What would be the effect of forcibly keeping selection pressures a constant?

[Papias]

1. Aman wrote:

Papias:>>I pointed out that this is false and provided a reference, which you seem to have not read.

Dear Papias, I"ve read them from all over the world. Supposedly, a great discovery is made and just needs funds to prove their ideas, SO, they come up with the oldest whatever in a search for the funds. The Cradle of Civilization is Mesopotamia.


​

Oh, OK, so now you think all the evidence that shows your idea is wrong is just to get funds. So you accept only the evidence that fits your pet idea, and ignore the real world. I see those black helicopters swirling towards you. Look's like you've conceded this point.


Papias:>>2.

And that more importantly, the gradual development of farming, discovered independently in several places around the globe isn not consistent with your extraterrestrial Noah idea.

The LORD scattered humankind over the face of the whole earth from Babel. Genesis 11:9

When your only recourse is to fall back on your own peculiar interpretation of scripture (ignoring reality in the process), you obviously don't have a leg to stand on.
​

​

3.

Papias:>>3. Aman, that map doesn't claim that farming appeared immediately, and in fact, the site it is on places it in the wider development from hunter-gatherer societies. So you tried to support your claim with a reference that supports my point, not yours. YOu can see this from the link you posted, because the bottom lists how the different farming technologies were invented gradually, not at all like people coming off a spaceship already knowing how to farm.

You're sarcasm is noted. Where did the Spaceship come from? Certainly not from me.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. You said that Noah "arrived on this planet", and that Noah was descended from Adam, who (from what you said) sounds like was not on this planet - so where did humans live from Adam to Noah? So help me out here - could you clarify your peculiar idea about where Adam was, how Noah "arrived", and why only Noah brought farming?

(the rest you had there is more of your unsupported assertions).

Papias:>>In fact, your link doesn't even say that there was no farming before 9,000 BCE. That site is quite good, did you read the rest of it? Just click where it says "home" at the top.

I've never read it before and had no idea that the person who drew the map of the fertile crescent was famous. That doesn't matter since the Map is an accurate indication of when and where the first human farmers arrived from the world of Adam, who farmed with NO evolution.

OK, so the map and webpage you cited supports my point, not yours, you didn't read it closely enough to notice that, yet you still repeat your unsupported assertion, and don't offer any more evidence? I wonder how your actions would differ if you had not further evidence to offer....?... Oh, OK....





Aman:>>4.

Then produce your evidence which shows that the first human farmers evolved long enough for them to realize that they should settle down and grow food to eat instead of chasing it all the time.

Papias:>>I could, but you already did so with your link above. It shows the consensus view of the experts - that farmin developed from hunter-gathering after humans evolved from non-human ancestors. I can provide more though, if the starting point you posted is not enough.

That's fine. I love to compare the secular truth with God's Truth which clearly shows us HOW prehistoric mankind evolved their Human intelligence. They inherited it from Adam. When the sons of God (Prehistoric man) married and produced offspring with one of Adam's descendants, a different kind of person is produced. One which has the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve AND the human intelligence of Adam, the first Human.

My response to point #3 above applies to this one too. You don't provide any evidence for your pet interpretation, just make more unsupported assertions.

5. Looks like we both see that the evidence shows that the first farming doesn't fit your pet interpretation.



6. (that many human traits also developed gradually, just like farming developed gradually - inconsistent with Noah "arriving on the planet" bringing these human traits.)

Papias:>>As I've pointed out, many human traits (cities, writing, farming, etc.), developed independently in several different places, disproving any extraterrestrial single origin idea, in addition to the huge amount of evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors here on earth. That's already covered in other points above - let's leave this one to you saying where, in scripture, it says that Noah arrived from another planet.

God tells Noah that He is going to destroy the violent people "with the Earth". Gen. 6:13 God tells Noah that never again with He destroy the Earth with a Flood. Genesis 9:11 KJV - And I will establish my covenant with - Bible Gateway ll Peter 3:5 speaks of the world that THEN WAS, and 3.6 speaks of the heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW. 2 Peter 2:5 tells us God "spared NOT the old world".

The dispute which will take place in the latter days is that the Scoffers are willingly ignorant of the Fact that the first world was totally destroyed in the Flood, and that our world will be burned. In fact, your view closely matches what the Scoffers of the last days are willingly ignorant of.

Again, if your only response to a discussion of the evidence is to fall back on your own peculiar interpretation of scripture (ignoring reality in the process), you obviously don't have a leg to stand on. Do you seriously think that scripture doesn't also support the view of the historians, by a more universally accepted interpretation?

Papias

:>>Because as St. Augustine pointed out, when someone hears a Christian claiming the scriptures say things that they already know are false, they are less likely to believe other parts of scripture, like the Gospel

.

I've noticed that you haven't produced any evidence that I have done this, and mostly implied that I'm a UFO buff. Not so. Point out my errors scientifically, or historically, if you can. I don't think you can do it Scripturally.

Yes, I have. I've pointed out that you are saying things that are well known to be false (like that farming only was copied from one place, that it fit your Noah timeframe, that other human traits did too, etc.). All of those things make you look foolish, and when you are the one preaching the Gospel, you make the Gospel look foolish by extension.


Pap:>>7.

You just, again, "responded" by giving a list of unrelated statements, instead of answering the question - which was: How do you debunk the Qu'ran claims in the link above, which uses the same argument you use for science in your Bible?

I answered but you didn't like my answer. I told you that I don't accept the view of false religions. That's your answer. All the rest of your rant is revealing your frustration with not finding a weakness in my views.

Aman, I didn't "like" or "not like" your answer. I simply pointed out that it was a non-answer, because it didn't address the question.

So it sounds like the only way you rebut the Qu'ran claim is simply obstinancy, saying "I don't accept the view of false religions". That only admits that you have no evidential basis for your view, and invites everyone to reject you. I don't want that to happen, because if you are also preaching the Gospel, they they reject the Gospel as well. And if you aren't preaching the Gospel, then why do you bother at all?

Don't run away mad. I'm enjoying this.

And if you enjoy trumpeting your ignorance, obstinancy, and evidence denial, then maybe it's better you don't preach the Gospel......


Papias

 

[Aman777]

Papias:>>I pointed out that this is false and provided a reference, which you seem to have not read.
​

Aman:><>Dear Papias, I"ve read them from all over the world. Supposedly, a great discovery is made and just needs funds to prove their ideas, SO, they come up with the oldest whatever in a search for the funds. The Cradle of Civilization is Mesopotamia.

Pap:>>Oh, OK, so now you think all the evidence that shows your idea is wrong is just to get funds. So you accept only the evidence that fits your pet idea, and ignore the real world. I see those black helicopters swirling towards you. Look's like you've conceded this point.

Dear Pap, Not so. The concensus is that Mesopotamia is the Cradle of human civilization. When your site proves everyone elso wrong, then return with their views which have been accepted. Until then, keep your wallet closed.


Papias:>>2. And that more importantly, the gradual development of farming, discovered independently in several places around the globe isn not consistent with your extraterrestrial Noah idea.

​

Aman:>>The LORD scattered humankind over the face of the whole earth from Babel. Genesis 11:9
​

Pap:>>When your only recourse is to fall back on your own peculiar interpretation of scripture (ignoring reality in the process), you obviously don't have a leg to stand on.

Sure I do. I stand on the Holy Word of God which tells me HOW humanity, along with agriculture, was spread over the whole Earth. My reality is much better than your's and my support is much stronger. Would you call yourself a Theistic Evol or just a plain old Evol?

3. Papias:>>3. Aman, that map doesn't claim that farming appeared immediately, and in fact, the site it is on places it in the wider development from hunter-gatherer societies. So you tried to support your claim with a reference that supports my point, not yours. YOu can see this from the link you posted, because the bottom lists how the different farming technologies were invented gradually, not at all like people coming off a spaceship already knowing how to farm.

Your sarcasm is noted. Where did the Spaceship come from? Certainly not from me.

Pap:>>I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. You said that Noah "arrived on this planet", and that Noah was descended from Adam, who (from what you said) sounds like was not on this planet - so where did humans live from Adam to Noah? So help me out here - could you clarify your peculiar idea about where Adam was, how Noah "arrived", and why only Noah brought farming?
​

Noah lived in a world which was totally surrounded by water. When the windows on top of the firmament were opened, the rain filled the firmament and it sank. The Ark came forth into Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat, exactly as Scripture tells us it did.

Adam's world was much different than our's. Adam was made with a higher ability of intelligence than ANY other living creature. His intelligence level was like God's. When the first world was "clean dissolved" iin the Flood, Adam's direct descendant Noah, brought Human intelligence to our Planet of Great Apes. IOW, We did NOT evolve our human intelligence from Mindless Nature.


Pap:>(the rest you had there is more of your unsupported assertions).


Papias:>>In fact, your link doesn't even say that there was no farming before 9,000 BCE. That site is quite good, did you read the rest of it? Just click where it says "home" at the top.

Aman:>>I've never read it before and had no idea that the person who drew the map of the fertile crescent was famous. That doesn't matter since the Map is an accurate indication of when and where the first human farmers arrived from the world of Adam, who farmed with NO evolution.

​

Pap:>>OK, so the map and webpage you cited supports my point, not yours, you didn't read it closely enough to notice that, yet you still repeat your unsupported assertion, and don't offer any more evidence? I wonder how your actions would differ if you had not further evidence to offer....?... Oh, OK....

I haven't noticed you offering ANY evidence. Why don't you tell us of an older Human city than those built by Noah's great grandsons? Why don't you try to explain HOW mindless Nature produced human intelligence in Apes? Your criticism is noted.



Aman:>>4.Then produce your evidence which shows that the first human farmers evolved long enough for them to realize that they should settle down and grow food to eat instead of chasing it all the time.

Papias:>>I could, but you already did so with your link above. It shows the consensus view of the experts - that farmin developed from hunter-gathering after humans evolved from non-human ancestors. I can provide more though, if the starting point you posted is not enough.

Aman:>>That's fine. I love to compare the secular truth with God's Truth which clearly shows us HOW prehistoric mankind evolved their Human intelligence. They inherited it from Adam. When the sons of God (Prehistoric man) married and produced offspring with one of Adam's descendants, a different kind of person is produced. One which has the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve AND the human intelligence of Adam, the first Human.

Pap:>>My response to point #3 above applies to this one too. You don't provide any evidence for your pet interpretation, just make more unsupported assertions.

I also notice that you have nothing to offer in rebuttal. Is it because it's easier to criticize than to explain?

Assyrian:>>5. Looks like we both see that the evidence shows that the first farming doesn't fit your pet interpretation.

It's not my interpretation. It's what is written. If it wasn't, you would have told me long ago of my problems, but you don't seem to be able to do that. Is it because you cannot?


Assyrian:>>6. (that many human traits also developed gradually, just like farming developed gradually - inconsistent with Noah "arriving on the planet" bringing these human traits.)

Then the LORD was just lying about scattering everyone to the whole Earth from Babel? Did you say that you were a Bible believer?

Papias:>>As I've pointed out, many human traits (cities, writing, farming, etc.), developed independently in several different places, disproving any extraterrestrial single origin idea, in addition to the huge amount of evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors here on earth. That's already covered in other points above - let's leave this one to you saying where, in scripture, it says that Noah arrived from another planet.
​

Aman:>>God tells Noah that He is going to destroy the violent people "with the Earth". Gen. 6:13 God tells Noah that never again with He destroy the Earth with a Flood. Genesis 9:11 KJV - And I will establish my covenant with - Bible Gateway ll Peter 3:5 speaks of the world that THEN WAS, and 3.6 speaks of the heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW. 2 Peter 2:5 tells us God "spared NOT the old world".

The dispute which will take place in the latter days is that the Scoffers are willingly ignorant of the Fact that the first world was totally destroyed in the Flood, and that our world will be burned. In fact, your view closely matches what the Scoffers of the last days are willingly ignorant of.

​

Pap:>>Again, if your only response to a discussion of the evidence is to fall back on your own peculiar interpretation of scripture (ignoring reality in the process), you obviously don't have a leg to stand on. Do you seriously think that scripture doesn't also support the view of the historians, by a more universally accepted interpretation?

I don't know. No one has posted the more universally accepted interpretation. I think it's because they KNOW that it does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History. I invite ANYone to post the traditional view. I would love to show you the errors therein.

Papias >>Because as St. Augustine pointed out, when someone hears a Christian claiming the scriptures say things that they already know are false, they are less likely to believe other parts of scripture, like the Gospel

Aman:>>I've noticed that you haven't produced any evidence that I have done this, and mostly implied that I'm a UFO buff. Not so. Point out my errors scientifically, or historically, if you can. I don't think you can do it Scripturally.

Pap:>>Yes, I have. I've pointed out that you are saying things that are well known to be false (like that farming only was copied from one place, that it fit your Noah timeframe, that other human traits did too, etc.). All of those things make you look foolish, and when you are the one preaching the Gospel, you make the Gospel look foolish by extension.

I've also noticed that you haven't preached the Gospel. Your false accusations are getting louder as your frustration at refuting me increases. I suspect you are getting ready to run before your flawed views are exposed.

Pap:>>7. You just, again, "responded" by giving a list of unrelated statements, instead of answering the question - which was: How do you debunk the Qu'ran claims in the link above, which uses the same argument you use for science in your Bible?

Aman:>>I answered but you didn't like my answer. I told you that I don't accept the view of false religions. That's your answer. All the rest of your rant is revealing your frustration with not finding a weakness in my views.

Pap:>>Aman, I didn't "like" or "not like" your answer. I simply pointed out that it was a non-answer, because it didn't address the question.

So it sounds like the only way you rebut the Qu'ran claim is simply obstinancy, saying "I don't accept the view of false religions". That only admits that you have no evidential basis for your view, and invites everyone to reject you. I don't want that to happen, because if you are also preaching the Gospel, they they reject the Gospel as well. And if you aren't preaching the Gospel, then why do you bother at all?

In more than 15 years, I have Never had any Bible Believing Christian disagree with me. I am accepted as one of them with no questions. It's probably because my views are totally supported by Scripture. Since my only opponants are those who do NOT believe Scripture, I don't think it matters since most of them have rejected Jesus.

Aman:>>Don't run away mad. I'm enjoying this.
​

Pap:>>And if you enjoy trumpeting your ignorance, obstinancy, and evidence denial, then maybe it's better you don't preach the Gospel......

Judge not, brother.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

Aman, as others have pointed out, your posts would be more understandable if you used the quote tags properly.

1. (was farming discovered independantly, or did it spread from "Noah, arriving on planet Earth"? - did all of the unique traits of humans spread from Mesopotamia?)

Aman wrote:

Pap:>>Oh, OK, so now you think all the evidence that shows your idea is wrong is just to get funds. So you accept only the evidence that fits your pet idea, and ignore the real world. I see those black helicopters swirling towards you. Look's like you've conceded this point.

Dear Pap, Not so. The concensus is that Mesopotamia is the Cradle of human civilization. When your site proves everyone elso wrong, then return with their views which have been accepted.

Um, no, that's not the consensus. 40 years ago it as often presented that way, but since then it has been recognized that these things developed independantly. In fact, the idea of Mesopotamia as the "Cradle of Civilization" has been recognized as not just myopic and incorrect, but often Eurocentric and racist.

The view you espouse may have been the main teaching in your elementary school 40 years ago, but current sources generally have fixed that. For instance, here is an encyclopedia reference: Civilization - Facts from the Encyclopedia - Yahoo! Education.


Papias:>>2.

Pap:>>When your only recourse is to fall back on your own peculiar interpretation of scripture (ignoring reality in the process), you obviously don't have a leg to stand on.

Sure I do. I stand on the Holy Word of God which tells me HOW humanity, along with agriculture, was spread over the whole Earth.

No, you stand on your peculiar interpretation of God's word, which is not support by anyone else I'm aware of, including Bible Scholars.

My reality is much better than your's and my support is much stronger.

More empty puffery.

Would you call yourself a Theistic Evol or just a plain old Evol?

Theistic Evol, of course.

3.

Papias:>>3. Aman, that map doesn't claim that farming appeared immediately, and in fact, the site it is on places it in the wider development from hunter-gatherer societies. So you tried to support your claim with a reference that supports my point, not yours. YOu can see this from the link you posted, because the bottom lists how the different farming technologies were invented gradually, not at all like people coming off a spaceship already knowing how to farm.

Your sarcasm is noted

.

So do you agree that your posted map does nothing to refute the idea that farming developed independantly, and did not spread from Noah when he "arrived on Earth"?

Noah lived in a world which was totally surrounded by water. When the windows on top of the firmament were opened, the rain filled the firmament and it sank. The Ark came forth into Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat, exactly as Scripture tells us it did.

Adam's world was much different than our's. Adam was made with a higher ability of intelligence than ANY other living creature. His intelligence level was like God's. When the first world was "clean dissolved" iin the Flood, Adam's direct descendant Noah, brought Human intelligence to our Planet of Great Apes.

OK, thanks for clarifying that (but I still wonder, in your idea, where did Noah arrive from?).

Much of your description is unscriptural, and finds no support in Gods other revelation, the evidence on the ground, either. Nowhere does it say in scripture that the firmament sank, that the ark came to lake Van, that Adam had a higher intelligence than us, etc.

Plus "direct descendant" is a redundant term - either someone is a descentant or not. Saying someone is a "Direct Descendant" is like saying someone is "completely pregnant".

IOW, We did NOT evolve our human intelligence from Mindless Nature.

Unsupported, and off topic. If you'd like to start a thread on it, feel free.

Pap:>>OK, so the map and webpage you cited supports my point, not yours, you didn't read it closely enough to notice that, yet you still repeat your unsupported assertion, and don't offer any more evidence? I wonder how your actions would differ if you had not further evidence to offer....?... Oh, OK....

I haven't noticed you offering ANY evidence. Why don't you tell us of an older Human city than those built by Noah's great grandsons?

I can tell that you have, in fact, noticed, because you responded to it by claiming the experts were falsifying data to get grant money.

An older city is not needed - I gave evidence in posts 11 and 19, and you gave evidence (in post #18) supporting the gradual evolution of farming.

At the same time, you have given no evidence, even after so many posts, that supports your Noah arriving idea. The closest you have come are your peculiar interpretation of part of scriptures that are universally interpreted by Christians to not support your idea.

Why don't you try to explain HOW mindless Nature produced human intelligence in Apes? Your criticism is noted.

Because it's off topic. Feel free to start a thread on it. Or, you could learn from any college biology or anthropology course. Real learning - highly recommended.


Aman:>>4.

Then produce your evidence which shows that the first human farmers evolved long enough for them to realize that they should settle down and grow food to eat instead of chasing it all the time.
....

I also notice that you have nothing to offer in rebuttal. Is it because it's easier to criticize than to explain?

Because I already have, repeatedly. As pointed out above, that was provided in posts 11, 18, and 19.

>>5.

Looks like we both see that the evidence shows that the first farming doesn't fit your pet interpretation.

It's not my interpretation. It's what is written. If it wasn't, you would have told me long ago of my problems, but you don't seem to be able to do that. Is it because you cannot?

I have pointed out many of your problems, both scripturally and based on other evidence. It clearly is your interpretation, because no where in the scripture does it say that all farming was learned from Noah.

>>6.

(that many human traits also developed gradually, just like farming developed gradually - inconsistent with Noah "arriving on the planet" bringing these human traits.)

Then the LORD was just lying about scattering everyone to the whole Earth from Babel? Did you say that you were a Bible believer?

Of course I'm a Bible believer. The Bible says that every was scattered, not that everyone fanned out to teach farming. You are adding things to scripture, as I've pointed out - even when taking it literally. Plus, the whole Babel story is likely a metaphor that didn't actually happen (this is clear due to a number of clear signs in the scripture), and is a folk tale to describe the supremacy of God.

Being a Bible believer does not require one to add things to the scripture that are not there, as you are doing.

​

​

​

Pap:>>Again, if your only response to a discussion of the evidence is to fall back on your own peculiar interpretation of scripture (ignoring reality in the process), you obviously don't have a leg to stand on. Do you seriously think that scripture doesn't also support the view of the historians, by a more universally accepted interpretation?

I don't know. No one has posted the more universally accepted interpretation. I think it's because they KNOW that it does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History. I invite ANYone to post the traditional view. I would love to show you the errors therein.

OK, start a thread on that discussion. We are already quite a bit off the main topic of what would happen if selection pressures were constant.

I've also noticed that you haven't preached the Gospel.

Because this is a thread on keeping selection pressure constant, not a thread on preaching the Gospel. I preach the Gospel to people regularly, but I don't use it to derail a thread on some other topic.

Your false accusations are getting louder as your frustration at refuting me increases. I suspect you are getting ready to run before your flawed views are exposed.

More and more empty puffery.

Pap:>>7.

Papias wrote

You just, again, "responded" by giving a list of unrelated statements, instead of answering the question - which was: How do you debunk the Qu'ran claims in the link above, which uses the same argument you use for science in your Bible?

..... Since my only opponants are those who do NOT believe Scripture, I don't think it matters since most of them have rejected Jesus.

Again, your response had nothing to do with refuting the Qu'ran claims.

In more than 15 years, I have Never had any Bible Believing Christian disagree with me. I am accepted as one of them with no questions. It's probably because my views are totally supported by Scripture.

Sure they did - We've all seen many Christians disagree with you on these fora, where you've hijacked multiple threads to push your pet interpretation. You've read all those posts, by creationists and theistic evolutionists alike, disagreeing with you, right?

Judge not, brother.

That comes from the same person, who, earlier in the same post, wrote:

Your false accusations are getting louder as your frustration at refuting me increases. I suspect you are getting ready to run before your flawed views are exposed.

Take care-

Papias

 

[Aman777]

Aman, as others have pointed out, your posts would be more understandable if you used the quote tags properly.

1. (was farming discovered independantly, or did it spread from "Noah, arriving on planet Earth"? - did all of the unique traits of humans spread from Mesopotamia?)

Papias:>>Um, no, that's not the consensus. 40 years ago it as often presented that way, but since then it has been recognized that these things developed independantly. In fact, the idea of Mesopotamia as the "Cradle of Civilization" has been recognized as not just myopic and incorrect, but often Eurocentric and racist.

The view you espouse may have been the main teaching in your elementary school 40 years ago, but current sources generally have fixed that. For instance, here is an encyclopedia reference: Civilization - Facts from the Encyclopedia - Yahoo! Education.

Dear Papias, Your link doesn't explain WHERE in Southwest Asia, human civilization began. It does mention that Mesopotamia and other areas were among the first. It sticks with the traditional dating by showing that it could have been 6,000 years ago, when human civilization began. IOW, I find your citation of this article to be extremely weak.


Papias:>>2. No, you stand on your peculiar interpretation of God's word, which is not support by anyone else I'm aware of, including Bible Scholars.

Pap:>>More empty puffery.

I stand on the Word and NOT the thoughts of any so called Scholar who doesn't know what Day it is.

Pap:>>Theistic Evol, of course.

I see. You belong to a religion which CANNOT support it's foolishness with Scripture. It begins by falsely assuming that man is the last of the creatures made, since we evolved from everything which was before. If you believe this tripe, you should cut out Genesis 2:4-7 which clearly shows that man was the FIRST creature made and NOT the last.

Pap:>>3. So do you agree that your posted map does nothing to refute the idea that farming developed independantly, and did not spread from Noah when he "arrived on Earth"?

Why did you cut out my reply? Is it because you are hiding from God's Truth?

Pap:>>OK, thanks for clarifying that (but I still wonder, in your idea, where did Noah arrive from?).

Much of your description is unscriptural, and finds no support in Gods other revelation, the evidence on the ground, either. Nowhere does it say in scripture that the firmament sank, that the ark came to lake Van, that Adam had a higher intelligence than us, etc.

Sure it does. According to the traditional story, the Ark, a 450 foot long boat was above the highest mountains. The story assumes that it took off from the middle east, sailed around for 150 days and landed right back in the mountains of Ararat. What would you do with such a massive Boat? Would you have it land on a Mountain top or a Big Lake?

Also, Read Genesis 3:22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil:

Only God and man have this ability. Prehistoric man did NOT have this ability since he did NOT descend from Adam, the first Human. Only Adam's descendants are Human.

Pap:>>Plus "direct descendant" is a redundant term - either someone is a descentant or not. Saying someone is a "Direct Descendant" is like saying someone is "completely pregnant".

Not so. Noah was a descendant from Adam directly, and NOT through the contamination of the line with the sons of God. IOW, The Jews were destined to be direct descendants of Abraham and were not to be contaminated with Gentile blood.




Pap:>>Unsupported, and off topic. If you'd like to start a thread on it, feel free.


I have no idea what you are speaking about since I listened to your whining at the beginning and pushed the quote button. I don't like this way of posting but you insisited.

Pap:>>I can tell that you have, in fact, noticed, because you responded to it by claiming the experts were falsifying data to get grant money.

Pap:>>An older city is not needed - I gave evidence in posts 11 and 19, and you gave evidence (in post #18) supporting the gradual evolution of farming.

Unless you can tell us of an older human city than those built by Noah's great grandsons, everyone will see that it's because there were NONE before Noah brought the human intelligence of Adam to this Planet.

Pap:>>At the same time, you have given no evidence, even after so many posts, that supports your Noah arriving idea. The closest you have come are your peculiar interpretation of part of scriptures that are universally interpreted by Christians to not support your idea.

If you can't wow them with brilliance, then baffle them with your silliness. It's not my fault that theologians of 3k years ago have implanted silly ideas in people's heads about what Genesis one is teaching. Only the most scientifically literate can understand the words of the Supreme intelligence of Creation. It is obvious that you prefer the words of ancient men.

PapL>>Because it's off topic. Feel free to start a thread on it. Or, you could learn from any college biology or anthropology course. Real learning - highly recommended.

Sounds interesting, but I have no idea what you are speaking about. It's this silly form of posting you demand. Does this method of posting allow you to muddy the waters?


Aman:>>4.

Pap:>>Because I already have, repeatedly. As pointed out above, that was provided in posts 11, 18, and 19.

>>5. I have pointed out many of your problems, both scripturally and based on other evidence. It clearly is your interpretation, because no where in the scripture does it say that all farming was learned from Noah.

Let's see. There was Noah, his 3 sons and their wives and Noah's wife. Which one do you believe planted the first crop? Or are you like Stephen Hawking who teaches that everything came from nothing?

>>6.

Pap:>>Of course I'm a Bible believer. The Bible says that every was scattered, not that everyone fanned out to teach farming. You are adding things to scripture, as I've pointed out - even when taking it literally. Plus, the whole Babel story is likely a metaphor that didn't actually happen (this is clear due to a number of clear signs in the scripture), and is a folk tale to describe the supremacy of God.

I understand. You're a TE with the ability to change whatever Scripture you don't like into a metaphor. Your whole false belief is based on such tactics.

Pap:>>Being a Bible believer does not require one to add things to the scripture that are not there, as you are doing.

False Accusation from one who sees Scripture as allegory, myth, and nothing more than a "teaching" story. IF you were a Bible Believer, you would agree that man was made the 3rd Day. Do you?
​

​

Pap:>>OK, start a thread on that discussion. We are already quite a bit off the main topic of what would happen if selection pressures were constant.

Because this is a thread on keeping selection pressure constant, not a thread on preaching the Gospel. I preach the Gospel to people regularly, but I don't use it to derail a thread on some other topic.

I don't think you even know what the Gospel is. Fool me and tell us.


Pap:>>More and more empty puffery.

Pap:>>7.

Again, your response had nothing to do with refuting the Qu'ran claims.

Pap:>>Sure they did - We've all seen many Christians disagree with you on these fora, where you've hijacked multiple threads to push your pet interpretation. You've read all those posts, by creationists and theistic evolutionists alike, disagreeing with you, right?

I have found very few Bible believers here. There seem to be more Theistic Evols than sensible people.

Pap:>>That comes from the same person, who, earlier in the same post, wrote:

Take care-

Papias

What a wonderful mess it is to try and post according to the rules of an obvious fiction writer. I shall do this no me. If you don't like my method of posting, then go find someone else to respond to.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

Aman wrote:

1. (was farming discovered independantly, or did it spread from "Noah, arriving on planet Earth"? - did all of the unique traits of humans spread from Mesopotamia?)

Papias:

>>Um, no, that's not the consensus. 40 years ago it as often presented that way, but since then it has been recognized that these things developed independantly. In fact, the idea of Mesopotamia as the "Cradle of Civilization" has been recognized as not just myopic and incorrect, but often Eurocentric and racist.

The view you espouse may have been the main teaching in your elementary school 40 years ago, but current sources generally have fixed that. For instance, here is an encyclopedia reference: Civilization - Facts from the Encyclopedia - Yahoo! Education.

Dear Papias, Your link doesn't explain WHERE in Southwest Asia, human civilization began. It does mention that Mesopotamia and other areas were among the first. It sticks with the traditional dating by showing that it could have been 6,000 years ago, when human civilization began. IOW, I find your citation of this article to be extremely weak.

Aman, point #1 is about whether or not farming and other traits of civilization arose only in mesopotamia, then spread from there, or if it arose independantly in multiple locations. My reference, like my others before (and even yours), show that it arose independantly multiple times. Your tangents are not relevant, and only make it look like you are trying to duck the point.

Papias:>>2. No, you stand on your peculiar interpretation of God's word, which is not support by anyone else I'm aware of, including Bible Scholars.

Pap:>>More empty puffery.

I stand on the Word and NOT the thoughts of any so called Scholar who doesn't know what Day it is.

Aman, we are all Christians here. We all stand on the Word of God.

Pap:>>Theistic Evol, of course.

I see. You belong to a religion which CANNOT support it's foolishness with Scripture. It begins by falsely assuming that man is the last of the creatures made, since we evolved from everything which was before. If you believe this tripe, you should cut out Genesis 2:4-7 which clearly shows that man was the FIRST creature made and NOT the last.

Could you please stay on topic? As before, you are welcome to start a thread about your views of Theistic Evolution supporters if you like.

Pap:>>3.

So do you agree that your posted map does nothing to refute the idea that farming developed independantly, and did not spread from Noah when he "arrived on Earth"?

Why did you cut out my reply? Is it because you are hiding from God's Truth?

I cut it out because it had little to do with point #3, just like your response here. I asked about your view of your posted map.

Pap:>>OK, thanks for clarifying that (but I still wonder, in your idea, where did Noah arrive from?).

Much of your description is unscriptural, and finds no support in Gods other revelation, the evidence on the ground, either. Nowhere does it say in scripture that the firmament sank, that the ark came to lake Van, that Adam had a higher intelligence than us, etc.

Sure it does. According to the traditional story, the Ark, a 450 foot long boat was above the highest mountains. The story assumes that it took off from the middle east, sailed around for 150 days and landed right back in the mountains of Ararat. What would you do with such a massive Boat? Would you have it land on a Mountain top or a Big Lake?

No Aman, I'm waiting for chapter and verse references to Lake Van, and Adam's "higher intelligence". It's really quite simple - verse citations are written like "Ex 5:12", etc. Do you have any?
​

Pap:>>Plus "direct descendant" is a redundant term - either someone is a descentant or not. Saying someone is a "Direct Descendant" is like saying someone is "completely pregnant".

Not so. Noah was a descendant from Adam directly, and NOT through the contamination of the line with the sons of God. IOW, The Jews were destined to be direct descendants of Abraham and were not to be contaminated with Gentile blood.

Sounds like you don't understand basic ancestry. After only a dozen generations, the number of ancestors reaches into the millions. As a result, all Jews have some gentile blood - nearly everyone on earth is mixed to a significant extent. In fact, most of us have significant Neandertal blood. I've had my genome tested, and I'm 2.8 percent Neandertal.

Pap:>>I can tell that you have, in fact, noticed, because you responded to it by claiming the experts were falsifying data to get grant money.

​

No response. Ok, that's settled then - you dismiss evidence you don't like by claiming it's to get grant money.

Pap:>>An older city is not needed - I gave evidence in posts 11 and 19, and you gave evidence (in post #18) supporting the gradual evolution of farming.

Unless you can tell us of an older human city than those built by Noah's great grandsons, everyone will see that it's because there were NONE before Noah brought the human intelligence of Adam to this Planet.

Wrong Aman. All I need to show is that they developed independantly (not by any descentant of Noah or anyone who learned from them). And I've already done that multiple times.

Pap:>>

At the same time, you have given no evidence, even after so many posts, that supports your Noah arriving idea. The closest you have come are your peculiar interpretation of part of scriptures that are universally interpreted by Christians to not support your idea.

If you can't wow them with brilliance, then baffle them with your silliness. It's not my fault that theologians of 3k years ago have implanted silly ideas in people's heads about what Genesis one is teaching. Only the most scientifically literate can understand the words of the Supreme intelligence of Creation. It is obvious that you prefer the words of ancient men.

More empty puffery.

Aman:>>4.

>>5.

Pap:>>

Because I already have, repeatedly. As pointed out above, that was provided in posts 11, 18, and 19.

I have pointed out many of your problems, both scripturally and based on other evidence. It clearly is your interpretation, because no where in the scripture does it say that all farming was learned from Noah.

Let's see. There was Noah, his 3 sons and their wives and Noah's wife. Which one do you believe planted the first crop? Or are you like Stephen Hawking who teaches that everything came from nothing?
​

First, the story of Noah need not be literal history - that's just your interpretation. God's other evidence shows that farming developed indepentantly many times - not by one person. Plus, even if you go thinking it's literal history, then Noah's sons could have learned it from other ante-diluvian people.



>>6.

Pap:>>

Of course I'm a Bible believer. The Bible says that every was scattered, not that everyone fanned out to teach farming. You are adding things to scripture, as I've pointed out - even when taking it literally. Plus, the whole Babel story is likely a metaphor that didn't actually happen (this is clear due to a number of clear signs in the scripture), and is a folk tale to describe the supremacy of God.

I understand. You're a TE with the ability to change whatever Scripture you don't like into a metaphor. Your whole false belief is based on such tactics.

As before, if you want to start a thread on TE, go for it. Insulting me and others on this thread serves no purpose.

Pap:>>

Being a Bible believer does not require one to add things to the scripture that are not there, as you are doing.

False Accusation from one who sees Scripture as allegory, myth, and nothing more than a "teaching" story. IF you were a Bible Believer, you would agree that man was made the 3rd Day. Do you?

Sad to see more of this "Christianer than thou" stuff from you. By your criteria, nearly no one on earth is a Christian.

I don't think you even know what the Gospel is. Fool me and tell us.

The most basic part of it is John 3:16 - that God gave his only son to save us. I can go on if you'd like, but I really think you are a Christian as I am - despite your exclusivity.


Pap:>>7.

Again, your response had nothing to do with refuting the Qu'ran claims.

Originally Posted by Papias

​

Aman, as others have pointed out, your posts would be more understandable if you used the quote tags properly.

​

​

It's this silly form of posting you demand. Does this method of posting allow you to muddy the waters?


What a wonderful mess it is to try and post according to the rules of an obvious fiction writer. I shall do this no me. If you don't like my method of posting, then go find someone else to respond to.

​

I said "properly". But that's OK. Thanks for trying.


Papias
​

 

[Aman777]

Aman wrote:

1. (was farming discovered independantly, or did it spread from "Noah, arriving on planet Earth"? - did all of the unique traits of humans spread from Mesopotamia?)

Papias: >>Um, no, that's not the consensus. 40 years ago it as often presented that way, but since then it has been recognized that these things developed independantly. In fact, the idea of Mesopotamia as the "Cradle of Civilization" has been recognized as not just myopic and incorrect, but often Eurocentric and racist.

The view you espouse may have been the main teaching in your elementary school 40 years ago, but current sources generally have fixed that. For instance, here is an encyclopedia reference: Civilization - Facts from the Encyclopedia - Yahoo! Education.

Aman:>>Dear Papias, Your link doesn't explain WHERE in Southwest Asia, human civilization began. It does mention that Mesopotamia and other areas were among the first. It sticks with the traditional dating by showing that it could have been 6,000 years ago, when human civilization began. IOW, I find your citation of this article to be extremely weak.

Pap:>>Aman, point #1 is about whether or not farming and other traits of civilization arose only in mesopotamia, then spread from there, or if it arose independantly in multiple locations.

I have ALWAYS posted that agriculture was spread all across the world from Babel. It happened by scattering Noah's descendants, which also saw Humanity arise all over the world at appx. the same time. It's PROOF of God, since only God could scatter a group of people all over the earth at the same time.

Pap:>>My reference, like my others before (and even yours), show that it arose independantly multiple times. Your tangents are not relevant, and only make it look like you are trying to duck the point.

I'm not trying to duck anything. Here is Scriptural support for my views:

Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

The word city can also mean civilization. Scripture tells us that civilizations arose in scattered locations all over the face of the Earth. That's God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

​

 

[Aman777]

Aman wrote:

1. (was farming discovered independantly, or did it spread from "Noah, arriving on planet Earth"? - did all of the unique traits of humans spread from Mesopotamia?)

Papias: >>Um, no, that's not the consensus. 40 years ago it as often presented that way, but since then it has been recognized that these things developed independantly. In fact, the idea of Mesopotamia as the "Cradle of Civilization" has been recognized as not just myopic and incorrect, but often Eurocentric and racist.

The view you espouse may have been the main teaching in your elementary school 40 years ago, but current sources generally have fixed that. For instance, here is an encyclopedia reference: Civilization - Facts from the Encyclopedia - Yahoo! Education.

Aman:>>Dear Papias, Your link doesn't explain WHERE in Southwest Asia, human civilization began. It does mention that Mesopotamia and other areas were among the first. It sticks with the traditional dating by showing that it could have been 6,000 years ago, when human civilization began. IOW, I find your citation of this article to be extremely weak.

Pap:>>Aman, point #1 is about whether or not farming and other traits of civilization arose only in mesopotamia, then spread from there, or if it arose independantly in multiple locations.

I have ALWAYS posted that agriculture was spread all across the world from Babel. It happened by scattering Noah's descendants, which also saw Humanity arise all over the world at appx. the same time. It's PROOF of God, since only God could scatter a group of people all over the earth at the same time.

Pap:>>My reference, like my others before (and even yours), show that it arose independantly multiple times. Your tangents are not relevant, and only make it look like you are trying to duck the point.

I'm not trying to duck anything. Here is Scriptural support for my views:

Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

The word city can also mean civilization. Scripture tells us that civilizations arose in scattered locations all over the face of the Earth. That's God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

​

 

[Aman777]

Papias:>>2. No, you stand on your peculiar interpretation of God's word, which is not support by anyone else I'm aware of, including Bible Scholars.

Pap:>>More empty puffery.
​

Aman:>>I stand on the Word and NOT the thoughts of any so called Scholar who doesn't know what Day it is.

Pap:>>Aman, we are all Christians here. We all stand on the Word of God.

Dear Pap, Scripture tells us to try the Spirits. 1Jo 4:1

Do you believe that Genesis 2:4-7 is telling us that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day? after the Earth was made but BEFORE the plants grew?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

Aman, the scripture telling us God "scattered" them over the earth could mean any of a number of things, and doesn't automatically require your peculiar interpretation. If it did, then wouldn't more of us Bible-based Christians support your view? But we don't. Christians, both today and in the past, don't interpret scripture the way you do.

If you have any new information on any of the 6 points from before, please post it. Thanks.

Aman wrote:

Do you believe that Genesis 2:4-7 is telling us that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day?

This appears to be another attempt to derail the thread by bringing up you pet "3rd day" idea. As pointed out before, you already have a whole thread on that, have derailed several threads with it, and still try to bring up that off topic idea here? Wow.

Papias

 

[Aman777]

Papias:>>>Aman, the scripture telling us God "scattered" them over the earth could mean any of a number of things, and doesn't automatically require your peculiar interpretation. If it did, then wouldn't more of us Bible-based Christians support your view? But we don't. Christians, both today and in the past, don't interpret scripture the way you do.

Dear Papias, Now you can tell your friends that you have heard an original idea, which agrees with Scripture, but you cannot believe it since no one has ever told you this before.

Pap:>>If you have any new information on any of the 6 points from before, please post it. Thanks.

Thanks for admitting that you have NO Scripture which refutes me and my "unusual" view of Scripture. It's is because the traditional religious view is wrong, and nothing more than the ideas of pre scientific men whose views do NOT agree Scripturally, Scientifically, nor Historically.

Aman wrote:

Do you believe that Genesis 2:4-7 is telling us that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day?
​

Pap:>>This appears to be another attempt to derail the thread by bringing up you pet "3rd day" idea. As pointed out before, you already have a whole thread on that, have derailed several threads with it, and still try to bring up that off topic idea here? Wow.

I'm sorry. I'm not as perfect as you. I suppose it's because it is embarassing people like you to see that God's Truth tells us that man was formed of the ground on the 3rd Day after the Earth was made but before the plants grew. Genesis 2:4-7

Because you cannot refute me Scripturally demonstrates that you have no desire to change your flawed thinking, and you are wishing I would go away. Correct?

Until the "Biblical Scholars" here, get together and find someone who can refute me Scripturally, I will continue to proclaim what Scripture actually says, rather than what man made religion falsely tells me. God's Truth is that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4-7

Can anyone help Pap out? Can any of you refute this Scripturally? Those who do not agree that these 4 verses are saying that man was made on the 3rd Day, are NOT Bible believing Christians. They may be Christians but NOT Bible believing ones.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

Aman wrote:

Until the "Biblical Scholars" here, get together and find someone who can refute me Scripturally, I will continue to proclaim what Scripture actually says, rather than what man made religion falsely tells me. God's Truth is that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4-7

Can anyone help Pap out? Can any of you refute this Scripturally? Those who do not agree that these 4 verses are saying that man was made on the 3rd Day, are NOT Bible believing Christians. They may be Christians but NOT Bible believing ones.

As before, this appears to be another attempt to derail the thread by bringing up you pet "3rd day" idea. As pointed out before, you already have a whole thread on that, have derailed several threads with it, and still try to bring up that off topic idea here?

Pap:>>

If you have any new information on any of the 6 points from before, please post it. Thanks.

Thanks for admitting that you have NO Scripture which refutes me and my "unusual" view of Scripture. It's is because the traditional religious view is wrong, and nothing more than the ideas of pre scientific men whose views do NOT agree Scripturally, Scientifically, nor Historically.

Non-sequitur much?

I asked about the 6 points we were discussing, not your unique view of the day man was created. As before, there is a whole thread on that.

you are wishing I would go away. Correct?

No, I'm wishing you would stay on topic.

In Christ's love-
Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Until the "Biblical Scholars" here, get together and find someone who can refute me Scripturally, I will continue to proclaim what Scripture actually says, rather than what man made religion falsely tells me. God's Truth is that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4-7

Can anyone help Pap out? Can any of you refute this Scripturally? Those who do not agree that these 4 verses are saying that man was made on the 3rd Day, are NOT Bible believing Christians. They may be Christians but NOT Bible believing ones.

In Love,
Aman

What do you think being refuted scripturally would look like Aman? Would you recognise it if it happened? Because I have refuted your ideas thoroughly and repeatedly over in the Man made on the 3rd day thread, but it makes no difference. You ignore the problems you cannot address and keep pretending you have never been refuted.

 

[Aman777]

What do you think being refuted scripturally would look like Aman? Would you recognise it if it happened? Because I have refuted your ideas thoroughly and repeatedly over in the Man made on the 3rd day thread, but it makes no difference. You ignore the problems you cannot address and keep pretending you have never been refuted.

Dear Assyrian, Really? I keep asking your for Scriptural refute, but you don't seem to believe Scripture. Is it because you are a TE? If so, you will never understand because your faith is in man's knowledge, and not God's.

BTW, To be refuted is to be proven false. If you still think you have done this, please repost the evidence of your false accusation. Failure to do so will identify you as just another Evol, who cannot support his views, Scripturally.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

Dear Assyrian, Really? I keep asking your for Scriptural refute, but you don't seem to believe Scripture. Is it because you are a TE? If so, you will never understand because your faith is in man's knowledge, and not God's.

But according to you, everybody who disagrees with you about Adam being made on the third day doesn't believe scripture either. So if you think you can dismiss any scriptural refutation simply on the basis the person 'doesn't believe scripture', I will ask you again:

What do you think being refuted scripturally would look like? Would you recognise it if it happened?
​

BTW, To be refuted is to be proven false. If you still think you have done this, please repost the evidence of your false accusation. Failure to do so will identify you as just another Evol, who cannot support his views, Scripturally.

In Love,
Aman

Just go back over our discussions and look for words like 'address' or 'answer' you will find loads of times I have told you that "you can't answer" or "you haven't addressed" the points I made. I am not going to repeat them here, you are already way off topic.

 

[Papias]

Assyrian wrote:

Because I have refuted your ideas thoroughly and repeatedly over in the Man made on the 3rd day thread, but it makes no difference. You ignore the problems you cannot address and keep pretending you have never been refuted.

Yep, just like he ignored points 1 -6 when he saw that unsupported assertions didn't work.

Papias

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian wrote:

Because I have refuted your ideas thoroughly and repeatedly over in the Man made on the 3rd day thread, but it makes no difference. You ignore the problems you cannot address and keep pretending you have never been refuted.
​

Papias:><>Yep, just like he ignored points 1 -6 when he saw that unsupported assertions didn't work.

Dear Readers, Now we have smoked out two hidden Theistic Evols here. We can observe this by the "sour grapes" attitude of these Scripturally refuted believers in man's knowledge, instead of God's. Unable to support their flawed views with Scripture, I predict they will begin to call names, and then advance to calling me crazy, like Godless Evols do. It's because their precious TOE is refuted by God's Holy Word, and they know it. The Achilles Heel of the false TOE has been cut.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Gottservant]

This thread is old, I know, but just so you know I'm not crazy, this is what Evolutionists independently starting saying on another thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7791181-4/#post64655517

Point being, they do speculate about controlling everything, just as I said.

 

[gluadys]

This thread is old, I know, but just so you know I'm not crazy, this is what Evolutionists independently starting saying on another thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7791181-4/#post64655517

Point being, they do speculate about controlling everything, just as I said.

LOL.

In a thread started by yourself.
In a thread in which you first propose that one can voluntarily regulate evolution.
Not surprising the topic of controlling evolution comes up.

However, it seems the consensus is that it is a) pointless and b) not really possible on the scale of a whole organism.

One can, with ruthless culling, control a few traits; human breeders have been doing that for thousands of years.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does that make it part of God's plan, do you think?

God's goal is eternal life and not natural or unnatural selection.

Bible Search: eternal life