Evolution is a Joke part XII

No, you made an assertion, a claim that "Yom" mean "Era" as defined by Science. Not supported by anything other than your "because I said so."

 

WHAT? You just indicated that Geological Time was split into seven different eras in your previous post. Now you are saying that there are seven eons? There aren't, there are FOUR eons split into ten eras. You're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go, aren't you?

 

Not true.

I said, Yom is the Hebrew word for the "day," as found in the King James Bible, and it actually means duration, which could be used to even indicate an Age or Era.

 

The problem his argument has with equating Genesis with the ages of the Universe is the thought that creation must be still ongoing. Genesis clearly states God completed his work in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Some have argued that we currently live in that 7th day (Or time period of your choice) So automatically I see unresolved conflict in the narrative of Genesis and what we are seeing in our Universe today

 

No, I am not saying any of that.

I am saying that Genesis corresponds with the geological history of earth as found in the seven rock layers I posted and itemized:


1. Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era -



… and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era/ = First Day




2. Early Imbrian evening of the Hadean Era -



… and the Eoarchean morning of the Archaean Era/ = Second Day



3. The Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-



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




4. Neo-proterozoic evening of the Proterozoic Era-



… and the Cambrian morning of the Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day



ETC.....

SO ON AND SO FORTH

 

Yeah, that's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with your argument being fallacious. Stop acting like a child. If you want to pretend that your hypothesis has any scientific merit to it, then you shouldn't be surprised when I introduce scientific skepticism to your claims.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that nobody could question your all-mighty hypothesis because you might get whiny about it.

Yep, he was different from others in that he was righteous and the rest of mankind was evil, according to the Bible. I see no mention of any physical characteristics that set Noah apart from other men, do you? Of course not, you just added that connotation to go along with your idiotic hypothesis.

No, obviously it wasn't a good explanation since apparently nobody figured out it was supposed to be an allegory for human evolution until after somebody developed the theory of evolution based on scientific evidence and not the Bible.

No, it isn't. You claimed that Geological Time was split into seven eras. Then you claimed it was split into seven eons and several eras. Neither of those claims are true.

Except you continually ignore that "Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid" are not separate human species. And the first four "species" of humans you listed aren't even humans, they're australopithecus.

Except there aren't seven of them and they aren't rock layers! Seriously, can you not count? You listed four eons.

 

And you understand comparative morphology?
This is another of those pseudo-scientific terms made up to sound profoundly authoritative.

Too bad that the so-called scientists have such a narrow view of studying human history. Why do they confine themselves to these ambiguous piles of bones?

Just how long does it take to understand our relationship to all other life on this planet?

Ah yes, and according to people who want to believe in evolution from those old bones ..... I feel for people who fall for this crap because they are natural born followers who cannot think for themselves.

You see what you want to see. Have you ever pondered that there just might be a different explanation?

 

The irony.

Oh and, Comparative Morphology is not a Pseudoscience.

 

Barely. I took a human evolution course in college.

Why do you think that?

They don't.

We have no idea of knowing what fossils are out there and what new evidence will pop up, so, probably indefinitely.

Nobody "believes in evolution" because of these old bones alone. We accept evolution as a fact because we have observed it and mostly due to genetic and morphological evidence.

Yes, I actually have. Why do you think that these ridiculous explanations, such as ancient aliens, have any more credibility to them than other theories?

 

Not too mention, TOE makes predictions. Tiktaalik roseae was where it was predicted to be found, looking the way it was predicted to look. That's hard evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution.

 

Why do you think that ancient aliens are any more ridiculous than your old bones theory? There is more evidence for such in folk tales and literature from around the world than there is for evolution in an ambiguous pile of old bones. There is physical evidence of world-wide extinction level catastrophes. You really should read more widely.

 

"[P]iles of bones" are far from the only evidence that supports evolution. The genetic evidence is much, much stronger than anything in the fossil record and it's pretty much impossible to refute. Endogenous retroviruses are the most significant, in my opinion. Humans share 16 insertion sites with chimpanzees. That means either an ancient chimps and ancient humans were both infected by the same 16 retroviruses, and each of them integrated into the exact same spots in both genomes, or chimps and humans are descended from the same ancestor species that was infected at some point by these 16 retroviruses. Since the odds of us and chimps having DNA from the same virus integrated into the exact same spot in our genomes is about 1:3,000,000,000, the odds of it happening 16 times are pretty staggering.

Anyway, you might as well drop the whole thing with the fossils. They're a tiny fraction of the evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

 

And just where does the bible say that there was "inbreeding" with Neander?
Do you mean "cross-breeding"?
I seriously doubt that Cain and Abel were monkeys.
You should know that physiologically no creature can comfortably walk bent-kneed.
Try it.

Are you familiar with the Enuma Elish? Look it up.

 

How is that a problem? Have you taken ANY classes dealing with evolution or comparative morphology?

They do what so often?

Genetics, comparative morphology.

No, I don't. It's actually incredibly weak as a form of evidence because it is so incomplete.

Both you and I have. How do you think viruses and bacteria become resistant to our vaccines and anti-biotics?

I didn't say "genetic morphological evidence", I said genetic AND morphological evidence. Do you not believe DNA exists or something?

Occam's razor.

No, there is more selective reading done where people interpret vague clauses found in various texts to mean something specific and interpretations of objects as "ooparts". It is no different than claiming Nostradamus predicted 9/11, which you may even believe as well.

The hell does that have to do with aliens?

 

So now we move on to "retroviruses" secreted in some laboratory - that are unavailable for the masses or even college students to see. And they are a TINY fraction of evidence supporting evolution....
What is the other - bigger - evidence?

 

What???....Did you not read his post?...and, how is it you attempt to turn that into a conspiracy? You're not real honest, are you?

 

So... it's a conspiracy?

 

Then you don't understand morphology or why those skulls are so important. Go take a biology class, and stop parading your ignorance around like the emperor on wash day.

Congratulations, you fail to understand evolution at a basic level. Nice job.

 

So... The evidence doesn't exist because you say it doesn't. Go troll elsewhere.

Everything else you're ignoring.

 

****If you read more widely you would make the connection.

- - - Updated - - -

You ignored the question.
I have noted that most of your posts are lacking in logic.

 

That's funny, you ignore the evidence placed in front of your because it doesn't support your position. With regards to logic, you're doing it wrong.

Shocker.

 

Your response seems to indicate that you didn't understand my post. We aren't talking about anything secreted away in a laboratory that is unavailable for "even college students to see." We're talking about genetic sequences that are public and have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Anyone in a college-level genetics lab could do the experiments to see the evidence themselves. I did similar things, though not related to evolution, as a junior when getting my degree.

Endogenous retroviruses are the bigger, unassailable evidence. Humans and chimps have these same retroviral genes from the same 16 retroviruses at the exact same spots in our genomes. Either this is a 1: (3x10^9)^16 odds against coincidence, or us and chimps share a common ancestor.

 

In your own words then, how did we get here? Go ahead...speculate......

 

Wait, so it's a problem that I've only taken one course, but it isn't a problem that you've taken NO courses? How do you know it is propaganda if you haven't taken a course?

You think that scientists make up definitions so often? You don't think that comparative morphology can be done?

Jesus. You claim it is propaganda and you have no idea what the evidence even is?

/facepalm x1,000

You think that morphology means "morphing"? You're a very confused individual, no wonder you buy into all of that pseudo-scientific bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

You sound exactly like a creationist.

Adaptation is an evolutionary process. But, of course you didn't know that. And what you're trying to distinguish by saying the bacteria and viruses are still bacteria and viruses is that you don't believe that evolution can result in massive change over time. I think you have a very (*)(*)(*)(*) poor idea of what evolution actually is.

Seriously, could you define what you think evolution is for me?

Seriously, what the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about? DNA is a double helix structure, it has nothing to do with snakes. You're thinking about the caduceus.

Do you even know what Occam's Razor is?

Ooparts aren't artifacts embedded in coal or rocks, they are artifacts that people claim are "out-of-place" because they think they are too advanced of an artifact for the time period .

Or you could just reply in a straight forward manner instead of being vague. Are you claiming aliens have been the cause of extinction events?

 

Actually, I have not ignored ANY question you have asked. Most of your questions/claims are non-sensical.

I noticed you ignored the reference/evidence of Tiktaalik roseae to support the Theory of Evolution.