|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Hi Kofh2u,
What information are your parenthesized insertions based upon. For example:
kofh2u writes: Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible)... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
kofh2u writes: And there IS no way to deny that the Giants who were hominoids in Genesis reasonably could have been 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
kof2hu writes: First, there is EVIDENCE that diffeent species inbreed both in science and genesis. 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.
Second, the poor blurred graphis does NOT say "adam," but to "Adah," who corresponds to Early Homo erectus. 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?
All this discussion between you and myself dmonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in... 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
kofh2u writes: Do you also agree that all these other species disappeared in the last 40,000 years?nd are you willing to acknowledge that all men living today carry the Y-chromosome of just one man who could correspond with this Noah whose three sons could be what is the scienice theory of Three Racial Stocks???? 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:
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?
All this discussion between you and myself dmonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in... 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Hi Kofh2u,
We don't seem to be making any progress so I'm going to close this thread proposal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024