So, contrary your claim, your brain is not perfect since you are unable to understand:Thank you, my love. But we can be 100 sure, that there was a time, when there was no Spanish. Thus, the start of Spanish has certain borders in time.
Wait! Somebody, hold my love! I have something to add!I have no interest in wasting my time further.
There wouldn't be a sharp line between the earliest humans and the population they came from. The separate group who would be the ancestors would seem pretty much like other Homo erectus,but if you found more of their descendants you'd see more and more human like traits until it was unambiguously human.Tell me about the very first human. Suppose, his name was also Adam. Was this human a monkey?
One thing you are missing on this (and your post #4) is that Genesis lists human creation as being entirely separate from that of the other animals and plants.Does that "law" preclude cats from being felines, carnivorans and mammals?
Does that "law" preclude deer from being even toed ungulates, mammals and cordates?
Does that "law" preclude squid from being cephalopods, mollusks, and bilaterians?
My love, but look at the title of the thread. The answer in Darwinism is: "No, Y-Adam was not a monkey." Why? Because semi-human is not an ape and not a human.There wouldn't be a sharp line between the earliest humans and the population they came from. The separate group who would be the ancestors would seem pretty much like other Homo erectus,but if you found more of their descendants you'd see more and more human like traits until it was unambiguously human.
But, based on evidence in the physical world, there is no reason to believe that a singular first human ever existed.
I disagree. Humans are demonstrably animals and some animals are humans. I am an ape and feel more in common with some chimpanzees and orangs than I do with some humans.Wait! Somebody, hold my love! I have something to add!
Then speaking about Darwinism: humans are not animals, and animals are not humans. Do you agree?
My love, do you prefer the hell-therapy? Must I say "you will be burn in hell, if you will not repent"??? In these times the Church says: "Jesus loves you!"Finally, please desist with the "Theists love atheists" approach. It is a passive-aggressive style that is most distasteful.
No, Y-Adam was a man who's existence we can infer from evidence. He was as human as you and me.My love, but look at the title of the thread. The answer in Darwinism is: "No, Y-Adam was not a monkey." Why? Because semi-human is not an ape and not a human.
One thing you are missing on this (and your post #4) is that Genesis lists human creation as being entirely separate from that of the other animals and plants.
"the Lord God formed man (Heb: adam) of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Gen 2.7
Either you believe that or you don't.
Does that preclude a designer/builder following a very similar design on an entirely different creative act?I'm not missing that because I'm taking the evidence into account, not a literalist interpretation of Genesis. The evidence for all the things I listed is exactly the same as humans being hominids, being simians, being primates, being euarchontoglires, being mammals, being chorates, being bilaterians and yes, being animals.
I would prefer, in a sub-forum that is dedicated to the discussion of creation and evolution, that you focus on scientific evidence or theological arguments, rather than indulge in trite phraseology seemingly lacking in sincerity and apparently designed to annoy.My love, do you prefer the hell-therapy? Must I say "you will be burn in hell, if you will not repent"??? In these times the Church says: "Jesus loves you!"
Aristotle's logic is pagan in origin.No! Semi-human is not human! Why? Because of Aristotle logic.
I am a sincere! I am not a liar! My God of Love demands the Love! I love all!I would prefer, in a sub-forum that is dedicated to the discussion of creation and evolution, that you focus on scientific evidence or theological arguments, rather than indulge in trite phraseology seemingly lacking in sincerity and apparently designed to annoy.
Reviewing your last few posts. You appear to be the one who is trolling. Post something of substance or relevance or just stop. Your choice and an opportunity to show your true colours.
Origin of all Laws - God. Aristotle is discoverer. There are no evil laws: evil law is lawless-ness.Aristotle's logic is pagan in origin.
He worshiped the Greek pantheon.
The bible is NOT based on Aristotle's logic, but a different logic framework called either Hebrew Block Logic or Adductive logic.Origin of all Laws - God. Aristotle is discoverer.
Human, Homo sapiens, a modern human.No! Semi-human is not human! Why? Because of Aristotle logic.
Darwin and the Bible. If there were no people before the very first person in history, then Darwinism is not right in front of the Church. And if Adam's dad was a monkey, then Adam must be a monkey. And he is the first person. We have come to a contradiction, therefore Darwin is not right.
Why? Doesn't spanish has distinctive roots?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?