Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 4:31 PM
29 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,371 Year: 15,407/19,786 Month: 2,130/3,058 Week: 504/404 Day: 19/89 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
23Next
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 226 of 341 (693510)
03-16-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by NoNukes
03-16-2013 12:00 AM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...

KOFH:
The 40,000 years refers NOT to the appearance of Noah, nor does it date the evolution of the three racial stocks which Genesis calls Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Those three sources of all men living today were born to Noah 100,000 years before the extinction process of 40,000 years began.

No Nuk:
Hmm, I wonder where I got the impression that you were claiming that Noah appeared 40,000 years ago. Oh hey, here is you saying exactly that:

From Message 211 by KOFH:

What is important here is that this FACT suppports the assumption that genesis was really saying Noah appeared about 40 THOUSAND years ago, not 40 "days", as I have been maintaing in my explanation of Genesis.
NO NUk:

If you are really dropping the tie between 40,000 years and 40 days, then you are distancing yourself from even this pathetically tenuous tie to Genesis.

It could be confusing unless one purposifully is trying to be obtruse,...

But what I am saying parallels what is in Genesis.

It says that this SPECIES referred to as Noah appeared long ago, personified as if the Noah species represented just one man who could actually have lived for 950 years.

It suggests that Modern Homo sapiens, by analogy, evolved from that species.
This occurred 100,000 years before the massive extinction of all Hominoids, except that Noah species and three racially different Modern Homo sapiens. (Gen 5:31)

The extinction flood over all these humanoids, including Neanderthal man starting about 40,000 years ago.
The only survivors according to genetic evidence, was three racial stocks of Modern Homo sapiens and Cromagnon man, (Noah?).

The evidence supports this by confirming that the three racial stocks contained the Y-chromosome of just one common father to them all, who at this point in the story, would have been one sole member of these Noah species from whom the three evolved.

Point:

1) Noah was NOT modern man, but most like archaic Homo sapiens who appeared about 500,000 years before modern man.

2) Modern Homo sapiens lived 100,000 years before the mass extinction began 40,000 years ago.

3) Added these facts together, Modern Homo sapiens evolved from these Noahians about 150,000-200,000 years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 03-16-2013 12:00 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 227 of 341 (693511)
03-16-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Coyote
03-16-2013 12:45 AM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...

The flood is generally agreed by biblical scholars to have occurred some 4,350 years ago.

Yes, other bible raders try to say there was a flood of water up to the mountain tops, and they, like you, will say I'm nuts for claiming this was a necessary analogy until this Age, because no one would ever have acceot the actual truth, clearly written without analogy to the facts.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

DAY = THOUSAND YEARS,
40 DAYS = 40,000 YEARS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2013 12:45 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2013 3:39 PM kofh2u has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 338 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 228 of 341 (693513)
03-16-2013 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by kofh2u
03-16-2013 3:21 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...
That's all nonsense, you know.

(See signature block.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--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 227 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 3:21 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 3:59 PM Coyote has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 229 of 341 (693515)
03-16-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Coyote
03-16-2013 3:39 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...

That's all nonsense, you know.

OK.

Then stop discussing the matter here if your mind is made up.

This forum is for people ho ar open to either side of the discussion and will consider the arguments made.
There is no need for a cheer leader to interject his "vote," one way or the other.

What we have here are those people who insist against all science and reason that men lived as long as 950 years, were all Modern Homo sapiens, and never evoplved from other species.
A great flood cover the earth up to themountain tops, and all the bad men died in 40 "days."

Those that lived were us, who admit we are also sinners and bad, too.

Others say the tale is a fairy tale and makes no sense the way the former explain it.

Then there is thread, where I say the Bible writers were restrained from telling the factual events directly, so they worte a tale which specified the EXACT factual events, but used word with two means for things like "days" because seven Geologial Eras of millions of years would never have been accepted and passed down to us.

Nor woukd the list of 22 names inthe genealogy have been better explained as "22 now extinct humans," as claimed by modern day Paleontologists.
Nor would it have been acceptable until today that these writers said a flood of modern man Out-of-Africa accompanied the extinction of Neanderthal over 40,000 years.

Do us a favor, and refrain from weighing in again with your belief/mere-opinion as if that had merit in the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2013 3:39 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2013 5:21 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 231 by Admin, posted 03-16-2013 5:29 PM kofh2u has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 338 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 230 of 341 (693518)
03-16-2013 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by kofh2u
03-16-2013 3:59 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...
You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over, without a shred of evidence. You have been corrected on numerous facts, over and over, but you still keep repeating the same nonsense.

And you complain that my mind is made up?

Just once, would you back up a claim with real evidence?

How about Chad, as requested on the other thread you are proposing? You are equating that to a biblical character. Problem is, you are off in your timing by about 7 million years. Care to provide evidence, as opposed to assertion, for that claim?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--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 229 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 3:59 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 5:30 PM Coyote has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 231 of 341 (693520)
03-16-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by kofh2u
03-16-2013 3:59 PM


Topic Reminder
Hi Kofh2u,

This is a science thread inquiring about the common ancestor of man and ape. Please keep your discussion based upon evidence and focused on the topic. Correspondences between science and the Bible are not the topic of this thread, nor is anything else from the Bible.

Please, no replies to this message in this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 3:59 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by kofh2u, posted 03-18-2013 11:43 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 232 of 341 (693521)
03-16-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Coyote
03-16-2013 5:21 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...

How about Chad, (????), as requested on the other thread you are proposing?

You are equating that to a biblical character.
Problem is, you are off in your timing by about 7 million years. Care to provide evidence, as opposed to assertion, for that claim?

Be more spcific, I don't recall any issue about "chad."

You are very foolish to assume that people disagreeing with me makes me wrong and them correct.
I have been REQUIRED in every case to produce the surces for what I say, whereas your own posts time and again repaet your opinion that I am wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2013 5:21 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Coyote, posted 03-16-2013 6:46 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 338 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 233 of 341 (693522)
03-16-2013 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by kofh2u
03-16-2013 5:30 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...
Be more spcific, I don't recall any issue about "chad."

In post 21 of the thread that was not promoted, you state:

Science and the Bible both say that the first evolution from apes was the first fo the 22 now extinct species of humans that lead to the three racial stocks that further developed into us, the people living today.

Hence, as the best guesses of Paleontogy and Theology, that would be Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Science does not say that chad (tchadensis) was human. Note that specimen has Sahelanthropus for the genus, not Homo. Only genus Homo would be considered human.

And where do you get three races? Science does not claim three. I've seen four, six, seven, and a whole series of higher numbers, all the way up to 60+ microraces and some obscure scheme numbering up into the hundreds. But three is not something I've seen any modern scientist claim. Maybe a hundred or more years ago. When I studied human races in grad school we followed Garn and Coon. Here is a good article on the subject by those two authors. They suggest either six or thirty, depending on your definition of terms:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../aa.1955.57.5.02a00060/pdf


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--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 232 by kofh2u, posted 03-16-2013 5:30 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 234 of 341 (693524)
03-16-2013 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 11:43 PM


Re: ...for the second time...
RE--The first humanoid appeared when an ape surrogate mother with 24 Chromosomes experienced an Act-of-God by which two chromosomes fused together, creating a new creature in God with only 23 Chromosomes. From that point, intelligence was the resulting feature of the mutation which after 22 links to modern man clearly distinguishes us from Apes. --

That is an interesting story. Very imaginative. But again I am trying to ascertain where one can find its basis in reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 11:43 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 235 of 341 (693525)
03-17-2013 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Tangle
03-16-2013 5:01 AM


RE--Special creation doesn't predict anything at all - it just says that God created everything as we see it today 6,000 years ago.--

Yes and when one looks for evidence that would support this story, wouldn't one "logically" expect to find that in a plethora of life supposedly all designed by a single designer, many would share similar "design" features?

RE--God could have made animals with wheels and three legs and plants with pink chlorophyl if he'd wanted to. --

But of course He could. Without a doubt. However if He wanted His creations to function at (what He saw as) the best possible potential then don't you think it would be more logical that He created things with better designing? For example have you considered what an animal with "wheels" would forfeit? Wheels are very difficult to design in a way so they can self repair. While attached legs that only hinge back and forth can more easily be fed nutrients necessary for repair. That is only one, but I am sure there are many design reasons for preferring legs to wheels. The same could probably be said for your other suggestions. The story says that when He finished His work that He looked at all His designs and said they were "good."

We may never know the half of "why" He designed things the way He did. But why wouldn't it be reasonable to predict that if things did have a single designer, they would have similar features?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2013 5:01 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Tangle, posted 03-17-2013 4:36 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 238 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2013 9:20 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 236 of 341 (693526)
03-17-2013 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by onifre
03-16-2013 2:02 PM


Re: genetic again is the reason we see common ancestors and ToE
RE--The entire field of biology and most of modern medicine operate on the premise that the way the Theory of Evolution explains the history of life is the correct interpretation of the evidence. --

I'm so glad that you agree it is only a premise. Here's the problem I'm struggling with. The atheist comes along and says there is no god and therefore we have to come up with our own Genesis account. Interestingly they invented the tale of abiogenesis and typically use that as their backdrop to the theory of Universal Common Decent. The theist comes along and says no that is wrong there is a God and they affirm their story of Genesis to be true. Neither account can in anyway be proven. In a sense they are both taken on faith. Depending on which of the two "premises" you ascribe to, it will determine how you interpret the exact same evidence.

My problem here is that as an objective observer who is trying very hard not to be swayed by personal "premises," I actually see more logical reasons (in the evidence) to accept the "premise" of special creation over common ancestry. Since both ideologies expect similarity among the various life forms, for me this means the debate can not be won with a similarity argument.

RE--Man, it must be hard being that smart.--

Lol. Yes I find myself having to "dumb it down" a lot so as not to scare the villagers. (grin) jk

RE--I won't do it for you because I feel anything I post you'll disregard. --

Not so my friend. I never disregard anything sent my direction so long as it is done tastefully and with respect. But also I'm not afraid to scrutinize it and ask the tough questions either.

Have a great day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by onifre, posted 03-16-2013 2:02 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by onifre, posted 03-19-2013 9:05 AM Just being real has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7020
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 237 of 341 (693529)
03-17-2013 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Just being real
03-17-2013 12:47 AM


JBR writes:

But of course He could. Without a doubt. However if He wanted His creations to function at (what He saw as) the best possible potential then don't you think it would be more logical that He created things with better designing? For example have you considered what an animal with "wheels" would forfeit? Wheels are very difficult to design in a way so they can self repair. While attached legs that only hinge back and forth can more easily be fed nutrients necessary for repair. That is only one, but I am sure there are many design reasons for preferring legs to wheels. The same could probably be said for your other suggestions. The story says that when He finished His work that He looked at all His designs and said they were "good."

It's been pointed out many times that if god did create the animals and plants as we see them today, he is a really awful designer, not a 'good' one. He also did it in a way that makes it look exactly as if they had evolved in a haphazard way.

But whatever you think, special creation makes absolutely no predictions about phenotypes, it just simply and baldly says, 'God did it.'


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Just being real, posted 03-17-2013 12:47 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Just being real, posted 03-17-2013 10:42 AM Tangle has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 238 of 341 (693533)
03-17-2013 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Just being real
03-17-2013 12:47 AM


Yes and when one looks for evidence that would support this story, wouldn't one "logically" expect to find that in a plethora of life supposedly all designed by a single designer, many would share similar "design" features?

Similar features, yes. But not necessarily nested hierarchy and even more, not a pattern of phenotype appearances and disappearances over time that suggests evolution.

Now an omnipotent creator could mange any pattern, but Genesis claims some things about what God actually did, and those things are not consistent with what we see.


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 235 by Just being real, posted 03-17-2013 12:47 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Just being real, posted 03-17-2013 10:42 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 239 of 341 (693534)
03-17-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Tangle
03-17-2013 4:36 AM


RE--It's been pointed out many times that if god did create the animals and plants as we see them today, he is a really awful designer, not a 'good' one. He also did it in a way that makes it look exactly as if they had evolved in a haphazard way.--

Lol. Kind of reminds me of the joke "You know why God created Adam before creating Eve?... Because He didn't want a woman standing around telling Him how its done." jk But the point again is that what you and I may see as "bad design" doesn't mean it is. And it doesn't really matter what we think. That's kind of like babies in a playpen complaining that there's no toilets in the pen. And no espresso machines. At this point we're just looking back and trying to see what we can see to tell what did happen. Not what we think should've happened. And regardless of how many times you say na uh... special creation would expect to find organisms with many similar features. You have your opinion and I have mine. I guess we'll leave it at that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Tangle, posted 03-17-2013 4:36 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Tangle, posted 03-17-2013 12:05 PM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 240 of 341 (693535)
03-17-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by NoNukes
03-17-2013 9:20 AM


RE--Now an omnipotent creator could mange any pattern, but Genesis claims some things about what God actually did, and those things are not consistent with what we see.--

By all means feel free to give me an example please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2013 9:20 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2013 2:11 PM Just being real has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019