Neanderthal Burials

[Mechanical Bliss]

Creationists tend to insist that modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens, are entirely unique in cultural characteristics, but what puzzles me is how they explain prehistoric peoples, in general, seeing as not all of them are anatomically modern yet they were still able to use fire and create relatively complex stone tools, for example.

One point in particular I wanted to point out was an archaeological site in present day Iraq: the Shanidar cave. Archaeologist Ralph Solecki discovered several burials of neanderthals, or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. There were individual graves where the remains show bent knees and were covered by a layer of flower pollen (perhaps indicative of flowers laid on top of the grave), stones, and a hearth above. Other burials involved small groups of two or three adults and an infant between them.

What I was trying to imply was that modern humans, according to the archaeological record, were not the only ones conscious of death or at least were able to recognize it and construct ritual burials for members of their group. Why would this be so if humans are unique and special creations? Why would, what would be evolutionary ancestors of modern humans if one accepts the theory of evolution, show gradual changes in their use of technology and even having burial rituals? Doesn't this contradict the notion that only modern humans are aware of death or give life a particular value?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:10 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #1

Creationists tend to insist that modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens, are entirely unique in cultural characteristics, but what puzzles me is how they explain prehistoric peoples, in general, seeing as not all of them are anatomically modern yet they were still able to use fire and create relatively complex stone tools, for example.

One point in particular I wanted to point out was an archaeological site in present day Iraq: the Shanidar cave. Archaeologist Ralph Solecki discovered several burials of neanderthals, or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. There were individual graves where the remains show bent knees and were covered by a layer of flower pollen (perhaps indicative of flowers laid on top of the grave), stones, and a hearth above. Other burials involved small groups of two or three adults and an infant between them.

What I was trying to imply was that modern humans, according to the archaeological record, were not the only ones conscious of death or at least were able to recognize it and construct ritual burials for members of their group. Why would this be so if humans are unique and special creations? Why would, what would be evolutionary ancestors of modern humans if one accepts the theory of evolution, show gradual changes in their use of technology and even having burial rituals? Doesn't this contradict the notion that only modern humans are aware of death or give life a particular value?

This is even more relevant now that we know that H. neandertalis was not a subspecies of H. sapiens but a separate species of its own.  Your designation of H. sapiens neandertalis is outdated.  What we have is that a separate species, not modern humans, also buried their dead in a way that indicates that they believed in some form of afterlife.

H. erectus also made stone and wood tools.  This species is sometimes called "just an ape" by creationists. However, that hurts them even worse because now you have an "ape" that does what primitive H. sapiens also does. Ruins the whole huge gap idea between apes and humans.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Creationist mantra: "Neanderthals are just old people with rickets, so nah nah nah nah nah nah."

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:24 PM Late_Cretaceous said this in Post #3

Creationist mantra: "Neanderthals are just old people with rickets, so nah nah nah nah nah nah."

ROFL! Quite true. That is the mantra.  However, it doesn't explain why neandertals could live right next door to sapiens at Shanidar and Shkul for 60,000 years and never have a neandertal Romeo and sapiens Juliet (or several of them) sneak off and make babies together.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 07:10 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #1

Creationists tend to insist that modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens, are entirely unique in cultural characteristics, but what puzzles me is how they explain prehistoric peoples, in general, seeing as not all of them are anatomically modern yet they were still able to use fire and create relatively complex stone tools, for example.

Creationims breaks down into three basic theorys. The YEC would say that God created man 6000 years ago, and then about 4000 years ago there was a flood. Actually, the flood was around 4300 years ago. So they would fit all the dinasores along with prehistoric man into that 1700 years.

The Gap theory would say that between verse two and verse three of Gensis Chapter one, there was a gap, and God started all over again. They say the gap can be anything you want it to be.

Then there is true science and true theology, where they work hard to get the findings of science to line up with the Bible. Moses wrote a outline, but he never wrote the chapters on creation.

When they charted out the prehistoric ages, they followed the Bible. In everything they followed the Bible right up to Darwin. Then he made a break for it and left the Bible. It seemed there were a lot of other scientists who were wanting to do the same thing and they were quick to follow his lead.

That was when they entered into the creative writting era of science. As my sister in law use to say all the time, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Psalm 2:3-4
        "Let us tear their fetters apart,
        And cast away their cords from us!"
 
        [4] He who sits in the heavens laughs,
        The Lord scoffs at them.

The reason it was so hard for them to get what they found to line up with the Bible is because they did not have the Holy Spirit of God in them. They were trying to figure it out in their own puny little logic and reasoning.

Anyways, to get back to your question. God created what science would call a foodgather or a prehistoric man on day 6 of creation. Then on day 8 of creation was the dawn of civilization, when God created a food producer or modern man.

Adam and Eve were created in perfection as all of creation was in perfection. If you want to know more about Adam and Eve, then look at Jesus, because they were like Him. They had a tiny mind and a tiny heart that matched the big mind and the big heart of God, before they fell away into sin. The breath of life was in them and they had a soul that was quite a bit more like God, than what prehistoric man had.  We never read or hear about God walking and talking with prehistoric man. But Adam and Eve had a personal relationship with God, just like we can have a personal relationship with Him today. Because Jesus paid the price so we could be reconciled with the Father and with each other. But it takes being born again and restored to God origional purpose and intention for man. Those who are willing, will be restored to perfection. Those who are not willing to be restored will be destroyed. If God can not get sin out of man (and women) than that sin will in the end destroy them. Those who are redeemed will be given a new body and the tree of life so that they will live forever. Because the Life of God is in them, and they choose the new and the living way.

 

[notto]

Today at 04:38 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=665051#post665051)


Anyways, to get back to your question. God created what science would call a foodgather or a prehistoric man on day 6 of creation. Then on day 8 of creation was the dawn of civilization, when God created a food producer or modern man.

John, do you believe that this food producer (Adam) was created from the dust of the ground and that eve was created from his rib while he slept?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 11:38 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #5

Creationims breaks down into three basic theorys. The YEC would say that God created man 6000 years ago, and then about 4000 years ago there was a flood. Actually, the flood was around 4300 years ago. So they would fit all the dinasores along with prehistoric man into that 1700 years.

The Gap theory would say that between verse two and verse three of Gensis Chapter one, there was a gap, and God started all over again. They say the gap can be anything you want it to be.

So where does that place prehistoric hominids who are not like modern humans but were conscious of death? 

When they charted out the prehistoric ages, they followed the Bible. In everything they followed the Bible right up to Darwin. Then he made a break for it and left the Bible. It seemed there were a lot of other scientists who were wanting to do the same thing and they were quick to follow his lead.

That was when they entered into the creative writting era of science. As my sister in law use to say all the time, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

In this case, the story comes from the Bible, not "creative" writing of science. It does seem apparent that people don't want to let the truth get in the way of their good story.

The reason it was so hard for them to get what they found to line up with the Bible is because they did not have the Holy Spirit of God in them. They were trying to figure it out in their own puny little logic and reasoning.

However, it makes a great deal of sense to use logic and reasoning rather than trying to rationalize a religious myth.

Anyways, to get back to your question. God created what science would call a foodgather or a prehistoric man on day 6 of creation. Then on day 8 of creation was the dawn of civilization, when God created a food producer or modern man.

This does not address the point. It is important to note that neanderthals and modern humans did coexist, so your explanation is contradicted by reality.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:38 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #5 

Then there is true science and true theology, where they work hard to get the findings of science to line up with the Bible. Moses wrote a outline, but he never wrote the chapters on creation.

Both YECers and those advocating the various Gap theories say they are doing true science and true theology.  Why don't you think they are? What makes your theology "true"?

When they charted out the prehistoric ages, they followed the Bible. In everything they followed the Bible right up to Darwin.

For those interested in the truth, that statement is untrue.  By 1831 geologists (most of whom were also ministers) had mapped the basic ages (Cambrian, Silurian, Jurassic, etc.) and these didn't match any literalistic reading of the Bible.  Adam Sedgwick had officially declared a world-wide flood as falsified -- no strata were due to such a flood.  So the Bible had been "left" long before Darwin.  A literal Genesis 6-8 had been discarded while Darwin was still on the Beagle.

The reason it was so hard for them to get what they found to line up with the Bible is because they did not have the Holy Spirit of God in them.

As I said, many of them were ministers.  Asa Gray was a believing Christian all his life, being invited to give both scientific and theological lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary. Also, John conveniently forgets that virtually all Christian theologians also accepted evolution. What John has now is that all of both the scientific and Christian world suddenly did not have the Holy Spirit in them.  Now, just how likely is it that God would allow the Holy Spirit to desert all these individuals at the same time?

God created what science would call a foodgather or a prehistoric man on day 6 of creation. Then on day 8 of creation was the dawn of civilization, when God created a food producer or modern man.

Where's the Biblical justification for this?  For all you Christian Biblical scholars out there, do you know of anyone besides John who has this exegesis of Genesis?  Can anyone find any type of textual support for this?  All the literalistic attempts to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2 have Adam and Eve created on day 6.  After all, Genesis 1 says creation was finished on day 6.  Now John has creation continuing on day 8.   

Adam and Eve were created in perfection as all of creation was in perfection.

This is also not Biblical.  Genesis 1 says only that creation was "good".  The concept of "perfect" is due to that human reasoning that John has derided as being insufficient.

The breath of life was in them and they had a soul that was quite a bit more like God, than what prehistoric man had. 

Biblical support?

What John calls "true science" and "true theology" are simply his attempts, thru his reasoning (if that is what you can call it), to come up with a theory that is contradicted by both science and a plain reading of the Bible.  The worst of both worlds.

 

[JohnR7]

20th February 2003 at 12:14 PM notto said this in Post #6

John, do you believe that this food producer (Adam) was created from the dust of the ground and that eve was created from his rib while he slept?

The Adam and Eve your talking about was not a part of creation. They were formed on day 8. The male and female who were "food gathers" were a part of creation and they were created on day 6.




 

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 10:41 PM lucaspa said this in Post #8 Both YECers and those advocating the various Gap theories say they are doing true science and true theology.  Why don't you think they are? What makes your theology "true"?

I think that the gap theory ignores science. YEC's claim they work with science but they reject evolution theory.

What makes my theology true? As far as Creation? It is just my opinion, you can do with it what you want. There are lots of people with lots of opinions in this world. You should tell me, sense your the one that for some reason keeps getting drawn to my posts. I think we live in a market place of ideas and there is value in learning any sort of new idea anyone can come up with. Even if it does not fit into your system of belief at this point in time.

I think we are long overdue to learn something new about the way God created this world. New thoughts and ideas seem to be few and far apart in this area.

Now, just how likely is it that God would allow the Holy Spirit to desert all these individuals at the same time?

Very likely if they are not Holy, Sanctifed, and dedicated. God does not always use a lot of people. There was only one Moses in his day. Noah and his family were the only ones God saved during the time of the flood. Lot and his family were the only ones that God took out of Sodom, to save them. Even then, Lot's wife looked back and she did not make it out. 

Adam and Eve were created in perfection as all of creation was in perfection.

This is also not Biblical.  Genesis 1 says only that creation was "good". 

ops, do I detect a Fraudian slip. Are you saying that Adam and Eve were NOT a part of creation?

The breath of life was in them and they had a soul that was quite a bit more like God, than what prehistoric man had. 

Biblical support?

Oh come on, we are only talking about a very few verses here. As intellegent as you claim to be, you should have them memorized.

Genesis 2:7
    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

THIS is what makes Adam and Eve different from the man we read about in Ch 1. It is more than just that Adam and Eve were Formed out of the ground. The real difference was the breath of life that God put in them. The difference was their soul.

It would seem it is beyond Science to be able to discover about the soul and the breath of life. That would be theology.

What John calls "true science" and "true theology" are simply his attempts, thru his reasoning  [/B]

Your not talking about me here, so you must be telling me about yourself. That your brand of science is your attempt using your reasoning. It will not work, man's reasoning falls far to short.

The Holy Spirit of God is to be our teacher and instructor, not man. Mankind is not able to figure it out on their own apart from God. All man can come up with is a lot of foolishness.

 

[notto]

Today at 11:03 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=668983#post668983)

The Adam and Eve your talking about was not a part of creation. They were formed on day 8. The male and female who were "food gathers" were a part of creation and they were created on day 6.

 

OK,

Do you believe that Adam came from the dust of the ground and that Eve was created from his rib while he slept?

And, where does the bible mention the "food gatherers" on day 6?

 

[lucaspa]

22nd February 2003 at 06:29 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #10 

What makes my theology true? As far as Creation? It is just my opinion, you can do with it what you want.

Then why did you label it as true?

You should tell me, sense your the one that for some reason keeps getting drawn to my posts.

I told you the reasons:
1. To correct your misrepresentations for the other members of the forum.
2. To alert them to the danger you pose for Christianity.

I think we live in a market place of ideas and there is value in learning any sort of new idea anyone can come up with.

Not all ideas are equal.  Ideas need to be critically evaluated in order to separate out the wrong ones.  Having a wrong idea accepted as true can be worse than no idea at all. 

I think we are long overdue to learn something new about the way God created this world.

Why? If the current ideas are correct, then what is the need for a new one?

Very likely if they are not Holy, Sanctifed, and dedicated.

How likely is it that all of them are not "Holy, Sanctified, and dedicated"? 

God does not always use a lot of people. There was only one Moses in his day.

But a lot of Hebrews. 

Adam and Eve were created in perfection as all of creation was in perfection.

[lucaspa] This is also not Biblical.  Genesis 1 says only that creation was "good". 

ops, do I detect a Fraudian slip. Are you saying that Adam and Eve were NOT a part of creation?

I'm questioning your claim "created in perfection as all of creation was in perfection".  "Perfection" is not Biblical.  I think you agree since you tried to quickly change the subject. 

The breath of life was in them and they had a soul that was quite a bit more like God, than what prehistoric man had. 

[lucaspa] Biblical support? 


Genesis 2:7
    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That's not support for your "quite a bit more like God than what prehistoric man had".  I see no support here for 1) prehistoric man, 2) comparison of Adam's soul to that of prehistoric man, 3) comparison of Adam's soul to God's soul. 

So, where is your Biblical support?

THIS is what makes Adam and Eve different from the man we read about in Ch 1.

Why? Genesis 1 does not mention souls.  It does mention that these were spoken into existence "in the image of God". So Adam isn't in the image of God  but your so-called prehistoric man is. Which takes trump: a soul or image of God?

It would seem it is beyond Science to be able to discover about the soul and the breath of life. That would be theology.

At the moment, yes.


Your not talking about me here, so you must be telling me about yourself.

Nope, talking about you.  Your idea of two creations of humans is not at all Scriptural.  It comes entirely from your reasoning.  Of course, you say that It will not work, man's reasoning falls far to short.  Nice of you to admit that your idea won't work.

The Holy Spirit of God is to be our teacher and instructor, not man. Mankind is not able to figure it out on their own apart from God. All man can come up with is a lot of foolishness.

Well, so far all you've come up with is a lot of foolishness contradicted by both books of God.  So now we all know that the Holy Spirit of God is not your teacher.  So why are you spreading false teachings?

 

[budoka]

Do any other Christians have an opinion/theory to explain Neanderthals? Do you think they had souls? Is it possible to have a mind but not a soul?

 

[JohnR7]

19th February 2003 at 07:10 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #1 One point in particular I wanted to point out was an archaeological site in present day Iraq: the Shanidar cave. Archaeologist Ralph Solecki discovered several burials of neanderthals, or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. There were individual graves where the remains show bent knees and were covered by a layer of flower pollen (perhaps indicative of flowers laid on top of the grave), stones, and a hearth above. Other burials involved small groups of two or three adults and an infant between them. 

I do not see any real significance to this. First of all we know that there was death in the world before Adam and Eve. But there was no death from and though SIN. So you will not find very many people who died from a disease. Most of what I have read about a cause of death was they had a accident or got their head bashed in. Maybe for trespassing on another man's hunting ground. The word tresspass for sin is a big word in the Bible.

Also, just because they buryied someone only means they did not want the animals to eat them. Putting the flowers in is a nice effect. It shows maybe a little bit of love or affection. That they cared about that person enough to cover them with flowers. IT showed that flowers were appealing to them, so they had some appreciation for the beauty of creation. Putting their personal tools in does not mean all that much. You may think someone else would "inherit" their worldly posessions. But maybe the tools were very personal and it just seemed like the right thing to do, to bury them with their tools and personal effects.

This is a very valid question though, just what is the difference between prehistoric man (humanoids) and Adam and Eve? Esp. sense the Bible seems to indicate that there was no sin in the world before Adam and Eve. Of course "SIN" was the name of a moon god that they worshiped back then. So "sin" may have a more exact definition and may not be a general definition.

When I was growing up the joke about neanderthals was if they wanted a women they would club her over the head and knock her out and drag her home by her hair. I know it does not sound so funny now, but they use to think it was funny back then. Even if a man was crude and brutish, not refined and well manered, they would call him a neanderthal.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:35 AM budoka said this in Post #13

Do any other Christians have an opinion/theory to explain Neanderthals? Do you think they had souls? Is it possible to have a mind but not a soul?

This is the BIG question. Did they not have a soul or did they not have a spirit? Did they have a soul more like an animal, where Adam had a soul more like God?

Genesis 2:7
    And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The difference with Adam and Eve was the n'eshamah. This is pretty much what today we would call the Holy Spirit of God. Defined as the wind,

neshamah,  nesh-aw-maw'; from Hebrew 5395 (nasham); a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect, or (concrete) an animal :- blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

So Adam had divine inspiration and intellect that the stone age humanoids did not have.

 

[JohnR7]

24th February 2003 at 05:32 PM lucaspa said this in Post #12

22nd February 2003 at 06:29 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #10 

What makes my theology true? As far as Creation? It is just my opinion, you can do with it what you want.

Then why did you label it as true?

What, do you claim the same divine inspiration as scripture? When I am done I will give you just that. But for now I put some thoughts out there for others to kick around and tell me what their perspective is on it.

You should tell me, sense your the one that for some reason keeps getting drawn to my posts.

I told you the reasons:
1. To correct your misrepresentations for the other members of the forum.
2. To alert them to the danger you pose for Christianity.

How magnificant, what a wonderful service you do for mankind. My question is, how do you manage to carry that ego around with you, does't it weigh you down?  

I think we live in a market place of ideas and there is value in learning any sort of new idea anyone can come up with.

Not all ideas are equal.  Ideas need to be critically evaluated in order to separate out the wrong ones.  Having a wrong idea accepted as true can be worse than no idea at all. 

When you get the log out of your eye, then maybe you will be better qualified to help get the splinter out of the eye of another.  

I think we are long overdue to learn something new about the way God created this world.

Why? If the current ideas are correct, then what is the need for a new one?

No one is saying they are not correct. Just perhaps outdated. A model A ford is still a car, but they have better cars now.

Well, so far all you've come up with is a lot of foolishness contradicted by both books of God.  So now we all know that the Holy Spirit of God is not your teacher.  So why are you spreading false teachings? [/B]

Again, your only telling me about yourself. As Pee Wee would say: Now we know what you are, but what am I. Here you are suppose to have the BIG degrees, and you act so childish.

 

[JohnR7]

22nd February 2003 at 08:08 AM notto said this in Post #11

Do you believe that Adam came from the dust of the ground and that Eve was created from his rib while he slept?

Yes of course I do, the Hebrew word is "adamia". That could be translated ground, dust or clay.

And, where does the bible mention the "food gatherers" on day 6?

I am just using a term that people know the meaning of, so they will know who I am talking about. Science calls them "food gathers" among other things, so you will know who I am refering to.

 

[Eddie]

[false  sorry on]Maybe thats where the french came from[false sorry off]

 

19th February 2003 at 10:33 PM lucaspa said this in Post #4



ROFL! Quite true. That is the mantra.  However, it doesn't explain why neandertals could live right next door to sapiens at Shanidar and Shkul for 60,000 years and never have a neandertal Romeo and sapiens Juliet (or several of them) sneak off and make babies together.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:30 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #14

I do not see any real significance to this. First of all we know that there was death in the world before Adam and Eve. But there was no death from and though SIN.

WHOA!  In another thread you are saying there was no death before Adam and Eve.  How do you account for the contradiction?

So you will not find very many people who died from a disease.

Disease results from sin? So you mean that there were no parasites, bacteria, or viral diseases before the Fall? Did God then create all these new organisms or did God just change ones that were already created?  Wait a minute. He can't do the last, because the organisms were created "perfect" according to you.

Also, just because they buryied someone only means they did not want the animals to eat them. Putting the flowers in is a nice effect. It shows maybe a little bit of love or affection. That they cared about that person enough to cover them with flowers.

 

Putting their personal tools in does not mean all that much. You may think someone else would "inherit" their worldly posessions. But maybe the tools were very personal and it just seemed like the right thing to do, to bury them with their tools and personal effects.

John, this is a subsistence society.  Those tools are needed by the group.  Putting them in the grave implies a belief in an afterlife where those things will be needed. And how about the food? Why bury good food with a dead person unless you thought they were going to need to eat in an afterlife?

When I was growing up the joke about neanderthals was if they wanted a women they would club her over the head and knock her out and drag her home by her hair. I know it does not sound so funny now, but they use to think it was funny back then. Even if a man was crude and brutish, not refined and well manered, they would call him a neanderthal.

Which just shows how beliefs change when confronted with new data.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:55 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #16
What makes my theology true? As far as Creation? It is just my opinion, you can do with it what you want.

[lucaspa] Then why did you label it as true? 

But for now I put some thoughts out there for others to kick around and tell me what their perspective is on it.

If it was speculation, then why didn't you label it as speculation? You labeled it as true. 


How magnificant, what a wonderful service you do for mankind. 

Thank you. Of course, I would rather be doing other things, but correcting you needs doing.     

I think we live in a market place of ideas and there is value in learning any sort of new idea anyone can come up with.

[lucaspa] Not all ideas are equal.  Ideas need to be critically evaluated in order to separate out the wrong ones.  Having a wrong idea accepted as true can be worse than no idea at all. 

When you get the log out of your eye, then maybe you will be better qualified to help get the splinter out of the eye of another.

Non sequitor.  The discussion was about all ideas being equal. You never addressed that they are not.   

I think we are long overdue to learn something new about the way God created this world.

[lucaspa] Why? If the current ideas are correct, then what is the need for a new one?

No one is saying they are not correct. Just perhaps outdated. A model A ford is still a car, but they have better cars now.

LOL!! So, we should trade in ideas after a set period of time just to have a new idea.  Well, Rev. Moon has a new idea: that he is Jesus.  Isn't that a better idea?  It's newer.  Joseph Smith had a newer revelation from God. Does that make it better?

Ideas don't go out of date like cars.  There is no "planned obsolescence" for ideas.  If there were, then surely the Genesis stories should be supplanted by evolution, right? 

[lucaspa] Well, so far all you've come up with is a lot of foolishness contradicted by both books of God.&nbsp; So now we all know that the Holy Spirit of God is not <B>your</B> teacher.&nbsp; So why are you spreading false teachings?


Again, your only telling me about yourself. As Pee Wee would say: Now we know what you are, but what am I. Here you are suppose to have the BIG degrees, and you act so childish.

John, you are the one resorting to kindergarten tricks. And quoting a convicted child molester in the process! I have taken the effort to show how your ideas are contradicted by both Scripture and Creation.&nbsp; You never bother to answer.&nbsp;

We know what you are.&nbsp; A false prophet.