it works, how you get in, how you get out.....
I like being human, and I accept that I am human - but not by your wishy-washy must-include-god definition.

If you have a physical or cognitive disability and are as silly as you are making out you are, then you are simply a human being with a disability, and still a part of the group/cohort denoted as human.

I am not a part of a cohort - so I am not in the group you describe as human.
As i obviously am human, your definition must be at fault.
Alter your definition or assign me to another group!

My definition stands and at least has some application is discerning mankind from chimp. Creationists have yet to see an evo definition of human that is of any use in separating mankind from any other primate.

You cannot work solely to distance humans from chimps in order to define a human - and this becomes worse if you try to define humans as unique when compared to our extinct relatives.
the reason that biologists (which, by the way doesn't have an 'e' or a 'v' in it) define humans in a way that resembles chimps (and bonobos) is because they are very much like us.
They are our relatives - very close relatives at that.
This is a fact - and I'm not sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it is.

 

[Astridhere]

There is one more, the ability to voluntarily give up ones life for another
and to choose how to react to circumstances.
No animal can purposely submit to death to save another's life.
Viktor Frankl wrote on this topic extensively.

Well maybe! I can't give an example but I thought some species have mothers that protect their young...to the death, some males protect their families. This is an inate trait though. I doubt there is any reasoning behind it.

However mankind must be able to discern the concept of a God and law to be able to engage in a relationship with Him. Hence no other primate can be classed as human in relation to my definition.

 

[Astridhere]

Yes it is, because your definition is vague.
The reply wasn't silly, it was to demonstrate the frailties of your post.

I never said I don't understand abstract thought.
I don't understand the concept of god, nor do I understand why people need a concept of god. Same goes for an afterlife. I don't know how it works, how you get in, how you get out.....
I like being human, and I accept that I am human - but not by your wishy-washy must-include-god definition.

Actually you must understand the concept of God to suggest you have no belief in a God. You also understand what I am talking about in speaking about an afterlife. You are human. A chimp is unable to grasp such concepts.

I am not a part of a cohort - so I am not in the group you describe as human.
As i obviously am human, your definition must be at fault.
Alter your definition or assign me to another group!

I cohort is simply refering to a group. Deal with it. You are being silly.

You cannot work solely to distance humans from chimps in order to define a human - and this becomes worse if you try to define humans as unique when compared to our extinct relatives.
the reason that biologists (which, by the way doesn't have an 'e' or a 'v' in it) define humans in a way that resembles chimps (and bonobos) is because they are very much like us.
They are our relatives - very close relatives at that.
This is a fact - and I'm not sorry if you don't like it, that's just how it is.

You are now resorting to replies akin to "evolution is true because they said so" style of reply.

You may think you resemble a bonobo but I do not. Not only do I have higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language, I also have the human variant of the foxp2 gene, I do not have a long fur coat. A dog resembles a cat also, yet they are two totally different species and do not belong to the same genus or family.

Since you do not like my definition of human, why don't you offer a definition of human that has some application. My bet is that you cannot. I know this because I have been down this road many times with evos.

Evos will ridicule any definition of human offered by creationists but are unable to do any better themsleves.

Sorry to say that at the moment I feel I have the upper hand here.

One of the things I like best about evos is their uncanny ability to challenge creationists when they are unable to provide better.

 

[NailsII]

Actually you must understand the concept of God to suggest you have no belief in a God. You also understand what I am talking about in speaking about an afterlife. You are human. A chimp is unable to grasp such concepts.

According to many Christians on here, I clearly don't understand god otherwise I would be a believer!
Can you demostrate that a chimp cannot understand such a concept?

I cohort is simply refering to a group. Deal with it. You are being silly.

I don't live in a group.
This is not being silly, humans can live alone.

You are now resorting to replies akin to "evolution is true because they said so" style of reply.

Not at all.
Nothing I said implies to the truth of evolution - you are mistaken.

You may think you resemble a bonobo but I do not. Not only do I have higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language, I also have the human variant of the foxp2 gene, I do not have a long fur coat. A dog resembles a cat also, yet they are two totally different species and do not belong to the same genus or family.

Clearly we are different from other apes - on that we have no argument.
genetic evidence suggests that they are our strongest living relative.

Since you do not like my definition of human, why don't you offer a definition of human that has some application. My bet is that you cannot. I know this because I have been down this road many times with evos.

If I can't do it, why don't you do it so I can pick holes in yours?
You have already stated tha you are not happy with any 'evos' definition, so you have already stated that you would refute it before I have written it.

Evos will ridicule any definition of human offered by creationists but are unable to do any better themsleves.

People will pick holes in any definiton, there is no need to imply a bias.
If 'evo' is the only box to which you can assign me, then maybe you should stop looking at people's labels and look at people.

Sorry to say that at the moment I feel I have the upper hand here.

What a suprise, a religious person with a superiority complex!

One of the things I like best about evos is their uncanny ability to challenge creationists when they are unable to provide better.

Better educated people than me have already made good definitions which you have already rejected - I reject yours for many reasons, the main one of course is that it requires an understanding of god.
This is a ludicrous basis for defining a human being, and I supsect that you know this.