Summations Only

Academicaly and scientifically correct, how?

Transitory things = piss.

So, on the whole, you have claimed that during the big bang specifically in the inflation era 14 billion years ago, the earth was formed... out of piss.

What peer reviewed source is that again that you claim confirms this?

kofh2u writes: Gen 1:2 tells us, first, that t earth is void of its spherical shape, hence we can reason that it is described as in the form of the accretion disk of rotating rocks which are like murky "waters" of hot magma. This interpretation seems fair and supported by the facts. Theistic Evolution Bible believers prefer to choose this way of understanding Gen 1:2 because it conforms with the truth.

No, it doesn't tell us what attributes the earth is void of. You cannot say that it tells us it is void of it's spherical shape anymore than I can pinpoint that it may be saying it is void of life, light, void of its moon, void of anything in particular.

You might be able to make a case for "without form" but, as it has already been pointed out, an accretion disk is a particular form. So, no, your interpretation is not fair or supported by the facts.

waters does not mean "magma." That is not an interpretation. It is an interjection.

The facts are that there is enough ambiguity in the language, that on the merits of a single verse alone, your private interpretation may be acceptible to you, but there really is no substance to the interpretation and no valid reason for the interjections.

And I don't know what you mean by "theistic evolution bible believers prefer this interpretation."

Theistic evolutionists do not try to make the bible conform to science. Such confirmation biases are not preferable to theistic evolutionists.

They prefer to claim that these passages are figurative, not literal, and they refuse the idea that the bible is meant to be a science book.

kofh2u writes: The link specifically says that the "Separation of the Electroweak force" takes place "near the end of the Quark Era." It is in part of that Era, therefore.

That doesn't mean that the electroweak era is not its own.

This is more numerological bullshit and cognitive bias.

Bottom line:

Cognitive bias is the antithesis to scientific inquiry and academic honesty.

If we begin with an agenda that we need to break things up into sevens, we are no longer talking about science.

The universe isn't 700,000 years old. You are leaving off a shitload of time in which events occurred to get your number. Why don't you continue reading your source so you can finish your count and arrive at a more accurate number?

kofh2u writes: kofh2u Posts Only Cheers/Jeers: Message 92 of 111 (682548) 12-03-2012 2:07 PM Reply to: Message 90 by Panda 12-03-2012 1:07 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Selective learning -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why only look at sites that provide 7 or 8 eras? My thinking is that science information ordered in has the mnemonic power of that assocation is invaluable to people's cpability for order-out when they explain these concepts. Since the subjective nature of the choice to do so is often presented, along the innumerable number of such nature sets of seven scientific facts, it makes sense to do so where possible, (which is almost always).

So, you admit that you didn't count seven because of events, but because you want things ordered in sevens because you think it is easier to remember.

Yeah, no.

That's bullshit.

kofh2u writes: Sez you to them, the science sources to which I presented references. I do not not have the inclination to entertain your argument with them. I merely demonstrate that these are not my ideas. These are science charts, graphic organizers, listings of Time relationships, and/or categorical classification of the seven events come for science source and authors with enough credentials. As is the custom in debates or discussions of this type, the sources are all that I am required to present. They are useful to back me up.

The sources you have provided disprove your claim.

And it is obvious you have done no further research into these matters than looking up charts using google images.

You keep saying "the scientists."

What scientists? What are their names, degrees, papers, peer reviewed works, ect?

You can't point to a blog or present pictures that you have ADDED TO, cropped, left off relevant information in order to give incomplete information that is supposed to confirm your claim, but doesn't.

We have six days of creation, yet most of the charts you present are of at least 8 eras AND the ones that are 7 are NUMBERED WRONG, with the exception of one picture that is from Time magazine showcasing a children's book.

You have given zero accceptible sources that actually agree with your claim, so when others disagree with you, it has no bearing on whether the reject science, because the actual science is not even included in your argument. What you are presenting is clear to be solely your own ideas. You have given no evidence that supports your claim and the appeal to the ever more vague "scientists" with unmentioned credentials has utterly failed you. You have nothing to back you up.

I call POE.

Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

kofh writes: (NOTE: to critics who would prefer the Six Kingdom System we must note that Genesis speaks only of Two Kingdoms, specisically mentioning only Plants and Animal.)

Which is another nail in the coffin that Genesis is not scientifically accurate.

The Hebrew interpretation is also grass, or herbage for feeding cows.

Still isn't talking about bacteria, regardless if you blame a 17th century interpretation error.

That's utter bullshit.

Everyone here has an open mind but you.

Don't accuse people of being close minded because they can spot errors in logic and doctored data.

and this?:

kofh2u writes: Our Paleontologists today have linked 22 predecessors to our ascent to Modern man, pretty much as the genesis story tells us

is an bold faced lie. Don't insult our intelligence or our knowledge base. You might be able to get away with making shit up and telling fourth graders that genesis tells us that there are 22 predeccessors "to our ascent to Modern Man" but I 've read the bible and it doesn't say that.

Neither do paleontologists tell us that. We have 50 something species of hominids accounted for and the ones in our direct tree are about 10.

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. This was the latest book on the matter, so I am standing behind this sources as at least placing Gnesis genealogy in he ball park of evolution of modern man.

The pictures you provided are not from the book. You have presented no substance from the book, so there is nothing under dispute within the context of the book. What is disputed is what you claim it says or implies rather than what the book actually says and you do yourself no favors by coupling the book with your retarded pictures that have nothing to do with the book.

And no, the book is not the latest on the matter. It was published in 2007 and took a few years to compile and create the images and sculptures featured in the book before it was published.

Here is just a few books that were published on this matter since 2007 that only took a 30 second google search to find:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lR8yOayV2UMC&printsec=fr...

http://books.google.com/books?id=nmuH6nms78oC&printsec=fr...

http://books.google.com/books?id=PrJ1lmjMakoC&pg=PA77&dq=...

http://books.google.com/books?id=XcYSZTPkXTQC&pg=PA151&dq...

http://books.google.com/books?id=usoqlA8AVDUC&pg=PA1032&d...

You really can't be that naive to think that no books on this subject have been written or published since 2007.

The key word being "sprouts."

Do you need pictures to understand what a sprout is?

Sprouts are the growth from the germination of seeds.

You can't use the book to make your comparisons, because the book does not have anything to do with your claims.

All this other gish gallop is not science and not supported by any data. You've already been told that there was no mass extinction of other hominids.

You simply ignore that fact because it destroys the premise of your claim.

You are possibly the most dishonest person I have ever encountered in a forum.

Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

He is learning disabled, to say the least, and also psychotic.