[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

I'm just asking you for a testable definition of "human" so that I can answer the question.

I beg your pardon,

No offense taken. Just answer the question. I notice that you can't even tell me if a non-lion ever gave birth to a lion. If you don't know that, how can you hope to know about humans?

"Human" has a scientific meaning, which may or may not be the same meaning to people otherwise. I'm just asking you for a testable definition of "human" so that I can answer the question. If you're uncomfortable with defining the term, then that's another issue.

Do you consider any member of the genus Homo to be human? Specifically, is H. erectus human? How about H. neanderthalis or H. heidelbergensis? H. antecessor? For each, why or why not? If you don't think all members of Homo are human, then the evidence shows that humans evolved from non-humans. Why is it so hard to answer a simple question?

The problem is that it's just about impossible to distinguish between late H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens. So you need to clarify what you mean by "human." If on the other hand, you think all members of Homo are human (you'd be correct to think so), then give us a testable way to distinguish Homo from other hominids in the fossil record.

Paul E. Michael: <NO ANSWER. INSTEAD, MERELY POMPOUS, VACUOUS, CREATIONIST SPEAK SONG AND DANCE.>

Which is what we expect from most creatiionists. You can't answer the questions because:
1. You can't give a testable definition of "human."
2. You're aware that speciation is a gradual process, as the fossil record shows. Even though most creationists have now admitted the fact of new species evolving, they are afraid of admitting how it works.

At present, it appears that you think other species of Homo are not "human." That being so, fossil evidence shows anatomically modern humans descended from earlier species of homo which shows that our species did indeed evolve from other hominids. No anatomically modern human suddenly was born, fully evolved, to a non-human. Just like the lions, one lineage of non-humans changed over time, resulting in anatomically modern humans.

You declined to tell me whether or not a non-lion ever gave birth to a lion. For reasons we all understand. Even though creationists admit that all cats have a common ancestor, a non-lion never gave birth to a modern lion. It's a gradual process, as even many creationists admit.

 

[Barbarian]

And, what I mean by the word "non-human" is anything that is not a human.

You're telling us that whatever is not a human, is not a human. That's the best you can do? If you don't know what a human is, how would you even know what a non-human is?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I'm just asking you for a testable definition of "human" so that I can answer the question.

Sorry sir, but it really does not appear that you are actually asking any question. Rather, it appears that you've merely strung together some Darwinistspeak in a cognitively meaningless way, stuck a question mark onto it, and are miscalling it a "question".

For one thing, I can't even tell whether you're trying to ask me for a definition of the word, 'human', or instead, you're trying to ask me for a definition of a human. Two different things, you know. The word, 'human', isn't a human. Right? (Of course, you insist that words mean things -- something I, for one, say only humans and other persons do -- so, perhaps you do think the word, 'human', is a human?) And no human is the word, 'human'. Wouldn't you agree?

And, your word, "definition": when you say "Gimme a definition of XYZ," are you requesting me to state a proposition about XYZ? I mean, to define XYZ is to state some proposition about XYZ, is it not? At the very least, defining is stating some proposition, no?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You're telling us that whatever is not a human, is not a human.

That's true: Whatever is not a human is not a human. Do you agree that whatever is not a human is not a human? Yes or No?

And, no human is a non-human. Do you agree that no human is a non-human? Yes or No?

And, no non-human is a human. Do you agree that no non-human is a human? Yes or No?

That's the best you can do?

The best at what?

If you don't know what a human is,

Who says I don't know what a human is? I just got done telling you that I know that a human is something that is not a non-human. Do you not know that a human is something that is not a non-human?

how would you even know what a non-human is?

Why, it's very easy to know what a non-human is, thanks to logic. I can know what a non-human is by knowing that a non-human is a non-human. Do you know that a non-human is a non-human? Yes or No?

Knowing what XYZ is is knowing one or more propositions about XYZ. Wouldn't you agree with that?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Do you consider any member of the genus Homo to be human? Specifically, is H. erectus human? How about H. neanderthalis or H. heidelbergensis? H. antecessor? For each, why or why not?

With all due respect, I don't consider you to be speaking in a cognitively meaningful way in all that verbiage you're stringing together; as I might have said before, with all due respect, it appears that you're merely blowing smoke in my face out of some self-consolatory impulse. What you've got going on appears to be nothing more than a silly, Darwinistspeak language game you've accustomed yourself to trying to play against Bible-believers, and anyone else who speaks truth that rubs you the wrong way. Forgive me, but some people (myself included) just are not impressed or awed by such displays.

"Specifically, is H. erectus human?"

Are you even referring to anything by your phrase, "H. erectus"? To some person, place, or other thing? See, I don't assume that you are referring to anyone or anything by that phrase. For my part, just like the phrases "Luke Skywalker", "Pippi Longstocking", "the planet Niburu", "The Amazing Spider Man", "Karma", "Om Sri Maitreya", and many others, "H. erectus" is not a phrase I use, or plan to ever use, to refer to any person(s), place(s), or other thing(s). So much of the stuff you write (and seem kinda proud of yourself for being able to write it) -- including what you (IMO, asininely) misterm as "questions" -- is of the same stuff as things like "Who is stronger: Superman or Hulk?"

 

[KV-44-v1]

Sorry sir, but it really does not appear that you are actually asking any question. Rather, it appears that you've merely strung together some Darwinistspeak in a cognitively meaningless way, stuck a question mark onto it, and are miscalling it a "question".

For one thing, I can't even tell whether you're trying to ask me for a definition of the word, 'human', or instead, you're trying to ask me for a definition of a human. Two different things, you know. The word, 'human', isn't a human. Right? (Of course, you insist that words mean things -- something I, for one, say only humans and other persons do -- so, perhaps you do think the word, 'human', is a human?) And no human is the word, 'human'. Wouldn't you agree?

And, your word, "definition": when you say "Gimme a definition of XYZ," are you requesting me to state a proposition about XYZ? I mean, to define XYZ is to state some proposition about XYZ, is it not? At the very least, defining is stating some proposition, no?

Also, at one point, Barb insisted that humans and monkeys are too "evolved" in their own ways for one to

1. come from a common ancestor
2. have evolved from either one.

So, since he is asking for testable def. of human, how does **he** know that that big tenet of mainstream Evolution (monke into man) is false??
That tenet is peddled by so many evolution believers.

But YEC can know it is false, because they stand on the BIBLE.
even science also proves,, that one kind cannot give rise to another. Hippoes cannot birth pre-whales, etc., monkeys cannot birth to pre-humans or pre-non-monkeys.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Since I accept God's word as it is, I realize the flood wasn't global,

Naw, that's me. Except for the typo. I ---'d the typo.

6 Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth. 7 Then Noah and his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives with him entered the ark because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that crawls on the ground,

Prove the Bible wrong. I'm waiting.
Prove the Flood to be local in spite of the Bible.

 

[KV-44-v1]

We see that process producing anatomically modern humans as well. A gradual process, with early humans becoming more and more like anatomically modern humans.

and they were all from adam n eve.
all made in God's Image.
all having existed for >6,200 years.

 

[Barbarian]

Was Jesus crucified? Yes or No?

Yes. It wasn't just a body on the cross.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It wasn't just a body on the cross.

What do you mean by that, exactly? To what proposition is your saying that intended to be a response? Has anyone here said Jesus was/is "just a body"?

The fact is, Jesus was/is a body -- Jesus was/is His Body. Which truth is contradictory against the falsehood you had affirmed:

You aren't your body.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm just asking you for a testable definition of "human" so that I can answer the question. If you can't even define what you think a human is, how do you expect to have a conversation about them?

Sorry sir, but it really does not appear that you are actually asking any question.

I'm asking you to tell me what you think a human is, so that I have a way to answer your question. Until you figure out what you think a human is, relative to "non-human", you have no way of getting that answered.

it appears that you're merely blowing smoke in my face out of some self-consolatory impulse. What you've got going on appears to be nothing more than a silly, Darwinistspeak language game you've accustomed yourself to trying to play against Bible-believers, and anyone else who speaks truth that rubs you the wrong way. Forgive me, but some people (myself included) just are not impressed or awed by such displays.

Wouldn't it just be easier to tell us what you think a human is, as opposed to other hominids, rather than tossing that kind of word salad together.

If you're unable to even say if H. erectus is human, how would you even know if you found the answer? If I was suspicious, I'd say you were just trying to dodge the issue by demanding that a clearly "non-human" hominid suddenly produce a "human" hominid. Which, as you know ( the lions, remember) is not how evolution works.

"Specifically, is H. erectus human?"

Yes. H. erectus is a species of hominid, which is almost identical to anatomically modern humans below the neck. Later fossils of H. erectus are just about impossible to distinguish from very early fossils of H. sapiens. You can't even tell us if H. neanderthalis is a "human", even though many biologists now classify them as a subspecies of H. sapiens.

"H. erectus" is not a phrase I use, or plan to ever use, to refer to any person(s), place(s), or other thing(s).

If not, you really have no hope of understanding how anatomically modern humans came to be. You might know that many creationists consider H. neanderthalis to be "human" and descendants of Adam and Eve. I agree with them, based on the fact that early neanderthals looked a lot more like we do than later ones. I think Denisovans are also "human" in the sense you seem to use. Turns out neanderthal and Denisovan genes are found in many human populations around the world. Neanderthals most commonly in Europeans.

So much of the stuff you write (and seem kinda proud of yourself for being able to write it) -- including what you (IMO, asininely) misterm as "questions" -- is of the same stuff as things like "Who is stronger: Superman or Hulk?"

The difference is, there actually were H. erectus and neanderthals and Denisovans. Their genes still exist in humans today. Reality matters, even if it might not seem so, to many creationists.

 

[Barbarian]

Also, at one point, Barb insisted that humans and monkeys are too "evolved" in their own ways for one to

1. come from a common ancestor
2. have evolved from either one.

No. Never said that they couldn't have come from a common ancestor. As you know, the evidence shows that all living things on Earth (so far as we've found) have a common ancestor. Genetic and biochemical data make this clear. Darwin suggested that there might have been a number of early life forms created by God, because he did not have the genetic and biochemical data to know that was false. Go back and take a look. Your imagination got you this time.

And of course, monkeys and humans have all sorts of apomorphic traits that show neither of them could be the ancestor of the other.

So, since he is asking for testable def. of human, how does **he** know that that big tenet of mainstream Evolution (monke into man) is false??
That tenet is peddled by so many evolution believers.

This is another example of you letting imagination mislead you. Evolutionary theory does not say humans evolved from monkeys. Apes are a separate group of primates. The ancestors of modern monkeys and apes diverged from a common primate ancestor long before there were actual monkeys and apes.

Prove the Bible wrong.

The Bible is right. You're wrong.

I'm waiting.
Prove the Flood to be local in spite of the Bible.

The Bible is needed to show it was regional. Remember the difference between "land" and "the whole world." That's what the Bible says.

Why not just accept it as God says it happened? If you do that, all your difficulties go away.

 

[Barbarian]

You're telling us that whatever is not a human, is not a human.

That's true

And merely repeating your belief. Because you don't know what a "human", you can't define it.

Do you agree that no human is a non-human?

Do I believe tautologies are true? Manifestly so. But as you now see, they define nothing. Because you don't know what a human is, you can't produce a testable definition of one.

Who says I don't know what a human is?

You do. When you are repeatedly asked to define what a human is, and fail to do so, that's what you've told us. A bit over a hundred years ago, many creationists assumed that black people were not human. They couldn't define the difference either, but they were very sure they knew they were right.

Louis Agassiz and Polygenism · "This Abominable Traffic" : Physicians on Slavery · OnView

A portal to the Center for the History of Medicine's digital collections and online exhibitions.

collections.countway.harvard.edu

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you can't even define

If you can't even answer questions you've been asked about your (it appears, cognitively meaningless) use of your word, "define"...

And, your word, "definition": when you say "Gimme a definition of XYZ," are you requesting me to state a proposition about XYZ? [Yes or No?]

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

I mean, to define XYZ is to state some proposition about XYZ, is it not?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

At the very least, defining is stating some proposition, no?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>
You can't even answer questions you are asked as to exactly what (if anything) you are requesting people to do when you say to them "Define XYZ/Give me a definition of XYZ," yet you just keep sitting there meaninglessly chanting "Give me a definition of XYZ." How will anyone ever know what (if anything) you are requesting them to do when you say "define", if you can't even answer the questions they ask you as to what (if anything) you are requesting them to do when you say "define"?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Darwin suggested

(by his own practice, at least) that he disagreed with the fact that

incest isn't just immoral. Like most things God prohibits, it leads to unhappiness and pain. Genetically, humans just can't do it for generations without severe consequences.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You're telling us that whatever is not a human, is not a human.

Yes, and that's at least the second time you have complained about me stating that fact. I take your complaining as an advertisement that you reject, and are willing to war against the fact that whatever is not a human is not a human. I even expressly asked you whether or not you agree with that fact:

Whatever is not a human is not a human. Do you agree that whatever is not a human is not a human? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

I take your stonewalling against that question as an advertisement that you reject, and are willing to war against the fact that whatever is not a human is not a human.

You thereby advertise your stubborn commitment to you're war against truth and logic. By your willingness to oppose the tautology, 'Whatever is not a human is not a human,' you have once again put on shameful display the uselessness and self-defeat of your Darwinistspeak language game against plain old truth and logic.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

they were very sure they knew they were right.

Are you very sure you are right in your opposition against the fact that whatever is human is human? (Sadly, you're by a long shot not the only Darwinist I've met who wars against the laws of logic, and who thus despises tautology, vainly imagining it is something to laugh at, and not take seriously.)

 

[Barbarian]

Are you very sure you are right in your opposition against the fact that whatever is human is human?

You're just making up stories now. I'm merely chiding you for presenting a tautology as a definition. C'mon.

I understand why you're trying to hard to avoid the question. Creationists struggle against being forced to define terms, because that means they can't change definitions as their arguments fail.

And you're annoyed that I'm not giving you that dodge. Sorry.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

there actually were H. erectus

What you wrote, there, is a fine example of the cognitively meaningless nature of most Darwinistspeak. Not only are you therein failing to express or affirm any truth, but what you are doing therein does not even rise to the level of expressing or affirming falsehood. You are not predicating anything about anything.
Not only are you using your phrase, "H. Erectus", referentlessly (exactly the same as people do with phases like "Hulk" and "Superman", when they say things like "Hulk could kill Superman any day!") but you are presenting neither any subject, nor any predicate.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I'm merely chiding you for presenting a tautology as a definition. C'mon.

You've been telling me you are using your words, "definition" and "define", in a merely cognitively meaningless way -- that's what even now you're still admitting to me by your failure to answer the questions I've been asking you about your use of those words.

For my part, since I know that to define is to state something about something, I know that to tautologize is to define.