Drich Wrote:The monkey man hypothesis is one based on the theory of evolution. Anything and everything that can be accredited to that "theory" will also support the monkey man theory.

No, it will not. Everything accredited to evolution will prove evolution. The fact that you have added on this extra idea does not mean that evidence toward evolution supports your theory since the last time I looked, no evolutionary biologist claims there to have been a garden of Eden with created people in it. So stop saying that evidence for evolution supports your theory, as it does not.

Now please, present evidence that proves the addition you have made to the evolutionary theory, or just admit that it's all wishful, whimsical thinking based on nothing more than a silly fairy tale.

It's not fair to try to confuse an idiot with facts, Tobie.


It's like ripping the wings off a flies. Very cruel.

Drich you should watch this.



You might learn some real science

(March 25, 2012 at 4:06 pm)tobie Wrote:

(March 25, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='mediamogul' pid='260943' dateline='1332696255']

Quote:So god radiates light? Is he powered by nuclear fusion?

Is all non indecassent light we can make, the result of Nuclear fusion??
(The answer is no)

Seriously you guys if you just take a minute and think about it you can save alittle face. We can make light that does not have anything to do with any type of fusion nor using incandescent light.. Why don't you google artificial light. before your next post.

My question still stands. If we can make this light why wouldn't God be able to do something better? The question is one designed to show not all light comes from stars. If you can admit this your arguments are over, unless you really really want to be schooled by the "back wards Christian."

For artificial lighting to exist, there must exist things to create it. These things ( e.g humans) need stars to exist ( for light, heat, providing heavier elements) so therefore, we need stars to create artificial lighting. Before stars, light could only really be created due to atoms emitting photons as a result of de-excitation, which is fairly random, and mostly won't be visible light.

If God created stars without the assistance of stars to provide all that you say "we" need to create light, then why would you suppose He would need stars to create light that does not find its power source in the fusion reaction we believe that power the stars themselves?

God separated the light from the darkness. no where does it mention all light comes from the sun. We know this to be true because we have created light. If we can create light without making a sun then know with certainty that God can as well.

---

(March 25, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Insanity x Wrote: Drich you should watch this.

---

---

You might learn some real science

If you are not able to put what you have seen into your own words then how am i able to challenge/ask question about what i have seen? If I can not do this then what is the point of me watching some video?

I am here to talk to you, not to watch videos and just to hear you say: Yeah, uh huh, That's right, what he said...

---

(March 25, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Drich Wrote:The monkey man hypothesis is one based on the theory of evolution. Anything and everything that can be accredited to that "theory" will also support the monkey man theory.

No, it will not. Everything accredited to evolution will prove evolution. The fact that you have added on this extra idea does not mean that evidence toward evolution supports your theory since the last time I looked, no evolutionary biologist claims there to have been a garden of Eden with created people in it. So stop saying that evidence for evolution supports your theory, as it does not.

Now please, present evidence that proves the addition you have made to the evolutionary theory, or just admit that it's all wishful, whimsical thinking based on nothing more than a silly fairy tale.

Can you reread the second portion of my post and provide what i requested from you.

Again if you do not know what you are looking for then how can i help you find it?

(March 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm)Drich Wrote: If you are not able to put what you have seen into your own words then how am i able to challenge/ask question about what i have seen? If I can not do this then what is the point of me watching some video?

I am here to talk to you, not to watch videos and just to hear you say: Yeah, uh huh, That's right, what he said...

Asshole.. We try to explain it to you and you drivel on about bullshit.

Harry Potter films would be right up your street. They have lots of magic. Better author to.

Drich Wrote:Again if you do not know what you are looking for then how can i help you find it?

Right now I would take anything outside of scripture that supports your theory. Is that good enough for you, or are you still going to play these silly games?

Drich Wrote:If God created stars without the assistance of stars to provide all that you say "we" need to create light, then why would you suppose He would need stars to create light that does not find its power source in the fusion reaction we believe that power the stars themselves?

It doesn't really matter if he can create stars or not, the stars are what is needed to provide the things we need to make artificial light. Even if he created the stars, it's still the stars that are providing the materials to make artificial light.

(March 25, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You know you guys are just playing into his hands by arguing this. After all, God is his omnipotent, fictional character, so if he says his god can create light without starts, then his god can. Conceding this point gets him no closer to proving Eden was sectioned off from all of the monkey men.

I think arguing this point is just allowing him to step away from his orginal argument which he has yet to demonstrate one piece of evidence for.

See the smart ones are not responding because they see past the rhetoric of the argument to the fundamental principle that fuel these foolish circles we chase each other in.

"the smart ones" are the people I wish to speak with, not those who search out key phrases and hot topics to spout the same tired rehearsed arguments, demanding the same proof they would not identify if they saw it...

I am going to have to remedy this. Non-"Smart ones" know that i concede to whatever master thesis you wish to stand behind and i will tuck my tail and retreat to answering biblical based questions from Genesis concerning Creation in this thread.

(March 25, 2012 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 25, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You know you guys are just playing into his hands by arguing this. After all, God is his omnipotent, fictional character, so if he says his god can create light without starts, then his god can. Conceding this point gets him no closer to proving Eden was sectioned off from all of the monkey men.

I think arguing this point is just allowing him to step away from his orginal argument which he has yet to demonstrate one piece of evidence for.

See the smart ones are not responding because they see past the rhetoric of the argument to the fundamental principle that fuel these foolish circles we chase each other in.

"the smart ones" are the people I wish to speak with, not those who search out key phrases and hot topics to spout the same tired rehearsed arguments, demanding the same proof they would not identify if they saw it...

I am going to have to remedy this. Non-"Smart ones" know that i concede to whatever master thesis you wish to stand behind and i will tuck my tail and retreat to answering biblical based questions from Genesis concerning Creation in this thread.

So you've started to insult our intelligence now? At least you've stopped trying to defend your god can radiate light bullshit.

I'm not sure what if any worthy questions have been made?

Can a magic thing do magic? That question is superseded by the question of if magic exists.

If magic being were to exist ofc it is capable of magic. Is that the answer you wanted? This only means something to somebody who believes in magic in the first place. To everyone else it is a non-argument.