|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Humans listed by name before Noah's flood:
1) Adam2) Eve 3) Cain3a) Enoch 3b) Irad 3c) Mehujael 3d)Methushael 3e) Lamech 3e1) Jabal 3e2) Jubal 3e3) Tubal Cain 3e4) Naamah 4a) Adah4b) Zillah 5) Seth5a) Enos 5b) Caanan 5c) Mahalaleel 5d) Jared 5e) Enoch 5f) Mathuselah 5g) Lamech 5h) Noah 6) Abel There are 24 names listed in the geneology up through Noah. 27 when we count Noah's three sons. Every assumption Kofh2u has made in regard to these two lists corresponding has solely been based on the claim that there are 22 names in the genesis genealogy up to the arbitrary stopping point of Noah's sons. There are not 22 names in said genealogy, there are 27. It could be advantageous to him to claim that we should only count the male names since the ark story concludes with 8 humans surviving including the women. He could claim that the women listed are necessarily of the same species as a male counterpart and are only necessary for the purposes of breeding. I wuld not be surprised at this claim since I have seen other mysogynistic postings by him. Even if Kofh2u makes some other arbitrary appeal to only the male names, we still do not arrive at 22. /thread Edited by Eli, : No reason given. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Abel does not count becay-use he had no children.
I assumed you would make up another arbitrary rule to arrive at the figure you wanted. Kofh2u arrives at his conclusion before he begins to collect data or advance research. Then he creates false rules in order to exclude certain data that should be included and to include data that he has made up. In this case, he has created an arbitrary exclusion rule. As an example he might say "we will only consider one to be a member of this group if they are right handed. Tom is left handed and is not a member of this group." Even though the rule is arbitrary and the reasons he gives for the rule being necessary ("line of ascent requires the Y chromosome be passed down") are not scientifically based, we will allow it only if he applies it consistently. In the "right handed" example, when it is pointed out that Jenny and Jeff are also left handed, then they should also be excluded from the group. Kohf2u's second arbitrary rule (special pleading) is that paternal links who have no children cannot be counted. Very well. Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain also had no children. Then by Kofh2u's own rules, we now have a count of 16. Including Noah's sons the count is 19. With or without Kofh2u's special rules meant to force a specific number, we still do not have a count of 22 in the Genesis genealogy. Got another rule you want to add?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Since Abel had no children he could never be counted as a link to the ascent of other species,which is jsu common sense. Then it would also be common sense not to count Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain for the exact same reason. The whole point of the thread is to find correspondences of 22 with 22. Before we can even get to that point, we have to establish what the two groups of 22 are. You have been unable to arrive at a list of 22 in either group. Please explain why you made up a rule and want to apply it to only one person, when it applies to four people. We have 23 males through Noah's sons and 19 when we exclude those who did not have offspring. We don't have a list of 22.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
We carry Neanderthal genes in us, which tells you that these Neanderthals had children which evolved from them, but by hybridization.
That is an illogical conclusion. But, since you want to make such a ridiculous claim, then we'll say this applies to Abel as well. LoLObviously Abel had offspring because we carry Neanderthal genes. Now we are back to a list of 23.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
23 males, 23 pairs of chromosomes. Coincidence? Well, 2+3=5 and according to the song "This monkey gone to heaven," man is 5. You should probably know by now that there are no coincidences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Very true. If that were the way he thought he could demonstrate foreknowledge in the bible of modern scientific findings, he would be glad to bring up Au. sediba and insert that into the list of 22 to arrive at 23.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
The bottom line is that you claimed there are 22 names in the Genesis geneology beginning with Adam and arbitrarily ending with Noah's three sons.
You were wrong. You simply cannot compare or proclaim a correlation between two lists of 22 here. There is nothing by which one should even think these are similar even by coincidence because there is no list of 22. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Grow up and become intellectually honest. Says the guy who refuses to count the 27 names in the Genesis geneology up through the flood. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Finally in the last year or so, paleontologists listed "the 22 now extinct humans" which do correspond to the genealogy in Genesis. Now I have to call you on this one. This is an outright lie. The book you point to was compiled in 2005-2006 and published in 2007. You are fully aware of this. You also are aware that since the time this book was published that no paleontolgists have made an effort to create a comprehensive list of all the hominid species, mostly because these scientists are specialists and focus on one or two aspects of human ancestors and their body of work is used collectively in order to comprise all the species rather than putting them all in a single volume. However, I have looked into this and it seems someone has already put together a comprehensive list especially for you in another forum. You are aware of this list, yes? 1.Homo sapiens2.Homo sapiensidaltu 3.Homo georgicus 4.Homo ergaster 5.Homo gautengensis 6.Homo antecessor 7.Homo heidelbergensis 8.Homo neanderthalensis 9.Homo rhodesiensis 10.Homo erectus 11.Homo habilis 12.Homo rudolfensis 13.Homo floresiensis 14. Homo cepranensis 15.Homo yuanmouensis 16.Homo lantianensis 17.Homo wushanensis 18.Homo pekinensis 19.Homo palaeojavanicus 20.Homo soloensis 21.Homo tautavelensis 22.Homo nankinensis 23.Denisova Hominin 24.Red Deer Cave Species 25.Australopithecus anamensis26.Australopithecus sediba 27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali 28.Australopithecus africanus 29.Australopithecus afarensis 30.Australopithecus garhi 31.Australopithecus aethiopicus 32.Australopithecus robustus 33.Australopithecus boisei 34. Ardipithecus ramidus35. Ardipithecus kadabba 36. Kenyanthropus platyops 37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis38. Orrorin tugenensis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
If you double check that list, as i have, you will exclude all but the 22 I have mentioned because their linkage to us is very doubtful. I have seen your attempt to limit this list. It failed then as it does now. Their linkage is not very doubtful. It is quite established.
Homo rhodesiensis The validity of Homo rhodesiensis as a distinct type of hominid is not well accepted and it has been variously suggested that the skull on which it is based should be assigned to one or the other of H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, or H. heidelbergensis. Homo rhodesiensis - Online Biology Dictionary I believe rhodesiensis is featrued in the book "The Last Man." If you want to eliminate it, you obiously haven't read the book and you also serve to discredit the very book you try to appeal to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
Subspecies are not different a species. They are the corresponding "those sons and daughters" which Genesis refers to after designating the actual link in the genealogy to us. I see you are making up definitions now. Subspecies are different from species.
The evidence is science of the Three Racial Stocks that appeared after the mass extinction of all other kinds of man supports Genesis. Then the evidence is worthless, because you drew it from your imagination and not the real world. There was no mass extinction of all other kinds. That is a lie you keep telling yourself as it has been brought to your attention that other huminids lived as early as 12,000 years ago.
We ALSO just found out that all people living today are related tonust one man who lived about 40 thousand years ago. That fits and corrsponds exactly with the Hpothesis, that the Genealopgy is really the list of the 22 humans in our ascent to modern man. Well, that is also not true. You admitted as much the last time you brought it up that the range for this MRA is from 60,000 to 142,000 years ago and that 40,000 years is quite out of that range. Why bother trying to reinsert this lie? We all know that you know that your claim about 40,000 years is bogus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
I assumed you were referring to our present discussion of the genealogy and the one-to-one corrspondence with the paleontology reported in the latest book on that subject Are you bonkers? Why keep going back to these fully discredited claims. The book is not the latest. It is quite outdated as far as the subject goes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
We already found a 23rd.
Au. sediba back in 2008. Of course, that doesn't coincide with the latest book on the subject (2007) so Kofh2u pretends that the discovery never happened. ..hm... I really shouldn't say that that find was the 23rd. I don't want to give the wrong impression that there are only 23 species discovered when we actually have at least 38 including our own species. 1.Homo sapiens2.Homo sapiensidaltu 3.Homo georgicus 4.Homo ergaster 5.Homo gautengensis 6.Homo antecessor 7.Homo heidelbergensis 8.Homo neanderthalensis 9.Homo rhodesiensis 10.Homo erectus 11.Homo habilis 12.Homo rudolfensis 13.Homo floresiensis 14. Homo cepranensis 15.Homo yuanmouensis 16.Homo lantianensis 17.Homo wushanensis 18.Homo pekinensis 19.Homo palaeojavanicus 20.Homo soloensis 21.Homo tautavelensis 22.Homo nankinensis 23.Denisova Hominin 24.Red Deer Cave Species 25.Australopithecus anamensis26.Australopithecus sediba 27.Australopithecus bahrelghazali 28.Australopithecus africanus 29.Australopithecus afarensis 30.Australopithecus garhi 31.Australopithecus aethiopicus 32.Australopithecus robustus 33.Australopithecus boisei 34. Ardipithecus ramidus35. Ardipithecus kadabba 36. Kenyanthropus platyops 37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis38. Orrorin tugenensis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
I thought I had alredy posted here before I left last week that you list contains chronospecies or duplicates that are just other names given to the same species. You claimed that. You failed to demonstrate it, however. You did nmanage to object to at least one species in your own list however. That was pretty amusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3522 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
2007 edition was the latest book by a qualified team of paleontlogists as far as I know. What was later and what was different????? Here is a few of the latest books by most of the people you source This doesn't even touch on the many papers and articles written on specific species. Chris Stringer: Chris Stringer (2007), Homo britannicus. The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain, London: Penguin, ISBN 0-14-101813-5[4] Chris Stringer (2011), The Origin of Our Species, London: Allen Lane, ISBN 978-1-84614-140-9 Chris Stringer (2012), Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth, London: Times Books, ISBN 978-0805088915 Ian Tattersal: The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know, 2008 Paleontology: A Brief History of Life, 2010 Race? Debunking A Scientific Myth, 2011 The Brain: Big Bangs, Behaviors, and Beliefs. I. Tattersall & R. DeSalle, Yale University Press, 2012, ISBN 978-0300175226 Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, ISBN 0-230-10875-X Richard Milner: Darwin's Universe: Evolution from A to Z, 2009
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024