Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 181 of 310 (682953)
12-06-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 9:51 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
...a peer review science book says the same thing, albeit calling these 22 now extinct humans by the term species.
First, books are not normally subject to peer review. Certainly popularized books are not.
Secondly, you are just attaching biblical names to 22 species without any factual reason for doing so, and while ignoring the relationships or lack of relationships among those species. It is more like you focused on the number 22 and said, "Aha! I'll just throw all these names out there, and because there are the right number of names where I put them must be true!"
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.
You are not using science. Science is based on the scientific method, and you seem to have no acquaintance with that.
If you were using the scientific method, you would be testing of your ideas against the evidence. Rather, you seem to be forcing your ideas on the evidence with little concern as to how well they fit. Certainly your chart with the different species, ending with Negroid and the Mongoloid at a computer, has no relation to the evidence. It looks like your idea of race development is contrary to the evidence as well.
If you want to play in the science threads, it would be good if you actually learned something about science. Cherry picking a fact here and a chart there is not even close.

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 180 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 9:51 AM kofh2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 10:27 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 182 of 310 (682954)
12-06-2012 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 9:51 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
There are obviously some words that you do not know the definition.
Scientific Evidence
Censorship
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?
You are not using any scientific references.
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.
No it does not. You are lying.
I call BS, .... and intellectual dishonesty.
Wow. Projection much?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 9:51 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 183 of 310 (682955)
12-06-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 7:23 PM


The dictionary said "the first sprouts of the Earth," not of seeds.
Sprouts come from seeds.
It is referring to the sprouts of life, as you really know.
No, its not... at all. That's simply your imagination.
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'
Look, I get it; You want the Bible to be accurate and you realize that you cannot go against science. This little game you're playing where you make up anything you want in order to squish the Bible and science together isn't all that uncommon. It degrades into your kind offering us the 'opportunity' to prove to you that you are wrong, except, you've already determined a prior that you're never going to admit that the Bible is inaccurate. This forces us into you just making up more and more nonsense to cover the lies upon lies you've told to maintain that Biblical accuracy.
We've gotten to the point where when the Bible says "seed bearing grass" you say it actually means "bacteria" and also that bacteria is the seed of life. That is completely and utterly ridiculous. Only the mental gymastics required to maintain Biblical accuracy with science can get you into such an unreasonable and foolish position.
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.
They're all laughing at you, as you already know.
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.
Of course! Lets just look at the parts that match up and ignore all the erroneous parts That's the Sharpshooter Falacy I mentioned earlier, remember?
A more scientific approach would get you closer to the truth: rather than just looking for things to help your case, try to find the things that would prove your case wrong! Its only when you are unable to prove your case wrong that you can begin to have confidence that it may be right.
So have at it.
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).
You're just making stuff up to squish the Bible together with science. You offer no reason for why those verses should be interpretted that way except to retro-fit them into your misunderstandings of science. The funny part is, you can't even get the science right, so of course your Bible interpretations are only going to be even more ridiculous and stupid.

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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 184 of 310 (682957)
12-06-2012 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Coyote
12-06-2012 10:06 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
It's even funnier since his claim, if it were true, would be totally different than anything that science shows us. According to him Noah's wives bore children that were a wholly different species.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 12-06-2012 10:06 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:03 AM jar has replied

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


Message 185 of 310 (682961)
12-06-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Coyote
12-06-2012 12:08 AM


Refrence to Hybridization of Erectus
ute 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.
I disagree with you here.
Below is a referenced contradiction to what you said.
Modern Homo erectus DID mate with African Homo erectus also called Homo egaster or Early Homo erectus.
Re:
"The origin of Homo is not clear, but it is very likely that climatic factors played an important role in the evolution of Homo.
At Dmanisi in Georgia, there is an 1.8 million year old Homo erectus skull. This is roughly similar to the start of the ice-ages in Eurasia.
"It is very likely that brain expansion was largely driven by the unstable climate of Eurasia, which required constant adaptations from their inhabitants.
These selective pressures never existed in Africa.
Africa instead acted a lot like a refugee area where larger populations could survive for extended periods of time.
Frequent hybridization between advanced Eurasian Homo erectus and refugee African Homo erectus, i.e.; egaster or early Homo erectus), ensured that Homo evolved larger brains."
But the complicated tale in Genesis 6:4 also agrees with what we see was a hybridization between Homo antecessor, (evolved from Egaster) and Modern Homo erectus who hybridized with antecessor as shown in the diagram below:
This was the conduit through which both we and Neanderthals gained common genes.
Gen. 4:18 And unto (Lucy), Enoch, (Australopithecus afarensis), was born Irad, (a species concurrent with Australopithecus boisei): and Irad begat Mehujael (species concurrent with Australopithecus robustus):
and Mehujael begat (African Homo erectus), Methusael, (or, Homo ("Workman") ergaster, Early Homo erectus):
and (African Homo erectus/egaster, i.e.; Methusael) Methusael, begat Lamech (Homo antecessor, with whom Modern Homo erectus hybrid).
Homo ergaster - Wikipedia
NOTE: Homo erectus - Human Origins Program - Smithsonian Institution humanorigins.si.edu ... Human Fossils Species
Early African Homo erectus fossils (sometimes called Homo ergaster) are the oldest known early humans to have possessed modern human-like body ...
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Coyote, posted 12-06-2012 12:08 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 12-06-2012 9:16 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 186 of 310 (682962)
12-06-2012 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 9:51 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
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?
This is a science forum on EvC. Look at the top of this page in your browser:
References to Genesis are fine, but you are expected to support your claims with non-biblical evidence. There are other forums here where scientific evidence is not required or requested. No doubt Percy will be glad to help you setting up a topic in one of those forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 9:51 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:13 AM JonF has not replied

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


Message 187 of 310 (682966)
12-06-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by jar
12-06-2012 10:27 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
According to him Noah's wives bore children that were a wholly different species.
?
In every case of these 22 "begats" I understand the meaning to be that "wives bore children that were a wholly different species."
In the case of Noah, the three racial stocks were as similar to one another then as are the seven genetic racial classifications we recognize today.
Ham, Shem, and Japheth were different in the same ways we are today, all so similar, but easily distinguished from one another.
Recent science in Genetics has shown is that one male was the father of every person living today, even those Africans who do not have Neanderthal genes.
And that male forebearer of us all lived @40,000 years ago, just as I claim to be the moment of the great "flood" of Modern Homo sapiens out-of-Africa.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 10:27 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 11:06 AM kofh2u has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 188 of 310 (682968)
12-06-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 11:03 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Yes, you make a lot of bullshit claims.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:03 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:15 AM jar has replied

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


Message 189 of 310 (682969)
12-06-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by JonF
12-06-2012 10:53 AM


Science SUPPORTS Genesis one-to-one
References to Genesis are fine, but you are expected to support your claims with non-biblical evidence
LOL
In what thread specifically did I NOT post references to scientists?????
In what thread specifically did I NOT post references to scientists, to books that have been peer reviewed, to geological Facts with charts, to include six references to science reporters concerning the details of the Big Bang, to a reference that specifically agrees that there have been 22 species of extinct humans etc????
Give me one post where I have not specifically made the exact point that science confirms genesis and shown where the science and the Bible agree.
Poor losers????
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by JonF, posted 12-06-2012 10:53 AM JonF has not replied

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


Message 190 of 310 (682970)
12-06-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
12-06-2012 11:06 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Yes, you make a lot of bullshit claims.
Give me one that I have not backed up with science references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 11:06 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 11:50 AM kofh2u has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 191 of 310 (682976)
12-06-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 11:15 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
You have not backed up even one with a science reference. I'm not even sure you know how to back anything up or even how to read with comprehension. It seems you read what YOU want things to say instead of what they actually say, which is simply dishonest at best.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:15 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:58 AM jar has replied

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


Message 192 of 310 (682979)
12-06-2012 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by jar
12-06-2012 11:50 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
You have not backed up even one with a science reference.
yeah, yeah, yeah,...
That is what you keep accusing me of here, but fail to give me the post(s) where that is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 11:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 12-06-2012 12:05 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 195 by Eli, posted 12-06-2012 12:08 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


(1)
Message 193 of 310 (682984)
12-06-2012 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 9:51 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
You don't use science, or, if you use references to scientific texts, you abuse them in an appeal to authority, as they do not conform what you claim.
You aren't using science so don't pretend it isn't allowed to use science to evidence your claims. We all would be much happier if you did begin using actual science instead of the bunk, discarded, 100 year old or just plain made up crap you present.
PLEASE, use science. For one, I gladly welcome it.
But, pointing to a book because of it's title and saying "these scientists agree with me" is not you using evidence. It is you judging a bpook by its cover and making assumptions about its content.
Ian Tatteral disagrees with you. Richard Milner disagrees with you. The book does not say "the same thing" that there are 22 "links in the ascent of modern man"
It merely showcases 22 species, most of which are our distand cousins and not in our "line of ascent." Not to mention that the book is useful, but it is outdated. It is nearly 2013 and we have libraries of knowledge about species that this book simply does not, cannot and was never meant to cover.
No one is censoring you. That is a strawman. Your "evidence" simply does not confirm what you claim.
Since you refuse to acknowledge that, the only person who can be accused of intellectual dishonesty here is you.
As someone else already said "heels firmly dug in."
You have an agenda and it has no use for truth.
Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 9:51 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 194 of 310 (682985)
12-06-2012 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 11:58 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
But I did give you the posts where that is true, every single one of your posts is just plain bullshit.
Here is a list of your bullshit posts

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:58 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 12:11 PM jar has replied

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


(2)
Message 195 of 310 (682987)
12-06-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 11:58 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:
That is what you keep accusing me of here, but fail to give me the post(s) where that is true.
Take your pick.
Any post that you have claimed categorically that things are in sevens.
Any post that says there are 22 links in man's ascent.
Any post that you claim all hominids went extinct 40,000 years ago.
Any post where you talk about psychology.
Any post where you try to redefine Hebrew words.
Every-fucking-one of your posts that makes a claim.
ALL OF THEM.
Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 11:58 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024