Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread

And here is a major problem with your efforts. You "find" support by using any means necessary. You have already predetermined the that the Bible conforms to science. So a match must be found. And it is your life's work to distort, contort, numerologize, misapply, confirmation bias and just be plain wrong about science, the Bible, or both such that a match, however unpersuasive, is found.Your methods are perfectly analogous to those use to make Nostradamus appear prescient or to those used to find secret messages in the Bible. You can never rule out coincidence using the reality free techniques you apply.Given your zeal, and your apparent belief that you are the Messiah, I don't expect that it is possible to convince you that you err. But perhaps you might at least understand why you are having difficulty convincing rational people. Probably not, but there's hope.If you were actually correct, you should be able to announce and predict science simply by reading the Bible, just as we should be able to predict the future by reading Nostradamus. But somehow neither ever actually happens. I contend that it is because numerology is stupid nonsense. Edited by NoNukes, : remove double negative and fix it's/its usage

Actually I haven't done that. I'm a Christian and I believe that the Book of Genesis contains truth, but I am not the expert in identifying that truth.What I have determined is that if there is a match, it cannot be found using your methods. What I criticize is you.In a way its like watching a stage magician. Every time he snaps his fingers or makes a gesture he reinforces the idea that what he does is a trick because such actions cannot make objects disappear. I'd actually be more persuaded if the magician did not do those things.Similarly I don't believe in numerology or astrology. Whenever I see those things used, I expect crap to be the result.ABE:Your insistence on 22 gives the game away. Science does not make that claim and neither does the Bible. The Negroes = Ham stuff is just crap icing on a manure cake. The Noah's ark dimension stuff is equally stupid numerology and is similarly unpersuasive (but probably off topic).Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You did not say that the lists are merely comparable. You have said that they correspond. Further you have used the number 22 as evidence that the correspondence is not accidental.Removed:Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, you are saying that the correspond, and not that they are comparable. And you have used the number 22 to reinforce that correspondence. But of course the number 22 from both science and the Bible are fabrications.And let's do some analysis of this "suggestion" of a 1000 multiplier.With regards to the factor of 1:1000, isn't your use of an exact factor of 1000 quite arbitrary. After all the Bible talks about one day being as 1000 years which is a factor of 365,242 and not a factor of 1000. And even a factor of 365,242 far to tiny to match Genesis up to Big Bang cosmology.The truth is that you are free to use any factor from 1 to googol to make this comparison appear to be a correspondence. I don't find the fact that the number 1000 works to be of any consequence because numerology is bogus.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I understand that, and I have no doubt that such is true. But I don't find your personal assurances to be convincing, nor do I believe your arguments advance your credibility. I think the latter possibility is wanting for some support.

So according to your reason for dismissing Homo Lantianensis, we should rule out counting subspecies?Then how do you explain identifying Caucasiod, Mongoloid, and Negroid as separate parts of your 22? Those are not even sub-sub species. In fact, why aren't they all lumped in with Noah?Let me lay out the problem with this stuff. I find that your reasoning includes confirmation bias. Things in the Bible that cannot fit with your interpretation can be summarily ignored or are simply opportunities for treating Bible text as allegory. And I then wonder what is the point.You claim to want the Bible to be literally true. But if you achieve this by the use of allegory, then what exactly have you accomplished? Why is your use of allegory any better than what non-literalists do?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you kidding me, or are you just emulating a bag of hammers?What I'm asking you to explain is how you arrive at twenty two without counting groupings that represent relationships that are not even sub species. After all, you are trying to advance a correspondence with 22 species.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nonsense.You are using an allegory in which a flood of water corresponds to something that I cannot be bothered to learn going on with Noah's nervous system, which in turn is some part of the story of man's evolution.You can pretend to your self that your proposal is a direct cataloging of events described in Genesis. But in actuality, the correspondence you are pushing is pure allegory.Even if I accept that the lifetimes are not literally individual lives and that the Bible names representing species is non allegory, despite the holes in that proposition, the flood stuff is unquestionably pure allegory. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Wrong. You are of primary interest here.My primary critique is of your thought processes and methods. Bad thought processes reach a correct result only by accident. It is secondary, and a much easier task to show that the accident did not occur, and you did not achieve a correct result. Assuming you are following the process you describe in this thread, you are not using the scientific method. Coyote was on the right track, but he stops short of what I conclude, which is that what you are doing gives Apologetics a bad name.

Well, yes. Your posts here, your web page, and posts you've made elsewhere. And that's the part of 'you' that I'm talking about.

For the zillionth time.The book you cite is about 22 human species. Yet your correspondence is to grouping which in some cases are not all species. Then in order to maintain 22, you reject groupings proposed by others for reasons that include those groupings not being species.Do you still not see an issue?

Despite your claim to be following the scientific method, you've already admitted to methods that are not following the scientific method and Coyote pointed those out in detail.In particular, your process is to seek information that confirms your hypothesis. If that is what you do, then you aren't following the scientific method.This is what you do not do.1. You make no serious effort to critical examine your hypothesis. Instead you simply look for confirmation. And from appearances, you are willing to look at quite bizarre twistings of fact to find confirmation.2. You do not examine or consider or seek to reject a null hypothesis, such tasks being essential to the scientific method. If you've even formed one, you've simply rejected it out of hand.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We know that what you say here is impossible. Some a few groups of living men have no Neanderthal DNA while all other men do. That could not happen unless some Neanderthals survived the mass extinction.

If a 23rd is found then we will start counting Abel. Right now we are pretending that Abel is the only name that represents an individual rather than a human species. So we have a built-in fudge factor.If even more are found, then we can revisit the criteria for counting 22.As if this exercise is not total BS.

Abel does not get assigned one of your 22 species names. Why is that?It's easy to see why Seth would get one of those twenty two names. And we've heard your excuse for not giving Abel such a name. Let's accept that reasoning for the sake of the arguments I make in this post.Given the above, your correspondence completely fails for the reasons given by Doc Blue Jay. According to the Bible, Noah, and presumably the rest of us is not descended from Abel's brother (species), or from Enoch, Irad, etc. Yet some of those people are part of the 22 rather than part of the cousins described in the book you rely on.On the other hand, every single one of us is presumably descended from each and every one of the species listed in the book. Further, nothing in the book would correspond to the division that produced your labeling of Noah's sons. How do you make a correspondence between races and species names. Yet you need those sons to fake a 22 count.It is pretty obvious that your correspondence is a construct of your attempts to match up the book, which is by no means the authoritative statement on human lineage with your whittled down in some places, expanded in others 22 count from Genesis.This is not just numerology, it is bad numerology.ABE:Which of the 22 names in the book corresponds to Ham? Or just respond to Blue Jays post.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Ask Ham question.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.