Since evolutionists here have shown they have no clue what I meant by ancient peoples knowing their ancestors, then I'll be more specific: If evolution is correct, then there had to be a first modern-day human. So, why didn't this first modern-day human describe his part-ape, part-human parents and grandparents? Why were they and their ancestors dropped from the memory of modern-day humans and from history?
One would think that the transition from ape to human would have been a monumetal event in human history, particularly since it hasn't happened at any other time in history. Yet no record of this happening.
Yet all peoples talk about their ancestors which is why we know about history...except these part-ape, part humans. So why do evolutionists think that is? Or are they just going to make up new stories again?
45 comments
So, Carico, who was the first person to speak French, and how come there's no account of this monumental event in European history?
POssibly the biggest straw man argument I've seen in a long while.
El Cubano: No, the reason is that it never happened. There was no moment, no division in one generation, between 'ape' and 'man'. Just as there was no one moment dividing Latin from French, or Winter from Spring, or a child from an adult, or, indeed, a foetus from a baby.
Carico,"If evolution is correct, then there had to be a first modern-day human."
Evolution is a well documented process. It has been observed in laboratorys, and throughout agriculture.
HOWEVER, THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE FIRST MODERN DAY HUMAN Nor does there have to be, indeed such a thing would invalidate the entire evolutionary process.
Well now you have to remember the Earth was created less than 7,000 years ago. That's 3,000 years after writing was invented so that's plenty of time for the first man to have learned to read and write DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
When things happen on a gradual scale over BILLIONS of years, I would not blame anyone for not noticing. However, even if for the sake of this argument we assume that something like this has happened, we would still have a human who does not know how to communicate complex information, let alone having the capacity to understand the significance of the event. However, it need not happen like this. Like I said, the change was gradual. Even now, every new generation has changes in their DNA. They are small and insignificant now, but a 1000 years from now we will be slightly different.
Oh, we have a clue as to what you mean. What isn't apparent is if you will ever have, or have ever had, a clue about reality.
"Since evolutionists here have shown they have no clue what I meant by ancient peoples knowing their ancestors,"Just because people have no idea what you're talking about, it doesn't mean THEY are the stupid ones.
"then I'll be more specific: If evolution is correct, then there had to be a first modern-day human."
Not really. From ape-like ancestor to "modern-day human" is a continuum. Such knowledge would be useless anyway.
Carico, who was the first person to read the Bible? Why wasn't that recorded?
"So, why didn't this first modern-day human describe his part-ape, part-human parents and grandparents?"
Because written language wasn't developed until well after the "first modern-day human" was dead. Dead, dead, dead. Long dead.
"Why were they and their ancestors dropped from the memory of modern-day humans and from history?"
Early "modern-day humans" didn't have written language.
"One would think that the transition from ape to human would have been a monumetal event in human history, particularly since it hasn't happened at any other time in history. Yet no record of this happening."
Yes, and if one thought just a little more one would understand that humans ARE apes, and that early "modern-day" humans didn't have written languages.
"Yet all peoples talk about their ancestors which is why we know about history...except these part-ape, part humans."
The divergence of the ancestors of modern apes from the ancestors of modern humans happened a long, long time ago in a time often referred to as "pre-historic." Can you say "pre-historic?"
"So why do evolutionists think that is?"
See above.
"Or are they just going to make up new stories again?"
No, we need no made-up stories to rebutt twaddle like yours. You're thinking of the YECists.
"The layer of stupid around her brain is too thick to be penetrated, people."
Shh, everybody quiet! Carico is going show us how science is clueless, unbelievable and made up!
Just for the record, where are Adam and Eve?, where is Abraham and who can certify their existence?. Does the name Lucy, and its bones, tell you something of our ancestors?, can you trace your ancestors back from 1700?
Tiny, of course there is! The tower of Babel!
Creationists continue to tout the distinction between micro and macro evolution. So it's not surprising that they continue to think evolution from one species to the next happens overnight. Otherwise, they'd be forced to accept that macroevolution is just repeated microevolution accumulated over long periods of time.
The first problem is that writing didn't exist yet. There was no mechanism by which records were kept. We're talking about a period in history wherein a stick used to fish termites out of a mound was the pinnacle of technology.
Carico Dear, Since you exist today it's obvious you had ancestors alive in the 1700's. Tell me all about them, be very specific as to their names, occupations, what they looked like, what they wore, what they ate, where and how they lived. C'mon it's only 10 or 12 generations back.
Oh, boy. A game of logical fallacies. Two can play this game."One would think that the transition from ape to human would have been a monumetal event in human history, particularly since it hasn't happened at any other time in history. Yet no record of this happening."
One would think that Christ on earth would have been a monumental event in Christian history. Christians from around the globe would have flocked to the middle east to have their picture taken with him. Yet not a single photo to prove he existed.
Surely Adam and Eve starting all of humanity would have been a monumental event. I'm sure they would document it like all contemporary families do. Yet there is no family photo album of Adam and Eve and all the children they begat to be found anywhere.
See how well your broken brand of "logic" works, Carico?
Ok, you moron, written human history hasn't existed for more than 10,000 years. Furthermore, cave paintings that we have found are centered more around animals than people. Hell, there are still tribes in Africa that have no written language and have to pass everything down by word of mouth, I doubt if they know who there grandparents were or even care while they are trying to live day-to-day by hunting and gathering for food.
The reason they have no clue what you meant, is because you are not making sense, stupid. Dearie, I have bad news for you; you are also "part-ape, part-human", Carico.
The transition from human/chimpanzee to human was not a monumental event in human history, it was thousands upon thousands of small events, called “having children”. Every single child is a transition between its parents and its children.
Besides, the larger changes happened before recorded history , which is why there is no record of it. Except for the very tangible fossil record, of course.
Very few people talk about their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, though...
Evolutionists don't make up stories, we follow the evidence. You fairy-taleists are the only ones making up stories and actually believing in them, the Bible being one example of this.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
