Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
82 online now:
dwise1, jar, Phat, Tangle (4 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,167 Year: 4,279/6,534 Month: 493/900 Week: 17/182 Day: 5/12 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 236 of 310 (683196)
12-08-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by NoNukes
12-08-2012 12:11 PM


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

The question is whether fusion alone would produce a new species such that the offspring with a fused gene is of a different species than his/her parent not having the fused gene.

That question is decidedly more difficult to answer.

Not really. The question is decided.

Domestic horses have one fewer chromosome pair than a Przewalski's horses which have 33 pairs, but they can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile.

Centric fusion translocations have been found in Italian cattle, yet the cattle remain cattle.

Pampas deer have fused chromosomes and have 3 subspecies. The genetic variation has to do with an extreme population size in the past and not the fusion.

And, of course, Down Sydrome children have a different chromosomal pattern than the rest of us.

Species are not created in a single pregnancy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2012 12:11 PM NoNukes has seen this message

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 237 of 310 (683202)
12-08-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
12-08-2012 3:04 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.

Father/son relationships are cannot be matched to cousin/cousin relationships.

Not to mention that these biblical characters dwelt in tents, farmed, did metal work, and played musical instruments.

Is kofh2u suggesting that Lucy was a sword-maker?

These comparisons are just silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 12-08-2012 3:04 PM Percy has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:45 PM Eli has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 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 replied

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

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 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 taken no action

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 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 taken no action

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 283 of 310 (683301)
12-09-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 11:36 AM


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


God says he created the Plant Kingdom first, then a few "days" later, he creates the Animal Kingdom.

That is correct for readers who understand that God utilized Evolution to carry this out.

But that isn't correct. Animals came before plants. If you say that the scientific opinion on this matter is that plants came first, then you are dead wrong and/or lying.

In the neoproterozoic timeframe, simple sponges existed, coming before the first plants.

http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajs/v108n1-2/v108n1-2a02.pdf

Plants did not come about until the beginning of the Silurian period.

Animals preceded plants by 300 million years.

Your claim about plants coming before animals is, in fact, refuted by science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:36 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:24 PM Eli has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 288 of 310 (683309)
12-09-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 11:57 AM


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

You have absolutely no science to support the claim that the fusion had no effect or that there was no "no stark difference between the point when the fusion first happened" regardless of how many times your side might point out that nonosense.

Caroline Mackie Ogilvie and Paul N Scriven (December 2002). "Meiotic outcomes in reciprocal translocation carriers ascertained in 3-day human embryos". European Journal of Human Genetics (European Society of Human Genetics)

M. Oliver-Bonet; J. Navarro1, M. Carrera, J. Egozcue, J. Benet (October 2002). "Aneuploid and unbalanced sperm in two translocation carriers: evaluation of the genetic risk". Molecular Human Reproduction (Oxford University Press for the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology)

Mitelman, F; Johansson, B; Mertens, F (2007). "The impact of translocations and gene fusions on cancer causation". Nature reviews. Cancer

Homozygosity for a Robertsonian translocation (13q14q) in three offspring of heterozygous parents


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:57 AM kofh2u has taken no action

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 289 of 310 (683310)
12-09-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 2:24 PM


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

Bacteria plants was the first life:

oh.my.fucking.god.

Bacteria are not plants. Neither are fungus plants.

Take that 1910 textbook you pulled out of your grandpa's basement and shove it up your ass. It won't do you any good here.

We are talking about modern science, not bloodletting and eating bull testicles to increase fertility.

Do you know what year it is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:24 PM kofh2u has taken no action

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 291 of 310 (683312)
12-09-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 2:36 PM


Re: Science does not refute Genesis
kofh2u writes:

Surely, this listing borders on the TRUTRH.

The upper mantle is actually covered with the important lubericant of the asthenosphere.

The lithosphere includes the crust of dry land and the basin under the Oceans.

That's why the factual listings include seven layers

Yet even more numerological bullshit.

The "factual listings" is something you made up. The composition of the earth, whether mechanically or chemically, is divided into 5 layers.

And there are not 7 tectonic plates. There are 15.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 2:36 PM kofh2u has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2012 3:46 PM Eli has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 292 of 310 (683313)
12-09-2012 3:20 PM


Let's get this thing into summation mode so the arguments can be heard on how these subjects kofh2u wants to hijack other threads with have now been fully explored and how he has been offered ample room to make a case for his claims, which he has utterly failed at.

We can see that we will get no deeper into this and will only see him repeat the same claims regardless of the insurmountible evidence which clearly shows him to be wrong.

I only see more of the same in the future. Let this thread be the witness that the discussion deserves no more of our attention and let us, once the thread is closed, only engage kofh2u when he engages the actual discussion and makes no more mention of his numerology or forced pseudoscience and learns how to resist blatently lying, making claims of persecution or telling others that they are intellectually dishonest or have poor reading comprehension when they present evidence that disprove his claims..

Edited by Eli, : No reason given.


  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 295 of 310 (683324)
12-09-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Coragyps
12-09-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Science does not refute Genesis
And if you don't count your thumbs, then you have 8 fingers, which is pretty much seven, which demonstrates that science and the bible say the exact same thing when you use the correct reading comprehension.

7 candlesticks in hand=7 fingers.

de facto.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2012 3:46 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 299 of 310 (683413)
12-10-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by kofh2u
12-10-2012 11:40 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Your claims are patently unscientific and your interpretations are 100% detached from what is actually written in the bible.

Your list has already been addressed. You are simply wrong.

End of story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by kofh2u, posted 12-10-2012 11:40 AM kofh2u has taken no action

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(3)
Message 309 of 310 (683479)
12-11-2012 1:58 AM


The thread speaks for itself.

Kofh2u is mostly copying and pasting canned responses he has made in other threads or in other forums. It is apparent he has no basic grasp of these subject or of the bible and has no intention of budging from such a diingenuous position regardless of what is actually happening in the real world. Everything that has been needed to be said to him has already been presented and he simply does not care about the truth.

There is no need to comment further on the subjects he has brought up because he doesn't give a shit about anything except for trying to misinform others so he can continue in his self delusion without being alone.

I welcome the idea that he participate with a little humiliy and actually engage the discussions. But as for the arrogant way he has presented himself while maintaining a peak level of contempt for others while feeding us nothing but horse-shit?

I hope I never hear about it again.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022