(March 22, 2012 at 8:51 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 22, 2012 at 8:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Evidence should also show a relatively young genetic marker in the dna of only a very small subset of people, with no common ancestor between them and the rest of us before the timeline of "the fall".
(falsifiable predictions are bawss)

Why would it? Adam and eve were created in the beginning not at the fall. They were as old as the earth itself.

Because you've set up a scenario where other humans were out procreating like mad for all that time, but not with those two. So that "other" group of human beings would have markers that give us a general idea of how many generations the mtDNA has gone through. There would be substantially fewer in the subset of "Adam" and "Eve"s offspring. There would be no possibility of the two populations mixing before "the fall", and we would see the introduction of novel genetic code after "the fall". You really have no fucking clue, do you? I've said this before, but it deserves mention again. The faithful have never managed to conceive of a god or stories about gods that are not falsifiable. They do make predictions, each and every one. They all fail to produce results along the lines of the predictions they themselves chose. Handwaving is not evidence, and you have made claims, now, demonstrate the evidence. Some of us have been nice enough to point you in the right direction, if you were actually interested in backing your personal genesis narrative with some substance.

no offense Drich, but some of the idea's you've floated in this thread are some of the most mind-blowingly illogical flights of the imagination I have ever heard - The fact that you believe this stuff with such conviction, while having not a single shred of evidence to back it up feels to me like someone with mental illness talking.

In fairness to Drich, who I've lambasted a few times, I do give him some credit for recognising that most christians demand the bible is the word of God, and to understand God you must study the bible.

This is evidently something 99% of christian don't do, since they subject themselves to faulty translations of the original texts. Once man starts interpreting different languages, he's likely to pick the interpretation he prefers and in terms of understandable prose, over precision of translation.

He gets a mark for that. Pity the originals were the work of man too, otherwise he'd have a point.

(March 23, 2012 at 6:05 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Not every gap explanation is the same. Its a bit like saying literal creationism is the same definition no matter who you talk to, even thou your version is supposedly literal as well. The issue here is that your version is subject to similar critique.

The major problem with any explanation supported solely by scripture (if you take issue with that statement, evidence or GTFO), is that any creation story that doesn't contradict an old earth can equally claim it "is supported" by the same evidence, which patently isn't true.

It certainly isn't the same on review, since instead of a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, we have a gap between Adam and the Fall. Which puts Adam at around 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few thousand. (No wonder he got bored).
Yes No?

That is why I said if you take the empty term "Gap Creationism" it would apply. Gap creationism as you presented it was the creation and destruction of the world because of the devils uprising between Gen1:1 and 1:2. I have researched this and there are variances but the crux of that doctrine, all falls on a biblical explanation not found in the bible.

Where as I simple point out there is not accounting of time between creation and the fall not adding anything or taking anything away from the scripture itself. What is known as gap theory adds a whole lot about the devils activities causing God to destroy the earth. Instead of changing scripture I fill in the void with all of the fossil record that could not previously be accounted for. Nothing changes. I just take one and add the other where they fit together.

---

(March 23, 2012 at 8:45 am)Rhythm Wrote: Because you've set up a scenario where other humans were out procreating like mad for all that time, but not with those two. So that "other" group of human beings would have markers that give us a general idea of how many generations the mtDNA has gone through. There would be substantially fewer in the subset of "Adam" and "Eve"s offspring. There would be no possibility of the two populations mixing before "the fall", and we would see the introduction of novel genetic code after "the fall". You really have no fucking clue, do you?

Have you forgotten about the historical bottle neck where all of the monkey men die out and only leave the descendants of Adam? Why would there be any descendants of monkey men if none made it onto the Ark?

Quote: I've said this before, but it deserves mention again. The faithful have never managed to conceive of a god or stories about gods that are not falsifiable. They do make predictions, each and every one. They all fail to produce results along the lines of the predictions they themselves chose.

I agree 100%

Quote:Hand waving is not evidence, and you have made claims, now, demonstrate the evidence. Some of us have been nice enough to point you in the right direction, if you were actually interested in backing your personal genesis narrative with some substance.

As you can imagine in four days i have answer over 100 questions and challenges sparing no effort. so please forgive me if I do not seem to remember which direction you are speaking about. So if you could Please define the parameters for the evidence you are looking for and I will try to provide it.

---

(March 23, 2012 at 9:21 am)Chuff Wrote: no offense Drich, but some of the idea's you've floated in this thread are some of the most mind-blowingly illogical flights of the imagination I have ever heard - The fact that you believe this stuff with such conviction, while having not a single shred of evidence to back it up feels to me like someone with mental illness talking.

If you can not define the prameters of the "evidence" you are looking for then how can you say I do not have any?

---

(March 23, 2012 at 9:34 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: In fairness to Drich, who I've lambasted a few times, I do give him some credit for recognising that most christians demand the bible is the word of God, and to understand God you must study the bible.

This is evidently something 99% of christian don't do, since they subject themselves to faulty translations of the original texts. Once man starts interpreting different languages, he's likely to pick the interpretation he prefers and in terms of understandable prose, over precision of translation.

He gets a mark for that. Pity the originals were the work of man too, otherwise he'd have a point.

I guess then you'd better hope you're right and I am simply syncing up with a 3000 year old sci fi writer. rather than being help by the holy Spirit to understand what He has written through the pens of the prophets He has sent.

(March 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm)Drich Wrote: in the bible.

Where as I simple point out there is not accounting of time between creation and the fall not adding anything or taking anything away from the scripture itself.

That's because scripture is nothing and therefore it it has nothing to be taken away, and being nothing, it is not worth adding anything to.

It does not account for the time between creation and fall because there was neither creation nor fall, and therefore no time in between to account for.

(March 20, 2012 at 7:41 am)genkaus Wrote: Take another "philosophical" issue of consciousness. This issue is very much a biological issue when neuro-biologists try to determine the areas of the brain which give rise to it.

I'd call this an area on which intelligent reasonable people can disagree. It's the great debate:

Penrose & Chalmers VS. Dennett & Churchland

(March 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm)Drich Wrote: I guess then you'd better hope you're right and I am simply syncing up with a 3000 year old sci fi writer. rather than being help by the holy Spirit to understand what He has written through the pens of the prophets He has sent.

I thought better of you than to attempt Pascals on us.

At least I worship no false gods by worshipping none and living a pretty reasonable and good life based around the golden rule.

Its the ones who are so dedicated to their particular brand vs hundreds of competing theologies who might want to double check their facts.

(March 20, 2012 at 12:44 am)Drich Wrote: Why do Atheist believe evolution cancels out creationism?

Because an omniscient and omnipotent deity would have to be an absolute moron to create a diverse set of species that eat each other and ultimately become extinct; creationism is beyond preposterous.

Quote:I guess then you'd better hope you're right and I am simply syncing up with a 3000 year old sci fi writer. rather than being help by the holy Spirit to understand what He has written through the pens of the prophets He has sent.

I count six preposterous assertions in that one sentence.

You should call Guiness and see if you've got the record.

(March 23, 2012 at 2:43 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I thought better of you than to attempt Pascals on us.

Noope. you were raising the bar too high, I had to bring it back down a little.

Quote:At least I worship no false gods by worshipping none and living a pretty reasonable and good life based around the golden rule.

Which is??

Quote:Its the ones who are so dedicated to their particular brand vs hundreds of competing theologies who might want to double check their facts.

Kinda like living your life "pretty reasonable life" based on 1/2 of a doctrinal truth.

Not lowering the bar again, just raising it on your end now. We have explored my willingness to open and research the bible, what say you? (as the golden rule is a biblical precept)