Evolution never happened.

[Alpha Beta]

If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.

Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.

> Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.

Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.

Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.

[Ray Martinez]

Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.
>
> Ray

Show me any source other than the Tanakh that confirms the existence of Abraham. Go ahead, I'll wait. (But the NT and the Koran don't count... they also got their information from the Tanakh.)

I assert that there is no more evidence for the existence of Abraham than there is for the existence of Hercules.

[John Stockwell]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.
>
> Ray

Nope. The existence or non-existence of Abraham (or Abram) is irrelevant
to evolution and to science, in general.

[Alpha Beta]

Apes and black people don't even look alike.

[Sean Dillon]

You keep trying to put those words in my mouth, Ray. It is deceitful. ALL people are equally descended from African ape ancestry, not just "black people." Indeed, there is no specific reason to think that the first people were "black" at all. "Black people" are no more nor less biologically advanced than any other people on the Earth. We are ALL descendants of the SAME ancestry.

YOU, on the other hand, have pretty clearly implied that European culture after 1440 is the only culture that matters, and that these people are more advanced and more educated than other people. Now THAT'S some racist nonsense.

[Alpha Beta]

Yespe. If you cannot tell where first and SIMPLEST life came from, then you lost all your credibility. Nobody believes your BS anymore that complex life can evolve all by itself.

Abraham was a real person, so were all Biblical people. Noah for example is mentioned in Hindu texts as well, and many other, they just have a different name for him. The flood is the most documented event in human history, but people forgot about it.

[Alpha Beta]

Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:40:03 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:

The "out of Africa" theory has been proven wrong.

[Alpha Beta]

But also they said that Noah was drunk and made the first winery after the flood. He landed on the mountain Ararat, they found the ark already. But also they found the first winery in Armenia, Google for Areni-1.

[Sean Dillon]

Apes and ALL people look VERY similar to each other. No animal looks more like humans -- all humans -- than do the apes.

[Sean Dillon]

No, it really hasn't.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:40:03 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
> >
> > Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
> >
> > > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> >
> > Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> >
> > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
> >
> > Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
>
> Yespe. If you cannot tell where first and SIMPLEST life came from, then you lost all your credibility. Nobody believes your BS anymore that complex life can evolve all by itself.

The Theory of Evolution is THE foundational theory of all of modern biology, accepted by over 99% of people who actually work in the biological sciences. And world-wide, accepters of evolution outnumber creationists 41% to 28%. So your claim that "nobody believes" it pretty ludicrous. Maybe in the dark little corner of fundamentalism you swim in... but elsewhere, it is very much accepted.

That you are uninterested in the difference between abiogenesis and evolution doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. It also doesn't mean they don't both have naturalistic explanations.

>
> Abraham was a real person, so were all Biblical people. Noah for example is mentioned in Hindu texts as well, and many other, they just have a different name for him. The flood is the most documented event in human history, but people forgot about it.

No, the supposed Deluge is NOT the most documented event in human history. Actually the 2016 US Presidential Election is probably the most documented event in human history.

And apparently a lot of the world's culture managed to live right through the alleged Deluge without noticing it, because they HAVE recorded history for that period, which includes no Deluge.

And you can believe they are all historical figures if you want to, but there is no more evidence for them than there is for Hercules.

[Burkhard]

Of all the idiotic arguments that you gave over the years against the
ToE, this always was the most insanely stupid one. And it is indeed also
quite racist on your side, denying Africans pride of place as the cradle
of humanity.

Humans tend to be immensely proud on being the first in something.
Greece is proud of being the cradle of democracy, the first place where
aristocracies "morphed into" democracies. China is immensely proud that
their ancestors were the first to invent paper, printing, gunpowder and
the compass (the four great inventions). Many cultures went so far as to
"fake" older ancestry than they had - the Romans claiming to be
descendant from the Greek via Aeneas, ultra-nationalist Victorian Brits
the descendant of the tribe of Dan. (and of course you have in the past
endorsed this racist scam) For postwar Britain, having been the cradle
of mankind meant so much that they celebrated the Piltdown men hoax, and
kept believing in it for more tan three decades after it had been
debunked by French and German researcher - we desperately wanted to be
the place where mankind first arose.

And you find of course the same in the black pride/black power
movement, where the Theory of Evolution, or rather the "out of Africa"
theory is seen as a major empowering factor and a source of immense
pride - and unlike Victorian or early 20th century Brits, they don't
have to fake it

From an black activist website, nicely contrasting the liberation
science brings to the black identity after their abuse by Christians
and the Genesis story of the "curse of Ham", used through the
centuries as biblical justification of slavery:

"Not only is the black race cursed but we are given a fictitious
account of history; because of science and archeology we know that
black people were the first ones on earth, so this biblical story puts
the white man in the first place while introducing the black man under
some despicable circumstances.

That story (the curse of Ham, BS) gave an alibi (or justification) for
the invasion of Canaan. It is the first step to curse black people and
to falsify their history, the second is no other than the myth of
Hebrews enslaved in Egypt."

http://www.afrostyly.com/uk-us/afro/diverse/curse_of_ham.htm

Here another two typical quotes for "afrocentrism" and how the "Out of
Africa" theory is used to sustain black pride:

"It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: all of the
significant evolution in our species occurred in populations with
brown and black skins living in Africa. When language, music, and art
evolved, they evolved in Africans. Lighter skins evolved in some
European and Asian populations long after the human mind evolved its
present capacities.

The skin color of our ancestors does not have much scientific
importance. But it does have a political importance given the
persistence of anti-black racism. I think that a powerful antidote to
such racism is the realization that the human mind is a product of
black African females favoring intelligence, kindness, creativity, and
articulate language in black African males, and vice versa.
Afrocentrism is an appropriate attitude to take when we are thinking
about human evolution."

So far from being racist, it is if anything a welcome and needed
antidote to the racism that spread on the back of the Christian Genesis
story, a falsification of history that you perpetuate to the detriment
of POCs.

Scientifically, none of that may make much sense - according to the ToE
modern Europeans are as distantly related to the first humans as modern
day Africans. But politically an ideologically, it should come as no
surprise that the KKK and its fellow travelers vehemently rejected and
reject the ToE, as it teaches that all humans are indeed one species.
They very much prefer the "Curse of Ham" narrative that sets black
people radically apart from white folks.

In the words of a commentator from the period the KKK had become '...
at once anti-Negro, anti-Alien, anti-Red, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew,
anti-Darwin, anti-Modern, anti-Liberal, Fundamentalist, vastly Moral,
militantly Protestant.'"
(Smith, Page Redeeming the Time: A People's History of the 1920s and
the New Deal, vol.8, New York, 1987, p.3).

"Separate creation" and/or the curse of Ham fits their warped ideology
much better, after all William Joseph Simmons, the founder of the
"second clan", was a preacher for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.





>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

Hercules was quite probably King of Argos, at around 1251 BC

[Alpha Beta]

Which doesn't have to suggest a common ancestry. A fork also looks like a spoon but it's not the same thing.

[Alpha Beta]

Africans aren't the cradle of humanity. That would be Babylon.

[Sean Dillon]

No, they have not found the Ark, and the earliest currently known winemaking took place in what is now the Republic of Georgia, not Armenia.

[Sean Dillon]

No, that would be the Cradle of Civilization. The Fertile Crescent gave rise to agriculture which gave rise to civilization as we know it. But humanity predated that considerably.

[Alpha Beta]

I am in fact Armenian. And I know it's Armenia.

[Sean Dillon]

But it DOES suggest a common ancestry, based on the fossil record, and based on genomics.

[Sean Dillon]

Then I take it back: there is actually MORE evidence for the existence of Hercules.

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution is not required in biology. It's useless science. All it does is showing us how creatures decline over time, that's about it.

The deluge is not the most documented event in history? All cultures mention it. If they had Internet back then it would be easier to record it, so instead, they used stone tablets for it.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:

> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.

By the by... what AlphaBeta is doing, for those in the cheap seats, is a "Gish Gallop." This is technique in which an individual makes a rapid series of unsupported or barely supported "truth-y" sounding claims. This forces the opponent to actually do the work of disproving all of these claims, which is a lot more work than making them. Thus, all things being equal, the galloper can outlast his opponent through sheer laziness.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.
>
> Ray

Nope. You're consistently wrong about most things. I'm sure you would call me a Darwinist, but I think Abraham probably was a real person. Three different religions at least talk about him, from different cultures and languages. I am also not anti-Bible, and see no conflict between the Bible and the Origin of Species.

You, however, deny science and turn people away from God with your ignorance. You may have to answer for that one day.

[Sean Dillon]

You clearly don't have much of a grip on biology or evolution.

>
> The deluge is not the most documented event in history? All cultures mention it. If they had Internet back then it would be easier to record it, so instead, they used stone tablets for it.

No, all cultures do NOT mention it.

[Alpha Beta]

They never found the link between apes and humans. And again, these fossils are probably dated wrongly because there is no proof humans were around millions of years ago.

[Kalkidas]

On 12/1/2017 9:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.

> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>

Nobody really believes in evolution. It's just mental masturbation to
kill time which would be better spent communing with God.

[Sean Dillon]

They have found plenty of links between apes and humans.

MODERN humans have only existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but there is plenty of evidence that human ancestors have existed for millions of years, including those fossils.

[Alpha Beta]

Why do we need it in biology? I never needed it in biology class, until I was introduced it, and of course I didn't believe any word of their BS.

Yes, all cultures mention the flood. It was a real event. Even Jesus mentioned the deluge and talked as if it was real. Because it was. The Assyro-Babylonians had the most accurate version before the Bible because they were almost direct ancestors of Noah. Then the story spread around the world but elements were lost. That's why even distant cultures such as Hindus, Chinese and even Hawaiians mention it.

[J.LyonLayden]

No but Stephen Oppenheimer proved it's pretty universal, and the oldest elements of the myth came from SE Asia.

Most scientists claim that the universal flood myths result from local floods, but this is an assumption.

Considering all the information that Stephen Oppenheimer has compiled, it makes much more sense to equate most flood legends to the mangrove period that occurred between 7500 and 3500 years ago. A 50 meter rise in sea levels happened at some during that period. It was accompanied by floods in many places, and the rise in sea level was very rapid. Hundreds of miles of every coast were flooded.

If you lived in that time period, your definition of the word "world" included only what you knew of the world. Therefore, among many coastal and islands people, the "whole world" was flooded sometime in the mangrove period, and only returned to normal somewhat later.

If you want citations, check out "Eden in the East" by Stephen Oppenheimer. It is in no way a creationsist book.

It is basically a 500 page list of citations proving this point infallibly, though many continue to ignore it.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Nope. You're consistently wrong about most things. I'm sure you would call me a Darwinist, but I think Abraham probably was a real person. Three different religions at least talk about him, from different cultures and languages.

But they all derive from the same source. It all comes back to the Tanakh (aka the "Hebrew Bible", aka the Old Testament). Both Christianity's and Islam's adoption of Abram derives directly from there. So there is no independent verification here.

> I am also not anti-Bible, and see no conflict between the Bible and the Origin of Species.
>
> You, however, deny science and turn people away from God with your ignorance. You may have to answer for that one day.

Amen to that.

[Alpha Beta]

Yeah, but the stories are all similar. They mention a man who builds a boat and survives a flood. If they were local they wouldn't share key elements like these. It makes only sense that all cultures came from Noahs family and have been passed down orally, and some were written down on stone tablets.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:00:03 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Nope. You're consistently wrong about most things. I'm sure you would call me a Darwinist, but I think Abraham probably was a real person. Three different religions at least talk about him, from different cultures and languages.
>
> But they all derive from the same source. It all comes back to the Tanakh (aka >the "Hebrew Bible", aka the Old Testament). Both Christianity's and Islam's >adoption of Abram derives directly from there. So there is no independent >verification here.

Yes but if you read the first book (Genesis), it looks like it was copied from two separate and possibly conflicting texts or oral traditions.

One uses "Yahweh" and the other "Elohim," which some say is plural.

(acknowledgement: this may be plural due to the idea of 'I am the God of gods, I am all gods' seen throughout the texts).

The two stories also seem to have a different order as to when animals appear in relationship to man. In one a pair of animals is chosen by Noah, in the other seven individuals from each sacred animal. It could be a mistranslation or misinterpretation, but some have argued that it's telling the story from a material and then a spiritual perspective.

Either way, the story is told twice as in a comparison. And there are consistent differences in each story throughout.

This points to a much earlier date to at least the oral tradition, and possibly two separate "sects" from which the story was finally written down.

But you're right I have no proof that Abraham existed. I just don't have any more reason to think he's fictitious than I have to think Gilgamesh or the Yellow Emporer were real. Usually my investigations lead me to the fact that a myth is always based on SOMETHING.

[Alpha Beta]

Then why do we find more human history in the last 10,000 years compared to the 2-3 million years before that? Something fishy here. Don't say because we came up with agriculture so late, because we could have developed it long time ago. 3 million years is a long ass time and it's all backed by some wrongly dated skeletons, that's about it.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
> > >
> > > Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
> > >
> > > > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> > >
> > > Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> > >
> > > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
> > >
> > > Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
> > >
> >
> > Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Apes and black people don't even look alike.

Created human beings know that but Darwinian evolutionary claims say otherwise: human evolution began in Africa; hence long ago apes morphed into black people. Darwin fought hard for human evolution to have begun in Africa. His successors have validated his claim. And don't forget in the early 20th century Darwinists caged black men with apes in zoos as evidence of human evolution. Just google "Ota Benga" and have a barf bag nearby. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: gutter racism must be embraced under the guise of practicing science. Darwin and all of his converts are just as racist as the KKK. The only difference is that Darwinists do not wear their dunce caps.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[J.LyonLayden]

How else would you survive a flood? I'm not saying that many of the myths don't come from the same person. they likely do. Gilgamesh is mentioned in the Hebrew "Book of Giants," and in mesopotamian lore Gilgamesh met a man who told him a story extremely similar to that of Noah. Both stories may have both been talking aboutthe same actual person.

But North America Amerindians don't have the myth so much. It makes sense because the northern hemisphere was less affected by the three flood periods that followed the end of the Ice Age. They speak of going underground to avoid a dark period. But they may not be talking about the mangrove period, they may be remembering all the way back to Clovis times and the impact over canada.

South and Subsharan Africans don't have the myth so much either, and Africa's coastlines were least affected by the flood periods.

[Alpha Beta]

Let's say the flood was not global, but they were many local floods (unlikely). Then why don't scientists research these floods? I know that the Chinese flood story is pretty much confirmed. What do they have to lose? Tons of floods (or a single big flood) are a big part of human history if they are recorded in every culture.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:25:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
> > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
> > > >
> > > > > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> > > >
> > > > Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> > > >
> > > > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
> > > >
> > > > Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Apes and black people don't even look alike.
>
> Created human beings know that but Darwinian evolutionary claims say otherwise:

How were they created by God? Through evolution or through some other means?

> human evolution began in Africa; hence long ago apes morphed into black >people.

This is being contested by "Evolutionist" right now. Africa may not be the place after all, according to some.

And they weren't black at first. The gene for black skin did not make a sweep through Africa until 1.2 million years ago. It may never have retained dominance in the northern hemisphere.

When black people moved into the north, they likely married white people, and white genes were favored in the north due to the temperature and ecology.

But that's just one theory, not mine. There's a whole bunch of them among your so-called "Darwinist."

> Darwin fought hard for human evolution to have begun in Africa. His successors

So? He fought hard for a lot of things that have now been changed. He didn't know about continental drift at the time, for instance.

>have validated his claim. And don't forget in the early 20th century Darwinists >caged black men with apes in zoos as evidence of human evolution. Just google

This was a deplorable act. They were racists and they were wrong in their theories. But what is your point?

> "Ota Benga" and have a barf bag nearby. This is what happens when God is >rejected as Creator: gutter racism must be embraced under the guise of >practicing science. Darwin and all of his converts are just as racist as the >KKK. The only difference is that Darwinists do not wear their dunce caps.

Some of our founding fathers were racists, that doesn't mean democracy sucks.

Other people have been racists besides 19th century Darwinists, you know.


>
> Ray (species immutabilist)

[J.LyonLayden]

Oh I argue for this all the time. You'll see JTEM asking the same thing. We'd find the most about human origins right off the coast, but archaeologists don't do it much. A lot of it has to do with funding, because underwater digs are expensive. But some say it's also because they have this nice easy trench in African to dig in. And they used to have a nice, easy place in Java too.


My first prehistoric fiction book is about the massive expanse of land that once connected Japan and China, before one of these three post-glacial near-global flooding periods.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/1/17 9:42 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> [snip similar make-believe]

> They never found the link between apes and humans.

Aside from all humans being apes, you mean?

> And again, these fossils are probably dated wrongly because there is no proof humans were around millions of years ago.

Which means, you think these fossils are probably dated wrongly because
you want them to be dated wrongly.

(And humans, in fact, were not around millions of years ago. Just
hundreds of thousands of years.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/1/17 8:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.

Better living through chemistry.

> Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.

Speak for yourself.

> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong?

What do you mean "if"?

> They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.

Then where does Manu fit in?

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
>>>>
>>>>> Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>>>>
>>>> Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>>>
>>>> Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Apes and black people don't even look alike.
>
> Created human beings know that but Darwinian evolutionary claims say otherwise: human evolution began in Africa; hence long ago apes morphed into black people. Darwin fought hard for human evolution to have begun in Africa. His successors have validated his claim. And don't forget in the early 20th century Darwinists caged black men with apes in zoos as evidence of human evolution. Just google "Ota Benga" and have a barf bag nearby.

Might be a good idea. Also a nice example why a little knowledge can be
such a dangerous thing. Ota Benga was bought from Slave traders and
together with a number of other pygmies send to the zoo in the US by a
certain Samuel Phillips Verner. So, who was this "Darwinist". Why, he
was a Presbyterian missionary, of the brimstone and fire brand who spend
quite a bit of his time in Africa criticizing other missionaries for
being insufficiently loyal to their fellow whites, and was against the
use of black missionaries of who he said they had a "lack of a clear
definition of the duties and relations of our coloured missionaries",
and that while " each man shall bear toward his fellow the truly
Christ-like spirit in whatever position either may be," it was important
to remember "that the Negro is inferior to the Anglo-Saxon". Therefore
they should also be paid much less, or in hos won words, "since the
needs of the coloured man, being commensurate with his capacity, ought
to be much less" (you can find all this and check the quotes in John R.
Crawford: Pioneer African Missionary: Samuel Phillips Verner
Journal of Presbyterian History (1962-1985) Vol. 60, No. 1 (SPRING
1982), pp. 42-57

What did he saw as the mission of his life? Well, in his own words, to
see to it that "Africa must be made a stronghold of Caucasian power, of
Christianity, of European and American civilization rather than the cess
pool of Asiatic vice and corruption".

To be fair to him, by the standards of the time he wasn't that bad, and
over the years his attitude to black missionaries softened and he was
able to appreciate them with some (condescending) kindness.

As for Benga's time in the US, he did indeed spend time in an open
exhibition area in the Bronx zoo, before a petition resulted in his
release to another missionary, the Reverend James M. Gordon. Again in
line with the thinking of his time, Gordon tried to "civilize" Benga by
capping his pointed teeth the American way, and forced him into western
clothing. Benga's last act of defiance, just before he shot himself, was
to re-file his teeth to regain his Africa identity. It seems the people
in his life that contributed most to his unhappiness were chruch ministers.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/1/17 9:38 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>
> The deluge is not the most documented event in history? All
> cultures mention it.

Not even close to true. Before the explorations triggered by Columbus,
the biblical deluge story had spread no further than the Middle East and
Europe, plus an arguable case for western India. Many other cultures
had flood myths, but they most certainly were not related to the
biblical one. And many cultures have no such myths at all. I defy you
to find one from any of the native cultures of Baja California, for example.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/1/17 8:45 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham.

Nonsense. In fact, Charles Darwin and Abraham were born on the same day.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/1/17 10:26 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:15:04 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but the stories are all similar. They mention a man who builds a boat and survives a flood. If they were local they wouldn't share key elements like these. It makes only sense that all cultures came from Noahs family and have been passed down orally, and some were written down on stone tablets.
>
> How else would you survive a flood?

In most flood stories around the world, people survive by climbing a
mountain or tree. A few escape onto the sky, or underground, or by
flight, or to far distant places. In several myths, there are no survivors.

> But North America Amerindians don't have the myth so much. It makes sense because the northern hemisphere was less affected by the three flood periods that followed the end of the Ice Age. They speak of going underground to avoid a dark period. But they may not be talking about the mangrove period, they may be remembering all the way back to Clovis times and the impact over canada.
>
> South and Subsharan Africans don't have the myth so much either, and Africa's coastlines were least affected by the flood periods.

Flood myths are quite common in North America, but there is quite a
variety among them. None are all that close to the biblical version.

[Sean Dillon]

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_06
Just for an example.

>
> Yes, all cultures mention the flood. It was a real event. Even Jesus mentioned the deluge and talked as if it was real. Because it was. The Assyro-Babylonians had the most accurate version before the Bible because they were almost direct ancestors of Noah. Then the story spread around the world but elements were lost. That's why even distant cultures such as Hindus, Chinese and even Hawaiians mention it.

I don't think you realize the problem you just created for yourself there, AB.

Because if Noah and fam were the only people to survive the Deluge (which is what the Biblical account claims) then THE ONLY source of the story is Noah's own family. No one else survived to tell the tale. So... it wouldn't matter HOW many cultures HAVE Flood stories (even if they WERE all related), because they would all come back to the same data point... they don't (can't!) corroborate the story.

So is there anything else that can corroborate the story? No, not really. The world's geology does not support the notion of a world-wide flood. The world's bio-geography (where animals are located) does not support a world-wide flood. There is no massive genetic bottleneck of the kind we would expect from a world-wide flood. There is literally none of the evidence we would expect to see in nature, if the world had undergone a world-wide flood.

While I won't bicker about the location, JLL's general idea is probably correct. The various flood stories probably began with a regional flood that SEEMED worldwide to people who were local to it, and the story spread from there, over many generations, and through many variations. That's how it generally works with tall tales.

[Sean Dillon]

Anatomically modern humans didn't emerge until around 200,000 years ago, and homo sapiens sapiens -- that is, our species of human -- didn't arise until about 70,000 years ago. And while agriculture may seem obvious to you, it is actually a pretty revolutionary idea, for a species that had been nomadic hunter gatherers for their entire existence. And not an idea they had the time to sit around and think up, since they were spending all their time hunting and gathering. And of course the first crops weren't at all like our people-friendly crops today. They required extensive processing to be edible. In light of that, it may be surprising we ever came up with the idea at all.

[Alpha Beta]

The recorded human history doesn't get along with Evolution very well. With the Bible it does.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
> > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
> > > >
> > > > > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> > > >
> > > > Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> > > >
> > > > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
> > > >
> > > > Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Apes and black people don't even look alike.
>
> Created human beings know that but Darwinian evolutionary claims say otherwise: human evolution began in Africa; hence long ago apes morphed into black people.

Ray, you've been corrected twice at this point. That makes this a very intentional lie. Which makes you a bad Christian. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether you're Hell-bound (that's none of my business), but definitely a bad Christian.

Human evolution DID begin in Africa (at least in all likelihood -- JLL I don't need to debate this to be happy), but the first people were not "black," and ALL people in the world are EQUALLY descended from that same ancestry. Black people are no more nor less related to apes than ANYONE ELSE in the world. Science knows this, evolutionists know this, everyone on this board knows this. That you continue to pretend otherwise to libel against our good names is an egregious act of false witness.

> Darwin fought hard for human evolution to have begun in Africa. His successors have validated his claim. And don't forget in the early 20th century Darwinists caged black men with apes in zoos as evidence of human evolution. Just google "Ota Benga" and have a barf bag nearby. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: gutter racism must be embraced under the guise of practicing science. Darwin and all of his converts are just as racist as the KKK. The only difference is that Darwinists do not wear their dunce caps.
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)

Seeing Burkhard hand you your ass regarding "Ota Benga" is kinda making my afternoon. Between that and Flynn being ready to sing like a canary, I'm getting a happy start on my weekend.

[Ernest Major]

70,000 years ago would I presume be behaviourally modern humans
(WikiPedia gives a date of 40,000-50,000 years ago, but then goes and
talks about 80,000 year old behaviourally modern populations in South
Africa.) The label Homo sapiens sapiens applies to anatomically modern
humans. (WikiPedia has jumped into describing anatomically modern humans
as 300,000 years old, based on Jebel Irhoud, and a molecular date. I
think that this is premature.)

There is disagreement on whether there is a meaningful discontinuity
between behaviourally modern humans and earlier anatomically modern humans.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Sean Dillon]

Thank you for that clarification. The broader point is, humans as we know them have been around in the 10s of thousands of years... the hundreds of thousands if one is defining generously. Not millions, as AB keeps asserting.

[Ernest Major]

The last time someone (perhaps the same person) claimed that we should
have developed this that and the other long before we did, I challenged
them to say how long it should take a population of a few thousand
hunter gatherers with a limited technological repertoire scattered
across thousands of square miles of savanna to develop modern
technological civilisation, and to show his work. I don't recall seeing
a response.

--
alias Ernest Major

[J.LyonLayden]

Well, there's evidence of agriculture of the taro 28,000 years ago in the Solomon Islands. And there are neolithic-style polished adzes in Japan during the Paleolithic, which is usually a staple of the Neolithic. And Gunung Padang is at least partially manmade, and is close to 20 thousand years old.

Deep see fishing hooks in Timor also attest to an early Mesolithic in S.E. Asia.

And Stephen Oppenheimer has done a wonderful job of providing evidence of agricultural hyper-diffusion from Sundaland at the end of the last Ice Age.

So it may have started earlier in some places.

No challenge or rejection here, just responding because you said you wanted a response.

[RonO]

On 12/1/2017 10:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.

> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>

Too stupid to be a troll.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

Human evolution insults intelligence. It's only pushed because Atheists have no choice but to believe in. Honest and objective people know that apes morphing into Africans is not only impossible but gutter racism.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Our ape ancestors didn't "morph" into anything. They evolved. And what they evolved into was the common human ancestors we ALL share, who happened to reside in Africa, but they had no more in common with modern day Africans than any other race.

You're really overplaying this hand, Ray. The only racism evident in this conversation is your Euro-centric cultural chauvanism. You have far more in common with the KKK than we do. Oh by the way: The KKK? A Christian organization.

[J.LyonLayden]

Wow! Will you please post a picture of yourself?

[Sean Dillon]

I would be genuinely gobsmacked if you got a positive response to that request. Also, where are you going with this?

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:00:29 -0800 (PST), Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.
>>
>> Ray
>
>Show me any source other than the Tanakh that confirms the existence of Abraham. Go ahead, I'll wait. (But the NT and the Koran don't count... they also got their information from the Tanakh.)
>
>I assert that there is no more evidence for the existence of Abraham than there is for the existence of Hercules.


More to the point, the existence of either has nothing whatsoever to
do with Darwinism.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:

>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
>>

>> Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
>>

>> > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>>

>> Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>>

>> > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>

>> Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
>>
>
>Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
>
>Ray

Whatever "color" were the first humans, they almost certainly were not
of the ideal Aryan prototype. Or do you think blue-eyed WASPS are a
realistic portrayal of Biblical characters?

[jillery]

I didn't know there was a minimum qualification for that position.

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:53:35 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 12/1/2017 9:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>
>

>Nobody really believes in evolution. It's just mental masturbation to
>kill time which would be better spent communing with God.


So when you commune with God, who gives whom a reacharound?

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
> > > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > > > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> > > > >
> > > > > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > Apes and black people don't even look alike.
> >
> > Created human beings know that but Darwinian evolutionary claims say otherwise: human evolution began in Africa; hence long ago apes morphed into black people.
>
> Ray, you've been corrected twice at this point. That makes this a very intentional lie.
>

No one expects you to admit the fact that apes morphing into Africans is not science but gutter racism. We know Atheists like yourself will always maintain human evolution to be valid science. But honest and objective people know that apes morphing into Africans is gutter racism, not science.

> Which makes you a bad Christian.

Sean says I'm a bad Christian for opposing the pro-Atheism explanation of the origin of human beings, imagine that! Christians are supposed to oppose the Atheist explanation of human beings, and advocate the biblical explanation of design implying creation. At any rate, Sean is shown confused, forgetting the fact that Christians don't accept the Atheist explanation of human beings rooted in gutter racism: apes resembling Africans. The Bible says God created man in His image. Atheist "science" says man evolved from the image of an ape.

> I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether you're Hell-bound (that's none of my business), but definitely a bad Christian.
>
> Human evolution DID begin in Africa (at least in all likelihood -- JLL I don't need to debate this to be happy), but the first people were not "black," and ALL people in the world are EQUALLY descended from that same ancestry. Black people are no more nor less related to apes than ANYONE ELSE in the world. Science knows this, evolutionists know this, everyone on this board knows this. That you continue to pretend otherwise to libel against our good names is an egregious act of false witness.
>
> > Darwin fought hard for human evolution to have begun in Africa. His successors have validated his claim. And don't forget in the early 20th century Darwinists caged black men with apes in zoos as evidence of human evolution. Just google "Ota Benga" and have a barf bag nearby. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: gutter racism must be embraced under the guise of practicing science. Darwin and all of his converts are just as racist as the KKK. The only difference is that Darwinists do not wear their dunce caps.
> >
> > Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> Seeing Burkhard hand you your ass regarding "Ota Benga" is kinda making my afternoon. Between that and Flynn being ready to sing like a canary, I'm getting a happy start on my weekend.
>

It was Darwinists who caged black men with apes in zoos. They did so as proof of human evolution. Anyone can google to confirm this crime against humanity.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Yeah, Burkhard DID Google it. Turns out it was Christian missionaries doing the caging. Did you not read that bit?

[David Canzi]

On 12/01/17 11:15, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.

We don't need to know how the Earth started rotating to know
that it rotates.

--
David Canzi | Science is the signal; religion is the noise.

[Ray Martinez]

Deliberate misrepresentation. Christian missionaries most likely brought Ota to America, but it was Darwinists who caged him with apes in a zoo to "evidence" human evolution.

Again, let it be known: If the Atheists will lie to ones face concerning an uncomplicated and easily verifiable fact----Darwinists caging black men with apes in zoos----then how much more will they lie about complicated scientific evidence? Evolution says apes morphed into Africans. But Creationism says Adamkind was created in the image of God. It's the evil racist eyes of Darwin and his converts that had to resort to their preexisting racism in order to "overturn" Genesis. When God is rejected as Creator you end up in the gutter of extreme racism. How fitting.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

I just want to see what a person with such strong convictions looks like. I live in the deep south, in the Bible Belt, and this is the first time I've encountered such strange beliefs.

I'm imagining rhinestones and a floppy hat, maybe a camouflage jacket. Maybe an earring or a mustache. Just want to know.

I mean no disrespect to Ray, I'm just a bit of a hobby sociologist. His views are different than any Christian I've met. Even the Creationist Christians I know don't claim the right of judgement over everyone, or condemn everyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

I wonder what makes him believe he alone has personal access to the mind of God. His condition is quite interesting from a psychological perspective.

[jillery]

Ota Benga is one of your many dishonest spam topics. You don't
identify who are your alleged Darwinists, and you inflate this one man
to "men". IOW your comments above are lies, something which by your
expressed standards makes you not a Christian.

[zencycle]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.

> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.

Isn't there a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza joint somewhere you should be investigating instead of posting drivel like this?

[erik simpson]

Look up Dr. Eugene Scott. He's been gone some years now, but I'm sure there are
plenty of videos. He had a substantial following as a preacher, not quite a
cult, but lots of strange interests. Ray comes from that tradition.

[RonO]

On 12/1/2017 9:01 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 18:13:13 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2017 10:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>>> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>>
>>
>> Too stupid to be a troll.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>
> I didn't know there was a minimum qualification for that position.

Just saying that this is another example where you can't parody a
creationist. They are just this lame.

Ron Okimoto

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52d1f1e6-b8aa-4e67...@googlegroups.com...

> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:

>> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where
>> > > the first and simplest life came from.
>> >

>> > Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
>> >

>> > > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>> >

>> > Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>> >

>> > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline
>> > > is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which
>> > > brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>> >

>> > Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you
>> > trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in
>> > Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are
>> > real people. They are mythic figures.
>> >
>>
>> Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White
>> supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens
>> when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in
>> order to explain the existence of mankind.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Apes and black people don't even look alike.
>

Oh, so white people are not related to apes?

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ecfbe852-481b-41d4...@googlegroups.com...

> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 18:25:03 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:

>> Apes and ALL people look VERY similar to each other. No animal looks more
>> like humans -- all humans -- than do the apes.
>
> Which doesn't have to suggest a common ancestry. A fork also looks like a
> spoon but it's not the same thing.
>

Oh, I thought they were the same thing. Good you are an expert on cutlery.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fe5fb7df-fff4-4124...@googlegroups.com...
> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 18:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:45:04 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 18:40:05 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:

>> > > But it DOES suggest a common ancestry, based on the fossil record,
>> > > and based on genomics.
>> >
>> > They never found the link between apes and humans. And again, these
>> > fossils are probably dated wrongly because there is no proof humans
>> > were around millions of years ago.
>>
>> They have found plenty of links between apes and humans.
>>
>> MODERN humans have only existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but
>> there is plenty of evidence that human ancestors have existed for
>> millions of years, including those fossils.
>
> Then why do we find more human history in the last 10,000 years compared
> to the 2-3 million years before that? Something fishy here. Don't say
> because we came up with agriculture so late, because we could have
> developed it long time ago. 3 million years is a long ass time and it's
> all backed by some wrongly dated skeletons, that's about it.
>

You familar with population statistics?

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9dafd931-98ca-4787...@googlegroups.com...
> The recorded human history doesn't get along with Evolution very well.
> With the Bible it does.
>

Just a claim without any foundation. Do you know anything about evolution at
all?

The Bible covers how many million years back in time - and evolution with
it?

[Rolf]

"J.LyonLayden" <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba1456bd-c87c-45b7...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the existence
>> of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature that they
>> arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as a general
>> rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who have no
>> bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists are
>> savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive existence
>> of supernatural causation, designed reality.
>>
>> Ray
>

> Nope. You're consistently wrong about most things. I'm sure you would call
> me a Darwinist, but I think Abraham probably was a real person. Three
> different religions at least talk about him, from different cultures and
> languages. I am also not anti-Bible, and see no conflict between the Bible
> and the Origin of Species.
>
> You, however, deny science and turn people away from God with your
> ignorance. You may have to answer for that one day.
>

Well said.

[Rolf]

"J.LyonLayden" <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b293b73e-aaa3-4411...@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 1:00:03 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:

>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:45:03 AM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > Darwinists deny the existence of Abraham. They only accept the
>> > > existence of persons mentioned or talked about in secular literature
>> > > that they arbitrarily deem to be non-mythological. In other words, as
>> > > a general rule, they only accept existence of ancient personages who
>> > > have no bearing on the truth of important biblical claims. Darwinists
>> > > are savagely anti-Bible because the Bible advocates the exclusive
>> > > existence of supernatural causation, designed reality.
>> > >
>> > > Ray
>> >
>> > Nope. You're consistently wrong about most things. I'm sure you would
>> > call me a Darwinist, but I think Abraham probably was a real person.
>> > Three different religions at least talk about him, from different
>> > cultures and languages.
>>

>> But they all derive from the same source. It all comes back to the Tanakh
>> (aka >the "Hebrew Bible", aka the Old Testament). Both Christianity's and
>> Islam's >adoption of Abram derives directly from there. So there is no
>> independent >verification here.
>
> Yes but if you read the first book (Genesis), it looks like it was copied
> from two separate and possibly conflicting texts or oral traditions.
>
> One uses "Yahweh" and the other "Elohim," which some say is plural.
>
> (acknowledgement: this may be plural due to the idea of 'I am the God of
> gods, I am all gods' seen throughout the texts).
>
> The two stories also seem to have a different order as to when animals
> appear in relationship to man. In one a pair of animals is chosen by Noah,
> in the other seven individuals from each sacred animal. It could be a
> mistranslation or misinterpretation, but some have argued that it's
> telling the story from a material and then a spiritual perspective.
>
> Either way, the story is told twice as in a comparison. And there are
> consistent differences in each story throughout.
>
> This points to a much earlier date to at least the oral tradition, and
> possibly two separate "sects" from which the story was finally written
> down.
>
> But you're right I have no proof that Abraham existed. I just don't have
> any more reason to think he's fictitious than I have to think Gilgamesh or
> the Yellow Emporer were real. Usually my investigations lead me to the
> fact that a myth is always based on SOMETHING.
>

I am not alone in seeing that the Gilgamesh myth builds on historical
events. Same for the Atlantis myth. People who need the Bible to be the
ulitmate truth wrt middle East history create their own truths.

>
>>
>> > I am also not anti-Bible, and see no conflict between the Bible and the
>> > Origin of Species.
>> >
>> > You, however, deny science and turn people away from God with your
>> > ignorance. You may have to answer for that one day.
>>

>> Amen to that.
>
>

[Rolf]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:ovs4uu$ekm$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 12/1/2017 9:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the

>> first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in
>> the supernatural.

>> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is
>> wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings
>> everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>
>

> Nobody really believes in evolution. It's just mental masturbation to kill
> time which would be better spent communing with God.
>

I thought I'd killfiled you.

You are amont the most ignorant ever on this site, with nothing to say but
doing it anyway.

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:046500e4-075a-43a2...@googlegroups.com...

Easy now, or Ray will be back with proof that the KKK is not Christian.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d8d9a75-3732-4ade...@googlegroups.com...

Nonsense.

Human evolution insults idiocy.
Honest and objective people knows that.
Creationism is gutter religion.

> Ray
>

[Alpha Beta]

There is no evolution. It's all bollocks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:15:34 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.

Nope. You've been told the scope of evolution, and it
doesn't extend to abiogenesis. In fact, it doesn't even
*require* abiogenesis, only that life exist, even if it was
"poofed" into existence by a deity. The origin of life is
simply irrelevant to evolution.

But you're apparently too stupid to understand that, and
will continue to post strawmen like the above.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:08:40 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:

>> > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
>> >

>> > Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
>> >

>> > > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>> >

>> > Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>> >

>> > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>> >

>> > Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
>> >
>>
>> Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
>>
>> Ray
>
>Apes and black people don't even look alike.

Nope. Maybe Ray will listen to a fellow Creationist, even
one as dense as yourself, who conflates evolution and
abiogenesis (or Special Creation; it's irrelevant to
evolution).

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
>>
>> Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
>>
>> > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>>
>> Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>>
>> > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>
>> Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
>>
>
>Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people.

No, Ray, he's saying, correctly, that we *all* came from
Africa. Stop lying; God doesn't *like* the bearers of false
witness.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:10:07 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:40:03 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
>>
>> Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
>>
>> > Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>>
>> Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>>
>> > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>
>> Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
>

>The "out of Africa" theory has been proven wrong.

Your existence has been proven wrong. Chew on that.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:53:35 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 12/1/2017 9:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.

>> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>
>

>Nobody really believes in evolution.

Nope. "Belief in" evolution would make it a religion;
evolution has massive amounts of evidence, precluding a need
for "belief".

Feel free to ignore this, as you ignore all refutations of
your assertions.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:31:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Africans aren't the cradle of humanity. That would be Babylon.

Nope; sorry. Uruk (and others) existed long before Babylon:

https://www.ancient.eu/city/

And BTW, that would be "Africa", not "Africans"; people
aren't cradles. Still wrong, but grammatical.

But babble on...

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-8, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:55:03 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:35:02 PM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:20:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 4:15:02 PM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > > > > On 12/1/2017 10:15 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > > > > If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from. Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> > > > > > Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Too stupid to be a troll.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Okimoto
> > > >
> > > > Human evolution insults intelligence. It's only pushed because Atheists have no choice but to believe in. Honest and objective people know that apes morphing into Africans is not only impossible but gutter racism.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > >
> > > Wow! Will you please post a picture of yourself?
> >
> > I would be genuinely gobsmacked if you got a positive response to that request. Also, where are you going with this?
>
> I just want to see what a person with such strong convictions looks like. I live in the deep south, in the Bible Belt, and this is the first time I've encountered such strange beliefs.
>
> I'm imagining rhinestones and a floppy hat, maybe a camouflage jacket. Maybe an earring or a mustache. Just want to know.
>
> I mean no disrespect to Ray,

None taken. I imagined you correctly; deep South hillbilly type, refuses to think for himself, accepting evolution because you're told to do so by media and culture.

> I'm just a bit of a hobby sociologist. His views are different than any Christian I've met. Even the Creationist Christians I know don't claim the right of judgement over everyone, or condemn everyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.
>

The type and degree of misrepresentation seen indicates deep anger caused by the inability to address or refute what I actually say and argue.

> I wonder what makes him believe he alone has personal access to the mind of God. His condition is quite interesting from a psychological perspective.
>

Perhaps you should conduct a search of the Bible and discover how many times it says "God said...." or "The Lord said...." or some other synonymous phraseology.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

No I'm not angry I'm just curious. I'm actually fascinated by something I read about you on the rationalwiki. Can you tell me about the migration of eels and Atlantis? I will not make fun of it.

Simpson and Harshman probably got a good laugh if they read what you wrote about me accepting evolution because I can't think for myself. Some people on this forum think my ideas about evolution are pretty nutty too. But I won't waste time trying to convince you of anything.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Dec 02, J.LyonLayden wrote
(in article<816a18ef-4106-4baa...@googlegroups.com>):

> No I'm not angry I'm just curious. I'm actually fascinated by something I
> read about you on the rationalwiki. Can you tell me about the migration of
> eels and Atlantis? I will not make fun of it.

That’s okay. I will.

[Burkhard]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:

>>>>> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:

>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:

>>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>>>>>>> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>
>>>>> Apes and black people don't even look alike.
>>>>

>>>> Created human beings know that but Darwinian evolutionary claims say otherwise: human evolution began in Africa; hence long ago apes morphed into black people.
>>>
>>> Ray, you've been corrected twice at this point. That makes this a very intentional lie.
>>>
>>
>> No one expects you to admit the fact that apes morphing into Africans is not science but gutter racism. We know Atheists like yourself will always maintain human evolution to be valid science. But honest and objective people know that apes morphing into Africans is gutter racism, not science.
>>
>>> Which makes you a bad Christian.
>>
>> Sean says I'm a bad Christian for opposing the pro-Atheism explanation of the origin of human beings, imagine that! Christians are supposed to oppose the Atheist explanation of human beings, and advocate the biblical explanation of design implying creation. At any rate, Sean is shown confused, forgetting the fact that Christians don't accept the Atheist explanation of human beings rooted in gutter racism: apes resembling Africans. The Bible says God created man in His image. Atheist "science" says man evolved from the image of an ape.
>>
>>> I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether you're Hell-bound (that's none of my business), but definitely a bad Christian.
>>>
>>> Human evolution DID begin in Africa (at least in all likelihood -- JLL I don't need to debate this to be happy), but the first people were not "black," and ALL people in the world are EQUALLY descended from that same ancestry. Black people are no more nor less related to apes than ANYONE ELSE in the world. Science knows this, evolutionists know this, everyone on this board knows this. That you continue to pretend otherwise to libel against our good names is an egregious act of false witness.
>>>
>>>> Darwin fought hard for human evolution to have begun in Africa. His successors have validated his claim. And don't forget in the early 20th century Darwinists caged black men with apes in zoos as evidence of human evolution. Just google "Ota Benga" and have a barf bag nearby. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: gutter racism must be embraced under the guise of practicing science. Darwin and all of his converts are just as racist as the KKK. The only difference is that Darwinists do not wear their dunce caps.
>>>>
>>>> Ray (species immutabilist)
>>>
>>> Seeing Burkhard hand you your ass regarding "Ota Benga" is kinda making my afternoon. Between that and Flynn being ready to sing like a canary, I'm getting a happy start on my weekend.
>>>
>>
>> It was Darwinists who caged black men with apes in zoos. They did so as proof of human evolution. Anyone can google to confirm this crime against humanity.
>>
>> Ray
>

> Ray, can you tell me which Christian leader made the following quotes?

Oh, Ray knows that, he just doesn't think that Catholics a true
Christians (TM Martinez)

>
>
> This world famous preacher said ....
>
> "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."
>
> (He) also expressed in the same statement the view that scientific explanations such as the Big Bang and evolution in fact require God's creation:
>
> "[God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. ...The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve."
>
> Ok your turn, tell me who said it and why you think he's wrong.
>

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 5:30:03 PM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:05:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> >>>>> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 17:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Martinez:
> >>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:

> >>>>>>>> If you believe in Evolution then you should be able to answer where the first and simplest life came from.
> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Nope. That's a separate issue from evolution.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hint: You can't without a belief in the supernatural.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure I can. There are lots of possible naturalistic explanations:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Moreover, where do Jews and Arabs came from if the Biblical timeline is wrong? They came from Abraham, who is a descendant of Noah, which brings everything back to Adam and Eve. All real people.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jews and Arabs came from earlier Middle Eastern people, who can, if you trace back far enough, trace their ancestry back to the first humans in Africa. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham, Noah, Adam or Eve are real people. They are mythic figures.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here we have an Atheist saying apes morphed into black people. White supremacists have glee on their faces right now. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one must resort to gutter racism in order to explain the existence of mankind.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ray
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apes and black people don't even look alike.
> >>>>
> >>>> Created human beings know that but Darwinian evolutionary claims say otherwise: human evolution began in Africa; hence long ago apes morphed into black people.
> >>>
> >>> Ray, you've been corrected twice at this point. That makes this a very intentional lie.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No one expects you to admit the fact that apes morphing into Africans is not science but gutter racism. We know Atheists like yourself will always maintain human evolution to be valid science. But honest and objective people know that apes morphing into Africans is gutter racism, not science.
> >>
> >>> Which makes you a bad Christian.
> >>
> >> Sean says I'm a bad Christian for opposing the pro-Atheism explanation of the origin of human beings, imagine that! Christians are supposed to oppose the Atheist explanation of human beings, and advocate the biblical explanation of design implying creation. At any rate, Sean is shown confused, forgetting the fact that Christians don't accept the Atheist explanation of human beings rooted in gutter racism: apes resembling Africans. The Bible says God created man in His image. Atheist "science" says man evolved from the image of an ape.
> >>
> >>> I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether you're Hell-bound (that's none of my business), but definitely a bad Christian.
> >>>
> >>> Human evolution DID begin in Africa (at least in all likelihood -- JLL I don't need to debate this to be happy), but the first people were not "black," and ALL people in the world are EQUALLY descended from that same ancestry. Black people are no more nor less related to apes than ANYONE ELSE in the world. Science knows this, evolutionists know this, everyone on this board knows this. That you continue to pretend otherwise to libel against our good names is an egregious act of false witness.
> >>>
> >>>> Darwin fought hard for human evolution to have begun in Africa. His successors have validated his claim. And don't forget in the early 20th century Darwinists caged black men with apes in zoos as evidence of human evolution. Just google "Ota Benga" and have a barf bag nearby. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: gutter racism must be embraced under the guise of practicing science. Darwin and all of his converts are just as racist as the KKK. The only difference is that Darwinists do not wear their dunce caps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ray (species immutabilist)
> >>>
> >>> Seeing Burkhard hand you your ass regarding "Ota Benga" is kinda making my afternoon. Between that and Flynn being ready to sing like a canary, I'm getting a happy start on my weekend.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It was Darwinists who caged black men with apes in zoos. They did so as proof of human evolution. Anyone can google to confirm this crime against humanity.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > Ray, can you tell me which Christian leader made the following quotes?
>
> Oh, Ray knows that, he just doesn't think that Catholics a true
> Christians (TM Martinez)
>

You totally sabotaged me. Now I have to delete the reply before he gets back from church, and search the internet for a different quote by someone else.

[Ray Martinez]

Did you know that some professional poker players on occasion do not look at the cards they are dealt? The reason they do that sometimes is because they are confident that they can read the faces of their opponents no matter how hard they try to maintain a poker face.

I assure you that I haven't googled the quote to find out the name of the author because it doesn't matter: they are shown ignorant and confused. Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive antonyms. This is a 101 fact.

I'm going to take a wild guess as who the author? C.S. Lewis? Billy Graham?

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

No.Do you not like those two? I have no opinion of Billy Graham but I love C.S. Lewis.

[J.LyonLayden]

What makes you think this? Where does it say this in the Bible?

[Ray Martinez]

Rational Wiki is a Christian-Creationist slander site. They deliberately misquote and misportray.

Ray