Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 76 of 95 (694077)
03-21-2013 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
I am interested in how hard head you people are right now when the Facts support everything I have been saying.
What facts support your claim that the generations spoke of in the Bible were referring to pre-modern human species?
"What happens now, when YOU see that the very evolution of man matches what the Bible says," if you will accept it?
You haven't shown that the evolution of man matches what the Bible says. Nowhere do I find mention of transitional species that have a mixture of features from basal apes and modern humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 3:42 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 77 of 95 (694080)
03-21-2013 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 3:44 PM


Re: Three? races of man
kofh:
This CORRESPONDS directly to the Three Racial Stock Theory of science.
coyote;
I've told you several times that science does not agree with your claim of three races.
And I have told YOU it does.
I have referenced a peer-reviewed paper from a scientific journal by two acknowledged experts in the field. (I have quite a number of books by those two experts on my office shelves from my graduate school days and from my subsequent study of human races.)
The idea of just three races pretty much died out over 100 years. Because so many traits are involved (both geographical and genetic), and because many of those traits are found with clinal distributions that do not co-vary with one another, many have come to question the concept of race altogether.
In spite of all of this you continue to make wild and unsubstantiated claims clearly contradicted by scientific evidence.
Unless you can come up with some evidence I can only conclude you're just blowing smoke.

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 75 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 3:44 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 95 (694081)
03-21-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 3:32 PM


Re: Twenty two... not so much
You don't know anything about me except what you read in my posts.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
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 72 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 3:32 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 95 (694082)
03-21-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 3:32 PM


Re: Twenty two... not so much
I remind you again that the stated Hypothesis that the 22 names in the genealogy correspond to the 22 now extinct humans in our ascent Out-of-Africa.
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?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
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 72 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 3:32 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 80 of 95 (694083)
03-21-2013 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 3:37 PM


Re: Twenty two... not so much
How so?
What I see here is you want to say I am wrong because my thinking does not meet your specifications somehow... which is mutual of course.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
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 73 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 3:37 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 95 (694104)
03-21-2013 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 2:32 PM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
The evidence is science of the Three Racial Stocks that appeared after the mass extinction of all other kinds of man supports Genesis.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
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 63 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 2:32 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 82 of 95 (694105)
03-21-2013 11:24 PM


My Assessment
Hi, Kofh2u.
I am having a very hard time piecing together your ideas. Let me provide a bit of an appraisal.
Here is a graphic that outlines the genealogy from Genesis 4 and 5. As you can see, there are two basic lines from Adam (Cain and Seth). So, if this genealogy refers to the evolution of hominid species, then we should expect to see the same pattern in the hominin fossil record.
And this is your graphic, that overlays biblical names on the various hominids.
The problem is that the fossil "family tree" doesn't at all match the pattern in the genealogical trees from Genesis. For example, Ar. ramidus, which you have equated with Cain, has no descendants on that fossil tree. You instead present all the descendants of Cain as descendants of Seth.
Au. afarensis (Enoch) is depicted as the "father" of Au. africanus (Enos), Au. garhi (Mahalaleel) and P. aethiopicus (Cainan). That's not consistent with the genealogy presented in Genesis: Enoch is on the Cain line, and the others are a three-generation father-son series on the Seth line.
So, in order to make the two sources fit, you have to assume that either the fossil phylogeny or the biblical genealogy is wrong. You're trying to argue that the two sources to match, when they don't appear to actually match.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 83 of 95 (694116)
03-22-2013 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 12:09 PM


Re: ,... the evidence began accumulating that the hypothesis was supported by FACTS.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 12:09 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(1)
Message 84 of 95 (694117)
03-22-2013 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 2:32 PM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 2:32 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 85 of 95 (694118)
03-22-2013 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by kofh2u
03-21-2013 3:24 PM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by kofh2u, posted 03-21-2013 3:24 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by kofh2u, posted 03-30-2013 2:02 PM Eli has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 86 of 95 (694127)
03-22-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Taq
03-21-2013 3:30 PM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
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 71 by Taq, posted 03-21-2013 3:30 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Eli, posted 03-22-2013 6:35 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 89 by kofh2u, posted 03-30-2013 2:00 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 87 of 95 (694176)
03-22-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NoNukes
03-22-2013 10:18 AM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
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 sapiens
2.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 anamensis
26.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 ramidus
35. Ardipithecus kadabba
36. Kenyanthropus platyops
37. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
38. Orrorin tugenensis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2013 10:18 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by kofh2u, posted 03-30-2013 1:53 PM Eli has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 88 of 95 (694898)
03-30-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Eli
03-22-2013 6:35 PM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
Hmmm,...
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.
When all the Homo erectus duplications above are collected together, the list reduces to 22 as I have consisytently reported here, in spite you complain that amounts to spamming.
If you are to backward to get the message, I usually refrain from posting it again.
So check out you list and resist googling to find the facts, instead, take a course in the subject or read the book I recommended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Eli, posted 03-22-2013 6:35 PM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Eli, posted 04-02-2013 10:09 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 89 of 95 (694899)
03-30-2013 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NoNukes
03-22-2013 10:18 AM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
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.
Not sure what you men here,... but it is the same with science theory as with this theological theory.
If future discoveries require we add, change, enlarge, with draw the theory, we do so.
But Abel IS accounted for in the genealogy and the paleontology.
He was an early meat-eating ape that was attacked and disappeared early on.
Another such meated arose as Seth in the Genesis story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2013 10:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2013 6:22 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 90 of 95 (694900)
03-30-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Eli
03-22-2013 6:14 AM


Re: Not 22, so what's the point...
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.
?
2007 edition was the latest book by a qualified team of paleontlogists as far as I know.
What was later and what was different?????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Eli, posted 03-22-2013 6:14 AM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Eli, posted 04-02-2013 10:24 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024