Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread

And here is a major problem with your efforts.
You "find" opposition to the correpondence between Science and Genesis, by using any means necessary.You have already predetermined the that the Bible DOES NOT conform to science.
So a match must be criticized, rather than compared to the evidence presented.And it is your life's work to distort, contort, numerologize, misapply, confirmation bias and just be plain wrong about science, the Bible, or both such that a match, however FACTUALLY SUPPORTED, is said not to be found..Thes two starting points, one on your side and the other on mine own,... seem to allude you as if your position is just right and mine is just wrong, regardless of the evidence or facts.
Grow up and become intellectually honest.

Agreed.
That was what the post above said.The Hypothesis is that the genealogy in Genesis is actually a list of the 22 now extinct species of humans that led to Modern Homo sapiens.Assuming that someone HAD said that, (above), in 1890, right after Darwin suggested cosmic evolution in his theory of biological evolution,... the evidence began accumulating that the hypothesis was supported by FACTS.Finally in the last year or so, paleontologists listed "the 22 now extinct humans" which do correspond to the genealogy in Genesis.But Genetic has added to this by finding that, indeed, around 6-7 million years ago, by an Act-of-God, the first man, an Adam according to Genesis, appeared without parents of the same species, because the "dust" of the earth chemically fused two Ape chromosomes together.Then, 15 year before that, paleontologists theorize that vegetarian Australopithecines killed off the first meat eating Apes in a Cain vs Abel drama which is found in Genesis too.Then we discover that, indeed, Neanderthal were the daughters of men that hybridized with our predecessors and have left the genes to prove it in us all.There are more correlating facts to the genesis genealogy, but this is already enough to emphasize The Scientific Method at work, as evidence grows to support the Hypothesis.

Actually I haven't done that. I'm a Christian and I believe that the Book of Genesis contains truth, but I am not the expert in identifying that truth.What I have determined is that if there is a match, it cannot be found using your methods. What I criticize is you.In a way its like watching a stage magician. Every time he snaps his fingers or makes a gesture he reinforces the idea that what he does is a trick because such actions cannot make objects disappear. I'd actually be more persuaded if the magician did not do those things.Similarly I don't believe in numerology or astrology. Whenever I see those things used, I expect crap to be the result.ABE:Your insistence on 22 gives the game away. Science does not make that claim and neither does the Bible. The Negroes = Ham stuff is just crap icing on a manure cake. The Noah's ark dimension stuff is equally stupid numerology and is similarly unpersuasive (but probably off topic).Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Says the guy who refuses to count the 27 names in the Genesis geneology up through the flood.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Now I have to call you on this one. This is an outright lie.The book you point to was compiled in 2005-2006 and published in 2007. You are fully aware of this.You also are aware that since the time this book was published that no paleontolgists have made an effort to create a comprehensive list of all the hominid species, mostly because these scientists are specialists and focus on one or two aspects of human ancestors and their body of work is used collectively in order to comprise all the species rather than putting them all in a single volume. However, I have looked into this and it seems someone has already put together a comprehensive list especially for you in another forum.You are aware of this list, yes?1.Homo sapiens
2.Homo sapiensidaltu
3.Homo georgicus
4.Homo ergaster
5.Homo gautengensis
6.Homo antecessor
7.Homo heidelbergensis
8.Homo neanderthalensis
9.Homo rhodesiensis
10.Homo erectus
11.Homo habilis
12.Homo rudolfensis
13.Homo floresiensis
14. Homo cepranensis
15.Homo yuanmouensis
16.Homo lantianensis
17.Homo wushanensis
18.Homo pekinensis
19.Homo palaeojavanicus
20.Homo soloensis
21.Homo tautavelensis
22.Homo nankinensis
23.Denisova Hominin
24.Red Deer Cave Species25.Australopithecus anamensis
26.Australopithecus sediba
27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali
28.Australopithecus africanus
29.Australopithecus afarensis
30.Australopithecus garhi
31.Australopithecus aethiopicus
32.Australopithecus robustus
33.Australopithecus boisei34. Ardipithecus ramidus
35. Ardipithecus kadabba
36. Kenyanthropus platyops37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
38. Orrorin tugenensis

There is no restriction in Science on what one can hypothesize in regard to suggesting idea that seem to explain things that were not understood previously.In 1890, the idea or hypothesis was that, if Darwin was correct, then maybe the genealogy in Genesis is really a list of the species from which modern man evolved.That would explain the meaning of these names which claim they represented men who lived for 950 years and such.
If the names were eponyms, or representations for different types or species of men, then the meaning would make sense, that these kinds of men live as a species for 950 years.But that would infer that this number was a hint at the real Facts, and that the meaning was that these species actually lived 950,00 years.
Since that would have been preposterous throughout the Ages, until these times, the writers left off with the hint of 950 years, but added elsewhere that "a day is a thousand years" sometimes in scripture.What science later confirms is that, indeed, these species did live such long durations before going extinct.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

If you double check that list, as i have, you will exclude all but the 22 I have mentioned because their linkage to us is very doubtful.For instance,...Homo gautengensis............... was recovered in 1977 and was argued to belong to the species Homo habilis. [2] The type specimen has been discussed in some refereed publications as being synonymous with A. africanus,
Homo gautengensis - WikipediaHomo georgicus (For the present, about the only sure conclusion is that H. georgicus represents a new and interesting twig on the hominid bush.)
Homo georgicus - Online Biology DictionaryHomo rhodesiensis The validity of Homo rhodesiensis as a distinct type of hominid is not well accepted and it has been variously suggested that the skull on which it is based should be assigned to one or the other of H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, or H. heidelbergensis.
Homo rhodesiensis - Online Biology DictionaryHomo cepranensis ("Ceprano Man" has not been accepted as distinct from the contemporary and far better documented Homo erectus. And, in fact, there really seems to be no good reason to name a new hominid on the basis of a single, not particularly distinctive, fragment.)
Homo cepranensis - Online Biology DictionaryHomo yuanmouensis. The Yuanmou fossil teeth are very similar to those of the 1.6-million-year-old Turkana ‘boy’ skeleton from West Turkana, Kenya, usually assigned to H. erectus.Homo lantianensis Scientists classify Lantian Man as a subspecies of Homo erectus. Lantian Man - WikipediaHomo wushanensis.. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectusGoogle +erectus+wushanense&pf=p&tbo=d&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4TSNO_enUS458US458&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Homo+wushanensis&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=67039599a028a8df&bpcl=38 897761&biw=1264&bih=577&ion=1&bs=1\Homo pekinensis.. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectusHomo palaeojavanicus... early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectusHomo soloensisearly member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectusHomo tautavelensis.. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectusHomo nankinensis. early member of an extinct species of humans, considered a subspecies of Homo erectus’Denisova Hominin. Denisovans were a hybrid population of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (or a related species such as H. heidelbergensis)For what they were... we are: Denisova hominins, Neanderthals, Melanesians and so on...Red Deer Cave Species.. they might represent a very early and previously unknown migration of modern humans out of Africa, a population who may not have contributed genetically to living people," Curnoe added.HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost sedibaIn a news article published with the initial descriptions in 2010, detractors of the idea that A. sediba might be ancestral to the genus Homo (e.g. Tim White and Ron Clarke) suggest that the fossils could be a late southern African branch of Australopithecus, co-existing with already existing members of the Homo genus.Australopithecus sediba - WikipediaAustralopithecus bahrelghazali searchers like William Kimbel to argue that Abel is not an exemplar of a separate species, but "falls within the range of variation" of the Australopithecus afarensis.Australopithecus bahrelghazali - Wikipedia
d-deer-cave_n_1345216.htmlArdipithecus kadabba Ancient ancestor of ramidus. It has been described as a "probable chronospecies" (i.e. ancestor) of A. ramidus. A chronospecies describes a group of one species derived from the sequential development pattern which involves continual and uniform changes from an extinct ancestral form. Throughout this change, there is only one species in the lineage at any point in time.Chronospecies - WikipediaKenyanthropus platyops.. no real consensus as to whether Kenyanthropus platyops is even distinct from the contemporary and much better known Australopithecus afarensis;. There are also those who think it's similar to Homo rudolfensis.Kenyanthropus platyops - Online Biology Dictionary

And you haven't done that. You've failed the peer review. As far as anybody here can tell, all you've done is mangle the scriptures to fit your hypothesis. That's the antithesis of science.But even if the scriptures did fit your hypothesis, that would only be the beginning. It would still be necessary to determine that the scriptures have some basis in reality. It isn't enough to just come up with a halfway plausible connection between a Bible story and reality. You have to produce hard evidence that Cain and Abel were two different species of hominid. You can't do that because the Bible states quite plainly that they were brothers, with the same mother and father.There is no scriptural justification whatsovever for thinking that the people mentioned were anything other than individual people.

Correspondence between the genealogy and Paleontologists is making the similarity in BOTH lists analogous to each other: THE HYPOTHESIS OF DARWINIAN GENEALOGYBook: The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author) WHAT IS YOU COMPLAINT????I am just saying that the two lists are comparable, and both science and Genesis say these creatures led to us.Both seem right on that, regardless that 3+7+12 = 22.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

You did not say that the lists are merely comparable. You have said that they correspond. Further you have used the number 22 as evidence that the correspondence is not accidental.Removed:Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yep,...I am saying that since the two lists are comparable in regard to the links from the first human with 23 chromosomes to the last now here, the hypothesis is they correspond to each each.

No, you are saying that the correspond, and not that they are comparable. And you have used the number 22 to reinforce that correspondence. But of course the number 22 from both science and the Bible are fabrications.And let's do some analysis of this "suggestion" of a 1000 multiplier.With regards to the factor of 1:1000, isn't your use of an exact factor of 1000 quite arbitrary. After all the Bible talks about one day being as 1000 years which is a factor of 365,242 and not a factor of 1000. And even a factor of 365,242 far to tiny to match Genesis up to Big Bang cosmology.The truth is that you are free to use any factor from 1 to googol to make this comparison appear to be a correspondence. I don't find the fact that the number 1000 works to be of any consequence because numerology is bogus.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am saying my Hypothesis says there is a correspondence between the two lists.Then, I am producing other evidence that seems to support that hypothesis.That happens to be The Scientific Method.

I don't think the correspondence is accidental.I believe that the ancient bible writers either received divine reveltion,..... or, they had simply collected the same bones we dug up in this last century.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

But you are leaving out the most important part of the scientific method! What you are avoiding at all costs is testing your hypothesis against the evidence!Much of this, and other, threads have focused on showing you where your hypothesis does not follow from the evidence, and how it is contradicted by the evidence.If you were following the scientific method you would revise your hypothesis, or abandon it in favor of one that better accommodated the evidence.Instead, you dig in your heels and twist, manipulate, and otherwise mutilate and spindle the evidence in a futile effort to make it fit.That's not science; that's the exact opposite of science: religious apologetics.