Are you an atheist?

[Frothingslosh]

Only Creationists with a gross incomprehension of evolutionary theory have 'proven' it false, and then only to people with the same utter lack of knowledge of (and interest in) anything regarding science and scientific theory. If you have actual, citable facts disproving evolution, please, provide them. There would likely be a Nobel prize in your future should they be confirmed.

The fact of the matter is that it as close to a fact as science is able to come. It is the underpinning all of biology, not to mention medicine and genetics. As a theory, its foundation is even more stable than that of the theory of gravity. Scientists are still studying the specific mechanics and how different pressures affect natural selection, but evolution itself has reached the point of being a given. Maybe not three laws of thermodynamics given, but damned close.

Edit: Oh, hell, we're back at 'the Bible is proof because it says it's proof' bull again. YOU are the one making the assertion that evolutionary theory has been proven wrong. That means the onus on proving it is on YOU, and proof does not consist of 'the imaginary man talking in my ear tells me so".

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ah, what the hell.

Hi Rabbi: I enjoy our bantering. From what I understand, much of Darwins Theory has been proven false.

See my post above.

Yes, I believe that God created all things. No, he did not create them in 6,000 years. How many I am not sure but am satisfied it was a longer time than we probably have calculated..

Okay, Old Earth Creationist. Not quite as ridiculous as Young Earth, I'll admit.

Now Rabbi, Modern man is no older than 6-12,000 years old. The first being Adam.

We have H. sapiens fossils older than that.

As far as his ancestors, there are about 5-7 of them, and the links are not established. From what I can read, there is a large void of time between each of them (with the exception of the last two). There is evidence that they co-mingled. However, they died out and by calculations, modern man was born some 25,000 years after.

We have H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis fossils from the same region and same time period (Europe 50,000 to 55,000 years ago, extending to approximately 40,000 years ago). Geneticists have determined that approximately a quarter of us have actual neanderthal genes. As far as we can tell, the neanderthals died off 39,000 to 41,000 years ago, possibly at our hands.

All of this data comes from millions of hours of painstaking research, and is published in millions of pages of peer-reviewed journals that are readily accesible.

I have just had one poster to tell me if I did not have proof, I did not have anything. I have the Bible and that is proof enough. Where is your proof.

See my post above.

 

[spikepl]

@Frothingslosh

I admire your efforts. "Faith" is just that - blind idiocy not based on logic nor facts.

Still, the faithful obviously feel inadequate and hence their urge to disguise their lunacy as "science" or "logic". There isn't any logic nor science in "faith" - that is the definition of faith.

If the faithful would just stick to their BS and themselves, and leave the rest of the normal people alone, I could live with it. Unfortunately they feel they have to impose their BS upon everybody else, so once in a while I feel like giving them a proper bollocking.

 

[Bladerunner]

Frothingslosh :"Only Creationists with a gross incomprehension of evolutionary theory have 'proven' it false, and then only to people with the same utter lack of knowledge of (and interest in) anything regarding science and scientific theory. If you have actual, citable facts disproving evolution, please, provide them. There would likely be a Nobel prize in your future should they be confirmed."

Bladerunner: Here some of it is: I know, I know, He is sorry piece of s????? but he has a point or two you should actually read.

"Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True, he summarizes Darwinism—the modern theory of evolution—as follows: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”1" (http://www.discovery.org/a/10661)

Frothingslosh :The fact of the matter is that it as close to a fact as science is able to come. It is the underpinning all of biology, not to mention medicine and genetics. As a theory, its foundation is even more stable than that of the theory of gravity. Scientists are still studying the specific mechanics and how different pressures affect natural selection, but evolution itself has reached the point of being a given. Maybe not three laws of thermodynamics given, but damned close.

Bladerunner: (see above)

Frothingslosh : Edit: Oh, hell, we're back at 'the Bible is proof because it says it's proof' bull again. YOU are the one making the assertion that evolutionary theory has been proven wrong. That means the onus on proving it is on YOU, and proof does not consist of 'the imaginary man talking in my ear tells me so".

Bladerunner: The bible has individual scripts that have survived thousands of years. Yes, they were (with exceptions) written by the hand of man. But so are the papers we have today. I would like to compare the brain power of those people back then and those of today. What about the scientific methods back then---No? and what about the language, I believe Hebrew, could it be used today by your research writers. But then the people back then did not have the brain power or the resources to write something so complex as the bible. Somebody did? God possibly?


Originally Posted by Bladerunner
Hi Rabbi: I enjoy our bantering. From what I understand, much of Darwins Theory has been proven false.
Frothingslosh : See my post above.
Bladerunner: Yes please see my post from above?

Quote Bladerunner::
Yes, I believe that God created all things. No, he did not create them in 6,000 years. How many I am not sure but am satisfied it was a longer time than we probably have calculated..

Frothingslosh : Okay, Old Earth Creationist. Not quite as ridiculous as Young Earth, I'll admit.
Bladerunner: Good Name, I'll have to remember that.

Quote Bladerunner:
Now Rabbi, Modern man is no older than 6-12,000 years old. The first being Adam.
Frothingslosh : We have H. sapiens fossils older than that.

Bladerunner: Which H. sapiens?

Quote Bladerunner:
As far as his ancestors, there are about 5-7 of them, and the links are not established. From what I can read, there is a large void of time between each of them (with the exception of the last two). There is evidence that they co-mingled. However, they died out and by calculations, modern man was born some 25,000 years after.

Frothingslosh : We have H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis fossils from the same region and same time period (Europe 50,000 to 55,000 years ago, extending to approximately 40,000 years ago). Geneticists have determined that approximately a quarter of us have actual neanderthal genes. As far as we can tell, the neanderthals died off 39,000 to 41,000 years ago, possibly at our hands.

Bladerunner: Oh, yeah, we went back and killed them. Would you please be more specific here instead of just generalities Please?
Better go back, read up and be a little more specific. (i.e. Mesolithic humans lived around 10,000 years ago but US, WE Modern man of today only became less than 10,000 years ago. )

Frothingslosh : All of this data comes from millions of hours of painstaking research, and is published in millions of pages of peer-reviewed journals that are readily accesible.

Bladerunner: Question: How do you feel about all your research, papers and professors being compared to those very controlling people that lived 1500 BCE whom you claim wrote the Bible on their own without any help from God.

Quote Bladerunner:
I have just had one poster to tell me if I did not have proof, I did not have anything. I have the Bible and that is proof enough. Where is your proof.
Frothingslosh : See my post above.
Bladerunner: YES, Please see my post above!

FYI: My secretary's name is 'Me, Myself and I'. While it is evident you missed it, I will tell you anyway. The reference to 'my secretary' was my way of offering a reason why my typing is usually horrendous. Certainly nowhere as good as some secretary's typing.

 

[aziz rasul]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I’m not being obtuse, deliberate or otherwise.

There is something written in that book which YOU choose to interpret as being evidence that the writer had prior knowledge of some scientfic facts. Even if that were true and not just some vague coincidence (as per the Nostrodamus claims I mentioned), it doesn't prove IN ANY WAY the existence of God. Your argument seems to be:

God exists.
Why?
Because he wrote the book
How do you know he wrote the book?
Because a person couldn't have known the facts in it
What about the mistakes/contradictions mentioned elsewhere?
They're wrong
Even if they were, how does that prove that God wrote the book?
It says so in the book.

That is not the way for example a non-believer would think prior to becoming a believer. He\she would analyse the situation completely differently.

God doesn’t exist
Try getting the evidence with an open mind with the object of seeking God (if He exists)
Read religious scriptures and accept or reject them as we see fit
Talk to people of different faiths and ask key questions and obtain answers wherever possible
Are there any contradictions in the scripture I’m reading?
How were the [Qur’anic] science based verses been known about at the time the scripture was revealed or written?
Check that the belief and its actions are sound
Once convinced that the chosen belief is correct, accept it

Once he\she becomes a believer the sequence of course would change. My views come from the direction of having become a believer after analysis and seeking God and ‘finding’ Him. I didn’t start my beliefs by assuming any pre-requisites. On the contrary I assumed that God didn’t exist and was seeking God when I became a believer. Many reverts to Islam do exactly the same.

Not all Muslims blindly accept God as people may think. Those who have little or no education or have not used there God given brain may do as is the case with believers of other faiths as well.

You are coming from the direction of a non-believer. Oh and BTW just because someone says there is a contradiction in the Qur’an doesn’t mean that they are right. You have to hear the debate on both sides before you automatically come to that conclusion. Similarly if I say that a particular alleged contradiction is not a contradiction, I would expect you to analyse my arguments to that effect. I wouldn’t expect you to just accept my word without reading what I’m saying and perhaps checking it out for yourself with others.

If there are Qur’anic verses regarding provable scientific facts that were unknown 14 centuries ago, you have to ask the question that if the Qur’an is not the word of God, where did that knowledge come from? That is what the non-believer has to answer if they are interested. Some of these people do become interested and after investigation accept Islam. However it is important to note that the challenge that the Qur’an gives is that of finding contradictions which I will of course address.

 

[aziz rasul]

We have H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis fossils from the same …

Hast thou not seen that Allah hath created the heavens and the earth with truth? If He will, He can remove you and bring (in) some new creation; Qur’an 14:19

If He will, He can be rid of you and bring (instead of you) some new creation. Qur’an 35:16

 

[Galaxiom]

If there are Qur’anic verses regarding provable scientific facts that were unknown 14 centuries ago, you have to ask the question that if the Qur’an is not the word of God, where did that knowledge come from?

It is an illusion built on your faith.

You choose to interpret what you read as backing the scientific facts. You also ignore the parts that cannot be interpreted to suit your doctrine.

Do tell us how this one is backed by science. The Qur'an says there are seven heavens supported on invisible pillars and seven earths below.

 

[BlueIshDan]

Interesting how much your minds know about this stuff...

 

[aziz rasul]

Taking on the alleged contradiction number 22 in the link given in post 4179.

This is a classic example of bad translation of the original Arabic text and not taking into account the context that the verses are written.

Here are the Qur’anic verses in question using Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation where the ‘contradiction’ appears. I have also added Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall (a revert to Islam) translation in the key verses to show the difference i.e. verses 3:45 and 19:17. Both translations were written in the early 1930s. The key verses are in bold but I have placed surrounding verses so that the context can be seen. AYA translation is normally the rogue translation although I’m sure that was not his intent and probably did not realise the scrutiny his English translation would come under.

3:44 This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger.) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).
3:45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. AYA translation.
3:45 (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah). MMP translation.
3:46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
3:47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
3:48 "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

In the above, the Arabic word that is used in the original text is malaika which indeed means angels. On this occasion the angels announce to her that she will have a son and depart, that is all.

In the other so called ‘contradictory’ verse in AYA’s translation, we have:-

19:16 Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
19:17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. AYA translation.
19:17 And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and
it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. MMP translation.
19:18 She said: "I seek refuge from thee to ((Allah)) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."
19:19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
19:20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
19:21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
19:22 So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

The Arabic word in the Arabic text is Ruh which means Spirit, not angel. The Spirit refers to the archangel Gabriel. There are many examples in the Qur’an (even using AYA’s translation regarding the same event) to show this e.g.

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). Qur’an 66:12 AYA translation.

And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. Qur’an 21:91 AYA translation.

This is a separate occasion after the occasion given in 3:45. You can see this by looking at the context where Mary (peace be upon her) conceives Jesus (peace be upon him).

It’s unfortunate that AYA chose to use the word angel in verse 19:17 when he doesn’t do so in 66:12, 21:91 and other verses where the word Ruh is used.

Hence if non-believers deliberately choose translations which fits their evil and deceitful purpose, you will get these issues. Those who genuinely seek the truth will investigate such issues and insha-allaah come to the correct understanding of these verses. What the non-believers who indulge in such practices do not realise is that such disingenuous behaviour can be the very trigger that makes potential reverts distrust what they hear and read regarding Islam by some non-believers and ultimately accept Islam.

If I have missed anything out or further clarification is required, please let me know.

 

[aziz rasul]

It is an illusion built on your faith.

You are entitled to your opinion, I don’t happen to agree with you.

You choose to interpret what you read as backing the scientific facts. You also ignore the parts that cannot be interpreted to suit your doctrine.

I look at the facts, as other Muslims do, and come to what we believe is the correct interpretations. You don’t have to agree to these interpretations. On the Day of Judgement we will see who was right. Of course as you don’t believe in such stuff you obviously will not worry about it.

Do tell us how this one is backed by science. The Qur'an says there are seven heavens supported on invisible pillars and seven earths below.

Can you provide the translation and verse (assuming it’s a different verse to the one given below) that you are using?

Using Picktall’s translation which tends be a good render of the original Arabic, the Qur’anic verse is

Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surroundeth all things in knowledge. Qur’an 65:12

The word seven is normally allegorical meaning many. The verse is simply saying there are many heavens (some commentators have talked about the atmospheric layers above the Earth, and God knows best) and many Earth like planets, which we know over the past decade do exist.

Happy to investigate further.

 

[ConnorGiles]

The word seven is normally allegorical meaning many. The verse is simply saying there are many heavens (some commentators have talked about the atmospheric layers above the Earth, and God knows best) and many Earth like planets, which we know over the past decade do exist.

Happy to investigate further.

I believe the word you are thinking of is SEVERAL not seven - the word seven indeed means seven

 

[aziz rasul]

As I said the number 7 is often used in an allegorical sense.

 

[Galaxiom]

Those who persisted though Aziz's voluminous post will conme to the penultimate paragraph.

Hence if non-believers deliberately choose translations which fits their evil and deceitful purpose, you will get these issues. Those who genuinely seek the truth will investigate such issues and insha-allaah come to the correct understanding of these verses.

Here we see the use of "their evil and deceitful purpose" referring to any who conclude other than the prescribed "truth" according to Mohammed. It is a thinly veiled reference to what is otherwise known as the "enemies of Islam".

What the non-believers who indulge in such practices do not realise is that such disingenuous behaviour can be the very trigger that makes potential reverts [empahsis added] distrust what they hear and read regarding Islam by some non-believers and ultimately accept Islam.

For those not familiar with the long history of this thread and in particular Aziz's substantial body of work, "reverts" is a term used because Aziz insists that every person is born a Muslim, hence those who are adopting the faith are coming back to their beginning. Those who stand in the way of that "reversion" must have sinister motives.

 

[aziz rasul]

Here we see the use of "their evil and deceitful purpose" referring to any who conclude other than the prescribed "truth" according to Mohammed. It is a thinly veiled reference to what is otherwise known as the "enemies of Islam".

You are correct that there are people out there who have these agendas. There are of course other people who have evil intent in other spheres of life. To not recognise that such people exist is to be naïve in the extreme. Politicians and media deceive people all the time. That is why there so much distrust.

 

[Galaxiom]

As I said the number 7 is often used in an allegorical sense.

No doubt you will claim that some wishy-washy statement about several heavens and invisible pillars is obviously a detailed allegorical reference to Relativity.

Tell me about the real world scientific theory that parallels the Quar'anic allegory of the invisible pillars.

 

[ConnorGiles]

As I said the number 7 is often used in an allegorical sense.

And as i said - The number 7 does indeed mean the number 7 - The word Several means more than two but not many.

 

[aziz rasul]

31.10 He hath created the heavens without supports that ye can see, and hath cast into the earth firm hills, so that it quake not with you; and He hath dispersed therein all kinds of beasts. And We send down water from the sky and We cause (plants) of every goodly kind to grow therein.
The supports, according to some Muslim scholars, refers to gravity.

 

[Galaxiom]

So Mohammad,s "ahead of his time" insights concluded that some number of heavens were held up by a means that we cannot see. Hardly an earth shattering revelation is it?

No mention of the Laws of Gravitation or Motion. That would have been impressive.

It is like that with any of the so called scientific corroboration of the Qur'an.

 

[aziz rasul]

So Mohammad,s "ahead of his time" insights concluded that some number of heavens were held up by a means that we cannot see. Hardly an earth shattering revelation is it?

No mention of the Laws of Gravitation or Motion. That would have been impressive.

It is like that with any of the so called scientific corroboration of the Qur'an.

As Muhammad (peace be upon him) wasn’t the author of the Qur’an, your opening comment is irrelevant.

It may not be earth shattering to you, so what you're not a believer anyway. The Qur’an is ultimately a book of guidance. Anything that enhances that by the wonders of His creation is a purpose to that end.

You, as a typical non-believer, want the word of God as you want it. Even if there was something you agreed with in the Qur’an you probably would still openly turn your back on it. We are His creation not the other way around. God guides as He sees fit and writes what He thinks is useful to us. It’s not for us to dictate to Him. After all it is God who will grant us Paradise or Hell-Fire.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I am way too busy this morning to keep up with this thread today like I did yesterday, but I'll comment on this post:

Frothingslosh :"Only Creationists with a gross incomprehension of evolutionary theory have 'proven' it false, and then only to people with the same utter lack of knowledge of (and interest in) anything regarding science and scientific theory. If you have actual, citable facts disproving evolution, please, provide them. There would likely be a Nobel prize in your future should they be confirmed."

Bladerunner: Here some of it is: I know, I know, He is sorry piece of s????? but he has a point or two you should actually read.

"Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True, he summarizes Darwinism—the modern theory of evolution—as follows: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”1" (http://www.discovery.org/a/10661)

Wow, did you screw the pooch on this one.

1. I've been following that site for a couple years now. While I get tired of his rabid Islamophobia, he's dead on about evolution. I simply post there under a different name - I'm only Frothingslosh on this site because my normal moniker was taken.
2. Are you aware that Jerry Coyne is an evolutionary biologist whose biggest selling book and blog are both called 'Why Evolution is True'?
3. You once again proved your ignorance, as natural selection is quite literally the primary process by which evolution works. If you knew the first thing about evolution, you'd know this. Hell, he even states it in your quote!

Seriously, using Jerry Coyne's publications, statements, and website as proof that 'evolution has been disproved' is like using the Pope's sermons as proof that God is imaginary.

Frothingslosh :The fact of the matter is that it as close to a fact as science is able to come. It is the underpinning all of biology, not to mention medicine and genetics. As a theory, its foundation is even more stable than that of the theory of gravity. Scientists are still studying the specific mechanics and how different pressures affect natural selection, but evolution itself has reached the point of being a given. Maybe not three laws of thermodynamics given, but damned close.

Bladerunner: (see above)

Yes, see above.

Frothingslosh : Edit: Oh, hell, we're back at 'the Bible is proof because it says it's proof' bull again. YOU are the one making the assertion that evolutionary theory has been proven wrong. That means the onus on proving it is on YOU, and proof does not consist of 'the imaginary man talking in my ear tells me so".

Bladerunner: The bible has individual scripts that have survived thousands of years. Yes, they were (with exceptions) written by the hand of man. But so are the papers we have today. I would like to compare the brain power of those people back then and those of today. What about the scientific methods back then---No? and what about the language, I believe Hebrew, could it be used today by your research writers. But then the people back then did not have the brain power or the resources to write something so complex as the bible. Somebody did? God possibly?

The oldest biblical-related documents in existence are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are approximately 2200 years old. So you're saying that the people living 2200 years ago were drooling imbeciles, incapable of complex thought? Then how, pray tell, do you explain the following:

1. The Iliad and the Odyssey
2. Homer's histories
3. Cicero's writings
4. Roman law
5. Greek advances in philosophy, mathematics, ethics, and medicine
6. Greek creation of the scientific method
7. Chinese philosophies such as Confucianism
8. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", which was written before then and is so well written that it is STILL used as the foundation for how to fight war.

Just because YOU can't write something of the minimal complexity of the Bible, it doesn't follow that God had to do that. That is a logical fallacy (there we are again!) called the God of the Gaps - namely, that if you personally can't explain it, then God did it! I personally can't build a car, therefore God must make them!

Originally Posted by Bladerunner
Hi Rabbi: I enjoy our bantering. From what I understand, much of Darwins Theory has been proven false.
Frothingslosh : See my post above.
Bladerunner: Yes please see my post from above?

Yes, your post above was laughably misinformed, as you would have realized had you known the first thing about evolutionary theory.

Quote Bladerunner::
Yes, I believe that God created all things. No, he did not create them in 6,000 years. How many I am not sure but am satisfied it was a longer time than we probably have calculated..

Frothingslosh : Okay, Old Earth Creationist. Not quite as ridiculous as Young Earth, I'll admit.
Bladerunner: Good Name, I'll have to remember that.

It's what it's called. If you were to actually study the philosophies of Christianity, you'd find there are tons of differences between sects, and conventions have to be named to keep track. Young-Earth Creationism is the belief that the world was created by God 4,000-10,000 years ago. Old-Earth Creationism is the belief that the world was, indeed, created billions of years ago by God. It generally works as a theistic twist on the Big Bang Theory.

Quote Bladerunner:
Now Rabbi, Modern man is no older than 6-12,000 years old. The first being Adam.
Frothingslosh : We have H. sapiens fossils older than that.

Bladerunner: Which H. sapiens?

Ugh, if you're going to argue against evolution, at least learn enough to be coherent. There is only one species that has ever been named Homo sapiens - modern humans. All other branches of the genus 'Homo' have different species names.

Quote Bladerunner:
As far as his ancestors, there are about 5-7 of them, and the links are not established. From what I can read, there is a large void of time between each of them (with the exception of the last two). There is evidence that they co-mingled. However, they died out and by calculations, modern man was born some 25,000 years after.

Frothingslosh : We have H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis fossils from the same region and same time period (Europe 50,000 to 55,000 years ago, extending to approximately 40,000 years ago). Geneticists have determined that approximately a quarter of us have actual neanderthal genes. As far as we can tell, the neanderthals died off 39,000 to 41,000 years ago, possibly at our hands.

Bladerunner: Oh, yeah, we went back and killed them. Would you please be more specific here instead of just generalities Please?
Better go back, read up and be a little more specific. (i.e. Mesolithic humans lived around 10,000 years ago but US, WE Modern man of today only became less than 10,000 years ago. )

I was very specific. The only reason you're having difficulty is because you don't know the first bloody thing about the topic.

The humans living 10,000 years ago are the same species of human living today - Homo sapiens. We are the ONLY species of humanity to have existed since the neanderthals died out 40,000 years ago. As to THEIR death, it's still in the air whether we killed them, we aborbed them, they were killed off due to inability to adapt to the last ice age, or some or all of the above.

Frothingslosh : All of this data comes from millions of hours of painstaking research, and is published in millions of pages of peer-reviewed journals that are readily accesible.

Bladerunner: Question: How do you feel about all your research, papers and professors being compared to those very controlling people that lived 1500 BCE whom you claim wrote the Bible on their own without any help from God.

Anyone can write down oral histories and myths. Look at Greek and Roman mythology.

Also, we document things now. People living 3500 years ago didn't - they told apprentices, who then passed the knowledge along. Unfortunately, memories change and fade, and what your shaman told you 30 years ago will NOT be the same thing you tell your apprentice today.

If you don't believe me, sit down with 20 people in a circle. Whisper something in the ear of the person on your left, and have them pass it around the circle. The sentence you get back will not be even CLOSE to the sentence you initially said. Now imagine that spread over centuries, with decades between each telling.

Quote Bladerunner:
I have just had one poster to tell me if I did not have proof, I did not have anything. I have the Bible and that is proof enough. Where is your proof.
Frothingslosh : See my post above.
Bladerunner: YES, Please see my post above!

I reiterate what every non-fanatic has told you: "Because I say so" isn't proof.

FYI: My secretary's name is 'Me, Myself and I'. While it is evident you missed it, I will tell you anyway. The reference to 'my secretary' was my way of offering a reason why my typing is usually horrendous. Certainly nowhere as good as some secretary's typing.

As it is evident you missed it, I will tell you anyway. I was being sarcastic there.