Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 166 of 310 (682886)
12-05-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2012 12:09 PM


Reply to: Message 157 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 12:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts come from seeds. Seeds simply did not exist during the Proterozoic Era.
The dictionary said "the first sprouts of the Earth," not of seeds.
It is referring to the sprouts of life, as you really know.
I am encouraged by your reliance upon lame come backs of little consequence and Ad Homo attacks which always are necessary once one realizes they have not actually proposed any thing that really blocks the main premises side down before them'
I usually continue posting in the face of such obvius abdications from my adversaries and assume that lurking readers who have not commented either way are examining our response to one another.
What I propse at this point is that we examine Genesis more closely and look for things which are written into the story such as to help me make the case because of more information that fits.
One such incident concerns the hybidization between different species of those 22 humanoids in the genealogy.
As you know, Genetics has determined that all men living today carry the genes of Neanderthals, which is pretty much stated in the verses below:
Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2012 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Eli, posted 12-05-2012 7:26 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-06-2012 10:15 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 167 of 310 (682887)
12-05-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 7:23 PM


The sprouts "of life"?
No. That isn't in the Hebrew intent or definition. You added that.
And, no genetics has not determined that all men living today carry Neanderthal genes, but, even if it were, that wouldn't be represented in the verse you provided, not matter how much you try to add.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 7:23 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 168 of 310 (682898)
12-05-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 8:39 AM


Hi Kofh2u,
By presenting these two images:
In the same message with this book:
You are creating the false impression that the images are from the book, but they're not. When people told you your claims were bunk they were referring to your images, not the book.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 8:39 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Eli, posted 12-05-2012 9:04 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 170 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(3)
Message 169 of 310 (682900)
12-05-2012 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Percy
12-05-2012 8:55 PM


This picture is particularly disturbing.
There are at least 4 images that have been planted (quite poorly) in this picture, obviously one is showing 3 postures of the same individual.
Even worse is that Kofh2u has "browned out" the second to last image and labeled it "negroid."
I find it quite offensive as well as biblically inaccurate. To take this blackman's curse worldview and to try to pair it up with the book on hominids is just disgusting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 12-05-2012 8:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 11:12 PM Eli has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 170 of 310 (682911)
12-05-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Percy
12-05-2012 8:55 PM


V
?
I assume the readers here can differentiate between the points inherent in my Hypothesis that Genesis genealogy is bout Paleontolgy, and original with myself.
Certainly all but one or two rather naive readers would assume that this idea has already been published by a peer reviewed editor.
That would be tantamount to thinking I have been posting accepted knowledge and all this is old hat that only idiots have not yet heard about.
Do you beleve there are people so dumb here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 12-05-2012 8:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Eli, posted 12-05-2012 9:51 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 178 by Coragyps, posted 12-06-2012 8:48 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 12-06-2012 9:25 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 171 of 310 (682912)
12-05-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 7:23 PM


As you know, Genetics has determined that all men living today carry the genes of Neanderthals, which is pretty much stated in the verses below...
You really should stop fooling around with fossils, as you have shown time and again that you know nothing about them, and beyond that, that you are delusional in your interpretations. You are going to such lengths to try and fit ancient tribal myths into paleontological findings that you demonstrate this with most every post.
One such example: not all people today carry Neanderthal genes. There is one notable group which does not. A little research would have shown you that.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 7:23 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 11:21 PM Coyote has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 172 of 310 (682916)
12-05-2012 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 9:37 PM


kofh2u writes:
I assume the readers here can differentiate between the points inherent in my Hypothesis that Genesis genealogy is bout Paleontolgy, and original with myself.
Certainly all but one or two rather naive readers would assume that this idea has already been published by a peer reviewed editor.
That would be tantamount to thinking I have been posting accepted knowledge and all this is old hat that only idiots have not yet heard about.
Do you beleve there are people so dumb here?
Apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't try to conflate your own garbage with respectable work.
At least you admit that the book has nothing to do with your claims.
Good. You can stop mentioning it, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 173 of 310 (682923)
12-05-2012 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Eli
12-05-2012 9:04 PM


Kofh2u has "browned out" the second to last image and labeled it "negroid."
That brings up another confirming fact in Genesis which supports this one-to-one correspondence with the 22 now extinct human species discovered in this Age and the stated 22 eponyms for the links from the first humanoid thru the three sons of Noah:
Gen 5:32 And Noah, (an archaic type of Homo sapiens forebearer), was five hundred "years" old, (and the Flood will come when Noah is 600 "years" old: Gen 7:6) : and Noah begat Shem, (the Mongoloids), Ham, (the Negroids), and Japheth, (the Caucasians).
This evolution took place 100,000 years before the 40,000 year flood out-of-Africa so it ties the Modern Homo sapiens species to the exact dates science recognizes for their appear, or about 150,000 years ago.
Both the Bible and science agree here again on the facts.
And, in regard to mention of Race, "well we all know that the term Race is socially charged and the government is prone to differ with the science of the matter, and such scientists as Richard Dwakins and Geneticist Edwards, who insists that the seven racial differences differentiate over time from these three racial stocks that Lawton first proposed are actually correct:"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Eli, posted 12-05-2012 9:04 PM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Eli, posted 12-05-2012 11:42 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 174 of 310 (682924)
12-05-2012 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Coyote
12-05-2012 9:37 PM


One such example: not all people today carry Neanderthal genes. There is one notable group which does not. A little research would have shown you that.
True, the facts is that some African people apparently do not evidence Neanderthal genes which suggests that the inbreed took place outside of Africa.
That fact led me to believe that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens actually carry genes common in both of them, but from a hybridization between Early Homo erectus and Modern Homo erectus who then passed these genes on to both us and neanderthal.
(see Gen 6:4 above and the diagram)
This is merely an idea that occurred to me from study of the literature, but I hope to read someday that the science finds such evidence as difficult as that seems now.
Your bias against this is immaterial and irrelevent so knock it off or offer some critical facts.
Any idiot can naysay and do what Eli does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Eli, posted 12-05-2012 11:46 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 177 by Coyote, posted 12-06-2012 12:08 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 175 of 310 (682927)
12-05-2012 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 11:12 PM


That isn't science.
That graphic is discarded science from the 1930s.
The chart is wrong.
Caucasions stem from Asians. And genetic testing suggests that there are no races.
Regardless, races are not species.and there are not 22 species of hominids.
Nothing you have said is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 11:12 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(2)
Message 176 of 310 (682928)
12-05-2012 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 11:21 PM


kofh2u writes:
Any idiot can naysay and do what Eli does
Any idiot can dismantle any claim you make because you lie and ignore real data.
It isn't naysaying when you claim that all modern humans have neanderthal DNA, when all modern humans do not have neanderthal DNA.
It isn't a bias to point out that what you are saying is not true, with the exception of having a bias against lying.
Quit lying and we won't have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 11:21 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 177 of 310 (682932)
12-06-2012 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 11:21 PM


Nonsense (again)
True, the facts is that some African people apparently do not evidence Neanderthal genes which suggests that the inbreed took place outside of Africa.
Well, duh! You realize this only after I pointed it out to you.
That fact led me to believe that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens actually carry genes common in both of them, but from a hybridization between Early Homo erectus and Modern Homo erectus who then passed these genes on to both us and neanderthal.
Absolute nonsense. Early Homo erectus and late Homo erectus never interacted with each other because one species merged into the other over a long period of time. And there is no such thing as modern Homo erectus. Homo erectus went extinct some 300,000 years ago. You need to use correct terms if you wish to be taken seriously, and getting your facts straight helps also.
(see Gen 6:4 above and the diagram)
Why? Both have been shown to be contrary to the facts. If I'm to do literary criticism I much prefer Shakespeare, as it exhibits a much finer writing style and far better composition. And if I want to see diagrams showing the pattern human evolution I'll go a long ways to avoid your butcher jobs.
This is merely an idea that occurred to me from study of the literature, but I hope to read someday that the science finds such evidence as difficult as that seems now.
So your idea, for which there is no evidence, is being passed off as science, or as reality? You need to stick to religions apologetics or some other impracticable field of study. Then you wouldn't need to worry about evidence and facts, not that you do anyway.
Your bias against this is immaterial and irrelevent so knock it off or offer some critical facts.
I have. Now its your turn to offer some facts. So far all you have been doing is making up simplistic (and patently erroneous) charts and expecting us to accept them as evidence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Please see, and take to heart, each of the following signature lines. They really do apply to you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 11:21 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 10:48 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 178 of 310 (682944)
12-06-2012 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 9:37 PM


Do you beleve there are people so dumb here?
There's at least one, though he may be delusional rather than dumb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 179 of 310 (682949)
12-06-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 9:37 PM


kofh2u writes:
I assume the readers here can differentiate between the points inherent in my Hypothesis that Genesis genealogy is bout Paleontolgy, and original with myself.
Apparently you are the person unable to differentiate, because when people replied about your images in your Message 148 you mistakenly assumed they were talking about the book. For example, Coyote replied like this in his Message 149
Coyote writes:
I've rarely seen such a pile of nonsense. I'm not even going to start trying to correct all the errors I see, and I see a lot as half my Ph.D. training was in the field of fossil man.
Suffice it to say that you are just rearranging facts in an effort to support your prior beliefs with no regard to whether they actually do or not.
And you mistakenly assumed he was talking about the book when you replied thus in your Message 149:
kofh2u writes:
?
You dispute the credentals of the cast of paleontolgists who wrote The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans.
Apparently you're subject to the very confusion you accuse others of. So when you ask questions like this:
Do you beleve there are people so dumb here?
The answer seems obvious.
Speaking very generally, I think you need to begin presenting actual evidence from the real world. This is a science thread, not a Bible thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 9:51 AM Percy has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 180 of 310 (682952)
12-06-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
12-06-2012 9:25 AM


My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Speaking very generally, I think you need to begin presenting actual evidence from the real world. This is a science thread, not a Bible thread.
So you are moving the goal posts such that using science references to support Genesis on a Site called EvC is now a violation of the rules?
How convenient to the atheist arguments.
Your complaint now is that even my thread must be about science and not religion?
You object when it is clear that Genesis states that there were 22 links in the ascent of modern man, and so does the referenced science book?
You argue that it becomes confusing to the general reader when I point out that a peer review science book says the same thing, albeit calling these 22 now extinct humans by the term species.
I call BS, and censorship, and intellectual dishonesty.
Your complaint here is that I am making a case and the best way to respond is to silence me on grounds that I am not using science to support what I argue, but that is the very purpose of my thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 12-06-2012 9:25 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 12-06-2012 10:06 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 182 by Theodoric, posted 12-06-2012 10:14 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 12-06-2012 10:53 AM kofh2u has replied
 Message 193 by Eli, posted 12-06-2012 12:05 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 12-08-2012 9:53 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024