No Atheist Can Answer It
Awais Nazir
off the high-school education bias, and then read on.
Earth is about 4.5-billion years old, as uranium-dating proves.
Reason 1: Humans are clever, they don't take tens of thousands of
years to develop scientifically/population-wise.
Reason 2: a simple human intelligence can produce pottery, they should
have been well a few hundred thousand years ago. But we do not find
Pottery before ten-thousand years ago. Pottery came "suddenly" in
archeologist records.
Reason 3: Archeology record suggests agriculture to come into scene
"suddenly" about ten-thousand years, (Is human as dumb that for tens
of thousands of years they were just hunting?). Intuition says that if
there would be a first society, then it would be both hunters/farmers.
If Archeology says that agriculture started about ten-thousand years
ago, then humanity should have come about ten-thousand years ago, on
Earth.
Reason 4: Archeologists find that organised housing "suddenly"
appeared about ten thousand years ago, (Are humans dumb enough, that
they lived for tens of thousands of years just roaming the earth,
without proper place to settle).
Reason 5: First chinese writing came in about 1500 BC, and that first
American writing came in about 800 BC by the Zapotec people, first
Egypt writing came in about 3100 BC, (Are humans that dumb, that they
never wrote the previous socalled many tens of thousands of years).
These dates show that, the first humans should come about 10-thousand
years ago, so that they gain enough population/experience to
effectively run the commerce/government through writing.
Reason 6: GENETICISTS HAD MATHEMATICALLY PROVED THAT, THE HUMAN GENE
IS STABLE FOR 20-MILLION YEARS INTO FUTURE!WITH CURRENT MUTATION
RATES. NOW THE QUESTION IS: HOW CAN A SOCALLED SERIES OF EVOLUTION
FROM LAST COUPLE OF HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, FROM APE TO MAN
HALT ABRUPTLY FOR THE NEXT 20-MILLION YEARS? (MONKEY TO MAN IS A GREAT
SOCALLED LEAP FORWARD IN GENES. GENES ARE SO SO SO STABLE THAT WE CAN
FIND EVEN TODAY THE SPECIES WHICH ALSO EXISTED BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD
IN FOSSIL RECORDS; WE ARE MAKING A VERY BIG STATEMENT WHEN WE SAY THAT
MONKEY GENE BECAME HUMAN GENE IN A COUPLE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
YEARS.).
Reason 7: The mesopotamian scientific trend occurred about twenty-
seventh century BC, of Greece about third century BC, of Muslim about
tenth century AD, of European about Sixteenth Century BC. What rule
joins them? Every next trend occurred after a previous one, nearly
after half the time period between previous two trends. For example,
Meso-Greece period in 25 centuries, Greece-Muslim period is twelve and
half centuries, muslim-european period is about six centuries, and so
next trend should occur at about three centuries latter from sixteenth
centures, ie ninteenth century (which is the American Science Period).
If I call the first Science Period as Adamic, then Adamic SP should
occur about 7700 BC (approx. 8000 BC), i.e. about ten-thousand years
ago. Conclusion: The first Science Period was Adamic and it occurred
about 8000 BC. (Anthropologists suggest that the current humans, i.e.
homo-sapians, were existant on earth for atleast 200 thousand years,
according to their calculations; thus, the intelligence which humans
currently possess, was with humans for atleast 200 thousand years.
But, humanity would be colonizing other galaxies, had it been of the
age of 200 thousand years.). Humans are not dumb that they take many
tens of thousands of years to develop population/scientifically.
Reason 8: Summerian and Egyptian Civilizations started about 3500 BC;
Indus and Minoan and Akkadian and Andes Cvilisations started about
2500 BC; Chinese Civilization started about 2200 BC; doesn't it all
hint: if it took 5000-years for human to develop from past Egyptian
civilization to the development that is now, then about 5000-thousand
years should have took from a first human pair to develop into
Egyptian civilization, totalling 10-thousand years of human existence
on earth, (It is as evident as is sun).
Reason 9: Now, Pyramids as in Egypt/Amerindian can exist for many ten-
thousands of years. If humanity has an age of more than ten-thousand
years, then it can safely be argued that there should exist similar
more societies like Egyptian/Amerindian, and thus a multitude of
pyramids covering the earth, each showing its history; but we can't
find such sustaining structures as pyramids preceding the time about
3-4 thousand years ago. This all shows that, no bias: Egyptian/
Amerindian were the first to make Pyramids, if humanity was more than
ten-thousand years in age then similar pyramids should have been found
but there exist none, thus humanity can't be more than ten-thousand
years in age; no bias: God is needed to create the intelligent
creature as a human. (It is not that Stone structures before 10-
thousand years decayed, because stone/bone/fossils can date millions/
billions of years).
It may be argued that ice-age thawed about ten-thousand years ago, and
that's why one saw agriculture/etc thriving after it, (but equator
never faced the bitter of ice, so civilization should have continued
at equator, nullifying the previous argument).
God modified the mamal gene to make human. Proof? Appendix has no work
in humans, but still exists, but is required in many other mammals.
Also, sea-plant is almost 85% human gene.
THE SKELATONS WE FIND TODAY OF SO-CALLED PREHUMANS ARE ACTUALLY
MONKEYS. THERE ARE MANY KIND OF MONKEYS, SOME ARE SMALL, SOME ARE MORE
MAN-LIKE E.G. GORILLAS IN PHYSIQUE/INTELLIGENCE; AND LUCY/ETC ARE JUST
ONE OF THE SPECTRUM OF THE VARIED KINDS OF MONKEYS (IF ANYONE IS HURT
BY THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE, I APOLOGIZE FOR IT.).
The rate of the human population growth has not been constant, the
rate is much higher now because of advanced medical facilities. So, if
we take this rate as constant, then this is not the right approach.
Now, there are two things, wars and famines. Which of them puts an
upper limit to the human population? Inconclusively, it is famine, not
war. Reason: war was almost common throughout the world, but famine
was more widespread in places where there is less vegetation; So,
India/China are majors in population not because they faced less wars
in past, but that they had less famines, compared to other
countries.Conclusion: wars don't diminish the human population, if it
does then it is immediately healed, but that food limits the human
population. So, we can't say that it were cannibals in past that is
why it took humanity many tens of thousands of years to develop
population/scientifically.
If incest continues of 8 generations, then the people becomes
different from eachother, as if they belong to different races. I will
not say Incest, but that different places shut people off from
eachother, and they became different after some generations. The Black
in Africa, and Blond is Sweden, occurred, because a Blond in Africa
died an early death due to ultra-violet sun ray harm, and same for the
Balck in Sweden where it died of lack of Vitamin-D.
Anti-thesis: human beings can't be from this earth, because about ten-
thousand years ago, sudden intelligence came on the surface of Earth.
So, what if Aliens came to earth about ten-thousand years ago, now
called as humans? It is very less probable, because why aliens came
not in the 4-billion history of earth and only in last ten-thousand
years? Also, Aliens most probably had to die because they are not
immune to earthly bectarias/etc.
Despite the fact that I had proved the landing of Adam on Earth, ten-
thousand years ago, current mindset has difficulty accepting it,
because, it then has to accept the existance of God.
Atheists say that this world is by chance; Well, what if, god intended
this world to appear as such, for some reason?
Conclusion: Above argument only proves that God exists, (because God
is required to create the first man, about 10-thousand years ago). But
is that God really interested in us? Yes, God is indeed interested in
us through Messengership (www.awais-nazir.biz).
Connie
Can anyone find errors of fact, distortions, or muddled logic in any
of the above? If not, I will be glad to help. Or maybe it's just not
worth it.
Dr.Hal0nf1r£$
You're right; it isn't: Feed a troll and they come back for more - Look at
DiLV!
Marko Pojatina
news:3f4dc4d0-4a0a-4d97...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
First of all, please, don't post your shit to alt.atheism.satire anymore.
> Humans came on earth about ten-thousand years ago.
They came "on Earth"!? Where did they come from? Orion?
> I recommend to keep
> off the high-school education bias, and then read on.
In other words, turn our brains off and buy the shit you copied and pasted
off some cretinist website. I'm sure my university professors would be
delighted with such a fine display of critical analysis.
> Reason 1: Humans are clever, they don't take tens of thousands of
> years to develop scientifically/population-wise.
Where the hell did you get this argument from? The only historical example
disproves what you just said.
> Reason 2: a simple human intelligence can produce pottery,
No, it can't. A human being who has LEARNED to produce pottery by trial and
error can produce pottery. An adult thirty-year-old who's never heard of
pottery knows shit about it.
> they should
> have been well a few hundred thousand years ago.
Considering the above, I can only laugh at this pitiful excuse for an
argument.
> But we do not find
> Pottery before ten-thousand years ago. Pottery came "suddenly" in
> archeologist records.
That has about as much sense as saying that atomic bombs appeared suddenly.
> Reason 3: Archeology record suggests agriculture to come into scene
> "suddenly" about ten-thousand years, (Is human as dumb that for tens
> of thousands of years they were just hunting?).
Why is hunting dumb? What, is starving smarter?
> Intuition says that if
> there would be a first society, then it would be both hunters/farmers.
There were both hunters and farmers in the first society, however, we had
hunters a lot sooner than farmers. By the way, since when is your intutition
a valid argument for anything?
> If Archeology says that agriculture started about ten-thousand years
> ago, then humanity should have come about ten-thousand years ago, on
> Earth.
Non sequitur. Agriculture is most certainly not conditio sine qua non of
humanity.
> Reason 4: Archeologists find that organised housing "suddenly"
> appeared about ten thousand years ago, (Are humans dumb enough, that
> they lived for tens of thousands of years just roaming the earth,
> without proper place to settle).
No, sweetheart, they lived in caves.
> Reason 5: First chinese writing came in about 1500 BC, and that first
> American writing came in about 800 BC by the Zapotec people, first
> Egypt writing came in about 3100 BC,
Writing did not suddenly appear in the 4th millenium BCE. They developed out
of ancient ideographic and mnemonic markings which were developed in the 7th
millenium BCE. The first "proper" system of writing is from Mesopotamia,
around 3500 BCE.
> (Are humans that dumb, that they
> never wrote the previous socalled many tens of thousands of years).
No, not all humans are dumb, just you. I mean really. Do you honestly think
that developing something so abstract as language and writing makes humans
dumb? Do you have any idea what it takes to actually develop a system of
writing? You must think that your imaginary first humans who lived ca. 8000
BCE should have invented agriculture, pottery and writing in the first
generation or else they're dumb.
> These dates show that, the first humans should come about 10-thousand
> years ago, so that they gain enough population/experience to
> effectively run the commerce/government through writing.
LOL ;)
> Reason 6: GENETICISTS HAD MATHEMATICALLY PROVED THAT, THE HUMAN GENE
> IS STABLE FOR 20-MILLION YEARS INTO FUTURE!WITH CURRENT MUTATION
> RATES.
Meaning? Source? Not providing citations is a good way to be laughed out of
an atheist group.
> NOW THE QUESTION IS: HOW CAN A SOCALLED SERIES OF EVOLUTION
> FROM LAST COUPLE OF HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, FROM APE TO MAN
I beg your pardon? The humans and the chimpanzees did not separate a few
hundred thousand years ago. Your chronology is flawed.
> HALT ABRUPTLY FOR THE NEXT 20-MILLION YEARS
How on earth do you know that evolution would suddenly stop for the next 20
million years? Are you clairvoyant?
> (MONKEY TO MAN IS A GREAT
> SOCALLED LEAP FORWARD IN GENES. GENES ARE SO SO SO STABLE THAT WE CAN
> FIND EVEN TODAY THE SPECIES WHICH ALSO EXISTED BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD
> IN FOSSIL RECORDS;
The fact that some species have remained unchanged for millions of years
doesn't mean that all genes in existence are "so so so stable". It simply
means that certain species are very successful, they are well adapted to
their environment which obviously hasn't changed significantly over that
same period of time.
> WE ARE MAKING A VERY BIG STATEMENT WHEN WE SAY THAT
> MONKEY GENE BECAME HUMAN GENE IN A COUPLE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
> YEARS.).
First of all, there's no such thing as "monkey gene" and "human gene". We
share more than 98% of our genes with the chimpanzees. And second, your
chronology is flawed. Third, turn the caps lock off, we can read your
stupidity just fine.
> Reason 7: The mesopotamian scientific trend occurred about twenty-
> seventh century BC, of Greece about third century BC,
Um, what? There were Greek scientists well before the third century.
> of Muslim about
> tenth century AD, of European about Sixteenth Century BC.
You mean AD? And although there was no great scientific progress before the
XVI Century thanks to the Mother Church, you can't say there was no science
at all, and you certainly can't pull your retarded argument "OMG, teh humans
couldant do X before year Y. They must be teh stupeed". There were smart
people in the Middle Ages.
> What rule
> joins them?
Rule? There is no rule. Human knowledge, including scientific knowledge is
cumulative. Periods of great scinetific progress and those without progress
are a consequence of historical circumstances and cannot be linked to a
statistical value.
> Every next trend occurred after a previous one, nearly
> after half the time period between previous two trends. For example,
> Meso-Greece period in 25 centuries, Greece-Muslim period is twelve and
> half centuries, muslim-european period is about six centuries, and so
> next trend should occur at about three centuries latter from sixteenth
> centures, ie ninteenth century (which is the American Science Period).
I beg your pardon? What American Science Period? The current "period" of
scientific development has been going on uninterrupted since the
Renaissance. And take a look at nineteenth century scientists. Predominantly
American? Guess again.
> If I call the first Science Period as Adamic, then Adamic SP should
> occur about 7700 BC (approx. 8000 BC),
And if I call the first science period as Unicornian, then the Unicorn,
BBHHH&PBUH; must've given us knowedge about 75 billion years ago.
> Conclusion: The first Science Period was Adamic and it occurred
> about 8000 BC.
LOL. You just pulled that shit straight out of your arse. And you expect us
to take you seriously!?
> (Anthropologists suggest that the current humans, i.e.
> homo-sapians, were existant on earth for atleast 200 thousand years,
> according to their calculations; thus, the intelligence which humans
> currently possess, was with humans for atleast 200 thousand years.
> But, humanity would be colonizing other galaxies, had it been of the
> age of 200 thousand years.).
The hell!? Where did you get that from? Colonizing galaxies? You are a joke!
> Humans are not dumb that they take many
> tens of thousands of years to develop population/scientifically.
No, you are dumb. What on earth makes you think that first humans should
have developed science!?
> Reason 8: Summerian and Egyptian Civilizations started about 3500 BC;
> Indus and Minoan and Akkadian and Andes Cvilisations started about
> 2500 BC; Chinese Civilization started about 2200 BC; doesn't it all
> hint: if it took 5000-years for human to develop from past Egyptian
> civilization to the development that is now, then about 5000-thousand
> years should have took from a first human pair to develop into
> Egyptian civilization,
Based on what!? You do know that human knowledge is cumulative and that the
rate of progress accelerates rapidly? You do know that we have made far more
progress in the period from ca. 1500 CE to 2000 CE than during the entire
period of the Middle Ages from ca. 500 CE to ca. 1500 CE and in the former
period we actually regressed from the state of development that was around
200 CE. According to your retarted claims we should have progressed twice as
much during the Middle Ages.
> totalling 10-thousand years of human existence
> on earth, (It is as evident as is sun).
It is "as evident as is sun" that you are utterly retarded.
> Reason 9: Now, Pyramids as in Egypt/Amerindian
Amerindian!? Where is that?
> can exist for many ten-
> thousands of years. If humanity has an age of more than ten-thousand
> years, then it can safely be argued that there should exist similar
> more societies like Egyptian/Amerindian,
Based on what? Your have absolutely no grasp of human history. It really
hurts me, as a student of history, to read this.
>and thus a multitude of
> pyramids covering the earth, each showing its history; but we can't
> find such sustaining structures as pyramids preceding the time about
> 3-4 thousand years ago.
Again, BASED ON WHAT?
> This all shows that, no bias: Egyptian/
> Amerindian were the first to make Pyramids, if humanity was more than
> ten-thousand years in age then similar pyramids should have been found
> but there exist none, thus humanity can't be more than ten-thousand
> years in age;
Non sequitur.
> no bias: God is needed to create the intelligent
> creature as a human.
Not true. Intelligent creatures have been formed as a result of evolution
and no God was necessary. By the way, define God and demonstrate evidence
for the existence of said entity.
> It may be argued that ice-age thawed about ten-thousand years ago, and
> that's why one saw agriculture/etc thriving after it, (but equator
> never faced the bitter of ice, so civilization should have continued
> at equator, nullifying the previous argument).
Continued!? CONTINUED!? There was no civilization before the ice age!
> God modified the mamal gene to make human.
Provide evidence for the existence of "God".
> Proof? Appendix has no work
> in humans, but still exists, but is required in many other mammals.
> Also, sea-plant is almost 85% human gene.
That is all evidence for evolution. I can't believe you fail to realize
that. If we have vestigial features and share genes with sea-plants, doesn't
this point to the notion that we might (gasp!) have common origin?
> THE SKELATONS WE FIND TODAY OF SO-CALLED PREHUMANS ARE ACTUALLY
> MONKEYS.
Not true. You didn't provide confirmation for your claims so I can simply
say that you're lying.
> THERE ARE MANY KIND OF MONKEYS, SOME ARE SMALL, SOME ARE MORE
> MAN-LIKE E.G. GORILLAS IN PHYSIQUE/INTELLIGENCE; AND LUCY/ETC ARE JUST
> ONE OF THE SPECTRUM OF THE VARIED KINDS OF MONKEYS
Which all show a transition towards modern humans, thus proving that we
evolved from apes.
> (IF ANYONE IS HURT
> BY THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE, I APOLOGIZE FOR IT.).
Well, not by the previous sentence in particular, but some of the things you
said before are just so retarded that my IQ dropped ten points when I read
them.
> The rate of the human population growth has not been constant, the
> rate is much higher now because of advanced medical facilities. So, if
> we take this rate as constant, then this is not the right approach.
Then why didn't you apply the same reasoning to scientific development?
> Now, there are two things, wars and famines. Which of them puts an
> upper limit to the human population? Inconclusively, it is famine, not
> war. Reason: war was almost common throughout the world, but famine
> was more widespread in places where there is less vegetation;
Care to guess who wasn't widespread in places where there is less
vegetation? That's right, humans.
> So,
> India/China are majors in population not because they faced less wars
> in past, but that they had less famines, compared to other
> countries
The hell!?
>Conclusion: wars don't diminish the human population,
Oh no? Ever heard of WW II? By the way, nations who have gone through
demographic transition should be seriously affected by wartime losses.
> if it
> does then it is immediately healed,
What, magically?
> but that food limits the human
> population
Demographics is not that one-dimensional.
> So, we can't say that it were cannibals in past that is
> why it took humanity many tens of thousands of years to develop
> population/scientifically.
I struggled with your piss-poor grammar so far, but I can't make heads or
tails of this sentence.
> If incest continues of 8 generations, then the people becomes
> different from eachother, as if they belong to different races. I will
> not say Incest, but that different places shut people off from
> eachother, and they became different after some generations. The Black
> in Africa, and Blond is Sweden, occurred, because a Blond in Africa
> died an early death due to ultra-violet sun ray harm, and same for the
> Balck in Sweden where it died of lack of Vitamin-D.
This "argument" is quite amusing, but what is your point?
> Anti-thesis: human beings can't be from this earth, because about ten-
> thousand years ago, sudden intelligence came on the surface of Earth.
No, it didn't. There is exactly zero scientific evidence for that claim.
> So, what if Aliens came to earth about ten-thousand years ago, now
> called as humans?
That is impossible because humans existed before 8000 BCE. Besides, why
should a space-faring civilization stoop so low as to live in primitive
proto-towns such as Jericho or Çatalhüyük?
> It is very less probable, because why aliens came
> not in the 4-billion history of earth and only in last ten-thousand
> years?
That is not a valid counter-argument. What if they didn't know about Earth
before 8000 BCE? We don't have a map of the entire univesre. What if they
didn't have the means to come to Earth? We know where Alpha Centauri is, but
we can't get there.
> Also, Aliens most probably had to die because they are not
> immune to earthly bectarias/etc.
Thank you very much for killing your silly argument. If we apply your logic
to humans, then people who suddenly appeared on Earth, would've died because
they're not immune to Earth bacterias. Besides, a spacefaring civilization
would hardly land in a hostile environment. Have you ever watched Star Trek?
> Despite the fact that I had proved the landing of Adam on Earth, ten-
> thousand years ago,
The hell you have! You proved nothing. BTW, where did Adam and Eve come
from? When did you prove their existence?
> current mindset has difficulty accepting it,
Of course, since the proposal is utterly retarded.
> because, it then has to accept the existance of God.
No, it doesn't. You, dear boy, have to prove it.
> Atheists say that this world is by chance;
Please, don't put words into other people's mouth. Especially when that
people have absolutely nothing in common with one another except for the
fact that they don't believe in imaginary pixies.
>Well, what if, god intended
> this world to appear as such, for some reason?
And what if the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Blessed be Her Holy Hooves and peace
be unto Her, intended for you to believe in a god which doesn't exist?
> Conclusion: Above argument only proves that God exists, (because God
> is required to create the first man, about 10-thousand years ago).
Men were not created 10 000 years ago, we evolved from lower primates a few
dozen millenia before your fictional creation-date of ~8000 BCE. Therefore,
your argument proves nothing.
> But
> is that God really interested in us? Yes, God is indeed interested in
> us through Messengership (www.awais-nazir.biz).
Messengership? Anyone who claims to have talked to a sky pixie is a nutcase
and shouldn't be taken seriously. That website is very funny, thanks for
sharing.