Summations Only

The word "grass," in this case, was a fair guess in 1600AD, but better, in light of this day, "the first sprouts of the Earth" would have been more truly accurate for the word "deshe."

No, that's not even close. There's no way to interpret the plants emerging on day three as being bacteria. Face it: Genesis doesn't match up with science.

And look at your own source:

Is says at the bottom that in Gen 1: 11-12 it means "the more mature herbage, when already in seed". Your own source contadicts you.

And what about Day 7? You 've got a lot of stuff going on when the Bible just says that God rested.

One other thing: are you familiar with the Sharpshooter Falacy?

quote:

---

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern.

---

You're just using hind-sight to twist the words in the Bible to mean whatever you have to make them mean to match up with science. There's no reason for those words to mean that other than to try to make the Bible out to have some accuracy. Its not an honest approach and its making you look silly.

The 7 days of Genesis covers both cosmological AND geological eras.
But you have linked 7 cosmological eras AND 7 geological eras.
This would require 14 biblical days.

But that is ok - because you will simply ignore 7 of the eras so that you can continue to claim a correlation between science and the bible.

You do know that cherry-picking is fallacious and dishonest and undermines any claims you make, yes?
Did you read the link I provided to confirmation bias and cherry-picking?
Do you realise that you are cherry-picking your data to support your claims?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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

I haven't read the book, but I highly doubt that the book includes the drawings in your post complete with the labelings of various evolutionary stages with Biblical names.

Let's assign the credit/blame to the person to whom it is due.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.

Is says at the bottom that in Gen 1: 11-12 it means "the more mature herbage, when already in seed". Your own source contadicts you.

I think you need read it again.

In particular, focus on the Hebrew letters in each case.
You will see that the more mature herbagementioned in Pro 27:25 is a different word that the one above in the Strong "Root Word Etymology.

In the very first part of the definition, look at the hebrew spelling which is the actual word used in Gen 1:11, and which mean "the first sprouts of Earth."

Sprouts come from seeds. Seeds simply did not exist during the Proterozoic Era. Your interpretation is wrong.

The key word being "sprouts."

Do you need pictures to understand what a sprout is?

Sprouts are the growth from the germination of seeds.

I haven't read the book, but I highly doubt that the book includes the drawings in your post complete with the labelings of various evolutionary stages with Biblical names.

hahaaaaa,...

Of course the science in the book is a reference I use to make this starling comparison between what people have believed from the Bible about our distant ancestors and what we are just now discovering through the totally unbiased work in Science.

The POINT is that the church people are wrong about their medieval Bible interpretations.
They must change their stance against Evolution because they mouth archaic explanations of Genesis invented in times long passed by mere men who were just ignorant of these things then.

My hypothesis links 22 species from the Adams through to the three racial stocks of Modern man.
Even that coincides with what we now know about Modern Homo sapiens who appeared 40,000 years after the total extinction of all those other man-kinds during our own "Flood-Out-of-Africa."

The Bible is telling a direct correspondence between what actually happened, albeit necessarily couched somewhat in terms that the ancient readers could accept at that time.

The Ark that carried all the animals into the Modern World was really inside the skull of Noah, in the form of visions and images stored genetically in his deepest unconscious mind:

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.

The Bible is telling a direct correspondence between what actually happened, albeit necessarily couched somewhat in terms that the ancient readers could accept at that time. The Ark that carried all the animals into the Modern World was really inside the skull of Noah, in the form of visions and images stored genetically in his deepest unconscious mind:

At what point can we be confident that kofh is mentally unbalanced?
How far passed that point are we?

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

At what point can we be confident that kofh is mentally unbalanced?

Never.