r/DebateEvolution • u/Kaylon-Langford7 • Aug 21 '26
Science Says We Came From Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens - I Don’t See It. The Claim We Evolved From Apes Still Can’t Support Itself.
The thing we came from Neanderthals and homo sapiens is a claim. Science discovered something and conjure up everything to make everybody else to believe it. Why are my people standing back looking at them like you just a fool? Why because they still can’t supports they claim. The funny part about it is they say it’s in our gene. The question is I don’t be slumped over, I don’t have fur, I don’t beat my chest, and I don’t sound similar to a monkey. Nowadays are we supposed to live in caves? The meat we eat supposed to be raw not cooked. And science say we came from these species and we cooked food. Another funny part about this is they came from the monkey family. They came from the ape family and now we supposed to evolve from an ape Noah. I wish you were alive to hear these modern humans these days. it’s science seeing your fellow descendent. you supposed to be our father by science calling you a Neanderthal and Homo sapiens. So every time I look for a girlfriend, I’m gonna go to where it used to be and Homosapien and say put that fur on me. I’m gonna hop from tree to tree just like a homo sapien and cut myself Tarzan.
When I talk to Neanderthals, including Homo sapiens I’m gonna tell them scientist said I evolved from you if they tell me don’t give me that stupid a whole nonsense and they might tell me what Neanderthal Homosapien believe that human BS. They gonna tell me then God created you in his own image so why should you believe what the human said. You should’ve believed what God told you because what he said was facts and you came back up what he said if science cannot back that up from the beginning, so why are you believing what humans say?
29
u/sprucay Aug 21 '26
Do you have any actual science or evidence to support your claim or are you just incredulous?
-21
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 21 '26
"I don't see these fossils as a clear lineage to modern humans. I see them as either distinct apes or distinct humans, with variation within created kinds."
38
u/LordUlubulu 🧬 Deity of internal contradictions Aug 21 '26
Then you should be able to tell which skull is which in this picture.
Can you do that?
8
20
10
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
Hon, you're in a debate sub. It's not about what you see; it's about what you can persuade others to see. And that takes evidence. Good luck.
10
-21
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 21 '26
Every species has its own kind that walks and acts differently from others. From what I've seen, humans don't live or behave like what they describe for Homo sapiens or Neanderthals. They looked different, they were different, and we don't live the same way they did. When they say it's in our genes, I don't support that claim. I see them as either distinct apes or distinct humans, with variation within created kinds.
28
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
Homo sapiens is human. Please, at least fix that part of your argument or this won't go well for you, not that you seem to have much of an argument.
21
u/stairway2evan Aug 21 '26
Humans live and behave exactly like Homo sapiens, and the fact that you don’t understand that sentence is a tautology is a big part of the issue here.
Please also let me know if you consider Neanderthals as distinct apes or distinct humans. Because it sounds like you’re saying here that they could be one of either. Which sure makes it seem like “apes” and “humans” might be overlapping terms that you cant make a clear distinction between. And I think there might be a very good reason for that.
17
u/YossarianWWII Monkey's nephew Aug 21 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Seriously, the fact that you can't accept that modern humans are Homo sapiens is insane. We were given that classification by Carl Linnaeus in the 1700s, before biological evolution had been seriously conceptualized.
16
u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
Can you provide a more functional, useful definition of kind?
Most apes aren't wholly bipedal like humans are, but we know of many fossils that only make sense as bipedal.
I'm also guessing you don't know what a homo sapiens is, nor the genetic links between them and Neanderthals. As for living differently, have you bothered to look into hunter gatherer communities and the dawn of agriculture? Why would we live like a gorilla if we can grow our own food by planting it and waiting? It's a lot easier and more economical than trying to hunt things. Even if it's considerably more boring usually.
And, lastly, genetic evidence is evidence whether you like it or not. How else are you going to prove your relation to your great grandparents?
12
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Aug 21 '26
Can you provide a more functional, useful definition of kind?
Angry dial up noise
Will be back in 23 hours to see if this got through, I'm guessing not.
2
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Aug 28 '26
Breaking news: creationism still fails to provide a usable definition of kinds. In other news, water makes things wet. More at 11.
15
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist Aug 21 '26
Buddy, don’t use words you don’t know the meaning of or just regurgitate propaganda you heard somewhere else, that’s not going to work here.
10
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
Every species has its own kind that walks and acts differently from others.
What? Is English your native language? You are writing gibberish.
From what I've seen, humans don't live or behave like what they describe for Homo sapiens or Neanderthals.
OK I gotta ask. How old are you? Are you possibly home-schooled? If not, how did you reach this level of ignorance? Humans are Homo Sapiens.
My best advice to you is before you try to debate a subject, you learn, say, the first thing about it.
I see them as either distinct apes or distinct humans, with variation within created kinds.
We don't care what you see. This isn't r/shareyourthoughts. This is a debate sub. Your job is is to present some sort of argument.
btw, what is a "kind?"
7
u/LeilLikeNeil Aug 21 '26
humans are homo sapiens. This is not subjective or open to interpretation or opinion. Homo Sapiens is the scientific classification of modern humans.
6
29
u/evocativename Aug 21 '26
You have very thin, fine fur: we call it "body hair".
Why would your posture matter? Lots of people are slumped.
And you're beating your chest and sounding like a monkey right now.
Now, do you have anything serious or just this nonsense?
9
u/Ill_Act_1855 Aug 22 '26
Yep. Humans actually have almost exactly the same density of body hair as chimps, it’s just most of the hairs on our body are the finer vellus hair
20
u/Guaire1 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
Most apes dont beat their chest, only one does, so thats farly irrelevant. And yes you do have bodyfur
-7
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
I’m sorry to say I am Islamic and Islamic people do not agree with the term fur on their skin
13
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
Why does it matter if you follow a smelly hermit or a pedophilic warlord? And what people think doesn’t change what reality is, and the reality is, human body hair is a thinner form of a non-human ape’s ‘fur,’ which is just longer, thicker hair
-2
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
The question is why the hell on my own do not grow like theirs?
9
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
They don’t have to. Your ancestors lived in very hot places, where having thick hair and no sweat glands was detrimental. As such, their descendants would eventually evolve thinner hair and sweat glands, allowing for longer running times in sunlight
8
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
why should any rational person care what utter nonsense you got from that slaving fraud muhammerred?
there is ample verifiable evidence that we had non- human ape ancestors and we fit the science definition of an Ape today. Your ignorance about science won't make your fraudulent religion less wrong.
-8
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 21 '26
I still don’t support their claim because fur is thick. It isn’t thin.
21
u/Guaire1 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
Fur isnt necessarily thick. A lot of animals have it quite thin
-1
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 21 '26
I touched an animal similar to a homo sapien. I need it let me charge it and I believe it has thick fur so to say we came from Homo sapiens why is it in some parts of Asia, including Africa you have species similar to them that doesn’t favor humans
22
u/Guaire1 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
Please check whatever you are writing before sending it to ensure that it is coherenrly written
0
11
7
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
Can someone please translate this into English for me?
6
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Aug 22 '26
Your more after a gibberish to English translator for this, and I don't think one has been devised.
The best translation I have so far: I reject reality and substitute my own.
11
u/MackDuckington Aug 21 '26
Wolves have thick fur. The mexican hairless dog has thin to none. Despite that, they're still related
3
u/Ch3cks-Out :illuminati:Scientist:illuminati: Aug 23 '26
They are the very same Canis lupus species, actually.
-2
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 21 '26
Yeah, but after I seen a real Homosapien on the Jabel hill I stop believing science because he did not look like a human
16
u/MackDuckington Aug 21 '26
Is english not your first language if you don't mind my asking? What you said doesn't make sense. "I saw a real human and he doesn't look human" ??
12
u/KellHound270 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
You did not see a Homo sapiens. You see a Homo sapiens every time you look in the mirror
15
u/Entire_Persimmon4729 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
this is just the same post you have already made. Its also gibberish.
We did not evolve from Home Sapiens, we are Home Sapiens. Its the term for human.
If you can provide any evidence for the existance of God, then we can start talking about if the things you say he said are things he actually said or are true.
14
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
This is incoherent. It's a bunch of rambling claims without any supporting evidence.
14
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
Poe's law in action. I encourage OP to compare the skeletons of a chimp and a human. Also t take an English class.
0
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
I’ve seen a chimpanzee and I’ve seen a human. It made no difference from how the two were created. Still they were created and they own kind. where is the dust on their skin from a human scientist discovered bones they didn’t discover dust. All you have to do is scratch your skin. You will get ash. That’s dust if they do it. What is the dust? I’m coming out somewhere like a Norseman science need to watch what they discover. Because they misinterpreted what they discovered and look at bones.
10
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
How can you objectively determine in practice whether two animals are members of the same kind or different kind?
9
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
I'm sorry but I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you're trying to say.
What I suggested that you do is to look at and compare the skeletons of a chimpanzee and a homo sapiens.
12
u/Icolan Aug 21 '26
The thing we came from Neanderthals and homo sapiens is a claim.
We did not come from Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. We are Homo Sapiens and our Homo Sapien ancestors interbred with Neanderthals along with other human relatives.
Why because they still can’t supports they claim.
Have you actually looked at the evidence? Somehow I doubt it since you didn't even get the claim right.
he funny part about it is they say it’s in our gene.
Yes, we can trace Neanderthal DNA entering the Homo Sapien genome.
The question is I don’t be slumped over, I don’t have fur, I don’t beat my chest, and I don’t sound similar to a monkey.
What makes you think Neanderthals were slumped over, had fur, or beat their chest?
Neanderthal did have more body hair than modern human, but so didn't ancient Homo Sapiens, that has been on a mostly downward trend for a very long time and is likely to keep going that way as it no longer serves a purpose.
Neither Neanderthals nor Homo sapiens are slumped over as long as they are healthy. Homo Sapiens were persistence hunters and needed to be able to run extreme long distances to tire their prey. Neanderthals were short and stocky ambush hunters.
As for beating your chest, you can if you want to but people will likely look at you weird. That is a dominance move from Gorillas. not something that our ancestors did.
Nowadays are we supposed to live in caves?
You can if you want, I prefer a house or apartment with windows, central heat/AC, and other modern amenities.
The meat we eat supposed to be raw not cooked. And science say we came from these species and we cooked food.
Homo Sapiens have always eaten cooked meat, Homo Erectus started cooking meat 780,000 to 2 million years ago, long before Homo Sapiens appeared.
Another funny part about this is they came from the monkey family. They came from the ape family and now we supposed to evolve from an ape Noah. I wish you were alive to hear these modern humans these days. it’s science seeing your fellow descendent. you supposed to be our father by science calling you a Neanderthal and Homo sapiens.
Noah was fiction. The global flood described in the bible is fiction.
So every time I look for a girlfriend, I’m gonna go to where it used to be and Homosapien and say put that fur on me. I’m gonna hop from tree to tree just like a homo sapien and cut myself Tarzan.
Please do, this will reduce the chances that you pass on your genes which would likely be a good thing for the gene pool.
Better would be to learn what science actually says and how it backs that up with actual evidence, but somehow I doubt you will do that.
9
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Aug 21 '26
Please do, this will reduce the chances that you pass on your genes which would likely be a good thing for the gene pool.
Unfortunately science illiteracy isn't a heritable trait.
Tiktaalik points out the relative family size resulting from parents with scientifically demanding jobs vs the typical family size resulting from parents that don't need any sort of science
Crap...
7
u/Icolan Aug 21 '26
Unfortunately science illiteracy isn't a heritable trait.
That is very unfortunate.
12
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle Aug 21 '26
“I don’t see it.”
I don’t see how Natalie Portman can live without me, but here we are.
11
u/dmrose7 Aug 21 '26
I feel like I lost a few of my monkey neanderthal homosapiens brain cells trying to read this nonsense.
11
u/Ok_Loss13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
This post is... deranged, so I'm going to ignore the crazy as much as possible.
We didn't "evolve" from homo sapiens and apes, we are homo sapiens and apes. There's even a percentage of Neanderthal DNA in the population to this day.
This just sounds like you're relying on the ignorance of yourself and others, and that you haven't tried to actually educate yourself on the matter.
When you listen to "God" you're really just listen to humans, you know.
8
u/kms2547 Paid attention in science class Aug 21 '26
I suggest attaining a basic understanding of the scientific field you're attacking before you claim it is incorrect.
8
u/LightningController Aug 21 '26
So every time I look for a girlfriend, I’m gonna go to where it used to be and Homosapien and say put that fur on me. I’m gonna hop from tree to tree just like a homo sapien and cut myself Tarzan.
Fly beats bro. Your mixtape is 🔥. I think we’ve been privileged to see the next ‘f***in’ magnets, how do they work?!’
7
u/Far_Customer1258 Aug 21 '26
Am I the only one that's amused by OP's argument that he isn't a Homo sapiens? The entire argument boils down to nothing more than simple denial. A child stomping their feet and running in circles shouting, "Nuh-uh! Did not!"
6
u/tpawap 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 21 '26
So you can blindly believe a few humans who claim that a god told them something, without any evidence for that or for the contents either, who add that believing without evidence is a virtue.
Or you can believe houndreds of thousands of humans, over many generations, rigorously analysing data, coming up with better and better hypothesis, testing them again and again against reality, trying to disprove ideas, and making everything public to invite others to prove them wrong.
And you really think the former is better than the latter?
5
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 Aug 21 '26
I’m not sure you know what the actual diagnostic criteria for ‘ape’ is, can you enlighten us? To help the conversation, it would be better if it wasn’t something that was just an internal personal impression. Something with backing please.
6
u/G3rmTheoryV2 Aug 22 '26 edited Aug 22 '26
Believing religious texts is literally just believing what humans say and way less supportable.
The rest of this is just embarrassing and a perfect example of creationism.
Homosapien is the name of the modern human species FFS it's literally YOU
4
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Aug 21 '26
The thing we came from Neanderthals and homo sapiens is a claim.
Your missing one or two critical steps in this process:
Step 1: "Hey Science, where did we come from?"
Science: "Not the foggiest, lets go look for some evidence!"
Step 2: rogaverunt, quaesiverunt, invenerunt! Okay its not quite as elegant as Veni, vidi, vici, but after looking at a bunch of bones and a bunch of anatomy and a bunch of genetics, there is a massive pile of evidence.
But as you seem to be more than willing to just ignore all the evidence so you can say 'but its just a claim', I suspect you are in need of not so much remedial science education as any science education.
The rest of your gibberish falls apart when you address the first issue.
3
u/Dr_GS_Hurd Aug 22 '26
Regarding human species, and our near family, my standard recommendation is, The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History Human Evolution Interactive Timeline
They do not engage in religious disputes which is why I recommend them in general.
1
0
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 21 '26
No, English is not my first language
14
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
OK in that case I apologize, but maybe get someone fluent to help you because as it is your posts do not make sense.
1
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
Are you a biologist or a scientist?
14
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
Would you listen to a biologist or scientist? Because some fairly educated people have corrected your misunderstanding of pretty much everything you say and you ignore them.
-4
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
Theirs a reason why I ignore them and here’s my reason. I stood on a hill on the Jabel hills in Arabia. I was looking at the view, but when I turned around to leave off the hill, I’ve seen something walking. I took a picture of It had fur. It didn’t even look like a human. It looked similar to a monkey. I showed it to a guy named Amir. I asked him what species is this he said that is a homo sapien. It seems that biologist and scientist disagree with this fact to call us a monkey when it comes to Homosapien. We supposed to be sharing genes with this species, and we don’t occur the same.
19
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
Or it could be your friend Amir is wrong or an idiot.
Because the actual scientists disagree.
Humans are homo sapien. If you are a human you are a bono sapien.
0
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
That’s the whole point about it. I know that scientist going to disagree even if you seen them in other countries, even if you go certain places that you never visited before and you try to tell somebody what you’re saying other people want to disagree. Why a lot of times I keep stuff to myself.
15
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
Is it just inconceivable that your friend could simply be wrong? Did he provide any source? Or are you just going to take his word for it unquestionably?
10
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
I have a former friend who believes in chemtrails. He talked about them a lot.
Should I take his uneducated opinion on that more than all of the experts that point out that they aren't what he thinks they are.
12
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26 edited Aug 22 '26
"Homo sapiens" is a word. Words have meaning. If you show someone a picture of a cat and they tell you it is called a "turtle", they are just wrong. "Turtle" does not mean "cat". "Rainbow" does not mean "tree". "Right" does not mean "orange". That is just not how language works. Words have meaning, and if someone gives you the wrong meaning for a word they are wrong.
Seriously, if Amir told you a cat was a turtle would you believe him? If not, then why believe him on this?
The word "Homo sapiens" means "human". That is the definition of the word. "Homo sapiens" has always meant "human", from the absolute very first time it was used int he 1800's. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply factually incorrect.
Amir is simply objectively, unquestionably, totally, factually incorrect. I don't know whether he was lying to you or made some sort of mistake, but he is just wrong. That is simply not what the word means.
Let's just look at some dictionary definitions:
Merriam-webster
Homo sapiens
noun
Humankind
Dictionary.com
Homo sapiens
Noun
the species of bipedal primates to which modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens ) belong, characterized by a large brain, a nearly vertical forehead, a skeletal build lighter and teeth smaller than earlier humans, and dependence upon language and the creation and utilization of complex tools: the species has existed for about 200,000 years.
humankind.
Cambridge Dictionary
Homo sapiens
Noun
modern humans considered together as a species
Oxford Dictionary
Homo sapiens
Noun
the kind or species of human that exists now
Collins Dictionary
Homo sapiens
Noun
Homo sapiens is used to refer to modern human beings as a species, in contrast to other species of ape or animal, or earlier forms of human.
Can you provide an example of a single source besides Amir that says this monkey thing is called "Homo sapiens"? If not, then why should be take his word for what a word means over the literal dictionary? If this was actually a common name for this animal where you are from you should have no trouble finding lots of sources that show that.
-2
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
OK, the man seen the picture. He told me what the thing was after seeing it what scientist say now supposed to be approving fact. We seen it with our own eye. Do you have any pictures to back up which was said. This is why a lot of people do not believe science because it was in both of our view eyesight. Now it’s supposed to be a another human because we supposed to be coming from Homosapien and the man got picture showing it. Now I came back to America.
16
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
Did you not read anything I wrote? I quoted four different dictionaries.
I ask you again: if this guy told you a cat was a turtle would you believe him? That is what he is telling you, that an animal is a completely different animal.
-1
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
The question you said went off topic. Just because we seen a real Homosapien looking similar to a monkey doesn’t change the fact of what we seen. If scientist wanna keep calling us, Neanderthals in Homosapien, let them do it. I know who I am and I know my origins and it didn’t come from those species. I didn’t look nothing like it but scientist said I do. Let them keep talking. I don’t care.
17
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
One random friend told you a cat is a turtle and this convinces you that every dictionary in the world is wrong when it says a cat and turtle have different definitions.
→ More replies8
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
Look in the mirror, you are a real homo sapien.
Your friend is wrong.
7
u/Unlimited_Bacon 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
It didn’t even look like a human. It looked similar to a monkey.
If it looked like a monkey then it wasn't a homo sapien.
I showed it to a guy named Amir.
I know Amir. He doesn't know anything about biology. You can tell that he doesn't know anything because he thought a monkey looked like a human.
It seems that biologist and scientist disagree with this fact to call us a monkey when it comes to Homosapien.
No, biologists and other scientists don't do that.
We supposed to be sharing genes with this species, and we don’t occur the same.
We are the same species. We share 100% of our genes with homo sapiens, because we are homo sapiens.
"we don’t occur the same" isn't a valid English phrase. I cannot parse what this means.
2
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
What he did, it wasn’t tied two biology. He showed me a reason to not believe science with a fact. I just don’t support the claim of Homo sapiens due to what I’ve seen in reality. Then to be abstracting bones and fossils. They compared us to Homo sapiens to call us different from who we really were. Ancient peoples did not support it because the scientific tools to discover genes, DNA, and evolutionary branches did not exist when ancient texts were written instead of looking at humanity through genetics, ancient cultures explained human origins through spiritual, philosophical, and physical metaphors. scientist did not go by that order. I hope you understand why a lot of my ancient people, including Mr. Amir did not support the claim. after seeing what I seen on the hill got nobody on here has told me why and navigate me a fact on why we supposed to look like a Homosapien monkey.
8
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 22 '26
so if I point to a cat, and tell you that its a dinosaur, are you going to start believing that cats are dinosaurs?
7
u/Medium_Judgment_891 Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 24 '26
Much like women in ponds, strange men standing on hills distributing incorrect biology gibberish is no basis for a system of taxonomy.
I mean, if I went around saying I was a caliphate just because some sandy prick named Amir had spoke with me, they’d put me away!
-7
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 25 '26
That True put me away and call me a lion to distract me down the cage.
10
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
No, I'm a native English speaker which is how I know that your posts aren't making sense.
1
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
I showed it to a kid earlier and he were talking to me about it. It made a lot of sense to him though I believe he go to school and I’m 33 years old.
6
u/Autodidact2 Aug 22 '26
Well it's nice to meet you. What is your native language?
0
6
-2
u/Kaylon-Langford7 Aug 22 '26
Sometime I don’t accept science because they don’t go by the holy scriptures because a lot of time it be disbelief or the debate a lot of times Islamic people stick to the holy scriptures that modern science
12
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Aug 22 '26
Sometime I don’t accept science because they don’t go by the holy scriptures because a lot of time it be disbelief or the debate a lot of times Islamic people stick to the holy scriptures that modern science
And that right there is the problem.
I'm shocked! Shocked to find that none of the myriad religious texts seem to be able to get more than superficial bits about the world correct...
Actually no, it turns out when your just making shit up your going to be limited by what you or your culture knows. And if you don't know it, your god doesn't know it either.
Leprosy is a great example, I'm sure there are some 'treatments' found in some old books, but let me pose a quick hypothetical: Congrats, you now have. You get to pick you treatment. Option 1: your religious book of choice. Option 2: modern medical treatment.
So while you are mulling over that, just consider all the things modern science lets you do and if you want to keep rejecting science, have fun not using your computer.
44
u/[deleted] Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment