Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread

Hi Kofh2u,I'm going to target this at the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. Could you add descriptions of how the Bible supports your position to Message 1? What in Genesis is a reference to Neanderthals, and to the evolution and dispersion of Homo sapiens, and to 40,000 years ago? Thanks!

Hi Kofh2u,What information are your parenthesized insertions based upon. For example: What leads you to conclude that the giants were Homo erectus?I need to be sure your arguments are not just made up before I can promote your thread.

Hi Kofh2u,It is the responsibility of moderators to enforce the Forum Guidelines, and that includes thread proposals. In this case you're only being asked to follow rule 4:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Hi Kofh2u,EvC Forum is a science site and tries to avoid discussions that are based upon mere fabrications. In compliance with rule4, threads can only be promoted that have some basis in fact. This isn't bias, it's just sound science.Your own parenthesized words interspersed about the text of Genesis are not facts. An example of what is needed would be to explain what facts support your contention that the giants mentioned in Genesis were Homo erectus.

And there is no way to deny that I might reasonably have taken the long way home tonight, but there's no evidence that I did. And there is no way to deny that there might reasonably be a celestial teapot in orbit around the sun, but there is no evidence that there is. The absence of falsifying evidence is not evidence, plus the possibility that the Biblical giants were Homo erectus is contradicted by your own diagram: Your diagram says that both Methuslelah and Adam were Homo erectus, and according to the Bible both were of the race of man and not members of the supposed race of giants. And then you go on to talk about Neanderthals but are not specific about how it ties in.So you provided no factual evidence tying the Biblical giants to Homo erectus, but you did contradict yourself. In order to promote this thread I need some indication that positive evidence supporting your position exists, and the evidence can't be contradictory.

I haven't been making an issue of this, but since you keep bringing it up, there is well established scientific evidence that closely related species can interbreed. Few would dispute this, and certainly I am not. You don't have to keep asserting this. Okay, Adah. On the one hand you claim that the giants of the Bible are Homo erectus, and on the other you claim that Adah and Methuslelah are Homo erectus. They can't both be Homo erectus, so which is it?And getting back to the original question that was an example of the kind of evidence you need, whoever you decide is really Homo erectus, what is the supporting evidence? What all this discussion actually demonstrates is the remarkable difficulty you are having coming up with evidence supporting your claims associating Biblical beings and persons with ancestral hominid species. Do you have evidence from archeological digs? Radiometric dating? Paleontological finds at Biblical sites? What?

These issues have nothing to do with the questions I've been asking.Threads arguing positions that lack evidence and/or contain contradictions won't be promoted. The thread proposal process exists to remove these kinds of problems before discussion begins. You can continue to argue issues I haven't raised, but until you address the issues I have raised your thread cannot be promoted. Here's a cut-n-paste of the questions from my previous message: The thread proposal process cannot go on indefinitely. If my concerns aren't begun to be addressed soon then I'll have to consider closing this proposal.AbE: I see now that you posted three replies, not just the one. I'm looking at the other replies now.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

Hi Kofh2u,You seem to have misunderstood me. I was pointing out a logical error. Let me state it differently.You originally claimed that the giants of the Bible were Homo erectus. You later claimed through a diagram that Adah and Methuslelah were Homo erectus (the Homo egaster distinction is irrelevant to the logical contradiction). So if the giants of the Bible were a different species than Adah and Methuslelah, how can they all be Homo erectus?But the bigger problem is that you have not presented any evidence connecting the personages and beings of the Bible to specific ancestral hominid species. Until you give some indication that your position has at least some supporting evidence your proposal cannot be promoted.

Hi Kofh2u,This is going on too long, so let's keep this simple by focusing on just one hominid from your diagram: Please present your evidence that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Hi Kofh2u,We don't seem to be making any progress so I'm going to close this thread proposal.

Thread copied here from the According to Genesis, Noah collected his family and the animals of the world on his a thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.