On Nanterre University Library, there are no headphones. On this library I heard all headphones they had before have been stolen. Donations of headphones to Rainer Maria Rilke Public Library (Bibliothèque Municipale Rainer Maria Rilke) at Port Royal in Paris are very much encouraged.
Second, here I link to the video I have as yet not commented directly to, then give a kind of reposting of a comment given in a thread that seems to be deleted, then my answer to it:
- Video commented on
- Refuting the Irrefutable Proof of God - part I
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- My first question to @AronRa on a thread that seems to be now deleted for some reason or other, was how much there was left of Homo Erectus (other than Heidelbergensis which some consider but AronRa doesn't consider to be Erectus type).
Like what number of bones, how much of a skull, is it still there (I think one skull has disappeared over the XXth C.)and so on.
Now that "first" question, as @TheBelieveit1 put it, was the only real question.
Then we have a rhetorical one, like "you are aware that" ... namely if AronRa was aware we creationists do not consider the "Heidelbergensis" as "intermediate" between sth else and us, but simply as some few more of us.
(If he wants to quip that we creationists are surviving Heidelbergenses, I am not against it, I have no prejudice against the mental or pmoral capacities of the Heidelbergenses - back then, that is, for studies I prefer being Friburgensis to being Heidelbergensis, though I am myself neither but a Lundensis).
And thus lived within the last 7215 years.
Under this, I got a reply, which I see from my inbox, from @TheBelieveit1:
- + Hans-Georg Lundahl Can you rephrase the first question? What exactly are you asking for?
Too bad your understanding is wrong because you're off by a factor of about 28-85, meaning you need to multiply your estimate by those numbers as they lived more like 600,000-200,000 years ago given every bit of data we know.
Well it WAS fully "human" because it's part of the same genus as we are. Homo means Human in Latin. So if it's Homo, it's human. The thing is though, it's NOT the same species of human as...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- OK, the bits of data TheBelieveit1 claims we know are diaries and chronicles written over the 400,000 years separating 600,000 BP from 200,000 BP or 598,000 BC from 198,000 BC?
Followed up by comparison with similar chronicles held by the ethnic group or racial group known as Neanderthals from 250,000 BP to 28,000 BP, that is from 248,000 BC to 26,000 BC?
In what terms did the Neanderthal and Heidelberg races describe each other?
You know, for ethnic groups very clearly datable from history, like Celts and Romans, or Greeks too, we have Romans and Greeks describing each other and also describing Celts. Greeks describing Celts may sometimes have included Greeks describing Germans but mistaking them for Celts, but the Roman Tacitus refused to repeat that mistake.
And what were the names of the Heidelberg author describing Neanderthals or of the Neanderthal author describing Heidelbergians?
How did attitudes change over time, if they did?
I mean, 50,000 years is a pretty long time to live together, don't you think, so one would expect some changes and relapses of attitude - and such to be documented by writers.
No, we don't have the data that would REALLY very clearly point to those lengths of history.
We don't have the grammar of Neanderthalian, unless it coincides with the grammar of Hebrew, as universal pre-Flood and universal early post-Flood language.
We don't have the grammar of Heidelbergian language or languages either, unless again it coincides with the grammar of Hebrew, as universal pre-Flood and universal Flood to Babel language.
We don't have access to authors from these times, unless their writings are preserved in Genesis 1 - 11, perhaps Henoch, perhaps Jasher, perhaps Jubiliees, perhaps (via translation to Sanscrit) Mahabharata (if, as I suspect, it reflects pre-Flood civil wars in Nodian "Empire" or World State).
We do have a few skeletons, certainly of Neanderthalians, certainly of Heidelbergians, perhaps of Homo Erectus too. And we have a few datings of them that we Young Earth Creationists very clearly and unanimously reject as spurious, as being flawed in methodology.
Once again, as stated on my earlier comment, sorry for bumping on to a comment thread before actually listening to the video. Will try to make up for it now, asking for headphones, which I can have in this library.
Oh, I did remember there was a second real question or challenge too.
The video has a title which says "Refuting the Irrefutable Proof of God - part I " and I for one thing did not understand how Heidelbergians were relevant to it, and for another thing suspected they would be very much less relevant to it if considered as FULLY human, as people we could (if we had lived then and had had no reason to suspect them of being ancestral in family lineage) could have married, could have raised children with, could have lived in decent societies with (and them perhaps after Flood being grateful for finding wheat AGAIN or for finding copper AGAIN and iron on top of that).