re: Do you think Great Apes could eventually evolve enough to have their own Stone Age?

quote:

---

Infinite space is though as we know the universe appears (from measurements) flat and not curved which would be creating a loop. So we know from it being flat that it's most likely infinite which is hard to wrap your mind around

---

You say that like its been proven. It has not. And there is currently more evidence for the time frame of the emergence of life on earth and our over all understanding for the origins of life on earth than there is origin, fate or current mapping of the universe.

quote:

---

Like what's been proven? That the universe is flat?

---

Are you confusing the observable universe with the entire universe?

quote:

---

Are you confusing the observable universe with the entire universe?

---

No sir

quote:

---

Like what's been proven? That the universe is flat?

---

Yes. and that is the observable universe. Also the observable universe appears flat, its topology is still a mystery. It could be connected like Euclidean space or multiply connected, like a donut shape

quote:

---

How do we know that?

---

Because Papias quoted Eusebius somewhere around AD300 saying exactly that. The gospel of Mark is based on Peters eyewitness testimony, which was in turn written down by Mark. Irenaus around AD150 or so also confirmed this. This isn't a secret. Early Christianity Fathers confirmed this as well. 1 Peter 5:13 shows how close the two were.

quote:

---

critical textual scholars and historians - have shown conclusively that the four canonical gospels were dependent on Paul and written after 70 AD and maybe as late as the 140s-150s

---

This is just incorrect. Mark was in the 60-70's with John being written last in 90-100. Not one thing i have researched shows any scholars saying they were dependent upon Paul's letters.

quote:

---

That’s the opposite of what experts have shown. Do you have any sources who are not from apologists?

---

Raymond E Brown, The Gospel according to John specifically states

quote:

---

There is almost no use of Pauline vocabulary. For example: Justification, central to Paul is absent from John

---

quote:

---

Most experts would argue that Paul didn’t talk about Jesus’ life on earth because those stories hadn’t yet been invented.

---

You're not understanding it apparently. He wrote about Jesus before the gospels were written but after Jesus death and resurrection.

These books ring a bell

Galatians 4:4
Romans 1:3
1 Corinthians 7:10
1 Corinthians 15:3-8

quote:

---

Do you even denisovan? They def got stuck and are now extinct. So did homo erectus

---

Its inconceivable that an extinction event took several lines of humanoids out, but not sapiens. The slowness of evolution meant that early sapiens were slightly different from their ancestors. Slightly. Not enough to where an extinction event would allow them to survive solely. Its stupid to propose that

quote:

---

We had a competitive advantage and persisted while they dwindled and eventually couldn't reproduce. .

---

This is even more stupid. The sapien birth was the one off. It evolved into a small, new species. The other humanoids were still being born at a massive rate in comparison

Especially in parts of the globe where sapiens werent evolving at all.

Humans war. Its what they do. Sapiens would be more at risk to go extinct after 900,000 years of other humanoids marking their territories. Remember, there is only a slight difference between species. And Sapiens were far outnumbered. If evolution actually did occur

quote:

---

And Sapiens were far outnumbered.

---

Were they?

quote:

---

Because Papias quoted Eusebius somewhere around AD300 saying exactly that.

---

Rather than write in the third person, couldn’t the author have just signed his name and written in the first person point of view? Sure would have cleared things up.

You telling me because Papias says so isn’t at all compelling to me. Papias also says the gospel of Matthew was a sayings gospel (sayings of Jesus, not a narrative) and he says that gospel was written in Aramaic, but we know *our* gospel of Matthew was written in Greek (and copied word for word in Greek from Mark in many cases). Why should I believe that what Papias called Mark is out Mark? It might well be true, but there’s not yet been any evidence to convince me either way though I lean towards it not being true because of the reasons I mentioned.

quote:

---

The gospel of Mark is based on Peters eyewitness testimony

---

The gospel of Mark is based on Paul’s epistles in the format of Homer’s Iliad.

quote:

---

Irenaus around AD150 or so also confirmed this. This isn't a secret

---

What’s interesting here is that Irenaeus was the very first one we know of / have record of to ever call the gospels by the names Mark Matthew Luke and John. He had a hand in picking them to be what would become our canon - he had a hand in rejecting the other dozens of gospels as non inspired.

What Irenaeus’ reasoning to have four gospels? Well, because there are four cardinal directions and four winds, duh!

Another interesting tidbit is that Irenaeus doesn’t mention these four canonical gospels by name until the time period he wrote “Against Heresies” of which a major component of that work was his arguments against Marcion of Sinope who had composed the very first Christian canon and bible. Many experts believe that Mark - obviously the first of the four we have today - was an edited and amended version of Marcion’s gospel that he called Evangelikon. And we have Marcion’s letters complaining that people were copying and editing his gospel to boot.

quote:

---

Mark was in the 60-70's

---

That’s laughable

quote:

---

Not one thing i have researched shows any scholars saying they were dependent upon Paul's letters.

---

You must not even be trying.

quote:

---

Raymond E Brown, The Gospel according to John specifically states quote:There is almost no use of Pauline vocabulary. For example: Justification, central to Paul is absent from John

---

John is the latest and was the most unique and was dependent on the previous gospels and Paul but wasn’t a blatant copy of Mark Luke or Matthew. Does Raymond Brown compare Mark to Paul?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most experts would argue that Paul didn’t talk about Jesus’ life on earth because those stories hadn’t yet been invented.

---

You're not understanding it apparently. He wrote about Jesus before the gospels were written but after Jesus death and resurrection.

---

I agree with your statement here (except the part of me not understanding). My statement still stands.

There’s a guy named Mason Locke Weem who wrote a biography of George Washington in 1806. He recorded a story about George chopping down his father’s cherry tree, and when confronted, says “I cannot tell a lie”. George died in 1799. Imagine some other guy writing a biography in 1805 not mentioning the cherry tree incident because it hadn’t been invented yet. So the Weem fellow later admitted the cherry tree incident was a total fabrication on his part just made to convey a characteristic of George’s character to the reader. It was a made up story, and I bet you know that story 200+ years later of George chopping it down.

quote:

---

So the Weem fellow later admitted the cherry tree incident was a total fabrication on his part just made to convey a characteristic of George’s character to the reader.

---

But how did he write it down if it wasn’t true? If it was a legitimate lie, the paper would’ve rejected the ink.

Nothing is flat in 3 dimensions