Drich reminds me of a little 5 year old who, upon acquiring some vague notion of some aspect of the real world, would construct childish, but charmingly elaborate and outlandish scheme to fit these morsels from the real world into the framework of his cartoon land fairy tales.

The difference is the child will learn, and grow up, Drich won't.

(August 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Drich Wrote: kinda like the Whole THEORY of Evolution or creation to begin with eh?.

I take it you don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense. Come back to me when you've come up with a compelling explanation for why germ theory, the theory of gravity, and the heliocentric theory are all "just theories," too.

(August 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Drich Wrote: kinda like the Whole THEORY of Evolution or creation to begin with eh? I looks to me that I'm in good company. As we all expend a measure of faith to believe what it is we want to believe about our orgins.

Oh for Thor's sake! It's time that you learn the difference between notion, idea, hypothesis and theory.

(August 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm)whateverist Wrote: You just don't get the chance to interbreed with near relations anymore, you know?

Pssst! I have something hot for you!

---

---

Now that's what I'm talking about. Think they used ice cubes to get the nips to stand out like that? She may need to shave a little more for a shot like that though.

(August 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Drich Wrote: kinda like the Whole THEORY of Evolution or creation to begin with eh?.

I take it you don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense. Come back to me when you've come up with a compelling explanation for why germ theory, the theory of gravity, and the heliocentric theory are all "just theories," too.

Here Drich, let me help.

Scientific (and reasonable definition of theory from Wiki): "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[

Christian definition of theory: persistent dingleberry. Same source, highly irritating, and requires more than a simple wipe to eradicate.

(August 7, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Another thing that came to me these lines Drich, why do you feel the need to reconcile your creation narrative with the fossil record but not the geological record? The two are pretty well tied at the hip. Why is genesis "otherwise irreconcilable" -your opinion, not mine, in the case of the fossil record but not in the case of the deluge and the geological record? Shouldn't you be coming up with some creative extra-biblical "explanation" for the flood narrative as well? Matter of fact, since we're doing this, there's quite a bit of your narrative that you may want to re-write.....

We already argued this point in the Noah's ark thread, and in one more besides that one. World wide flood=Known world, not nessarily global or planetary. how many times do we have to beat this horse?

you guys freaked out about The "circle of the earth" being anything more than a 2Dimensional repersentation of the planet, now you freak out because the Hebrew word for 'world' what you want it to..

Besides that How would we know if there was a planetary flood? what that evidence would look like? what would we have to compare it to? after all, floods push water onto dry land. There was no dry land, and if this were on a planetary scale then where would the up rooted sediments and debris go? sure the low lying areas would have some evidence, and they do (discovery channel documentry on a massive flood in that region) but as far as every were else? The people who claim there couldn't have been a global flood because there isn't any sedimentary evidence on a planet wide scale clearly have not thought it through. In that why would their be an influx of displaced sediment if their wasn't an inrush of water? (Read the genesis account if you do not know what I am referencing)

(August 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Drich Wrote: kinda like the Whole THEORY of Evolution or creation to begin with eh? I looks to me that I'm in good company. As we all expend a measure of faith to believe what it is we want to believe about our orgins.

It may be true that we all expend a measure of faith to carry on with the beliefs which are manifest in our actions. But, if you're doing it right, there is no place for faith in scientific theory. You may be mistaking the application of poor-faith science such as creationism for actual science. They operate on completely different principles.

(August 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: He made that clear in the post, it's otherwise irreconcilable. The lord of the cosmos is in need of Drich's assistance in this regard. Apparently (and I would have never guessed this) he's an incompetent storyteller.

The story is complete as written. I haven't added anything. i simply point out the artifical time line 'we' have put between Creation and the Fall.

(August 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 4:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Another thing that came to me these lines Drich, why do you feel the need to reconcile your creation narrative with the fossil record but not the geological record? The two are pretty well tied at the hip. Why is genesis "otherwise irreconcilable" -your opinion, not mine, in the case of the fossil record but not in the case of the deluge and the geological record? Shouldn't you be coming up with some creative extra-biblical "explanation" for the flood narrative as well? Matter of fact, since we're doing this, there's quite a bit of your narrative that you may want to re-write.....

We already argued this point in the Noah's ark thread, and in one more besides that one. World wide flood=Known world, not nessarily global or planetary. how many times do we have to beat this horse?

you guys freaked out about The "circle of the earth" being anything more than a 2Dimensional repersentation of the planet, now you freak out because the Hebrew word for 'world' what you want it to..

Besides that How would we know if there was a planetary flood? what that evidence would look like? what would we have to compare it to? after all, floods push water onto dry land. There was no dry land, and if this were on a planetary scale then where would the up rooted sediments and debris go? sure the low lying areas would have some evidence, and they do (discovery channel documentry on a massive flood in that region) but as far as every were else? The people who claim there couldn't have been a global flood because there isn't any sedimentary evidence on a planet wide scale clearly have not thought it through. In that why would their be an influx of displaced sediment if their wasn't an inrush of water? (Read the genesis account if you do not know what I am referencing)

The world known to some bronze age twat with a boat would be very small, so the flood wouldn't kill everyone, unless you've discovered that everyone alive about 5,000 years ago lived in modern Georgia. So how about you reconsider that point?

(August 7, 2012 at 4:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Rhythm Wrote:He made that clear in the post, it's otherwise irreconcilable. The lord of the cosmos is in need of Drich's assistance in this regard. Apparently (and I would have never guessed this) he's an incompetent storyteller.

So much for 'stay silent where the bible is silent,' eh? Anyone else ever notice that Drich tends to put forth ideas that may complement what he is arguing at the time but completely refute one of his previous arguments?

Please by all means give me an example where i have stated the bible says________ or does not say________...

---

(August 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm)cato123 Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm)Hovik Wrote: I take it you don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense. Come back to me when you've come up with a compelling explanation for why germ theory, the theory of gravity, and the heliocentric theory are all "just theories," too.

Here Drich, let me help.

Scientific (and reasonable definition of theory from Wiki): "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[

Christian definition of theory: persistent dingleberry. Same source, highly irritating, and requires more than a simple wipe to eradicate.

I am so glad one of you was brave enough to commit to following up on this line of thought.

Maybe you should write the folks and Merrium-webster and tell them their definations are off and that they need to change their definations to match the 'defination' you found on wikipedia.

the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
pluralthe·o·ries
Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>



As i said i am in good company.

---

(August 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Drich Wrote: kinda like the Whole THEORY of Evolution or creation to begin with eh? I looks to me that I'm in good company. As we all expend a measure of faith to believe what it is we want to believe about our orgins.

Oh for Thor's sake! It's time that you learn the difference between notion, idea, hypothesis and theory.