Black Spirituality Religion : Color of the Cross

Clyde C Coger Jr

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006

Chevron Dove

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2009


Thanks for the report, “News in Science,” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation); it was saved, printed and painstakingly analyzed, against my faith in Biblical Creation. As before, in my post to the Music Producer-(#374), I am unchanged concerning Plagnol’s genetic fallacy.

Logically speaking, the scientists argue from the widely used and highly effective reductio ad absurdum form. Wishing to prove a statement true, assume that statement is false, then deduce a conclusion known to be false, by this valid conclusion following the false assumption, making it valid, the assumption is false, therefore, the statement is true. For example;

To prove, “People of European descent may be 5% Neanderthal”

Assume, “Modern Humans left Africa and replaced all other hominids”
(But agree “with studies that conclude Neanderthals did not contribute any mitochondrial DNA”). But say, “other portions of the European genome, such as those associated with nuclear DNA, may still harbour the Neanderthal imprint.”

Deduce, “We analysed patterns of 135 modern individuals with ancestors from Europe and Africa, using statistics and computer modeling with a focus on ‘disequilibriums’ and genes that did not make sense if only human matings are conconsidered-Missing genetic links only fit if some other hominid population is introduced into the model.” Or, “A simple model cannot explain the data if we do not add an ‘ancestral population’.”

Conclude, “We find that a rate of 5% is what is needed to explain what we see.”( “People of European descent may be 5% Neanderthal”)


The report attacks its own sub-deduction(‘Deduce’) with the following contradiction; not to mention the sparse number of individuals tested(135), necessitating ‘statistics’ and ‘computer modeling’ in order to explain “what we see”:

A-“Neanderthals are believed to have originated in Africa around 400,000 years ago, but they left and then settled in Europe, hence the apparent lack of interaction with modern humans in Africa.”
(believed, apparent lack)

B-“Instead of a population that left Africa 100,000 years ago and replaced all other archaic human groups, we propose that this population interacted with another population that had been in Europe for much longer, maybe 400,000 years,” says Vincent Plagnol.
(we propose, maybe)

C-“The scientists are not certain which early human group could have contributed to West African DNA, but both Europeans and Africans in the study showed about the same 5% archaic contribution.”
(not certain)

In the same report, “Alan Templeton,” professor of Evolutionary and Population Programs at the University of Michigan, says;

“The humans who were in Africa and the humans who were in Eurasia were regularly interchanging genes. There was interbreeding and when humans came out of Africa 100,000 years ago they did not replace these other human populations in Eurasia.”
(were did other humans in Eurasia come from)

Fallacy of equivocation

Deeper than semantics, there is a definition problem with several of the words used:

Early human group
Modern humans
Modern humans in Africa
Humans who were in Africa
Existing hominids
Some other hominid population
Archaic human population
Archaic human groups, all other
A population
Another population
Ancestral populations
Ancestors from Northern and Western Europe
Humans who were in Eurasia

Multiplicity of meaning with words, is ambiguous, if the same word is used in two or more different senses in the same argument; about which the argument depends upon having a constant definition throughout, in order to be valid. The report is absurd and rests far outside of God’s Creation.




Well said!

Clyde C Coger Jr

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006

The missing continent that took 375 years to find

It took scientists 375 years to discover the eighth continent of the world, which had been hiding in plain sight all along. In 2017, a group of geologists hit the headlines when they announced their discovery of ZealandiaTe Riu-a-Māui in the Māori language.

This, in turn, suggests that at least part of now-submerged Zealandia has remained above sea level the whole time. Except around 25 million years ago the entire continent – even possibly the entirety of New Zealand – is thought to have been plunged underwater. "It was thought that all the plants and animals must have colonized afterwards," says Sutherland. So what happened?

By Zaria Gorvett
7th February 2021


More proof of a universal flood

Clyde C. Coger, Jr.
Man of the Pew


Is Trump Going to Prison?

  • yes

  • no

Results are only viewable after voting.

Latest profile posts

Kemetstry wrote on Destee's profile.
still can't post polls

Kemetstry wrote on Destee's profile.
What ever you've done, you can no longer post to the kitchen table