Creationism, taken to its logical extreme, negates the existence of Jesus Christ.

The start of humanity can't be known or recorded so accurately anyway. That's like saying you should know the exact time and date of your birth by remembering it and recording it yourself. But you can't because you're born as baby who doesn't even begin to understand or comprehend the outside world for some time to come. The reason you know your Date and Time of Birth is because others were present to record that for you. By the time you grow up and can even comprehend such a question let alone possibly record it as a reference for future people there is a huge gap in time that you lost already. So if you're talking the First Human, who would be there to note the time and date other than that first human which is not capable of recording such info??

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: john666

As far as the Earth is concerned, I believe it is not older than few thousand years.

But WHY do you believe that?

It's pretty much evident that it is way old. Billions of our "years" old.
Still waiting for your explanation of Young Earth, no Jesus, no Pagans....
still not adding up.

Sorry to seem "dense".

Have you heard about a guy called Anatoly Fomenko?

??? The nutjob who thinks that the Trojan War was the same thing as the Crusades, and that Jesus died in the 12th Century? That guy???

You got it.
Can i ask you something personal?

Ask away please. Depends what it is though.

Do you know the names and the surnames, of the majority of your ancestors, from now to about 400 years in the past?

I can date my family back to the Kingdom of Gwynedd. My wife has dated her family back to Ireland and the Wars of the 1640s. So yes, we do.

Two things.
First of all, the majority of people around the world, does not know their ancestors even as far back as the 19th century.

Second, you know virtually nothing about the daily lives of the great majority of your ancestors, or do you?

Well actually I have a degree in history, so yes, I know quite a bit about the day to day life of my ancestors. Studying history will do that.

When i was speaking about their daily lives, I was speaking about intimate details about their lives, the likes you have about your wife, or your best friend, or you parent, child...

And you don't not have that knowledge about your ancestors, just like I don't have that knowledge about my ancestors.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: john666
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

I am a radical skeptic.
Some would say that I am skeptical to the point of absolute paranoia.
I don't believe that any of the history before the 16th century is even remotely real.

In another words, I don't believe in historical Jesus, Abraham, Cesar, Alexander...
I also don't believe in neither mainstream or alternative histories about any of the religions.
I don't believe that any of the religions are older than few hundred years.

That is the power in FREE WILL, you are allowed to adjust your awareness level best to suit your experiences and as more is experienced your WILL adjust. 1 must ask do you feel the ancient builds here now globally and data from Ancient Sumer are irrelevant or also 16th century in builds?

I don't know much about Ancient Sumer, as for the ancient buildings, I don't think that they are ancient.
Let's look just at the Sphinx.
According to the conventional dating the Sphinx is several thousand years old.
But if you take into account weathering, how could that be?
We know that statues of relatively modern historical figures, are very much damaged by weather if they are older, than let's say 100 years.
Maybe the best example of damage done by weather is the Statue of Liberty; www.accuweather.com...

But it rains a lot in New York. It doesn't rain that much in Cairo, so your point is a moot one.

My point is not moot.
The Sphinx shows strong evidence of water erosion; www.grahamhancock.com...

a reply to: john666

*raises hand*

Yes, I do!!

On my mother's side - as far back as the late 1500s, when parishes (in England) started keeping records under Eliz The First.

originally posted by: mOjOm
The start of humanity can't be known or recorded so accurately anyway. That's like saying you should know the exact time and date of your birth by remembering it and recording it yourself. But you can't because you're born as baby who doesn't even begin to understand or comprehend the outside world for some time to come. The reason you know your Date and Time of Birth is because others were present to record that for you. By the time you grow up and can even comprehend such a question let alone possibly record it as a reference for future people there is a huge gap in time that you lost already. So if you're talking the First Human, who would be there to note the time and date other than that first human which is not capable of recording such info??

There could not have been any such thing as a First Human, because First Human cannot procreate with itself.
I am not speaking about Adam and Eve either, because if there was only 1 MEN and 1 WOMEN, that would mean that mankind gained numbers by incest, but that is not possible because by the third generation of incest children, the whole family becomes infertile(that is if they survive the genetic defects).

AT THE BEGINNING, there must have been probably several hundred males and females.
And just as these first humans became parents, we can not exclude the possibility, that they too had a "parent".
But if they had a "parent"(and I think they did), then "the parent", by definition, wasn't human.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: john666

*raises hand*

Yes, I do!!

On my mother's side - as far back as the late 1500s, when parishes (in England) started keeping records under Eliz The First.

I am proud of you girl!

But my point is that we know almost nothing about the real daily lives of our ancestors, and the events that shaped them into human beings that they were.

a reply to: john666

But my point is that we know almost nothing about the real daily lives of our ancestors, and the events that shaped them into human beings that they were.

Well,
yeah. We do.

I studied it and actually DO know about it.

a reply to: john666

Whether it was just one first human or many doesn't matter. Just the fact that you have a Start of Human at some point, my question is who was there to record such an event??? Not even the first People would be able to know fur sure when their own birth happened. So who else would record it for them???

Also, humanity could be almost wiped out and have to rebuild and that would easily account for why we don't know about our origins. Not everyone that would survive would possess such knowledge, if it even existed at all anyway let alone recorded. As civilizations rise and fall information is gained and lost. Even within our own history we've lost some knowledge at certain point that we've either had to discover again or simply lost and may never get back. The idea that our origin would be remembered and passed down until know is almost unimaginable.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: john666

But my point is that we know almost nothing about the real daily lives of our ancestors, and the events that shaped them into human beings that they were.

Well,
yeah. We do.

I studied it and actually DO know about it.

Tell me something about your grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandmother from your grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandmother side.

a reply to: john666

I don't think this is the place or time to do so.

If you'd like, you can PM me.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: john666

Whether it was just one first human or many doesn't matter. Just the fact that you have a Start of Human at some point, my question is who was there to record such an event??? Not even the first People would be able to know fur sure when their own birth happened. So who else would record it for them???

Also, humanity could be almost wiped out and have to rebuild and that would easily account for why we don't know about our origins. Not everyone that would survive would possess such knowledge, if it even existed at all anyway let alone recorded. As civilizations rise and fall information is gained and lost. Even within our own history we've lost some knowledge at certain point that we've either had to discover again or simply lost and may never get back. The idea that our origin would be remembered and passed down until know is almost unimaginable.

First humans would have had some non-human being, that took care of them, otherwise they would not have survived infancy.
And there is no reason to believe that their caretaker would not have told them, about the way they came into the world.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: john666

I don't think this is the place or time to do so.

If you'dl ike, you can PM me.

I would like to PM you, but not about your grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandmother.

a reply to: john666

There's nothing to say their caretaker would have told them about their coming into the world either. You assume that they would pass that info on but nothing says that is so. They could have also died before they had a chance to relay that info and so the info was lost forever even if we assume it had been noted in the first place.

Plus there is still the problem that such information, assumed to have been recorded, could easily have been lost or destroyed leaving us without the ability to know it of discover it from then on.

a reply to: john666

So much for my Ollantaytambo thread being the worst people
have ever read. This is pure ignorance.

a reply to: randyvs

Hey, at least yours is still going strong!

This one, though....makes no sense to me.

a reply to: john666

When i was speaking about their daily lives, I was speaking about intimate details about their lives, the likes you have about your wife, or your best friend, or you parent, child...

There are diaries that talk about it. Heard of Samuel Pepys?
(Or...Shakespeare?) We know a LOT about the 16th century politics and religion.

Also, there are transcripts from court cases.....(my own ancestors had a pretty high-profile case sort of a thing).
Maybe you ought to look into primary sources.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

how should your death be profound?....

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: john666

When i was speaking about their daily lives, I was speaking about intimate details about their lives, the likes you have about your wife, or your best friend, or you parent, child...

There are diaries that talk about it. Heard of Samuel Pepys?
(Or...Shakespeare?) We know a LOT about the 16th century politics and religion.

Also, there are transcripts from court cases.....(my own ancestors had a pretty high-profile case sort of a thing).
Maybe you ought to look into primary sources.

Plus Minoan B records, Akkadian, Latin records, Greek records... the list is endless. Saying that the Trojan war was in fact the Crusades is utter lunacy. We have records of the Crusades. They didn't attack a small hill by the Dardenelles.

a reply to: john666

another stupid theory.

What christians like you and hardcore moslems have in common: you take words literally that are already distorted through thousands of years, interpretations and wrong translations...


The truth always is: This and That...not This OR That..

a reply to: john666

Text There could not have been any such thing as a First Human, because First Human cannot procreate with itself. I am not speaking about Adam and Eve either, because if there was only 1 MEN and 1 WOMEN, that would mean that mankind gained numbers by incest, but that is not possible because by the third generation of incest children, the whole family becomes infertile(that is if they survive the genetic defects).

If that is the case then look at Darwin and his monkey man or woman. Whichever. They had a lot more hills to climb than Adam did. Not only did the monkey guy have a accidental gene split but then must have had another split to get one male and one female to even get a start. Adam at least had a surgeon and got the job done all at one time but the poor monkey people had those thousands of years of getting rid of their monkey clothes just to get where we are today.

I find it much easier to believe the myth about Jesus and Adam then the really far fetched myth about science and their monkey men. I guess it all depends upon which bunch you want to believe. By the way this great science bunch tells the story that the universe is still getting bigger. I wonder what space it is growing into? But I was told that Science (whatever that is) has proof of their myths or is that just another myth?