Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 10:07 AM
382 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,812 Year: 16,418/21,208 Month: 2,307/3,593 Week: 420/882 Day: 41/97 Hour: 1/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 241 of 310 (683215)
12-08-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
12-08-2012 5:56 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

More nonsense. Is the 44 chromosome man not a human?

Of course he is, IF his #2 chrosmosome is fused.

But the issue of this thread is that:

Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.

Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.

Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.

Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.

Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.

Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.

Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."

Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.

Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.

Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."

Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.

Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.

Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.

Science does NOT refute Genesis.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 5:56 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 6:46 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 242 of 310 (683216)
12-08-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Eli
12-08-2012 3:12 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

Percy, you are exactly right.
The relational patterns alone, even if the rest of the biblical account was completely disregarded, show that these comparisons do not line up.

Now you fellows are back on track.

It YOUR job to produce evidence that Genesis contradicts Science, not mine.

Science does NOT refute Genesis, is my point here.

Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.

Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.

Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.

Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.

Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.

Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.

Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."

Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.

Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.

Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."

Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.

Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.

Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.

Science does NOT refute Genesis.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 3:12 PM Eli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 7:58 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 254 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 10:14 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29000
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 243 of 310 (683217)
12-08-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:36 PM


There is no science in Genesis.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis?

What do either of those utter nonsense assertions have to do with the topic which was " The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS "?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:36 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:56 PM jar has responded
 Message 246 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 7:02 PM jar has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 244 of 310 (683218)
12-08-2012 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by NoNukes
12-08-2012 12:16 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

This thread was created for you to discuss your point of view. Expressing disagreement is not an attempt to silence you. Expressed disagreement is instead an opportunity for you to provide evidence and argument in support of your view. In other words, you are being invited to have further discussion.

I was responding to Percy's reminder that he is a Moderator.
The implication obviously was that he might otherwise censor me but for the fact he was in the converstaion.

Otherwise, I agree and have welcomed the opposing comments and arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 12:16 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 8:04 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 12-09-2012 7:45 AM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 245 of 310 (683219)
12-08-2012 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by jar
12-08-2012 6:46 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis?

No.
No one does.

But my claim is that Scientists at this moment consider the first hominoid to be Sahefanthropus tchadensis, while Genesis states the first man was Adam.

Do you have any evidence that this wrong?????

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 6:46 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 7:12 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 255 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 10:20 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 246 of 310 (683221)
12-08-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by jar
12-08-2012 6:46 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.

What do either of those utter nonsense assertions have to do with the topic which was " The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS "?

Each of these items are listed as the chronology of events in the History of the Earth which can be seen in descriptions of the Seven "Days" of Genesis when compared to the History locked in the Geological Eras.

I pointed out in this thread those specific comparison so it remains for detractors here to show evidence against what Genesis reports.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 6:46 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by jar, posted 12-08-2012 7:15 PM kofh2u has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29000
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 247 of 310 (683223)
12-08-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:56 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
But you made the claim didn't you?

Are you now admitting that your assertion was bullshit?

What do either of those utter nonsense assertions have to do with the topic which was " The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS "?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:56 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 10:00 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29000
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 248 of 310 (683226)
12-08-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 7:02 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
Each of these items are listed as the chronology of events in the History of the Earth which can be seen in descriptions of the Seven "Days" of Genesis when compared to the History locked in the Geological Eras.

Again, as has been pointed out to you, that is simply a false assertion, more bullshit.

Should I post Genesis 1 again so maybe you can read it?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 7:02 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 10:08 AM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(4)
Message 249 of 310 (683229)
12-08-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:34 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
I'll let others deal with the bulk of your claims, but I'll deal with your very confused ideas about race.

You claim that there are "three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here."

You need to be careful, as there are not always clear associations between classical racial traits and genetics. (I.e., what you see is not always what you get.)

Scientists aren't that enamored of racial classification anymore, as they were over 100 years ago. The problem is that specific traits form clines, and the clines do not always run in the same directions. For example, skin color generally starts dark near the equator and gets lighter going both north and south. It is an adaptation to sunlight. (I know there are exceptions.) At the same time other visible traits such as body form, nose shape, hair form, etc. also form clines but they are not necessarily the same as skin color.

Also, this does not necessarily have anything to do with descent (genetics). Two groups which appear quite similar (Pygmies and Negritos) are not genetically related. The racial traits they share stem from living for tens of thousands of years in similar environments.

A more recent approach to race is that of Stanley Garn. Per the Wiki article:

Garn considered racial classification based on physical traits to be imprecise. He considered physical traits to be independent of each other, making classification by the assumption that a population shares certain traits incorrect. Furthermore, he was critical about racial classifications based on physical type which seemingly elevated some physical traits to a racial status, but glossed over others. He concluded that racial classifications based on physical type can always be compartmentalized into smaller populations which share more physical traits in common. He used three gradations of racial classification which were increasingly more specific in scope: geographical, local and micro. He counted thirty-four local races in the world which were caused by genetic isolation. He believed the genetic isolation among Pacific Islanders made them form three separate races which were Micronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian.

In other words, you can come up with any number of races you want depending on which criteria you choose (including both visible traits and genetic traits), and none is any more accurate than the rest.

And classifications of race based on visible traits have no necessary relationship to genetic "races" (probably more accurately called descent groups).

In still other words, you are cherry picking once again without any actual knowledge of the subject. I suspect that race is a far more complex (and interesting) subject than you have ever imagined.

Edited by Coyote, : Typo

Edited by Coyote, : Speeeling


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 240 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:34 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 10:11 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9646
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 250 of 310 (683230)
12-08-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:45 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
It YOUR job to produce evidence that Genesis contradicts Science, not mine.

Actually, it is only necessary to show an inconsistency. For the purposes of this discussion, it is not necessary to show which position is actually correct. Further, we can restrict our investigation to your particular interpretation of Genesis.

Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.

Comparable? Let's assume that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis. Then what is utterly incompatible with science is that any of Adam's immediate descendant's was of a different species than Adam. So science is incompatible at least with your interpretation of Genesis. Interestingly enough, I highly doubt that any fundamentalist would insist on any such thing. It is only your goofy attempt to make science fit with Genesis that creates this particular incompatibility.

Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.

Science does not claim that there is linear sequence of 22 species between Sahefanthropus tchadensis and modern man. Accordingly we find a mismatch between your particular interpretation of Genesis which requires exactly 22 species in a short sequence of generations, and what science requires. Again, let's note that a fundy interpretation of Genesis would be that Adam and Noah were of the same species. That interpretation is not inconsistent with science which is simply silent on the existence of Adam and Noah.

Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.

This is horse ca-ca. Plus Genesis says nothing about ethnic stocks or genetic races. There is no way to know what the genetic differences are between, for example, Noah's sons.

Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.

Haven't you heard anything that has been said about this. You are not properly characterizing what Genesis says about this issue.

I've cherry picked a few inconsistencies. I have pointed out others in past discussions. For example, Genesis does not properly describe the time frame for the appearance of whales that is consistent with that described by science.

Pretending over and over that nobody has pointed these things out is not getting us anywhere.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:45 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:36 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9646
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 251 of 310 (683232)
12-08-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:52 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
The implication obviously was that he might otherwise censor me but for the fact he was in the converstaion.

That was what you inferred, incorrectly IMO. What Percy was actually telling you was that his request for evidence was not a moderator imperative, but was instead exactly the same as if any other participant had requested the same.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:52 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 8:46 PM NoNukes has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1258 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 252 of 310 (683233)
12-08-2012 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by NoNukes
12-08-2012 8:04 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis

I was responding to a typical put down of believers, Crash, couldn't you leave it at that? I really do think that if you recognize that someone is not stupid but does think things through, that that should be some reason to seriously consider their opinion about certain subjects. I see by the rest of your post that's a naive expectation but it still seems to me to be a reasonable opinion.

I was once an atheist myself, for most of my life, so when I became a believer I already knew most of the arguments, and once I knew the Bible is God's word I knew it in a way that is very solid.

But now you are worse off then before if your understanding of Genesis is refuted by the very Truth that is Christ and by a belief in some ancient minister who set down the nonsense of YEC and anti-science explanations of the Bible during the Dark Ages.

You now hold Faith in his explanations, not the actually bible verses I refer you to.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 8:04 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 12-09-2012 3:25 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Eli
Member (Idle past 930 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 253 of 310 (683234)
12-08-2012 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 5:41 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:

His point is merely that the branch of humans appeared after this fusion.
He is also reserving the opinion that this immediately produced such a stark difference between the surrogate mother Ape to this early first divergence as to question whether it was still more ape than Hominid, but that after this the common decent followed

No, that is not his point. or claim.

Quite the opposite.

The hominid branch from other apes occurred FIRST and that is why the fusion appears in modern humans and not other apes.

And, again, this type of fusion produces no change in gene expression. There is no stark difference between the point when the fusion first happened, as has already been pointed out, such a stark change would render such an animal as sterile, being the only "species" of its kind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 5:41 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:57 AM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 930 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(2)
Message 254 of 310 (683237)
12-08-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:45 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:

It YOUR job to produce evidence that Genesis contradicts Science, not mine.

Uh, no. It is your claim that they are the same. The burden of proof is on you. You have failed at substantiating your claim.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute Genesis, is my point here.

This, right here, puts the burden on you. You are making the positive claim

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that Sahefanthropus tchadensis was the oldest and first species in our common ascent, and that is DE FACTO comparable to the first Adam of the Bible story.

No, it's not. Any thought behind understanding evolution or paleontology puts tchadensis as the oldest species WE HAVE DISCOVERED AND ARE AWARE OF. No legitimate scientist would ever claim that which cannot be demonstrated, that tchadensis is the first. The data is still inconclusive, but common sense would tell us that there are thousands of intermediary subspecies stages between tchadensis and older species at the point we split from other apes.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.

It sure as hell does. Of the 50 something specimen of hominid and hominid subspecies that we have identified, only about 8 or 9 have been identified as being in our direct common descent. The rest are distant cousins in seperate branches of our hominid tree.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that seven durations of time are marked with the events of the History of the Earth.

This has already been addressed. You have doctored the data to suggest something that the ICS does not endorse.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that the first of our species was the source of the current three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here.

Complete rubbish. In the field of genetics for over 40 years we have identified that, genetically, there ARE NO RACES. This is more numerology and bullshit.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that there was an In the beginning they call the Big Bang.

Which has nothing to do with the bible. The bible says "in the beginning" constitutes the creation of the earth, which did not happen in the realm of things we can evidence until 10 BILLION years after the big bang.

Genesis is not talking about the big bang, evidenced by the fact that "the beginning" in biblical terms, includes the planet earth.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that a Cosmic Dark Age existed before light transversed the universe.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the cosmic dark age is, the period before the first stars. Light existed in the universe long before the first stars.

GOOGLE photon epoch.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that Rodinia/Pangaea was an event when "all the waters, (plural) had been gathered together into one place."

First, Rodinia is not Pangea, and neither of these constitute an "event." These distinct (seperated by millions of years) supercontinents are the result of a process called "continental drift."

Neither are the first of their kind. The land masses existed which is the opposite of what the bible says that when the waters were gathered, the first dry land appeared.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that a Two Kingdom System of life began with Plants on the third "duration" of the history of the earth.

It absolutely does. Primitive sponges (animals) existed for several hundred million years before the first plants. And the two kingdom system was discarded as innaccurate, oh I don't know, 200 years ago. Try to at least move into the 20th century.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that the long 4th duration incubated the plant life while the Sun energy transformed the atmosphere into enough Oxygen to allow animal life to appear.

The planet was oxygenated by bacteria, which are not plants. Plants came later.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that the first man appeared in the Cenozoic 6th "day."

Cenozoic is not counted as a sixth period, according to science.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute 22 members in the ascent tot modern man.

Already addressed.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that that different kinds of mankind hybridized with each other as an event =in the ascent of modern man.

Again, not an event. Also, unrelated to any biblical claims, so irrelevant.

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute that Modern man initially was rooted in three racial stocks.

Already refuted

kofh2u writes:

Science does NOT refute Genesis.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT IS DOES?

Earth created before sun
Plants created before the sun
Plants coming before animals
Man made from dirt
Woman made from sleeping man's rib
Talking animals
Magic trees
Worldwide flood
Giants

Now, I already know what you atre going to say. You'll claim that my "reading comprehension" is not up to snuff. That's an ad hominim and the second you use it will be an admission that you can't actually address the points made.

Thanks for playing.

Edited by Eli, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:45 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 930 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 255 of 310 (683238)
12-08-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:56 PM


Re: There is no science in Genesis.
kofh2u writes:

But my claim is that Scientists at this moment consider the first hominoid to be Sahefanthropus tchadensis, while Genesis states the first man was Adam.

Do you have any evidence that this wrong?????

It is your burden to show that these unnamed scientists have asserted this to be the case.

No such assertion that I am aware of has been made. There is a big difference between "oldest hominid that we have discovered" and "first hominid."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:56 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017