[_ Old Earth _] Missing links...

[cupid dave]

There are not 6 major geological events, or, if there are, name them.

And don't go with your past answer because I've totally dismantled it.

(that's a geologist joke)


So give me the major EVENTS and we will compare them to what GENESIS says. Not your additions and private interpretations, but strictly the account as given in Genesis and everyone but you will see that your claim makes no sense.

I have to warn you, though. You aren't going to arrive at 6 major geological events.

There are a number of different ways that scientists use the rocks as a clock to measure the History iof the Earth.

The first major event was the Big Bang, followed by six durations marked in the rocks of the Earth that formed thereafter.

Here is one way to see the six "days:"

http://www.learndev.org/dl/Science/EarthScience/ThePlanetWeLiveOn-Chapter4.pdf

But the preferred method uses the six major divisions within which all the sub-strata of the other rocks layer can be found.
Those six defining events include deposits of iridium which separate one layer from the next and indicate a catacylsmic meteoric strike on Earth which totally changed the environment and marked each phase of the history.
These, nevertheless, also correspond to the mass extinctions too.

 

[Adam]

The big bang is not a geological event. Please, figure that one out before you respond again.

Also, you might want to make a note that major extinctions are not geological events, either. Perhaps you should bother reading your sources rather than skimming them for charts you can take out of context before you post.

This is the second time in two days in which I will use the very same source that you post to demonstrate that you are wrong.


"Some of the key events in the evolution of life are shown in a table in Figure 1.2, but a
table like this does not show how these events are spaced out over geological time."

http://www.learndev.org/dl/Science/E...n-Chapter4.pdf



Try again, and this time use actual geological events, not evolutionary events.

 

[cupid dave]

The big bang is not a geological event. Please, figure that one out before you respond again.

Also, you might want to make a note that major extinctions are not geological events, either. Perhaps you should bother reading your sources rather than skimming them for charts you can take out of context before you post.

This is the second time in two days in which I will use the very same source that you post to demonstrate that you are wrong.


"Some of the key events in the evolution of life are shown in a table in Figure 1.2, but a
table like this does not show how these events are spaced out over geological time."

http://www.learndev.org/dl/Science/E...n-Chapter4.pdf



Try again, and this time use actual geological events, not evolutionary events.

LOL,...

You told me to read comprehensively, and chuckle chuckle, I have to say you need do so.

Of course "a table like this" ONE THAT MERELY LISTS THE EVENTS, "does not show how these events are spaced out over geological time."

The table which "shows how these events are spaced out over geological time" is the one which I have been showing you that looks like this:

You have been focused on telling me that each of these rock layers differ because some are eons and other are eras.
I have been trying to educate you,... to see that these rock layers can be used to report history.
The history of the earth is shown as catastrophic CHANGES, like mass extinctions, which separate the layers by that ruler.

 

[Adam]

In which case there are many more layers than 6.


If you don't get that eras are a further breakdown of eons and that there are major changes within every eon, not just the Phanerozoic eon, that's not my problem.

The educated reader knows that there are 10 eras, however.

 

[cupid dave]

In which case there are many more layers than 6.


If you don't get that eras are a further breakdown of eons and that there are major changes within every eon, not just the Phanerozoic eon, that's not my problem.

The educated reader knows that there are 10 eras, however.

Of course ther are many more than six layers of rocks.

The point is that the geology is utilized to mark off the History of the Earth into six different Ages.

This is done as explained in the charts below which itemizes the the six durations and the totally different environments to be found in the transition from one Age to the next.
Here is what I refer to as the seven "days:"


1.Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era - Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era/ = First Day

2. Early Imbrian evening of the HadeanEra - Eoarchean morning of the Archaean Era/ = Second Day

3. Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era- Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day

4.Neo-proterozoic evening of the Proterozoic Era- Cambrian morning of the Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day

5. Permian evening of the PaleozoicEra- Triassic morning of the Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day

6. Cretaceous evening of the MesozoicEra- Tertiary morning of the Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day

[IMGhttp://kofh2u.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/cenozoic.jpg][/IMG]


7. Quaternary evening of the CenozoicEra- Pliocene Epoch morning of the Common Era/ = Seventh Day

 

[Adam]

And in which of these do plants belong?


You can try to mix and match data into a strict 7 categories sort of hodgepodeged together, but you aren't going to get the events described in the bible to match to the events that happened in these eras and eons.


Sorry, but you've got nothing.

 

[cupid dave]

And in which of these do plants belong?


You can try to mix and match data into a strict 7 categories sort of hodgepodeged together, but you aren't going to get the events described in the bible to match to the events that happened in these eras and eons.


Sorry, but you've got nothing.

The church people believe they do God a service by supporting THEIR very sad and poor rendering of Genesis as if that somehow makes more sense that understanding that the Big Bang was the In the beginning, collecting all the waters together into one place was Pangea, and the Planet Kingdom appearing on the "Neo-archean evening and the Paleo-proterozoic morning" of the 3rd "day:"




Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-

… and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = ThirdDay

Gen1:11 And (The First Cause?), God, said, Let the earth bring forth(life in a Spontaneous Generation of Bacteria which shall found the evolvingand complex members of the Plant Kingdom upon the Earth, i.e.; the Hebrew word"deshe" is not grass but means "first sprouts of life onEarth"), grass, (from which early roots shall evolve)the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,(I.e.; all the Plant Kingdom to come), whose seed is in itself, upon theearth: and it was so.



Check the Yellow underlining which pin points the events of the evidence in the rocks that corresponds with Genesis 1:11 and also the Pangea/Rodinia descriptions in Gen 1:9,10:

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
You merely oppose the evidence that I offered.

I said Genesis specifically says that 22 predecessors to the ascent of Modern man went extinct which science also states, based upon the most recent book published on that subject.

You deny that FACT, and suggest that the book is wrong because you coukd post a better list containg more that 22.

Those aren't facts in either case.

And I already gave you a list. You ignored it.

I corrected your list by showing that all but the 22 species I count are considered in the ascent to modern man.

EVERY OTHER ape you listed is not considered to be directly related to man.

 

[Adam]

You did not correct my list.

You cherry picked it.


Only 8 of those from your 22 are in direct lineage to modern man. You are a very bad student.

 

[cupid dave]

You did not correct my list.

You cherry picked it.
.

Chery picked your list/
How is that possible?

Here are the fossils YOU tried to add to the 22 I listed, all of which are NOT considered directly related to us:



Besides the list of 22 now extinct humans found in the book I referenced, here are the rest of the fossils that YOU SAID have been found.
But they are NOT considered in the line of our ascent:

Australopithecussediba………………………………………

In a news article published with the initial descriptionsin 2010, detractors of the idea that A. sediba might be ancestral to the genusHomo (e.g. Tim White and Ron Clarke) suggest that the fossils could be a latesouthern African branch of Australopithecus, co-existing with already existingmembers of the Homo genus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_sediba

Australopithecusbahrelghazali………………………………………………

Researchers like William Kimbel to argue that Abel is notan exemplar of a separate species, but "falls within the range ofvariation" of the Australopithecus afarensis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali



Homocepranensis……………………

("Ceprano Man" has not been acceptedas distinct from the contemporary and far better documented Homo erectus. And,in fact, there really seems to be no good reason to name a new hominid on thebasis of a single, not particularly distinctive, fragment.)

http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-cepranensis.html

Homoyuanmouensis…………………….

The Yuanmou fossil teeth are very similar to those of the1.6-million-year-old Turkana ‘boy’ skeleton from West Turkana, Kenya, usuallyassigned to H. erectus.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research/earliest-humans-china

Homolantianensis……………………………

Scientists classify Lantian Man as a subspecies of Homoerectus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantian_Man

Homo wushanensis……………………..

early member of an extinct species of humans, considereda subspecies of Homo erectus

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=toolbar-instant&hl=en&ion=1&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4TSNO_enUS458US458#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&tok=G77PF9yq-H3PyrxoSubO_w&cp=16&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=homo+erectus+wushanense&pf=p&tbo=d&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4TSNO_enUS458US458&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Homo+wushanensis&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=67039599a028a8df&bpcl=38897761&biw=1264&bih=577&ion=1&bs=1\

Homo pekinensis…………………………..

early member of an extinct species of humans, considereda subspecies of Homo erectus

Homo palaeojavanicus………………...

early member of an extinct species of humans, considereda subspecies of Homo erectus

Homo soloensis……………………………

early member of an extinct species of humans, considereda subspecies of Homo erectus

Homo tautavelensis………………………..

early member of an extinct species of humans, considereda subspecies of Homo erectus

Homo nankinensis………………………….

early member of an extinct species of humans, considereda subspecies of Homo erectus’



DenisovaHominin………………………….

Denisovans were a hybrid population of H. erectus and H.neanderthalensis (or a related species such as H. heidelbergensis).

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2010/12/denisova-hominins-neanderthals.html

Red Deer Cave Species……………………………..

they might represent a very early and previously unknownmigration of modern humans out of Africa, a population who may not havecontributed genetically to living people," Curnoe added.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/new-human-species-red-deer-cave_n_1345216.html

Homorhodesiensis……………………………

The validity of Homo rhodesiensis as a distinct type ofhominid is not well accepted and it has been variously suggested that the skullon which it is based should be assigned to one or the other of H. erectus, H.neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, or H. heidelbergensis.

http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-rhodesiensis.html



Homogeorgicus……………….

(For the present,about the only sure conclusion is that H. georgicus represents a new andinteresting twig on the hominid bush.)

http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-georgicus.html

Homo gautengensis........................

was recovered in1977 and was argued to belong to the species “Homo habilisâ€. [2] The typespecimen has been discussed in some refereed publications as being synonymouswith “A. africanusâ€,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_gautengensis

 

[Adam]

You claimed that there were only 22 hominids discovered.
I corrected you.

You asked for a list.
I gave it.


Now you want to focus on only those hominids that are in our direct lineage.
Fine. We have about 8 we can discuss.


Either way, whether we are talking about all discovered species of hominids or just the ones that we are directly descended from, the 22 number you insist upon is wrong.

 

[cupid dave]

You claimed that there were only 22 hominids discovered.
I corrected you.

You asked for a list.
I gave it.


Now you want to focus on only those hominids that are in our direct lineage.
Fine. We have about 8 we can discuss.


Either way, whether we are talking about all discovered species of hominids or just the ones that we are directly descended from, the 22 number you insist upon is wrong.

Wiggle wiggle all you will,...

Iit is clear that a CORRESPONDENCE exists between the 22 "kinds" of men specified in th genealogy of Genesis and the "22 now extinct Humans" enumerated in the MOST recent scientific book to be published on the same subject by the experts in that science.

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)


Genesis and science are coming together, more and more, in factually describing the distant past and the events and time table of important events in the story of the creation of life on earth.
Science is NOT demonstrating that Genesis makes errors in fact, but has been tending to collaborate what was written.

 

[Adam]

What are you talking about?

1) There are not 22 kinds of men enumerated in genesis.

2) Again, this is not the most recent work on the subject. It is, in fact, quite old for a resource, considering the quickness in which our knowledge base has expanded in the last 5 years on the subject. There are literally hundreds of books that have been published on hominid evolution since this book.


There is no correspondance you can make with the bible using this book.