[_ Old Earth _] Why are there no accounts

[Heidi]

I would like to ask evolutionists; why are there no accounts of... let me see Hm ...ape men, no humans..no monkey men...well I guess it depends on the individual imagination what those creatures were, but I'll use the term half-man half beasts, from anyone in history? :gah

After all, these creatures supposedly lived for thousands of years, no hundreds of thousands of years, no millions of years...I guess that's left up to the imagination as well. At any rate they supposedly lived for a much longer time than "modern day" humans have lived on the earth. So why are there no accounts of these creatures? :dunno

One would think that the first speaking people would have had marvelous stories about their partly human ancestors, at least their non-speaking parents, and how they kept changing into people..you know, club wars, :fight grunts and groans to express themselves. So why are there exactly zero accounts of people who have supposed occupied the earth far longer than anyone else? Maybe they were ashamed that their ancestors couldn't speak. 2 What do you think?

 

[Sparkey]

Heidi,

Be careful what you ask for. The word you were searching for is, "Hominidae" or "Hominids". Not "ape-men". Do an internet search and you'll have your question answered. I don't believe that man knows better than the Bible but you can find out more about their "theory" if you want.

I know you addressed your question to evolutionists BUT --> please be careful here. Please don't believe that I am an evolutionist and do not falsely accuse me. I do believe that every Word in the bible is given by the Holy Spirit and is 100% true. I don't want to side-track your thread into my belief about the bible being literal and true but I mention this to show that I am not an evolutionist. The way I say it in "Science" threads is simply this, "God is not a liar." Seldom (if ever) does anyone wish to argue with me when I state my belief that clearly.

Still, I do like answering questions as I am able. As far as the "why" of your question we must consider (not as proof but as clever necessity) that "history" is defined as "recorded history". This means that we can not have any "account" of people who can not speak nor write because they have no method of giving any such account.

The bible is NOT wrong though. Adam and Eve did exist and Moshe (Moses) didn't lie when the Holy Spirit used him to write about the beginning (Genesis). I know you know this too but I do like saying it. Something sweet and good about having my voice and words counted amongst those of the Saints of God. I note the same of you as well. Please feel free to correct me if I didn't say this well.

Your brother in Christ,
~Sparrow

 

[Heidi]

Heidi,

Be careful what you ask for. The word you were searching for is, "Hominidae" or "Hominids". Not "ape-men". Do an internet search and you'll have your question answered. I don't believe that man knows better than the Bible but you can find out more about their "theory" if you want.

BUT --> Be careful there. Please don't believe that I am an evolutionist and do not falsely accuse me. I do believe that every Word in the bible is given by the Holy Spirit and is 100% true. I don't want to side-track your thread into my belief about the bible being literal and true but I mention this to show that I am not an evolutionist.

Still, I do like answering questions as I am able. As far as the "why" of your question we must consider (not as proof but as clever necessity) that "history" is defined as "recorded history". This means that we can not have any "account" of people who can not speak nor write because they have no method of giving any such account.

Your brother in Christ,
~Sparrow

First of all, I said the first Speaking tribes. Many cultures passed along oral history without knowing how to write. And considering that the secular world says that these made-up creatures were supposed have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, possibly millions of years, then having zero accounts of them is not only suspect, but makes the story of evolution from the imaginations of men since it can't be verified by anyone in the outside world. Jesus said that every matter must be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. Since these creatures haven't been witnessed by anyone, or mentioned by anyone in history, then they're not real.

Secondly, if you do believe that every word in the bible is true, then why are you trying to find a way to explain that people lived before Adam and why those "people' didn't pass along any accounts of their history?

So which is it? Is your faith in the secular world that's ruled by Satan? or in God alone? It can't be both because Satan and God oppose each other.

 

[Sparkey]

Heidi,

You know that sometimes you come off too strong. I'll continue to ask our Father for you about it. In reply I would first like to thank you for correcting me. Yes, I do see that you said, "first Speaking tribes," and upon reflection I can see your intent better.

Regarding the question you put to me,

"So which is it? Is your faith in the secular world that's ruled by Satan? or in God alone? It can't be both because Satan and God oppose each other,"

my reply would be that it is scriptural to be wise like serpents and harmless as doves.

We seem to have a difference in opinion about education and maybe knowledge itself? but this should not be allowed to stumble us or cause us to start throwing rocks at each other. I honestly don't think that knowledge itself is opposed to you. Neither am I.

Brothers and sisters do fight and bicker though. That's regrettable true and contrary to what our Father wants but true enough.

~Sparrow

PS - In the future you will need to be more careful when you quote me, I have never said, "people lived before Adam." Your question, "why are you trying to find a way to explain that people lived before Adam" is another form of false accusation and I'm praying that the Lord heal your Spiritual ears. We are not to Judge by our Hearing, not to judge by our sight - but we are commanded to judge in righteous judgments. :nod

 

[Heidi]

Yup. I' have much confidence in God's word. ;) Do you? :gah

So I agree with Jesus that we have one teacher and that is Christ. That's why I can see the lies of evolution because they're coming from the secular world which is ruled Satan who is the father of lies.

Reality also confirms the bible; each species breeds their own kind, humans rule over the animals and our ancestors were humans, not imaginary animals. Reality does not support the notion that animals turn into people.

You apparently disagree with all of the above even though it's biblical. So you are correct; we are like day and night and thus will never agree. ;)

 

[Sparkey]

Your propensity for argument exceeds me.
So what?

 

[Sparkey]

Your propensity for argument exceeds me.
So what? I've asked you to stop mis-quoting and accusing me falsely.
I'm objecting to your continued method of attack.
Now stop.

 

[Heidi]

Your propensity for argument exceeds me.
So what?

"If God is for us, who can be against us?" No one. That's why I never deviate from God's Word. I'll pray that you can get that much confidence in God's Word too.

 

[lordkalvan]

I would like to ask evolutionists; why are there no accounts of... let me see : Hm ...ape men, no humans..no monkey men...well I guess it depends on the individual imagination what those creatures were, but I'll use the term half-man half beasts, from anyone in history?

What grounds do you have for suspecting such 'accounts' - I presume you mean written in words, as opposed to the 'writing'that can be seen in fossil remains - even granting your banal caricature of humanity's ancestors as 'ape men' and 'monkey men'?

After all, these creatures supposedly lived for thousands of years, no hundreds of thousands of years, no millions of years...I guess that's left up to the imagination as well.

No, the evidence is there for you to consider and understand.

At any rate they supposedly lived for a much longer time than "modern day" humans have lived on the earth.

Some yes, some no. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils for a summary.

So why are there no accounts of these creatures?

If you read up on the current state of palaeoanthropological research, you will be able to find accounts of these ancestral species.

One would think that the first speaking people would have had marvelous stories about their partly human ancestors, at least their non-speaking parents, and how they kept changing into people..you know, club wars, to express themselves. So why are there exactly zero accounts of people who have supposed occupied the earth far longer than anyone else? Maybe they were ashamed that their ancestors couldn't speak. 2 What do you think?

I think you have a very strange idea about the evolution of language and the reliability of the oral tradition. It's about as strange as your idea of what evolutionary theory entails.

 

[Heidi]

If you read up on the current state of palaeoanthropological research, you will be able to find accounts of these ancestral species

.

I'm not interested in hearing the stories that modern-day man has made up. So why are there no accounts of these creatures by ancient cultures in the history books? :gah I've seen no mention of any ancient culture recounting tales of their ancestors who were apes. They certainly weren't called neanderthals. So what were they called? :gah And if there were such accounts, then why do evolutionists not know who the common ancestors were?

In fact, the only time that apes being the ancestors of humans has been mentioned by anyone in history is around the time that Darwin was making up his story. So why is that do you think?

Again, we're talking about "people' who have allegedly occupied the earth for over a 100 times longer than the humans of recorded history have lived and the only accounts we have of these creatures are by present-day scientists? :o Not only is that so suspect as to not be credible, but it makes the events in the bible pale in comparison. Nothing in the bible is as far-fetched as animals breeding human descendants. Nothing.

 

[lordkalvan]

If you read up on the current state of palaeoanthropological research, you will be able to find accounts of these ancestral species

.

I'm not interested in hearing the stories that modern-day man has made up.

You don't seem interested in anything other than perpetrating a travesty of understanding. Palaeoanthropological research does not 'make up' what you so flippantly refer to as 'stories': it searches for, examines and considers the implications of the available evidence and reaches reasoned conclusions based on that evidence.

So why are there no accounts of these creatures by ancient cultures in the history books?

Why would you expect this? Modern Homo sapiens emerged around 200,000 years ago; systems of coherent writing and record-keeping emerged around 5,000 years ago, although proto-writing systems predate this by several thousand years. It would be surprising indeed if an accurate oral tradition of the emergence of modern Homo sapiens as a distinct species some 190,000 years before this would have been preserved.

I've seen no mention of any ancient culture recounting tales of their ancestors who were apes.

See above. On a technical note, of course, as Homo sapiens is a member of the great apes, even our most immediate ancestors are apes.

They certainly weren't called neanderthals.

Called by whom? Neanderthal is a modern name relating to the area of Germany in which the remains of these Hominidae were first discovered.

So what were they called?

By whom? There is still scholarly debate as to what form Neanderthal language might have taken. The fact that Neanderthals have the same version of the FOXP2 gene as modern humans suggests that they certainly had the capacity of speech. If they had a complex language at all, one thing is certain and that is that they did not call themselves Neanderthals.

And if there were such accounts, then why do evolutionists not know who the common ancestors were?

As there is no expectation or possibility of such accounts existing (see above), your argument fails from the outset.

In fact, the only time that apes being the ancestors of humans has been mentioned by anyone in history is around the time that Darwin was making up his story. So why is that do you think?

Hmm, the only time that relativistic effects have been mentioned by anyone in history is around the time that Einstein was developing his theory. So why is that do you think?

Again, we're talking about "people' who have allegedly occupied the earth for over a 100 times longer than the humans of recorded history have lived and the only accounts we have of these creatures are by present-day scientists?

Why should scientists who understand that modern Homo sapiens emerged some 200,000 years ago, and who also understand that coherent writing systems only emerged some 5,000 years ago expect to find written accounts of ancestral species in those records? Your argument makes no sense at all.

Not only is that so suspect as to not be credible, but it makes the events in the bible pale in comparison.

Your personal incredulity in regard to the first part of your statement is not evidential; neither is your personal credulity in respect of the second part.

Nothing in the bible is as far-fetched as animals breeding human descendants. Nothing.

And yet again I have to point out to you that, in the great, complex interweaving of life on Planet Earth, human beings are part of that intricate pattern and are, indeed, animals. A special animal, perhaps, but still an animal.

 

[Sparkey]

Heidi,

Earlier you asked me "WHY?" It was a legitimate question. You asked why I helped you find the words that you said you were searching for. Remember? "Hominidae" or "Hominids".

The reason (if you can hear it) is that our God made this universe and He used His cunning and His wisdom in the making of it. Our God is JUST. He uses a balanced scale in all things. Step back for a second and try to see that in much the same way that your opponent can not absolutely PROVE that their theory is correct, we, as Christians are also caused by His wisdom to walk by faith alone.

If there was ANY way to concretely argue and prove that God made all things and then He made absolutely truthful declarations (in Genesis) about what He did then it would no longer be a walk of faith, now would it? The consequence would be (to our fleshly mind) good. Everybody would be forced to admit that God make all the heaven and all the earth. All mankind would be forced to rightly worship Him and would get the benefit of that that. BUT WAIT. Did I say that our God, the Ancient of Days made these things cunningly? He did.

I really like science and know that you and I have a disagreement about the usefulness of knowledge but when I go out to look at science articles God is faithful to draw my eye to statements such as, "Scientists currently believe that petroleum is stored energy first given through photosynthesis." Now I like this. They state their "belief" here. Not evolution but science. They admit quite readily that no man was there and that they don't really know.

There's lots of arguments that can be arranged but if all we want to prove is that man wasn't there (at the time of Creation) and that we don't really know? There is no argument left. Anybody who declares elsewise is an absolute idiot and not a scientist. Nobody says, "I was there, I saw it," except One.

I don't think God lied. That's good enough to me. So that's why I told you about how to search for "ape-men" or evidence that science considers when "they" draw their conclusions. Not to promote the idea that God lied but instead because I've been down this road before. God created all things, yes. He did so with such wisdom that even His children can not prove it without faith. Oh, and by the way? Faith pleases God. It is the only way to please Him. I trust in this much more than looking to any "so called" evidence. And I know you do too.

~Sparrowhawke

PS -

"If God is for us, who can be against us?" No one. That's why I never deviate from God's Word. I'll pray that you can get that much confidence in God's Word too.

Thank you for the prayer. It isn't exactly in the area in argument that I need confidence. I'm too confident in my ability - but in the defeating of God's enemy in my friends life? Now there's where I need confidence. I'm seeking His eye, His approval and earnestly desire to "do battle" on the behalf of my good friend.

~Sparrow

 

[jasoncran]

good post sparrowhawke.

 

[Heidi]

If there was ANY way to concretely argue and prove that God made all things and then He made absolutely truthful declarations (in Genesis) about what He did then it would no longer be a walk of faith, now would it?

Sorry, but faith isn't doubting God's words and making up one's own stories in his imagination then claiming they're God's words...especially contradictory and impossible stories. By that "reasoning" you might as well throw the whole bible away and make up your own bible which is what you're doing.

Faith is knowing God as Jesus tells us in John 17:3, and thus knowing where to find God's words. They're in the bible. And DT. 4:2 tells us not to add or subtract from them.

So sorry, but since my faith is in God, not man, then I'll believe God's word any day over the imaginations of men. You can put your faith in human beings and see where it gets you on judgment day. As psalm 49:13-14 tells us, it will get you nowhere but eternal death.

 

[jasoncran]

heidi you miss the whole point, you are defintely not gifted in apologetics at all.

i agree with the assestment of evolution, but at least learn and then reasearch the creationist argurement against it, they are there. i posted one that i listen to. He's on tonight at 7pm est. I suggest you listen to him. He used to believe in the theory of evolution.

I aslo agree with sparrow on science, i was going to ask that someones start a thread or discussion area the basics of scientific fields, ie chemistry,physics,etc.

I love those too. i miss those equations. The atom is an amazing concept as last i heard its unkown how its held together.

jason

 

[Heidi]

Called by whom? Neanderthal is a modern name relating to the area of Germany in which the remains of these Hominidae were first discovered.

I know that nenaderthal is a modern name because it's a name put to a group of people made up from the imaginations of "modern-day" scientists, which is exactly my point. ;) That is precisely why there are zero accounts of those creatures by anyone in history.

So why do you think that the "first-speaking" tribes of people didn't talk about their non-speaking parents, grandparents and other ancestors who allegedly lived for hundreds of thousands of years? Their accounts are conspicuously absent. ;) But of course, no one can't talk about creatures that didn't exist, now can they? ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

Called by whom? Neanderthal is a modern name relating to the area of Germany in which the remains of these Hominidae were first discovered.

I know that nenaderthal is a modern name because it's a name put to a group of people made up from the imaginations of "modern-day" scientists, which is exactly my point. That is precisely why there are zeroaccounts of those creatures by anyone in history.

I see you have ignored every point I made and simply repeated an ill-informed and ridiculous assertion.

So why do you think that the "first-speaking" tribes of people didn't talk about their non-speaking parents, grandparents and other ancestors who allegedly lived for hundreds of thousands of years? Their accounts are conspicuously absent But of course, no one can't talk about creatures that didn't exist, now can they?

Reread my post and try replying to the points raised. Why do you imagine that language sprang fully-formed into existence? Another thought experiment for you to carry out: how many accounts of your ancestors are available for you to reflect upon hundreds of years after their lives ended? Accounts of most of your more recent ancestors are undoubtedly conspicuously absent from any records at all, but do you suppose this means that they didn't exist?

 

[Heidi]

Reread my post and try replying to the points raised. Why do you imagine that language sprang fully-formed into existence? Another thought experiment for you to carry out: how many accounts of your ancestors are available for you to reflect upon hundreds of years after their lives ended? Accounts of most of your more recent ancestors are undoubtedly conspicuously absent from any records at all, but do you suppose this means that they didn't exist?

Since scientists have no clue when the first-speaking tribes lived, who they were, how many there were, what languages they spoke, how many words of each language they spoke, then making any claims about these tribes is not only foolish, but deceitful as well.

But the bible doesn't deceive us nor does it avoid this. God created man and woman and every organ in their body including vocal chords. God also told us that he scattered the people at babel to confuse their language so they wouldn't become arrogant. that's crystal clear, unlike the claims of scientists who live in their imaginations. So as always, I'll go with God. You can be in the dark about this like scientists are. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

Reread my post and try replying to the points raised. Why do you imagine that language sprang fully-formed into existence? Another thought experiment for you to carry out: how many accounts of your ancestors are available for you to reflect upon hundreds of years after their lives ended? Accounts of most of your more recent ancestors are undoubtedly conspicuously absent from any records at all, but do you suppose this means that they didn't exist?

Since scientists have no clue when the first-speaking tribes lived...

Eh, yes they do. Read up about research on the FOXP2 gene, for example. You should also do some research on the history of language and how linguists can trace its origins and development.

...who they were...

Well, not by name, but they can make informed opinions based on the available evidence. You should read up on research into Neanderthal linguistic capabilities, It's quite fascinating.

...how many there were...

I do not t really see what relevance numbers has in this context; perhaps you would care to elaborate?

...what languages they spoke...

Again, you should read up on, for example, research into proto-languages and their antecedents. It's very interesting.

...how many words of each language they spoke...[quote:3eb1eumf]
Again, I don't see the immediate relevance of your point, but the available evidence suggests that the more primitive (i.e. earlier) a language is dated, the less extensive its vocabulary and the simpler its grammar.
[quote:3eb1eumf]...then making any claims about these tribes is not only foolish, but deceitful as well.

Offering conclusions based on evidence and explaining the limits of the conclusions that can be drawn based on that evidence can scarcely be described as 'deceitful'.

But the bible doesn't deceive us nor does it avoid this. God created man and woman and every organ in their body including vocal chords. God also told us that he scattered the people at babel to confuse their language so they wouldn't become arrogant. that's crystal clear, unlike the claims of scientists who live in their imaginations. So as always, I'll go with God. You can be in the dark about this like scientists are.

[/quote:3eb1eumf][/quote:3eb1eumf]
In the instances you quite, the simple tales told in the Bible do not appear to match the evidence that we can examine in the world around us. As the Bible is the product of fallible men, I see no reason to suppose that God would expect us to use the limited knowledge of those fallible men to inform our understanding of what you believe to be his creation, rather than the evidence in that creation itself.

 

[Sparkey]

If there was ANY way to concretely argue and prove that God made all things and then He made absolutely truthful declarations (in Genesis) about what He did then it would no longer be a walk of faith, now would it?

Sorry, but faith isn't doubting God's words and making up one's own stories in his imagination then claiming they're God's words...especially contradictory and impossible stories. By that "reasoning" you might as well throw the whole bible away and make up your own bible which is what you're doing.

Faith is knowing God as Jesus tells us in John 17:3, and thus knowing where to find God's words. They're in the bible. And DT. 4:2 tells us not to add or subtract from them.

So sorry, but since my faith is in God, not man, then I'll believe God's word any day over the imaginations of men. You can put your faith in human beings and see where it gets you on judgment day. As psalm 49:13-14 tells us, it will get you nowhere but eternal death.

You say that "faith isn't doubting God's words..."

Who said it was? You're tilting at windmills there. Stop it, please. I also don't appreciate straw-man arguments. I'm not arguing with you. If you must argue into the air, please don't quote me first. I don't want to be involved with that.

totopic

I will maintain my belief that you (Heidi) are unable to prove that God did as He declared without having belief in Him. Faith is needed to believe God. We can't please God without it. Can you argue on that basis alone and stop the personal attack? Maybe. Regretfully that remains to be seen.

~Sparrow
__________________________________________________________
Greetings, lordkalvan!

I have also been reading your responses and although I lack sufficient recent study and basis to directly oppose the evidence you cite I would like to point out that your conclusions are not demanded. Would you care to admit that the evidence from pre-historic times <by definition> is less credible than the evidence found from post-historic? I do think that this question is a no-brainer and ask as a mere courtesy and not with any violent opposition to you. No, it is not my intent to try to admit the bible into evidence but am only pointing to the nature of the evidence you cite itself.

OOPS! I got banana-bread in the oven... Gotta go now. CU88!

~Sparrowhawke