|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
The sprouts "of life"?
No. That isn't in the Hebrew intent or definition. You added that. And, no genetics has not determined that all men living today carry Neanderthal genes, but, even if it were, that wouldn't be represented in the verse you provided, not matter how much you try to add.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
This picture is particularly disturbing. There are at least 4 images that have been planted (quite poorly) in this picture, obviously one is showing 3 postures of the same individual. Even worse is that Kofh2u has "browned out" the second to last image and labeled it "negroid." I find it quite offensive as well as biblically inaccurate. To take this blackman's curse worldview and to try to pair it up with the book on hominids is just disgusting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
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. Certainly all but one or two rather naive readers would assume that this idea has already been published by a peer reviewed editor.That would be tantamount to thinking I have been posting accepted knowledge and all this is old hat that only idiots have not yet heard about. Do you beleve there are people so dumb here? Apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't try to conflate your own garbage with respectable work. At least you admit that the book has nothing to do with your claims. Good. You can stop mentioning it, then.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
That isn't science.
That graphic is discarded science from the 1930s. The chart is wrong. Caucasions stem from Asians. And genetic testing suggests that there are no races. Regardless, races are not species.and there are not 22 species of hominids. Nothing you have said is true.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
kofh2u writes:
Any idiot can naysay and do what Eli does Any idiot can dismantle any claim you make because you lie and ignore real data. It isn't naysaying when you claim that all modern humans have neanderthal DNA, when all modern humans do not have neanderthal DNA. It isn't a bias to point out that what you are saying is not true, with the exception of having a bias against lying. Quit lying and we won't have a problem.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
You don't use science, or, if you use references to scientific texts, you abuse them in an appeal to authority, as they do not conform what you claim.
You aren't using science so don't pretend it isn't allowed to use science to evidence your claims. We all would be much happier if you did begin using actual science instead of the bunk, discarded, 100 year old or just plain made up crap you present. PLEASE, use science. For one, I gladly welcome it. But, pointing to a book because of it's title and saying "these scientists agree with me" is not you using evidence. It is you judging a bpook by its cover and making assumptions about its content. Ian Tatteral disagrees with you. Richard Milner disagrees with you. The book does not say "the same thing" that there are 22 "links in the ascent of modern man" It merely showcases 22 species, most of which are our distand cousins and not in our "line of ascent." Not to mention that the book is useful, but it is outdated. It is nearly 2013 and we have libraries of knowledge about species that this book simply does not, cannot and was never meant to cover. No one is censoring you. That is a strawman. Your "evidence" simply does not confirm what you claim. Since you refuse to acknowledge that, the only person who can be accused of intellectual dishonesty here is you. As someone else already said "heels firmly dug in." You have an agenda and it has no use for truth. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
kofh2u writes: That is what you keep accusing me of here, but fail to give me the post(s) where that is true. Take your pick. Any post that you have claimed categorically that things are in sevens. Any post that says there are 22 links in man's ascent. Any post that you claim all hominids went extinct 40,000 years ago. Any post where you talk about psychology. Any post where you try to redefine Hebrew words. Every-fucking-one of your posts that makes a claim. ALL OF THEM. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
You've been given plenty of reason as well as evidence that shows the two are not the same.
Not even close to describing the same thing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
That's not what the bible says.
Water is water, not molten lava.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
Pangea isn't even the first of several supercontinents.
And the bible says "let the waters be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear." Dry land already existed at the time Pangea converged. All the water gathering together is not all the land gathering together. Besides, you already said that it wasn't water, but a "molten accretion disk." Whatever you have to say to make your bunk theory work, eh?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
I really hope you don't actually believe that the human anatomy falls in those dimensions.
That's one tiny head.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
the facts of life....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
You are fucking bonkers, guy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
kofh2u writes: A) The theological evidence of 22 links to the present human population are enumerated in Genesis.
Uh, there is no such specific enumeration.
kofh2 writes: The Scientific evidence for 22 links to the present human population are enumerated in The Last Human: the 22 now extinct humans. You've aslready been shown that this claim is wrong. There isn't a lot of evidence in that book and the species under discussion are not in a straight lineage. Most of them are our distant cousins, not in our direct lineage.
kofh2u writes:
B) Paleontologists hypothesize that Sahefanthropus tchadensis is a good candidate for the first branch from chimps to the new species, Humanoids. Re:Search for the First Human (Sahelanthropus Tchadensis) Sahelanthropus Tchadensis is one of the oldest known species on the human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6 million years ago. topdocumentaryfilms.com/search-first-human-sahelanthropus-tchade... And, conversely, Gen 5:2 says that Adam is the first of the human species: Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.
The pronoun "them" does not imply anything but except "more than one." Genesis doesn't say that Adam and Eve were a species. It says that adam was a single man placed in the garden and alone. Eve was made specifically to be his wife. That is not a species. The bible does not say that Adam was the first human species. It says, quite plainly for anyone with reading comprehension, that Adam was the first man. In fact, "Adam" in Hebrew means "man."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3512 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
kofh2u writes: Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred... before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5). Wait just a second. You removed the most important part. The part that completely demolishes your claim. That means that you understand that what you are claiming is bogus. You know that you are lying. Let's see the part that you removed: Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human-chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 and 1 million years ago Yeah, so that proves you know you are wrong. What exactly is your point in participating in forums if you are just going to remove all evidence that proves you wrong? Obviously humans were not born out of this fusion (mostly because chromosome fusions don't change gene expression on their own) because the line that leads to modern humans HAD ALREADY SPLIT OFF FROM OTHER APES. Wake up, Kofh2u. It's time to leave your little fantasy. You know you are lying.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024