Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Your rebuttal was extremely speculative…”
Some of it was speculative, true. I can only stand on definitive truths after all, and the exact details of Adam’s creation are firmly within the unseen as I said. All we know, based on what the Lord said, is that the manner was the same as Jesus’ creation. He provided no detail so any talk of what it COULD’VE been will be speculative by it’s nature since we have no way of knowing the full truth of the matter.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…with the waffling of a prototypical bad politician. Your own words prove the means of your defeat. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of the word similar.”
I not only acknowledged it, but even provided two speculative items that could function as to the difference implied. I know it would go over your head.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “This is unsettling and pathetic, as this is further validation of a fundamental lack of comprehension, or even the most miniscule grasp of nuance. You had the temerity to state ''I was speculating as to whether Adam was the template for the technique. It's possible that GOD used the same technique before that on earlier human-type creatures,'' this is where your argument begins to descend into lunacy, idiocy, and being preposterous beyond all shadow of doubt. Where is this kooky theory supported in scripture.”
speculate – to wonder, guess, consider, think, conjecture, contemplate
Why would a concept I am speculating on be supported in scripture? If it was supported in scripture, I wouldn’t have to speculate, would I? This is the “implicit” you are looking for. If Adam was the first human, but he was born of a woman, then it is to be understood that his mom wasn’t a human. “Proto-human” is a fair speculation based on the fossil record of such creatures existing. Why not? Calm down. I know your mind is blown; you’ll be alright.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “’Earlier Human-type creatures,' again I dismiss this outright…”
On what basis?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…that sure as hell come from no sacred text…”
lol Who said it did?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…and I can't even begin to fathom how you offer this as a reasonable point.”
1.) God said He created Jesus in the same manner in which He created Adam
2.) Jesus was born of a woman without a father
3.) Therefore Adam was born of a woman without a father
4.) Adam was the first human being
5.) Therefore his mother was not a human being
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “HORRIBLE.”
I can wait for you to catch up.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…as you stated, These are just absurd speculations.”
I think they are quite reasonable. An absurd speculation is that the virgin birth was unique.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “In continuing you quite predictably went on to introduce parthenogenesis.”
Were we not already discussing the virgin birth? Then it had already been introduced, Clif.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Did you actually think by stating ''this process can even happen in mammals,'' that it was true, if so, this is further proof of you becoming delusional. Your parthenogenesis contention is grossly inadequate and FALSE! UNTRUE! Let us briefly examine a collaborative work entitled Minireview: Parthenogenesis in Mammals,done by Nathalien Rougier, and Zena Werb from the Department of Anatomy, University of California, in which they state bluntly 'adult parthenogenesis has never been recorded in mammals.’”
Noooooo… They said it had never been recorded happening in the wild. An altogether different kettle of fish. It has happened in captivity. Since they can’t possible keep an eye over every single wild mammal to know this one way or the other, I find the fact that that line was even included to be stupid at best, and a deliberate misdirection to fool the gullible (such as yourself) at worst.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “(You were saying) Now I will give you the acknowledgement that the phenomenon has been observed in nature…”
You’re stumbling over yourself.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…but never in the manor in which you presented as evidence, and never in mammal…”
You need to get your research game up.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…and being that humans are mammals, you failed to prove anything. I know you didn't just lie, and make up some foolishness, oh wait, you did just lie and make up some foolishness.”
[I’m just going to leave this here]
”In 1936, Gregory Goodwin Pincus reported successfully inducing parthenogenesis in a rabbit. In April 2004, scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture used parthenogenesis successfully to create a fatherless mouse. Using gene targeting, they were able to manipulate two imprinted loci H19/IGF2 and DLK1/MEG3 to produce bi-maternal mice at high frequency and subsequently show that fatherless mice have enhanced longevity.” ~ Kawahara, Manabu; Wu, Qiong; Takahashi, Nozomi; Morita, Shinnosuke; Yamada, Kaori; Ito, Mitsuteru; Ferguson-Smith, Anne C; Kono, Tomohiro (2007). "High-frequency generation of viable mice from engineered bi-maternal embryos". Nature Biotechnology
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “As your arguments falter I have grown accustomed to the obligatory attempts at character assassination as you point out ''You have more than enough anti-religion memes on your Timeline,'' this is further evidence of a complete lack of any ability to grasp nuance. Like at all. As in, no clue. You're stuck on religion as though GOD and religion were automatically one and the same.”
God provided the religion to us. It’s His gift. Only the fool pooh-poohs it.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “In closing, you continue to beat that poor dead horse by proclaiming 'GOD said he did it before,' No he didn't, as you stated earlier, the word GOD used was 'similar.'”
Since you literally have zero way of knowing what part was ‘similar’ and what part was ‘different from the similarity,’ do you even know what you are trying to argue? If the ‘similar’ implied a gap so wide that the events weren’t even remotely the same, then why would He link them at all? Your desperation is pathetic, Clifton.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You offered up a pitifully speculative argument, and attempted to be deceitful in the interjection of a Parthenogenesis scenario that was supported by nothing. You went on to reinforce your foolishness by introducing ''Monkey People,'' who gave birth to Adam, a human being by your own admission and thus hammered in the final nail in your own coffin Monkeymen and dinosaurs bro...”
I’ll just wait for you to catch up, since you actually have zero basis for your attitude other than superstitions.
Clifton Hatchett - This is getting far too easy. You speculate widely. Let us look at your statement, ''Adam was the first Human, so his mother wasn't human,'' WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT... you go on to present a situation where you say This happened with Jesus, so this must've happened with Adam,'' this has devolved into nothing more than speculation. You continue this baffling trek by now introducing parthenogenesis, in a controlled, laboratory setting where the subjects where deliberately inseminated for purposes of studying parthenogenesis, as an argument for a plausible argument to explain the virgin birth. Reptiles, Rabbits, and Jesus. Who knew... ''Superstitions,''... this is you being delusional or an attempt at levity, in one instance, it's a psychological defect, the other is pitiful. ''Get your research game up,'' for what purpose if you're going to be disingenuous. This response is your weakest yet, as such I'll give you a mulligan.
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “This is getting far too easy. You speculate widely. Let us look at your statement, ''Adam was the first Human, so his mother wasn't human,'' WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT...”
Do the scriptures not say Adam was the first? So what’s the problem? If he’s the first, then his mom was something other, yes?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…you go on to present a situation where you say ‘This happened with Jesus, so this must've happened with Adam,'”
Noooo… God said it. I only quoted Him.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…this has devolved into nothing more than speculation. You continue this baffling trek by now introducing parthenogenesis…”
Parthenogenesis was introduced when the virgin birth topic came up.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…in a controlled, laboratory setting where the subjects where deliberately inseminated…”
You are confused. Any form of insemination is not parthenogenesis by definition. They observed it happen in the lab.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…for purposes of studying parthenogenesis, as an argument for a plausible argument to explain the virgin birth. Reptiles, Rabbits, and Jesus. Who knew...”
*shrug* Again, I’ll wait for you to catch up. Of course this may take a while since you are the one that actually asked me what would a Muslim know about Jesus AFTER I posted a Qur’anic verse talking about Jesus. smh
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “'Superstitions,'... this is you being delusional or an attempt at levity, in one instance, it's a psychological defect, the other is pitiful.”
You are the one acting frightened of “monkey men” and running for the hills. lol
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “'Get your research game up,' for what purpose if you're going to be disingenuous. This response is your weakest yet, as such I'll give you a mulligan.”
Your twice now demonstrated confusion over parthenogenesis means you have some more reading to do, so I’ll patiently wait for you to catch up.
Clearly your worldview is shaken.
Clifton Hatchett - No. His(Adams) mother could not have been something different.. Prove otherwise. You persistently state that''GOD said it,'' when he did not, this is your attempt to pigeon hole the narrative. Parthenogenesis is introduced as you offer up evidence to which the source clearly states, ''adult parthenogenesis has never been observed in mammals,'' key word, NEVER, as in, not ever, not at any time. There is no way around it. Never, means it (parthenogenesis in mammals) hasn't happened. This is where you made the leap to magic monkeys having human children. By the way, to add some clarity, I didn't ask you ''what would a Muslim know about Jesus,'' this was me simply informing you that many people do not know that Jesus is held within such high regard in the Islamic faith. You're being pretentious. As for your contention that I am afraid of monkey-men, you are correct, the idea of Adam being birthed from a Bigfoot is crazy. Crazy is a polite terminology...lol, but seriously. You conclude by stating ''You twice now demonstrated confusion over parthenogenesis,'' that's laughable coming from one who interjected Bigfoot giving birth to Adam, Dinosaurs,(why I don't know), Reptiles, lab rabbits being artificially inseminated in a manipulated environment, as proof of the immaculate conception of Jesus. Your contention is a classic example of ''Non Sequitur,'' but you know that. Then again given your determination to , and proclivity for wild speculation, perhaps you don't brother Rasheed. To continue attempts at validating your speculations, you run the risk of descending even further into a frighteningly bizarre psychosis. I expect better of you, but in this discussion, my expectations in you have proven to be unfounded.
Clifton Hatchett –
Rick Drew - This meme just shows ignorance or other religions. Oh, and your own as well.
Clifton Hatchett - Rick...greetings... he called for back up... ''This meme just shows ignorance to other religions. Oh, and your own as well.'' How is that I have not expressed an allegiance to a particular ''faith,'' Speculation must be a crutch within the shared circle of Mr. Rasheed, and yourself.
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “No.”
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “His(Adams) mother could not have been something different..”
Explain. Adam is the FIRST homo sapien. Obviously his mom would be something different.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Prove otherwise.”
Is Adam the first man or not? If he is the first man then his mom was a ‘proto-man.’ Pretty simple math, huh, Bob?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You persistently state that'GOD said it,' when he did not…”
God said that the creation of Jesus was the same as the creation of Adam.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…this is your attempt to pigeon hole the narrative.”
This is my futile attempt to widen a narrow mind…
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Parthenogenesis is introduced as you offer up evidence to which the source clearly states, 'adult parthenogenesis has never been observed in mammals,'”
Did you think I wouldn’t notice that you stuck the word “adult” in there? The source says “there are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild” which is a nonsense statement since there’s all kinds of shit that happens in the wild that isn’t observed, hence the term “the wild.” It’s clearly misdirection. Stop following shiny shit and pay attention.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “key word, NEVER, as in, not ever, not at any time. There is no way around it. Never, means it (parthenogenesis in mammals) hasn't happened.”
Remember that quote I posted from the scientific journal above that said it DID happen? Twice? Well, it actually happened more often than that.
Clifton, don’t make me cuss you out like I did Rahlistic. I hate stupid. Don’t do that to yourself.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “This is where you made the leap to magic monkeys having human children.”
“Magic?” It is well documented that early humans shared the earth with other versions of proto-humans. The fossil record is full of their remains. If your mind is SO narrow as to deny such facts, I suggest you stop with the Damon Wayans’ word salads, and stop trying to pretend you are smart.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “By the way, to add some clarity, I didn't ask you 'what would a Muslim know about Jesus,' this was me simply informing you that many people do not know that Jesus is held within such high regard in the Islamic faith. You're being pretentious.”
Do a better job saying what you mean.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “As for your contention that I am afraid of monkey-men, you are correct…”
Well, the next time I remind you of the narrowness of your mind, try not to protest so much. You've earned it after all.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…the idea of Adam being birthed from a Bigfoot is crazy.”
Based on what?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Crazy is a polite terminology...lol, but seriously. You conclude by stating 'You twice now demonstrated confusion over parthenogenesis,' that's laughable coming from one who interjected Bigfoot giving birth to Adam…”
According to the people who are into Bigfoot, that species is supposed to be running around right now, so what would that have to do with Adam?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…Dinosaurs,(why I don't know)”
Since parthenogenesis is rare in complex animals, I speculated as to when it might have been used before Adam (following the thread if Adam wasn’t the actual template for it). So if it wasn’t used on any of the proto-humans, then maybe it was used even further back, like on the dinosaurs.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…Reptiles, lab rabbits being artificially inseminated in a manipulated environment…”
Once again, by definition, if insemination of any sort was involved, then it wasn’t parthenogenesis. You’re clearly still confused. Since you’ve apparently snapped your already narrow mind shut like a steel trap, I no longer expect you to catch up.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…as proof of the immaculate conception of Jesus.”
Is this your way of insisting that it was magic involved?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Your contention is a classic example of 'Non Sequitur,' but you know that. Then again given your determination to , and proclivity for wild speculation, perhaps you don't brother Rasheed. To continue attempts at validating your speculations, you run the risk of descending even further into a frighteningly bizarre psychosis. I expect better of you, but in this discussion, my expectations in you have proven to be unfounded.”
I knew you were dumb and small-minded when I first came in here. I am undisturbed by your primitive confusion when your tiny & comfortable world view gets rocked. You already gave yourself away when you’d say stuff like “people like you aren’t allowed to think that way” or whatever you said exactly. Don’t project your narrow, tiny, fits-in-box mind onto me, please. Thank you.
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “@Rick...greetings... he called for back up...”
Obviously he was responding to the original status meme, Clif, which showed on his newsfeed because of this activity. Geeez…
btw I know you gave Rahlistic the “what is prayer for?” answers because you got tired of his question duckin’ bullshit, too.
Clifton Hatchett - lollollol....I did no such thing. I enjoyed the back and forth between yourself & Rahlistic. He and yourself are more than capable of conversing without interference from me. I wouldn't do that Muhammad... you funny man.
Muhammad Rasheed - The shit was still wrong. lol
Clifton Hatchett - As far as your argument goes, it's dead. A Bigfoot can't give birth to a human, except in your world. ''Based on what,'' you ask... You're being silly for sure. Is it your honest contention that a Monkey-woman gave birth to human child. I want you to say this is your honest conclusion. A monkey had a human. Serious. This is your stance. Anything after this extreme folly of yours, requires no comment from me... You haven't proven anything, and now you have resorted to ancient magic monkey people having human children. You lost Muhammad. You and your monkey folks.
Muhammad Rasheed - You should know that "bigfoot" is another straw man if you keep it up.
1.) Speculating as to how something COULD be (all I know is that Adam was created the same as Jesus because God said it. How He did it, I don't know, but that is my best guess)
2.) ...isn't the same as saying it IS true and arguing against it (like you and your strawman fallacy that the virgin birth was unique).
Since we still leave on the note of your weak argument, obviously you are the loser. Nice try thinking you got away that easily.
Rahlistic Visions - Oh I'm not done yet. Been busy will go in later. Got shit to do.
Clifton Hatchett - ''Muhammad,'' Bigfoot is a strawman, as are your magic monkey people who have human children.
Muhammad Rasheed - Notice how at no point did I ever argue against the proto-human concept as if you invented it? That it never stopped being a personal speculation of my own and just a guess as to where Adam came from? That means it's not a strawman argument. smh
Scroll back up and read the definition again, please.
Muhammad Rasheed - If you never said it, but I acted like you said it, and argued against it as if you said it, then it would be a straw man.
You know? Like when you said that the bible said that the virgin birth was unique even though it didn't, and you built your whole argument around it?
Clifton Hatchett - Your credibility within this argument is shot. ''Magic Monkey People,'' was delightfully comical, and beyond hilarious. It was a fun argument. You can continue rambling, but you can't escape your own ''Magic Monkey People,'' theory. Period.
Muhammad Rasheed - I think the theory is sound myself.
What do you have to replace it with that you think is better? God said the manner in which He created Jesus was similar to how He created Adam in the first place.
What's your speculation as to what it COULD mean? Just for fun.
Clifton Hatchett - You do not think the theory is sound. ''Just for fun,'' I don't trust you, your going to spazz and do some of your magic monkey stuff and twist my words in an attempt to make me sound just as ridiculous as you....No thanks...lol, besides I'm drawing, watching football and going to visit my mother. I will revisit the subject though. You got my word on it. Whatever my theory is, it'll be better than magic monkey people.
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: "You do not think the theory is sound."
It makes perfect sense to me. You make me feel smart when you act like that, for the record. Honestly. lol
Clifton Hatchett - Your theory was flawed(IMO) in another aspect. The magic monkeys would have raised the infant human as well. You don't believe any of this, and surely this was a long running joke wasn't it....
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: "Your theory was flawed(IMO) in another aspect. The magic monkeys would have raised the infant human as well."
God took Adam up to paradise and taught him the names of the angels and everything in creation. The proto-humans didn't raise him. There is no timestream in paradise... the realm of spirit... so Lord knows how long he was there before Eve, and how long the two of them were there before the fall.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: "You don't believe any of this, and surely this was a long running joke wasn't it...."
I believe the definite parts that God spoke on. Of course I don't believe in the speculative aspects since I have no way of knowing if it was true or not. Based on the scant available evidence, I think it's the best-case scenario of what actually happened. Until any new facts come in to make the picture clearer and more accurate, that is my working theory.
Deannie Mack - Zoroastrianism principles and prophecies is what you two are debating. Recorded history is as it is because the Jews did not want anyone else to be capable of inventing a story as they did, as a means of propelling themselves to the top of the food chain. Alexander The Great's job was to destroy religious texts; including those of Persia ( Iraq and Iran ).
Muhammad Rasheed - How do you know this is the case?
Deannie Mack - It's part of written history
Muhammad Rasheed - Written where?
Deannie Mack - Being that you are a scholar as well as an intellectual, I am certain you can manage to do the research, if you're interested. I wouldn't waste my time presenting you with excerpts and passages; which you would undoubtedly debate to no end.
Deannie Mack - Zoroastrianism
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) "Zoroastrianism principles and prophecies is what you two are debating." (which parts of our debate touch on this?)
2.) "Recorded history is as it is because the Jews did not want anyone else to be capable of inventing a story as they did as a means of propelling themselves to the top of the food chain." (where is this info written?)
3.) "Alexander The Great's job was to destroy religious texts; including those of Persia" (Is that Alexander's actual history, or the after-the-fact legend?)
Deannie Mack - All virgin births
Muhammad Rasheed - Deannie Mack wrote: "Being that you are a scholar as well as an intellectual, I am certain you can manage to do the research, if you're interested."
The interest is generated from a spirited debate with someone who holds that knowledge. Are you just throwing this info out there as something you once heard, or are you one who holds this knowledge?
Deannie Mack wrote: "I wouldn't waste my time presenting you with excerpts and passages; which you would undoubtedly debate to no end."
I enjoy debating things I know, and challenging things people say that challenge my knowledge, or otherwise have info that intrigues me enough to probe into their knowledge.
Muhammad Rasheed - Which of these do you represent?
Deannie Mack - Knowledge without understanding what you know is nothing. I represent none of the above. Life's way is immeasurable, inconceivable and unfathomable. Our importance is based upon the Earth's movements; just a physical thing. Nothing adds up to anything.
Muhammad Rasheed - Deannie Mack wrote: "Knowledge without understanding what you know is nothing."
How could one call that "knowledge?" If you hold something and have no way of using it as it was intended to be used, is it really the thing it was designed to be while you hold it?
Or is it only in its true form when in the hands of him or her that can wield it?
Muhammad Rasheed - Is a sword a 'sword' while in the hands of him who doesn't know 'war?'
Muhammad Rasheed - For him it is only a cane. Or perhaps a carpet beater.
Deannie Mack - Behind every eye is a god who holds a sword and shield at the ready. When men sit down, they sit without the ability to bring forth civility between their gods. Would my sword enjoy your blood? Perhaps. What you are willing to kill yourself for says a lot. But why would I invite you to walk around the block, when you're obviously tethered to a pole?
Muhammad Rasheed - Ha! The Free Will I operate from is tethered to nothing. I am free from restraints, most especially those that blaspheme my Maker.
Throw down your rod, O Deannie! What do you hold?
Deannie Mack - Your Maker? You know absolutely nothing of your Maker, correct? You claim to be of free will but declare yourself tethered to a master in the same verse? Rod sufficiently thrown? Free Will does not exist. Freedom does not exist. "Give me liberty or give me death." We have death, if you haven't noticed....
Muhammad Rasheed - Deannie Mack wrote: “Your Maker?”
Aye. My Maker, and your Maker as well.
Deannie Mack wrote: “You know absolutely nothing of your Maker, correct?”
I know that of which He chose to reveal, and of those things He keeps hidden no one can know lest He so will it.
Deannie Mack wrote: “You claim to be of free will but declare yourself tethered to a master in the same verse?”
You are confused as to how Free Will functions; I come and go as I please, and do what I wish. It is 100% within my own power to acknowledge my Maker or not acknowledge Him; to believe or disbelieve as I am so inclined. To believe is the Ultimate Freedom. To disbelieve is to tether myself to foolishness, and be a slave to my own lowly desires.
Deannie Mack wrote: “Rod sufficiently thrown?”
Deciding to take uninformed swipes at the nature of my Free Will reveals naught but the shallow pool you stand within... ankle deep. It doesn’t reveal what you yourself believe. Did you somehow think it would? How so?
Deannie Mack wrote: “Free Will does not exist.”
An odd statement since I’m operating out of it at this moment. It is quite tasty, too. :)
Deannie Mack wrote: “Freedom does not exist.”
Ah. So it is the perspective of the slave that I address in you then? You should throw off your yoke of disbelief, O Deannie, and join me that you may experience freedom, for what apparently will be the very first time.
Deannie Mack wrote: “’Give me liberty or give me death.’ We have death, if you haven't noticed....”
We will all of us have death, Deannie. Such is the promise of the Maker, and surely He keeps His promises! Did someone tell you it was optional? Let me assure you that person lied. Death is obligatory, and then afterwards, there is life hereafter. What is optional will be the quality of that afterlife.
Rahlistic Visions -
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “As far as your argument goes, it's dead. A Bigfoot can't give birth to a human, except in your world. 'Based on what,' you ask... You're being silly for sure. Is it your honest contention that a Monkey-woman gave birth to human child. I want you to say this is your honest conclusion. A monkey had a human. Serious.”
It seems like your main point of contention is the idea that a species can give birth to a different genetic species. The following items may be of interest to you:
1.) An F1 hybrid (or Filial 1 hybrid) is the first filial generation of offspring of distinctly different parental types.
2.) The offspring of distinctly different parental types produce a new, uniform phenotype with a combination of characteristics from the parents.
3.) Mules are F1 hybrids between horse and donkey. Today, certain domestic hybrid breeds, such as the Savannah cat, are classified by their filial generation number.
Principles of Molecular Medicine by Marschall S. Runge and Cam Patterson (editors)
Laboratory Outlines in Biology--VI by Peter Abramoff and Robert G. Thomson
I started to just leave it there, but then I remembered how well inside the box you prefer to be, so I’d better walk you through this or it’s just going to go over your head, Clifton. You think it’s crazy and impossible that a proto-human would be able to have a human baby because they are two separate species, yet the above items prove that it’s not only possible, but it happens all the time. It’s completely normal for one species to give birth to another species despite the intensity of your personal incredulity.
Clifton Hatchett - I will have to read the material. Has this phenomenon been observed in hominids...
Muhammad Rasheed - I would reckon that the last time it happened was with Jesus, and the last time before that...
Muhammad Rasheed - What's that? Like a million year gap?
Clifton Hatchett - I'll read up on the subject more for purposes of diligence, but it feels like a stretch.
Muhammad Rasheed - I know. It'll take you some time to pull together the pieces of your blown mind. You'll be alright.
Take some night classes.
Muhammad Rasheed - hahahaha
Clifton Hatchett - so says the monkey man.
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't believe in "monkey men."
Clifton Hatchett - Liar.
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't think the proto-humans looked too much different from the way we look. I don't think they looked like apes the way those eurocentric/darwinism scientists need everyone to think they did in order for their evolution theory to be true.
Muhammad Rasheed - The proto-humans LOOKED human (more or less) but were missing something vital. I don't think they had a pituitary gland, or the ability for their bodies to produce DMT: The Spirit Molecule.
That's the part that enabled Adam to converse with the Spirit, and to receive revelation from the One God.
Clifton Hatchett - I'm not one who subscribes wholeheartedly to evolution.
Muhammad Rasheed - Me neither. Their argument is very weak, but they've been propping it up using nothing more than their propaganda hype machine trying to force everyone to accept it as true.
Here's the thing: the fossil record does reveal the fact that at one time, the homo sapien DID share the planet with other human-like creatures. Not "monkey men." Actual people-like creatures. Most of which could probably pass as modern humans.
They just didn't act like us. They lacked the ability to receive spiritual guidance.
Muhammad Rasheed - Not to confuse the issue, but at the same time, there probably WERE other great ape species running around too that absolutely were NOT our 'ancestors' like the darwinists would have us believe. In those days there were a lot of other species of everything around.
Doesn't mean the other, now extinct, ape species and the now extinct proto-humans were related though. No.
Clifton Hatchett - Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and the like, and the fact that many people of European, and Asian decent have be proven, through genetics, to have Neanderthal DNA within their make up is proof of interbreeding, and assimilation, but this could not apply to Adam, as the Eden was in Africa, and Africans, and persons of African decent show absolutely no DNA, from any of the hominids that cohabited the planet with early homo sapiens.
Muhammad Rasheed - Cro-Magnon wasn't a proto-human. He was one of the first waves of homo sapien to leave Africa to populate Europe. He was a black man.
Clifton Hatchett - See. Here we go. Why wouldn't they simply be referred to as humans...
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and the like, and the fact that many people of European, and Asian decent have be proven, through genetics, to have Neanderthal DNA within their make up is proof of interbreeding, and assimilation, but this could not apply to Adam…”
I think while Adam and his wife were in paradise for that unknown period of time, there were probably some global cataclysms happening on earth to thin out those tribes of proto-humans. By the time the First Family arrived on earth, there may have been few of those proto-human tribes remaining.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “as the Eden was in Africa…”
I think there were two “Edens.” The first one was the Gardens of Paradise in the spirit realm. After the fall, the lush area that the First Family settled in, I don’t think it unlikely that they probably named their new home “Eden.”
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…and Africans, and persons of African decent show absolutely no DNA, from any of the hominids that cohabited the planet with early homo sapiens.”
I think it’s probably a bit too early to make that call definitively because not all the science is in on it, but I tend to agree with you on that.
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: "See. Here we go. Why wouldn't they simply be referred to as humans..."
Ha! if you REALLY want to get annoyed, Google what those eurocentric darwinists think Cro-Magnon probably looked like in their "scientific" paintings.
Clifton Hatchett - I just can't allow myself to speculate on Global Cataclysms, thinning the heard, so to speak. As you say ''probably a bit too early,'' I subscribe to a notion that the collected data is ''probably completely accurate,'' in regards to us not being part cavemen, or monkey people...lol
Clifton Hatchett - I have seen the the images offered up by the ''Darwinist,'' and I have long been puzzled as to how something that is so speculative could be accepted as hard science.
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “I just can't allow myself to speculate on Global Cataclysms, thinning the heard, so to speak.”
The trick to all of that kind of stuff, Clifton, is to throw out the theories that fit some bullshit agenda. The facts are facts. People formulate theories to provide some possible explanation for what the factual data may mean. The more facts we discover, the closer to the truth we are able to get, because each new fact represents a piece in the big picture puzzle. The eurocentrist/Darwinists have a specific agenda that I dismiss just as easily as you dismiss certain items here. I don’t believe Darwinian evolution theory is a reasonable theory for what the fossil record data reveal. The facts are what they are. The earth has been getting gradually drier and drier for the last 40,000 years or so. That’s actually the direct reason why the original civilized black race finally settled in the Nile valley and eventually built up the Ancient Egyptian civilization. In their own records they said it began 30,000 years ago… when Africa started getting so dry they were no longer comfortable wandering North & South across the great continent with their legions of flocks like they had been doing for untold ages out of memory. In those distant days, the earth was much wetter and much greener. The deserts were tinier, and many huge deserts we take for granted today didn’t even exist in those times. And the animals!! There were numerous animals everywhere, of such variety you couldn’t take it to see them. This was long ago; too long indeed for members of our society to even fathom. Earth is volatile. Far more volatile than the volcanoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes we currently experience will have you believe. It’s capable of MUCH more, and has experienced much more as well. As you zoom out, look at larger and larger blocks of time in which our species had to endure, you will see that the odds of the global cataclysm happened with much more frequency. And in fact, we are actually due for another one. Perhaps it will actually be the super-volcano of Yellow Stone National Park that will finally violently explode, taking ¾ of the human race with it. Who knows? But it will be SOMETHING. The earth isn’t our friend all the time. In the distant past, there used to be a lot more animals, a lot more varieties of people roaming, and a much more volatile Mother Earth. These three items aren’t theory… they are fact. It is up to you to theorize what they can mean. I filter them through the Word of God myself, and see what comes out on the other side.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “As you say ''probably a bit too early,'' I subscribe to a notion that the collected data is ''probably completely accurate,'' in regards to us not being part cavemen, or monkey people...lol”
Well, a “caveman” is simply someone who lives in a cave. You can find those in the earth now. But the “monkeyman” creature is part of the Darwinist narrative, and I don’t subscribe to that anymore than you do as far as it being something that we evolved from. No. The fossil record does show that there were other great apes in the world though; that the chimpanzee, the gorilla, the orangutan, and the gibbon were not the only ones in those ancient green days. Many more great ape species have become extinct than are alive right now. The Darwinists will have you believe that those creatures WERE you in a previous form, but I reject this. lol Basically I’m in total agreement with you on that note, but I do recognize that those creatures were real. They just don’t represent what those folk say they represent.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “I have seen the the images offered up by the 'Darwinist,' and I have long been puzzled as to how something that is so speculative could be accepted as hard science.”
At this point it should be obvious. The atheists have latched onto that theory because they were desperate to find something “real” to replace God with. As far fetched as it is, to them, it is not as far fetched as the truly unique and all-powerful Supreme Creator who created this reality from a single point in the distant past. But the intellectual class of western society has indeed accepted this theory as “real,” and put enormous pressure on all of our schools of learning to present is as a truth. That’s why it’s important to think for yourself; not to think inside of the box, because you don’t know where that box came from.
In this case, it came from the unrepentant hellbound. The Godless. And no good can come from it.
Clifton Hatchett - ''Caveman,'' was a reference to the widely held description of Neanderthal types that come to mind when one hears the term ''Caveman,'' not the person whom has simply sought refuge in a cave. Aside from that I agree with the majority of your assessment.