Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
41 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Happy Birthday: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 882,034 Year: 13,782/23,288 Month: 300/412 Week: 87/40 Day: 3/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 168 of 310 (682898)
12-05-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 8:39 AM


Hi Kofh2u,

By presenting these two images:

In the same message with this book:

You are creating the false impression that the images are from the book, but they're not. When people told you your claims were bunk they were referring to your images, not the book.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 8:39 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Eli, posted 12-05-2012 9:04 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 170 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 179 of 310 (682949)
12-06-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by kofh2u
12-05-2012 9:37 PM


kofh2u writes:

I assume the readers here can differentiate between the points inherent in my Hypothesis that Genesis genealogy is bout Paleontolgy, and original with myself.

Apparently you are the person unable to differentiate, because when people replied about your images in your Message 148 you mistakenly assumed they were talking about the book. For example, Coyote replied like this in his Message 149

Coyote writes:

I've rarely seen such a pile of nonsense. I'm not even going to start trying to correct all the errors I see, and I see a lot as half my Ph.D. training was in the field of fossil man.

Suffice it to say that you are just rearranging facts in an effort to support your prior beliefs with no regard to whether they actually do or not.

And you mistakenly assumed he was talking about the book when you replied thus in your Message 149:

kofh2u writes:

?

You dispute the credentals of the cast of paleontolgists who wrote The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans.

Apparently you're subject to the very confusion you accuse others of. So when you ask questions like this:

Do you beleve there are people so dumb here?

The answer seems obvious.

Speaking very generally, I think you need to begin presenting actual evidence from the real world. This is a science thread, not a Bible thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by kofh2u, posted 12-05-2012 9:37 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 9:51 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 226 of 310 (683171)
12-08-2012 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by kofh2u
12-06-2012 9:51 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Hi Kofh2u,

I'm not moderating this thread - I'm just a participant.

I think you need to connect your ideas to evidence. For example, what evidence leads you to believe that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis? What evidence leads you to believe that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kofh2u, posted 12-06-2012 9:51 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 11:42 AM Percy has responded
 Message 228 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 11:46 AM Percy has responded
 Message 229 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 11:47 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 232 of 310 (683192)
12-08-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 11:42 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Hi Kofh2u,

I'm just bringing to your attention the lack of fact connecting your ideas to reality. There's no bias and no one wants to silence you, just the opposite in fact. I want you to shout your evidence from the rooftops.

So let's try to get the evidence train going, we can start with those same questions I asked before: What evidence leads you to believe that Adam was a Sahefanthropus tchadensis? What evidence leads you to believe that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species?

AbE: Whoops, don't bother replying, I see now that you posted three replies to my message, I'm looking at the other ones now.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 11:42 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:34 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 235 of 310 (683195)
12-08-2012 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 11:46 AM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:

And, conversely, Gen 5:2 says that Adam is the first of the human species:

And Sahefanthropus tchadensis wasn't human. Did you mean to say that Adam was the first of the hominid line? What is it that you're finding in the Bible that leads you to think Adam wasn't human?

"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes."

Yes it does, but it isn't evidence that a member of one species can give birth to a member of a different species. Evolution has to be gradual and in terms of entire populations because any new species produced in a single generation would have no breeding partners. The genetic accident that produced the chromosome 2 fusion could not have introduced a species reproductive barrier, else the individual possessing it could never have passed it on.

The questions only get worse for you. For example, what evidence leads you to conclude that Ardipithecus ramidus is descended from Sahefanthropus tchadensis, and what leads you to believe that Cain was an Ardipithecus ramidus? How can Tubal-cain be Jabal's descendant if, according to the Bible, he's Jabal's half-brother? And so on. And there's still the major question of why you believe Adam and his descendants up until the flood were not human.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 11:46 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Eli, posted 12-08-2012 3:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 257 of 310 (683248)
12-09-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:52 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u in Message 244 writes:

I was responding to Percy's reminder that he is a Moderator.

Like many others in this thread, I asked for the evidence behind your claims. I never mentioned my moderator status. I responded to your paranoid Message 180 that I'm a mere participant in this thread.

No one is trying to censor you. We're not trying to get you to say less. We're trying to get you to say more. Specifically, about evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:52 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 11:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 258 of 310 (683249)
12-09-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by kofh2u
12-08-2012 6:34 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
Hi Kofh2u,

You have very odd ideas about how science works. Science isn't a matter of what hasn't been refuted. Science is a matter of what has been supported with evidence.

You claim there were 22 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that. Let us say, just for the sake of discussion, that this is all true.

But I could claim there were 23 predecessor species to man and that science hasn't refuted that either. It's just as true as your claim.

But they can't both be true. That's why science isn't a matter of what hasn't been refuted, because all kinds of contradictory claims haven't been refuted, and they can't all be true. Scientific claims become tentatively accepted as accurate reflections of reality because of positive evidence, not because of lack of refutation.

Addressing this more directly now:

Science does NOT refute a short list of 22 species in the ascent of man.

It has been explained to you many times that science does not believe there were 22 species between the chimp/human common ancestor and modern man. We don't know the correct number. Some of the 22 species from the book The Last Human are definitely cousin species, some have strong evidence for being on a direct line to humans, others are ambiguous. Science cannot refute that there were 22 species between the chimp/human common ancestor and modern man, but it can't refute 23 or 10 or 37 either.

All your other claims have pretty much the same problem. In other words, you've spent this entire thread making empty claims. You need to begin talking about evidence, and now is as good a time as any.

So tell us, what evidence do you have that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Science does not know whether it's on the line of descent to humans from the chimp/human common ancestor, nor even whether it existed before or after the split. You need to also explain what evidence leads you to conclude that the chimp/human split is relevant to Adam, as opposed to say the gorilla/human split, or the monkey/human split.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by kofh2u, posted 12-08-2012 6:34 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 12:08 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 294 of 310 (683317)
12-09-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by kofh2u
12-09-2012 12:08 PM


Re: My Thread on the Science of Genesis
kofh2u writes:

So why bash the Theistic Bible believer who chooses to see the 22 names in Genesis description of the roots in the ascent of man as corresponding with the paleontological evidence of science????

You're not getting bashed, and what is happening to you isn't because you're a theistic Bible believer but because you're ignoring everything being explained to you. When someone appears to not hear what is said then people tend to repeat it at higher volume, which at a discussion board can come across as bashing.

An example of something explained many times that you're ignoring is that science doesn't believe there are 22 species on the line from the chimp/human common ancestor to modern man. The reality is that science doesn't know how many there are.

But this is only one point that you're ignoring. You've actually ignored almost every point made. An exhaustive list of every time you've ignored a point would go on for pages.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by kofh2u, posted 12-09-2012 12:08 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by kofh2u, posted 12-10-2012 11:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 306 of 310 (683425)
12-10-2012 1:23 PM


My Summation
Trying to talk sense into a kook is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and it makes the pig squeal.

--Percy


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020