[_ Old Earth _] Evolution, a theory for apes.

[Adam]

Isn't it dubious" that Genesis will be wrong, since every scientists says there are between 12 and 23 now extinct humans in our ascent?

And isn't is pretty supportive that a whole staff of Paleontologists have together agreed on exactly 22 now extinct humans in the 2007 edition of the book they collectively contributed too?

I am dubioius that you would accept the analogy even if you could put your finger on a list that comes out next year saying Genesis is right.


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans [Hardcover]

G. J. Sawyer (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Ian Tattersall

Ian Tattersall (Introduction)
› Visit Amazon's Ian Tattersall Page
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author? Learn about Author Central



(Introduction), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword)

Check outthe credentials of the seven contributors and see that these are the best of the best even now.

As you've already been told, the book is incomplete and even if it weren't it still doesn't line up with the count in Genesis before the flood.

You are ignoring that fact and are still cherry-picking.

 

[Adam]

Um, essentially, yes, as Adam has pointed out. Your identification of 22 'extinct humans in our ascent' is, at best, dubious and at worst a misrepresentation. Depending on which source you wish to use, the number of directly ancestral species varies from 12 to 19, while others cite up to 23.[/QUOT]


So even you can see that Genesis is in the ball park of what scientists still argue about.

Genesis is in stone, and will not change the number from 22.
What we see today is eminent scientists who are in the same field of study, Paleontologists, have proposes in the 2007 book a current definitive arument for what Genesis says.


Now you think that te science is in doubt

Again, stop citing a 2007 reference and calling it "current."

 

[Adam]

Like what?

Did I cherry pick the science book which clear in its title insists that there have been 22 now extinct humans in our ascent from the missing link which the Bible names as Adam?

Did I cherry pick the 22 names of the MEN in the genealogy which fathered one another until the three racial stocks of Noah's sons appeared and specifically spread out across the whole world according to Genesis 10?

You sure did.

 

[lordkalvan]

So even you can see that Genesis is in the ball park of what scientists still argue about.

Genesis is in stone, and will not change the number from 22.
What we see today is eminent scientists who are in the same field of study, Paleontologists, have proposes in the 2007 book a current definitive arument for what Genesis says.


Now you think that te science is in doubt

Nope, I think that you are seeing 'confirmations' that don't exist. You 'see' 22 names in Genesis according to some logic whereby you have determined that those names are in some way 'significant' and you 'see' 22 extinct species of human ancestors listed in a particular book, and you proceed to forge a link between those two things without establishing any definite grounds on which to do it. When it is pointed out that the numbers of identified 'extinct humans' varies from the figure used by your source, you simply revalidate your claim by saying this is 'in the ball park' of what you assert. This argument seems to be entirely self-serving and suggests that you will simply adjust your claim to suit whatever figures might be provided.

 

[cupid dave]

The analogy can be dismissed by perfectly rational people.

I would prefer that Geneis could be confirmed, but in the way that you describe, ou've ignored major facts and twisted the rest.

You even admit that these aren't species when you say that you've ignored the mothers of the children. You also say that you left out Abel because he had no children? Why, then, are you counting Jubal, Jabal and Tubal-Cain?


You ARE cherry-picking.

1) The women are the mothers of the children in the same list, so why would we count them twice as if they were another separate species in thie story of Modern man's ascent?

2) I count Jubal, Jabal, and Tubal-cain because of Genesis 6, they are separate species which confirm the claims of our paleotologists:


Three Subgroups of Neanderthals Identified
By Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 14 April 2009 08:17 pm ET

 

[cupid dave]

Again, stop citing a 2007 reference and calling it "current."

The book is THE most current book written and published by a credibke TEAM of paleotologists.
Do you have a more current and authoritative book to support you dismissal of this book????

 

[cupid dave]

Nope, I think that you are seeing 'confirmations' that don't exist. You 'see' 22 names in Genesis according to some logic whereby you have determined that those names are in some way 'significant' and you 'see' 22 extinct species of human ancestors listed in a particular book, and you proceed to forge a link between those two things without establishing any definite grounds on which to do it. When it is pointed out that the numbers of identified 'extinct humans' varies from the figure used by your source, you simply revalidate your claim by saying this is 'in the ball park' of what you assert. This argument seems to be entirely self-serving and suggests that you will simply adjust your claim to suit whatever figures might be provided.

So?
Consider what I have said so far to be a hypothesis.
It is an idea that connects various pieces of the science to the facts stated in Genesis.

What has been shown in my threads is a verse by verse analysis of Genesis 1 which argues that the evidence for the present Cosmology concerning the creation of the Universe and the evolutionof life can be compatible with each other.

I support the connection between the Genesis genealogy and the paleontology by noting that each member of the 22 names from Adam asserts an inordinately long life span impossible and without supporting evidence from science.

Hence, the deduction that these extremely long durations can only be scientifically and academically accepted as eponyms, or names for a kind of man, i.e., a species.

This hypothesis needs to find confirmation in Genesis to support it as a viable Theory of connecting the 22 names in the geealogy with the 22 species supported in that book,written by a team of paleontologists confident enough to write out their claim and respected enough to get published for analysis by their own peers.

Searching the scriptures, we can discover a reference to Adam as a kind, a collective group of humans, not an individual.

indeed, the first hint, given to us by listing those inordinately long durations for the lives of those named in Genesis, is followed by specifically denoting that Adam was a kind of man, not an individual:



Gen 5:2Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the daywhen THEY were created.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html




See how the Scientific Method is being used as an analytical tool for this Theory of Theistic Evolution.

Using the Scientific Method as an analytical tool, I am developing the arguments for interpreting the Bible with strick reference to what we now know to be the real Truth.

 

[Adam]

1) The women are the mothers of the children in the same list, so why would we count them twice as if they were another separate species in thie story of Modern man's ascent?

2) I count Jubal, Jabal, and Tubal-cain because of Genesis 6, they are separate species which confirm the claims of our paleotologists:


Three Subgroups of Neanderthals Identified
By Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 14 April 2009 08:17 pm ET

1.The men are the fathers, so why are you counting them twice?


If we follow that to it's logical conclusion, we figure out that we are talking about a single species.


2. More confirmation bias. You should be counting Abel, since he also "went extinct" in your narrative.


But, your source does not confirm anything. It could just as easily be said that the source lines up with Cain, Abel and Seth or Noah's sons, or Moses, Miriam and Aaron or any other set of 3 you choose.

There is nothing in the bible that says they were Neanderthal.


The opposite, actually, considering their occupations which conforms to Sapien behavior.


Your claims do not add up.

 

[Adam]

The book is THE most current book written and published by a credibke TEAM of paleotologists.
Do you have a more current and authoritative book to support you dismissal of this book????

Do you really think that one has to write a complete book on all the current species with a team in order to add to scientific knowledge?
That's not how we add to scientific knowledge.



No one need ever write another book that tries to compile all the extant species and we still have legitimate discoveries of new species and academic papers on individual species that actually ARE current that accomplish illustrating that you are wrong.


I have plenty of academic sources at my disposal that complete what we know and add to the list. You really don't know how this works, do you?

 

[cupid dave]

As you've already been told, the book is incomplete and even if it weren't it still doesn't line up with the count in Genesis before the flood.

You are ignoring that fact and are still cherry-picking.

Told, by you?
That Book was edited and published.
Do you hold yourself out as an authority better established than a staff of sceince editors.

You are merely mouthing your person bias criticism that this book pertains to a science field were among the scientists themselves, they are still working to establish the best and most accurate list of our links from the apes.

So why fault me for praising this ONLY current book that directly lists the 22 species suggested at this very moment in time.
Of ourse I point to that book which supports the Bible genealogy, albeit, as theistic evolution.

You are suggesting that I would escape your bias criticism if I had not reference the support of scientists.

You are suggesting that your own bias supports the criticism of noting that the science continues to shuffle the present inventory of skleytons around.
Admittedly, the scientists are still arranging them different sequences, discovering new ones, and discarding old ones.

Genesis can not do that.
These scientists who wrote the last and latest book on these 22 now extinct humans support the Theistic Evolution interpretation of Genesis, de facto.

 

[cupid dave]

Do you really think that one has to write a complete book on all the current species with a team in order to add to scientific knowledge?
That's not how we add to scientific knowledge.



No one need ever write another book that tries to compile all the extant species and we still have legitimate discoveries of new species and academic papers on individual species that actually ARE current that accomplish illustrating that you are wrong.


I have plenty of academic sources at my disposal that complete what we know and add to the list. You really don't know how this works, do you?

Oh certainly.

The divinity of the Bible is being established by the very fact that these men STILL struggle to either prove or disprove that Genesis was absolutely correct 3362 years ago, long before anyone even imagined we had 22 ancestorial species in the line of our ascent.

This book titled "The 22 now extinct humans" is merely a shaow of the impact the final anaylysis will have, when the information is more supported and more widely accepted that 22 species was the correct number.

 

[lordkalvan]

So?
Consider what I have said so far to be a hypothesis.
It is an idea that connects various pieces of the science to the facts stated in Genesis.

In which case, you can no doubt tell us what will falsify this hypothesis. If you simply adjust the hypothesis as necessary to accommodate the acts as necessary (for example, by allowing 'ballpark' figures to validate it, at what point can those 'ballpark' figures cease to be accommodated?

What has been shown in my threads is a verse by verse analysis of Genesis 1 which argues that the evidence for the present Cosmology concerning the creation of the Universe and the evolutionof life can be compatible with each other.

I don't disagree with you, but I think you are making an unnecessary rod for your back in trying to square this particular circle.

I support the connection between the Genesis genealogy and the paleontology by noting that each member of the 22 names from Adam asserts an inordinately long life span impossible and without supporting evidence from science.

Hence, the deduction that these extremely long durations can only be scientifically and academically accepted as eponyms, or names for a kind of man, i.e., a species.

But you cannot support this deduction except by making shaky connections that I cannot see you able to validate outside the coincidental. And even that coincidencecs, at best, doubtful.

This hypothesis needs to find confirmation in Genesis to support it as a viable Theory of connecting the 22 names in the geealogy with the 22 species supported in that book,written by a team of paleontologists confident enough to write out their claim and respected enough to get published for analysis by their own peers.

Searching the scriptures, we can discover a reference to Adam as a kind, a collective group of humans, not an individual.

indeed, the first hint, given to us by listing those inordinately long durations for the lives of those named in Genesis, is followed by specifically denoting that Adam was a kind of man, not an individual:



Gen 5:2Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the daywhen THEY were created.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html




See how the Scientific Method is being used as an analytical tool for this Theory of Theistic Evolution.

Using the Scientific Method as an analytical tool, I am developing the arguments for interpreting the Bible with strick reference to what we now know to be the real Truth.

[/quote]
In which case you need to revise some validating evidence that 'kind' is intended to be understood this way in Genesis.

 

[Adam]

Oh certainly.

The divinity of the Bible is being established by the very fact that these men STILL struggle to either prove or disprove that Genesis was absolutely correct 3362 years ago, long before anyone even imagined we had 22 ancestorial species in the line of our ascent.

This book titled "The 22 now extinct humans" is merely a shaow of the impact the final anaylysis will have, when the information is more supported and more widely accepted that 22 species was the correct number.

We already have conclusive data that the number of hominid species is greater than 22.

No one is going to support that there are only 22 species, because the data shows otherwise.


The only person who imagines that we have "22 ancestral species in the line of our ascent" is you.

 

[Adam]

Told, by you?
That Book was edited and published.
Do you hold yourself out as an authority better established than a staff of sceince editors.

You are merely mouthing your person bias criticism that this book pertains to a science field were among the scientists themselves, they are still working to establish the best and most accurate list of our links from the apes.

So why fault me for praising this ONLY current book that directly lists the 22 species suggested at this very moment in time.
Of ourse I point to that book which supports the Bible genealogy, albeit, as theistic evolution.

You are suggesting that I would escape your bias criticism if I had not reference the support of scientists.

You are suggesting that your own bias supports the criticism of noting that the science continues to shuffle the present inventory of skleytons around.
Admittedly, the scientists are still arranging them different sequences, discovering new ones, and discarding old ones.

Genesis can not do that.
These scientists who wrote the last and latest book on these 22 now extinct humans support the Theistic Evolution interpretation of Genesis, de facto.

No they don't, de facto.


None of them would deny that we have discovered more species since the book was published.

 

[cupid dave]

In which case, you can no doubt tell us what will falsify this hypothesis.

If you simply adjust the hypothesis as necessary to accommodate the acts as necessary (for example, by allowing 'ballpark' figures to validate it, at what point can those 'ballpark' figures cease to be accommodated?.

What will falsify the hypothesis, that 22 now extinct species of humans is the meaning of Genesis 5?

That could happen if the paleontologists conclude, finally, on the exactly line of ascent and confirm the number of now extinct humans is definitely and undeniable far different, illustrated by their own probability of error ratings +/-.

If sciene asserts with concrete empirical facts that 8 links existed or 37, for instance, the probality for error would be so clearly outside the genesis genealogy of 22.

Then this association between what is written in the bible and the Truth does not match up.

In that eent I would conclude that the bible errs.

 

[cupid dave]

We already have conclusive data that the number of hominid species is greater than 22.

No one is going to support that there are only 22 species, because the data shows otherwise.


The only person who imagines that we have "22 ancestral species in the line of our ascent" is you.

Nonsense.

The present state of the art in paleontology i that they do not know exactly.

The discovery of new skeletons adds to the possibility of more species, while careful retracing of precious beliefs eliminate some of those once thought to be part of the now extinct humans.

I support the most likely and most probale association between Genesis and the science which accepts 22 links as reasonable and even most probable at this date.

A little research by yourself will show that new finds under consideration are off-set by the elimination of other species no longer acceptable,

So it is a net zwero ball game so far, with the score standing at 22.

What is clear is that you are bias against the idea that Science confirms the Truth of what is stated in the Bible.
Are you hoping that Science will disprov the scriptures?

Or, do you contend that Truth, as it is defined in the scriptures, is a totally different concept than the Truth established by the Scientific Method?

 

[Classik]

Astonishing!!!!
I didn't even notice this thread....of course am not to blame 'cause I have been consistently inconsistent for a while now (as a result of some manforsaken unending chains of activities surrounding me).


I finally made up my mind never to waste my time on these matters. Those days are gone.


But I will say to us all: If God doesn't stir your heart, your heart would remain 'that' it has always been.


(One question that has remained unanswered for centuries remains: 'retardation')
:bigfrown


If you are willing to win such a noble price by answering this please let me know in my PM - I may not notice your reply.

And I am sorry again for even participating a little

 

[lordkalvan]

What will falsify the hypothesis, that 22 now extinct species of humans is the meaning of Genesis 5?

That could happen if the paleontologists conclude, finally, on the exactly line of ascent and confirm the number of now extinct humans is definitely and undeniable far different, illustrated by their own probability of error ratings +/-.

If sciene asserts with concrete empirical facts that 8 links existed or 37, for instance, the probality for error would be so clearly outside the genesis genealogy of 22.

Then this association between what is written in the bible and the Truth does not match up.

In that eent I would conclude that the bible errs.

Which is why I think you are making an uncessary rod for your own back. For example:

'Our analyses, examining chromosomes and 46 estimates of genetic distance, indicate there may have been only around 4 species on the direct line to modern humans and 5 species in total. This contrasts with current taxonomies recognising up to 23 species.'

From Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective by D. Curnoea, A. Thornea at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335

Although not a god-believing Christian myself, it seems to me that overriding the spiritual and moral messages that may be in Genesis simply because those expressing their understanding of the world in Genesis came from a pre-scientific, largely illiterate culture and can be shown to be wrong scientifically, rather amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Barbarian]

Remember, they are talking about species in the genus Homo. Almost certainly, some of them led to dead ends and extinction, with only a few leading directly to us.

Hybridization, as seems to have happened with Neandertals and anatomically modern humans, is always a possibility, of course.

 

[Adam]

What will falsify the hypothesis, that 22 now extinct species of humans is the meaning of Genesis 5?

That could happen if the paleontologists conclude, finally, on the exactly line of ascent and confirm the number of now extinct humans is definitely and undeniable far different, illustrated by their own probability of error ratings +/-.

If sciene asserts with concrete empirical facts that 8 links existed or 37, for instance, the probality for error would be so clearly outside the genesis genealogy of 22.

Then this association between what is written in the bible and the Truth does not match up.

In that eent I would conclude that the bible errs.

Yeah, see. You've widened the range specifically so that 22 would be the mean.

That's not how statistics works. We don't create parameters to work within so that we get the conclusion we want, nor do we just take averages.


You get your sample, you figure out what the standard deviation is and you create a margin of error from there, depending on what rate of error you find acceptible (how exact you want to be).


The range that we are looking at is more like 26-32, with 22 as an obvious outlier nowhere near to representing the data we have today.

That's what falsifies your hypothesis: your conclusion simply cannot be validated at this point by the data.