|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:26:24 GMT
I dismissed them all because not a single one of them supported your claim. In fact, as is quite common with you, you provided links that disproved your own claim. You claimed that religion is as old as humanity. Being extremely generous i am allowing humanity to be defined as only the species Homo sapiens rather than the entire genus Homo. So far, at best, you have only covered 20% of Homo sapiens existence. Why are you asking me to support a claim I never made and one which your own links supported anyway? YOUR OWN LINKS SHOW THAT RELIGION HAS ONLY EXISTED FOR APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE EXISTENCE OF HOMO SAPIENS. Do you understand it yet? They have all supported my claim. The earliest man followed religion. Are you illiterate? The earliest man is not even under discussion. We are talking about the latest species and the only one still living and your links show that religion has been practiced for only the last 20% of the existence of that most recent species.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 5:33:57 GMT
They have all supported my claim. The earliest man followed religion. Are you illiterate? The earliest man is not even under discussion. We are talking about the latest species and the only one still living and your links show that religion has been practiced for only the last 20% of the existence of that most recent species. Yes, the earliest man is under discussion. I posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 5:39:13 GMT
Yes, he is.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:44:54 GMT
Are you illiterate? The earliest man is not even under discussion. We are talking about the latest species and the only one still living and your links show that religion has been practiced for only the last 20% of the existence of that most recent species. Yes, the earliest man is under discussion. I posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed. No, the earliest man is not under discussion because I'm only asking you to support your claim with respect to Homo sapiens and you have failed miserably at even doing that. I haven't asked you to show that H. habilis, H heidelbergensis, H. erectus or any other earlier species of man practiced religion. Yes, I know you posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed and so far you have failed to even support that claim with the first 80% of the time that the latest and only still existing species has existed. What part of this are you having trouble following? You tried to link Gobekli Tepe which only goes back 11,500 years. You provided other links and none of them goes back more than 40,000 years except that you linked the same article twice with a claim of 70,000 years which has been discredited by the first people to discover and investigate the site. Do you have anything that supports your claim? In other words, do you have anything from a credible source that shows humans were practicing religion 200,000 years ago? Do you have anything that shows that religion was practiced by human species that predate Homo sapiens?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:47:02 GMT
How the hell do you get that asking only about Homo sapiens means the earliest man is under discussion? You're actually helping bury her in her own ignorance so you might want to rethink your attempt at white-knighting. Now, in my most recent reply to her I've asked about earlier human species but prior to that i had not.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 5:47:30 GMT
Yes, the earliest man is under discussion. I posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed. No, the earliest man is not under discussion because I'm only asking you to support your claim with respect to Homo sapiens and you have failed miserably at even doing that. I haven't asked you to show that H. habilis, H heidelbergensis, H. erectus or any other earlier species of man practiced religion. Yes, I know you posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed and so far you have failed to even support that claim with the first 80% of the time that the latest and only still existing species has existed. What part of this are you having trouble following? You tried to link Gobekli Tepe which only goes back 11,500 years. You provided other links and none of them goes back more than 40,000 years except that you linked the same article twice with a claim of 70,000 years which has been discredited by the first people to discover and investigate the site. Do you have anything that supports your claim? In other words, do you have anything from a credible source that shows humans were practicing religion 200,000 years ago? Do you have anything that shows that religion was practiced by human species that predate Homo sapiens? Well, who was the first man, and what year did he live in?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 5:48:23 GMT
How the hell do you get that asking only about Homo sapiens means the earliest man is under discussion? You're actually helping bury her in her own ignorance so you might want to rethink your attempt at white-knighting. Now, in my most recent reply to her I've asked about earlier human species but prior to that i had not. Whatever you have to tell yourself, jerky boy.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:49:55 GMT
How the hell do you get that asking only about Homo sapiens means the earliest man is under discussion? You're actually helping bury her in her own ignorance so you might want to rethink your attempt at white-knighting. Now, in my most recent reply to her I've asked about earlier human species but prior to that i had not. Whatever you have to tell yourself, jerky boy. Beer.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 5:52:13 GMT
Whatever you have to tell yourself, jerky boy. Beer. Beer? Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:52:40 GMT
No, the earliest man is not under discussion because I'm only asking you to support your claim with respect to Homo sapiens and you have failed miserably at even doing that. I haven't asked you to show that H. habilis, H heidelbergensis, H. erectus or any other earlier species of man practiced religion. Yes, I know you posted earlier that religion has been with us since the earliest time humanity existed and so far you have failed to even support that claim with the first 80% of the time that the latest and only still existing species has existed. What part of this are you having trouble following? You tried to link Gobekli Tepe which only goes back 11,500 years. You provided other links and none of them goes back more than 40,000 years except that you linked the same article twice with a claim of 70,000 years which has been discredited by the first people to discover and investigate the site. Do you have anything that supports your claim? In other words, do you have anything from a credible source that shows humans were practicing religion 200,000 years ago? Do you have anything that shows that religion was practiced by human species that predate Homo sapiens? Well, who was the first man, and what year did he live in? Homo habilis is the first known species of the genus Homo and first evolved between two and three million years ago.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 5:55:55 GMT
Well, who was the first man, and what year did he live in? Homo habilis is the first known species of the genus Homo and first evolved between two and three million years ago. Really? That's a change from the previous answer I got when Her Gozness was still posting here. I was told that there was no first man. Man evolved from lower animals, but there was no first man.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:58:38 GMT
Homo habilis is the first known species of the genus Homo and first evolved between two and three million years ago. Really? That's a change from the previous answer I got when Her Gozness was still posting here. I was told that there was no first man. Man evolved from lower animals, but there was no first man. You're intentionally and dishonestly conflating two separate topics. There was no first INDIVIDUAL person, there was a first species of the genus Homo.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 6:01:46 GMT
Really? That's a change from the previous answer I got when Her Gozness was still posting here. I was told that there was no first man. Man evolved from lower animals, but there was no first man. You're intentionally and dishonestly conflating two separate topics. There was no first INDIVIDUAL person, there was a first species of the genus Homo. No, I'm not. You're the one being dishonest. When I say man, I am speaking of man the species.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 6:05:11 GMT
You're intentionally and dishonestly conflating two separate topics. There was no first INDIVIDUAL person, there was a first species of the genus Homo. No, I'm not. You're the one being dishonest. When I say man, I am speaking of man the species. Do you ever get tired of making false claims about me knowing you can't support them? The first known species of the genus Homo was Homo habilis. Anything else?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 6:08:20 GMT
No, I'm not. You're the one being dishonest. When I say man, I am speaking of man the species. Do you ever get tired of making false claims about me knowing you can't support them? The first known species of the genus Homo was Homo habilis. Anything else? Do you ever get tired of beating your wife? I was told that man (the species) had an evolved beginning, but there was no first. Doe that mean that man (the species) once looked like this?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 6:15:12 GMT
Do you ever get tired of making false claims about me knowing you can't support them? The first known species of the genus Homo was Homo habilis. Anything else? Do you ever get tired of beating your wife? I was told that man (the species) had an evolved beginning, but there was no first. Doe that mean that man (the species) once looked like this? You weren't told that by me and I have no interest in what your fellow idiot, Goz, had to say. There is no man, the species, because there have been numerous species of man. Also, will you ever learn the proper use of that beating your wife saying because I have never seen you use it correctly. If the genus Homo is considered the first genus of humans, then Homo habilis is the first known species of humans. Some experts consider earlier genera to have been human, genera such as Australopithecus and the even earlier Ardipithecus. However, for purposes of this discussion it is acceptable to consider Homo the first human genus because I doubt if even Clusium would be ignorant enough to claim that Australopithicenes preacticed religion.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 6:22:40 GMT
Do you ever get tired of beating your wife? I was told that man (the species) had an evolved beginning, but there was no first. Doe that mean that man (the species) once looked like this? You weren't told that by me and I have no interest in what your fellow idiot, Goz, had to say. There is no man, the species, because there have been numerous species of man. Also, will you ever learn the proper use of that beating your wife saying because I have never seen you use it correctly. If the genus Homo is considered the first genus of humans, then Homo habilis is the first known species of humans. Some experts consider earlier genera to have been human, genera such as Australopithecus and the even earlier Ardipithecus. However, for purposes of this discussion it is acceptable to consider Homo the first human genus because I doubt if even Clusium would be ignorant enough to claim that Australopithicenes preacticed religion. I wish you wouldn't be so harsh on Goz. Like yourself, she added some very entertaining anti-theist materialist evolutionist comedy to this Religion, Faith and Spirituality board.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 6:26:02 GMT
You weren't told that by me and I have no interest in what your fellow idiot, Goz, had to say. There is no man, the species, because there have been numerous species of man. Also, will you ever learn the proper use of that beating your wife saying because I have never seen you use it correctly. If the genus Homo is considered the first genus of humans, then Homo habilis is the first known species of humans. Some experts consider earlier genera to have been human, genera such as Australopithecus and the even earlier Ardipithecus. However, for purposes of this discussion it is acceptable to consider Homo the first human genus because I doubt if even Clusium would be ignorant enough to claim that Australopithicenes preacticed religion. I wish you wouldn't be so harsh on Goz. Like yourself, she added some very entertaining anti-theist materialist evolutionist comedy to this Religion, Faith and Spirituality board. Goz was an imbecile. She wasn't an Erjen-level imbecile, but still an imbecile.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jul 1, 2017 8:38:39 GMT
You just post random articles with no care whether they are actually relevant or not. For the fifth time - do you have any evidence to support your claim? The article Clusium cited is a bit odd, it says that the first 'traces' of modern Humans are 90,000 years old, it links to a further article on modern Humans that puts the appearance of modern Humans, in Africa at ~ 150,000 years ago. I think this is the root of the confusion, Clusium thinks modern Humans evolved ~ 90 kya which roughly coincides with the first signs of religion (give or take a few millennia). He/she maybe unaware that there are much older H. sapiens fossils than the ones mentioned.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jul 1, 2017 8:52:51 GMT
You have no clue what you are doing. Gobekli Tepe is, at most, 11,500 years old and the second link is the same as the second link in the previous post, the one that notes that the 70,000 year old claim has been discredited by the original investigators. You claimed that religion is as old as humanity. That should require you to show that ancient members of the genus Homo were practicing religion two million years ago. However, I'm not even holding you to that rigorous a standard and am only asking for evidence that the earliest members of Homo sapiens were practicing religion 200,000 years ago. So far you haven't even come close. Why in the world would you even link to Gobekli Tepe when it's even more recent than any of the first four articles you linked? For the third time, do you have anything that supports the claim you made? Scientific consensus is always modified by new evidence. The dgree to which anything is 'settled' depends on the strength and depth of the evidence. H. sapiens evolution - www.nature.com/news/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossil-claim-rewrites-our-species-history-1.22114 The precise timing and location of H. sapiens evolution has always been under question, the weight of evidence supported the out of Africa theory and probably still does but this new find puts it in doubt or at least complicates the model. This doesn't put Human evolution and common ancestry in doubt though, the over arching weight of evidence supports common ancestry, it's the fine detail that's always up for change. The same with AGW, it's real and supported by the evidence but the detail is always under scrutiny.
|
|