|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kof2hu's 22 species corresponding to Genesis thread | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
KOFH2u: Second, the poor blurred graphis does NOT say "adam," but to "Adah," who corresponds to Early Homo erectus. MODERATEOR extraodinare':Okay, Adah. On the one hand you claim that the giants of the Bible are Homo erectus, and on the other you claim that Adah and Methuslelah are Homo erectus. They can't both be Homo erectus, so which is it? Yes they CAN BOTH be Homo erectus, since there were two co-existing kinds of Homo erecti. Homo ergasterFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Homo ergaster Temporal range: Pleistocene, 1.8—1.3Ma PreЄЄOSDCPTJKPgN ↓ Skull KNM-ER 3733 discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 (Kenya)Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. ergaster [aka early Homo erectus] Homo ergasterGroves and Mazk, 1975 Homo ergaster (also "African Homo erectus") is an extinct chronospecies of Homo that lived in eastern and southern Africa during the early Pleistocene, between 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago. There is still disagreement on the subject of the classification, ancestry, and progeny of H. ergaster,... ... but \[B\]it is now widely accepted (Homo ergaster) to be the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens, and Homo neanderthalensis AND Asian Homo erectus. You seem to be in need of this thread and fail, imho, to be qualified to decide whether I know what I am talking about or not.
Note again for clarity, that African Homo erectus is diferent from Asian Homo Erectus is evidenced in that the former is usually called Ergaster. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
All this discussion between you and myself dmonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in... Super Moderator extraordinare:What all this discussion actually demonstrates is the remarkable difficulty you are having coming up with evidence supporting your claims associating Biblical beings and persons with ancestral hominid species. Do you have evidence from archeological digs? Radiometric dating? Paleontological finds at Biblical sites? What? Why????Why in the devil would I need more evidence than that which the paleontologists have dug up, to show that the ascent to modern man was through 22 kinds of links from the first Adam to appear on Earth, since my ONLY point is that the Bible says this is so. The scientist have come up with the evidence that agrees with he 22 names of creatures mentioned in the Genesis genealogy, though they have called them their own names. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN WHAT SCIENCE SAYS TODAY AND THE BIBLE SAID IN 1362BC IS ONE-TO ONE:
Book:
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humansby G.J.Sawyer, (Author)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
kofh2u writes: Do you also agree that all these other species disappeared in the last 40,000 years?nd are you willing to acknowledge that all men living today carry the Y-chromosome of just one man who could correspond with this Noah whose three sons could be what is the scienice theory of Three Racial Stocks???? These issues have nothing to do with the questions I've been asking. Threads arguing positions that lack evidence and/or contain contradictions won't be promoted. The thread proposal process exists to remove these kinds of problems before discussion begins. You can continue to argue issues I haven't raised, but until you address the issues I have raised your thread cannot be promoted. Here's a cut-n-paste of the questions from my previous message:
And getting back to the original question that was an example of the kind of evidence you need, whoever you decide is really Homo erectus, what is the supporting evidence?
All this discussion between you and myself dmonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in... What all this discussion actually demonstrates is the remarkable difficulty you are having coming up with evidence supporting your claims associating Biblical beings and persons with ancestral hominid species. Do you have evidence from archeological digs? Radiometric dating? Paleontological finds at Biblical sites? What? The thread proposal process cannot go on indefinitely. If my concerns aren't begun to be addressed soon then I'll have to consider closing this proposal. AbE: I see now that you posted three replies, not just the one. I'm looking at the other replies now. Edited by Admin, : AbE.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Kofh2u,
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was pointing out a logical error. Let me state it differently. You originally claimed that the giants of the Bible were Homo erectus. You later claimed through a diagram that Adah and Methuslelah were Homo erectus (the Homo egaster distinction is irrelevant to the logical contradiction). So if the giants of the Bible were a different species than Adah and Methuslelah, how can they all be Homo erectus? But the bigger problem is that you have not presented any evidence connecting the personages and beings of the Bible to specific ancestral hominid species. Until you give some indication that your position has at least some supporting evidence your proposal cannot be promoted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Kofh2u,
This is going on too long, so let's keep this simple by focusing on just one hominid from your diagram:
Please present your evidence that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Please present your evidence that Adam was a Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Easy...Science and the Bible both say that the first evolution from apes was the first fo the 22 now extinct species of humans that lead to the three racial stocks that further developed into us, the people living today. Hence, as the best guesses of Paleontogy and Theology, that would be Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Sahelanthropus tchadensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins ProgramSahelanthropus tchadensis is one of the oldest known species in the human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago in West-Central Africa (Chad).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was pointing out a logical error. Let me state it differently. You originally claimed that the giants of the Bible were Homo erectus. You later claimed through a diagram that Adah and Methuslelah were Homo erectus (the Homo egaster distinction is irrelevant to the logical contradiction). So if the giants of the Bible were a different species than Adah and Methuslelah, how can they all be Homo erectus?
?1) The proper spelling is Ergaster, not egaster. 2) The chart identified Homo ergaster as the partner in a hybridization with the more advanced Modern Homo erectus. This sounds very very reasonable, in that these two DIFFERENT species where closely related, in fact Ergaster is often referred to a African Homo erectus, from which a more advance Modern Asian Homo erectus was derived. You seem to be having difficult with the facts as presented and perhaps are a little behind in your Paleontology, so maybe you ought stop the inquisition and just let others who may be way more knowledgeable in these things debate and inquire of me on a less bias attempt to find so picayune inconsistency in what I set forth???
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Kofh2u,
We don't seem to be making any progress so I'm going to close this thread proposal.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied here from the According to Genesis, Noah collected his family and the animals of the world on his a thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
Humans listed by name before Noah's flood:
1) Adam2) Eve 3) Cain3a) Enoch 3b) Irad 3c) Mehujael 3d)Methushael 3e) Lamech 3e1) Jabal 3e2) Jubal 3e3) Tubal Cain 3e4) Naamah 4a) Adah4b) Zillah 5) Seth5a) Enos 5b) Caanan 5c) Mahalaleel 5d) Jared 5e) Enoch 5f) Mathuselah 5g) Lamech 5h) Noah 6) Abel There are 24 names listed in the geneology up through Noah. 27 when we count Noah's three sons. Every assumption Kofh2u has made in regard to these two lists corresponding has solely been based on the claim that there are 22 names in the genesis genealogy up to the arbitrary stopping point of Noah's sons. There are not 22 names in said genealogy, there are 27. It could be advantageous to him to claim that we should only count the male names since the ark story concludes with 8 humans surviving including the women. He could claim that the women listed are necessarily of the same species as a male counterpart and are only necessary for the purposes of breeding. I wuld not be surprised at this claim since I have seen other mysogynistic postings by him. Even if Kofh2u makes some other arbitrary appeal to only the male names, we still do not arrive at 22. /thread Edited by Eli, : No reason given. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GrimSqueaker Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 137 From: Ireland Joined: |
I'm far from an expert on this particular area of discussion but isn't the problem with interptive arguments that they hinge on thongs that are subjective to the author and current understanding.
100 years ago there were also the Dravidians and Sinhalese races of man, so that'd be 5 races rather than 3 - and as it stands currently there have been no where near enough studies done on the genetic make up of the native tribes of Austrailia, but considering how far divergent the rest of the mammals there are we could probably expect some interesting findings. Not to mention that there may be more similar folk hidden around the world that may have died out or been breed into obscurity long agoReason > Belief Even if we dont agree find me on Facebook, always happy to have new friends
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
OK
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
kofh2u writes: OK I assume that by now you've figured out that this is a copy of your original thread proposal over at According to Genesis, Noah collected his family and the animals of the world on his a. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
There are 24 names listed in the geneology up through Noah. 27 when we count Noah's three sons.
Rigt,... Abel does not count becay-use he had no children.The 4 women do not count because th line of Ascent reuires that the Y-chromosome be passed down to the next evolution in each case. The women have been included as ex partners when hybridizations occurred, however, but the males that resulted from those acts are the next in the line of ascent. This is all supported by Genesis and Science, in that the males are the names found in the genealogy of Chapter 5. Here is the lineage according to this point of view:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3819 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
yeah...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024