(August 8, 2012 at 12:40 am)Annik Wrote: Stop being ignorant to the facts. Read the wiki article which explains what a scientific theory really is. Educate yourself and stop being so intellectually dishonest.

That's a big ask for them. It's their way or no way. Closed minded and intellectually dishonest all the way. That's why 90% of the time I can't be fucked with them.

Doesn't being intellectually dishonest imply that some sort of intellectual thought has been put forward? I think in this case, what we have is a combination of large doses of delusion and willful ignorance.

(August 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Drich Wrote: There seems to be a great intrest here so allow me to repost what has already been done to death:

---

Quote:Very simply put, I point out their is no time line between the creation of man and the fall of man. I also point out that outside of details of creation itself everything mentioned, takes place in the Garden. Basically between the four rivers that define it, God created a picture of the world that would be consistent with the evolutionary progress of man at the time of the fall.

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul. That would leave room for whole complete fossil record that could not biblically be reconciled. It also explains the city Cain moved to and the wives and husbands the children of Adam and Eve took for themselves. (They intermingled with monkey man/woman and pass their gift onto their children.)

Now I know the goto verse to disprove this is in Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

In the English it seems that Adam's total existence was 930 years. But when we look at the Hebrew the word that is translated "lived" is:Chaya it means:1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life etc... (In short Mortal life)

At the fall Adam's eternal existence with God died as promised in Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.
Genesis 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

At this point Adam's immortality ended and his clock started on his 930 years. These were all of the days He spent on THIS Earth. (not the Garden/Presents of God/Heaven)


How do we know they were immortal in the Garden with God? because of Genesis 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

Amongest those trees was the tree of life. What did the tree of life do?

Genesis 3:22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

So to recap:
God created Man and woman and placed them in the garden. They could have been there a day before eating the forbidden fruit or they could have been there the 900 million bazillion years the scientist believe it took to evolve. Why? because there is no recorded time time between: "In the beginning" and the fall of man. Only speculation because we can count the generations back 6000 or so years.

When in fact all we can really say is that man has been out of the Garden 6000 or so years. We know the Garden was a sanctuary, and that God kept Man created in His image there for an undisclosed amount of time. This does not means the rest of the world did not have to evolve as the undeniable fossil record proves.

Something very important to note this is NOT "Gap theory" or Creation theory as made popular in the 17 century. Even though the empty term Gap Creation theory can apply, as far as I know this is something very new.

(This is creation gap theory:What is the "Gap Theory?" • ChristianAnswers.Net
In short between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is a whole nother version of creation story. The problem here is there is added or filler material between the two accounts. )

Why is it important to distance this theory from Gap creation theory?? Because it combines the unmolested Genesis account AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, with the evolutionary data we have discovered and can not other wise reconcile. Without Adding anything to scripture or taking anything away. This also explains several other creation "paradoxes" that atheist tend to use to disprove the genesis account.

I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly.

What do you think? I would like to refine and clean up this account of origins and start circulating it. Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything. Their standard goto the evidence only further supports the creation account at this point. This takes the account of "origins" out of the atheist arsenal for a legitmate reason they do not believe in God. While on the Atheist website because they saw the logic of this explanation many who originally greeted me with harsh words and complete disrespect started to ask legitimate questions.

If you like to see the actual discourse The website is atheist forums dot org. This place is not for the faint of heart there are little to no rules about what is said or seen there. It is under the religion/Christian category under drich "evolution."

---

Quote: Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything. Their standard goto the evidence only further supports the creation account at this point.

We don't have to disprove ANYTHING laddie.

Without any supporting evidence your "hypothesis" is merely a load of self delusional masturbation.

Next......

(August 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not talking evolution. I am talking about how creationism assimilates evolution in it's trivial entirety.

(August 7, 2012 at 8:00 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: The Bible never mentions anything remotely similar to evolution and The Bible is essentially where your brand of creationism originates from.

(August 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Drich Wrote: the account in Genesis only tells the account in detail from the garden perspective. the bible is silent as to what happens outside of the garden. i have only point to the fact that it is plausable, because nothing the bible says contradicts the evolutionary account of orgins.

I hardly think that "account" could be accused of being detailed.
I think I've discovered the problem. You're under the false impression that in order for something to be plausible it must not contradict with the Bible. Putting aside The Bible regularly contradicts itself, you are incorrect in this. Plausibility relies on evidence and you have none.

Quote:You are attempting to make creationism more plausible than it obviously is by bastardising it with your own half-baked understanding of evolution.

(August 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Drich Wrote: that is the beautiful thing here. You can freely take my account of evolution out of the picture and put in whatever you wish with whatever time lines and names that tickel your fancy. the linch pin here is not me nor my level of education. It's the fact that there is no time line between creation and the fall.

Your account of evolution isn't an account of evolution. You never go into the specifics of evolution and why it is scientifically entwined with creationism. You never justify creationism as a plausible theory. You simply combine the two while quoting Bible verses with very little explanation aside from; "Well according to the Bible theres no reason evolution couldn't have occurred so I guess both evolution and creationism are both true. :-)"
From this line of reasoning you have spun an entirely hypthoetical situation based on assumptions and "what ifs" with not so much as a shred of evidence or fact behind it. If we went by the Bible to discern what is then many essential scientific discoveries would remain undiscovered.
So yes, it is your level of education that is called into question here. I am questioning it based on the fact you think this to be an acceptable fashion to present an arguement. You seem to have very little knowledge at your disposal.

Quote:The fact remains that there is no evidence for creationism but plenty for evolution and incase it hasn't already become self-evident we are not in the business of mixing fact with fairytale.
Next time you attempt this, which I would advise against, would you perhaps research evolution beforehand so your ignorance isn't so readily apparent. Not only do you present no actual evidence creationism is anything more than a pipe dream put onto paper but you don't even present an argument that draws on any knowledge of what you are attempting to combine creationism with.
The idea that someone would even attempt such a thing without a basic understanding of natural selection is frankly offensive to the intellect of all who have bared witness to your rather pale imitation of a hypothesis.

Please, don't embarrass yourself further.
Go away and learn something about evolution before bringing it up again.

(August 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Drich Wrote: you Really do not know what is going on here do you? or are you simply hoping and praying the 'standard' creation closing arguement will cover your loss for words.

I'd wager I know a damn site more than you do in-general.
May I also point out that the laughter emoticon is not a replacement for a sound retort?
I say this because you use it so often in all of your arguments for that specific purpose that I felt someone should really point that out.
I've explained why your meek hybrid of creationism and evolution is not acceptable as a legitimate theory, if this is your only retort then I suppose we shall have to be content that you were simply not capable of a better one.
I wish I could say I was surprised.

(August 8, 2012 at 8:15 am)Faith No More Wrote: Doesn't being intellectually dishonest imply that some sort of intellectual thought has been put forward? I think in this case, what we have is a combination of large doses of delusion and willful ignorance.

In my eyes, willful ignorance is dishonest, especially when the facts are laid out on the table before you. This is something that has always irked me. Maybe not so much when discussion philosophy or differing opinions, but when it comes to actual facts, pure facts, I find myself easily riled. I have never understood how people could buy into the creation science hoax. When I was a Christian, I didn't even really know people actually, literally believed that. I would like to take the time to thank my public school district for having once science class in every year of my public schooling expect my last two years of high school. I just-- I don't understand. No one is lying to you, no one is trying to trick you. It's all just science.


(This RationalWiki article umbrellas willful ignorance under intellectual dishonesty, but it's not exactly an end-all-be-all.)

(August 8, 2012 at 12:29 pm)Annik Wrote: In my eyes, willful ignorance is dishonest, especially when the facts are laid out on the table before you. This is something that has always irked me. Maybe not so much when discussion philosophy or differing opinions, but when it comes to actual facts, pure facts, I find myself easily riled. I have never understood how people could buy into the creation science hoax. When I was a Christian, I didn't even really know people actually, literally believed that. I would like to take the time to thank my public school district for having once science class in every year of my public schooling expect my last two years of high school. I just-- I don't understand. No one is lying to you, no one is trying to trick you. It's all just science.

The problem is, it's not all science. Evolution is a history and thereby has not been tested using the scientific method. But there's another problem with this discussion. Evolution is a route. Creation is a beginning. If you want to compare apples to apples, focus on the Big Bang vs. God creating matter, and spontaneous generation vs. God creating life. Don't point to a long line of 'linked' organisms and think you've eliminated the need for God.

I just waded through 5 pages of your fucking drivel, Drippy. You should be ashamed but your kind never are.

Quote:The term 'monkey man' can easily be replaced with evolved homo sapiens

Apparently, however, evolved homo sapien cannot be replaced with "theist."

I also object to your use of the term "theory." This is not a theory. This is a pile of bullshit.

(August 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 12:29 pm)Annik Wrote: In my eyes, willful ignorance is dishonest, especially when the facts are laid out on the table before you. This is something that has always irked me. Maybe not so much when discussion philosophy or differing opinions, but when it comes to actual facts, pure facts, I find myself easily riled. I have never understood how people could buy into the creation science hoax. When I was a Christian, I didn't even really know people actually, literally believed that. I would like to take the time to thank my public school district for having once science class in every year of my public schooling expect my last two years of high school. I just-- I don't understand. No one is lying to you, no one is trying to trick you. It's all just science.

The problem is, it's not all science. Evolution is a history and thereby has not been tested using the scientific method. But there's another problem with this discussion. Evolution is a route. Creation is a beginning. If you want to compare apples to apples, focus on the Big Bang vs. God creating matter, and spontaneous generation vs. God creating life. Don't point to a long line of 'linked' organisms and think you've eliminated the need for God.

Please properly research the Theory of Evolution.

I've not read much of this thread as it is so long but the Adam and Eve story is so ridiculous its incredible. Firstly there would be no thought of years/months then so they wouldn't know how long they lived and there certainly wouldn't be a record of it; plus a human would never live to be 800 yrs or so. Secondly Adam and Eve had two sons. Cain killed Abel and then travelled and got married. Who did he marry?????
Life began as bacteria and amoeba and evolved into humans

(August 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm)Undeceived Wrote: The problem is, it's not all science.

Yes, it is.

Quote:Evolution is a history

No, it isn't.

Quote: and thereby has not been tested using the scientific method.

Yes, it has.

Quote:But there's another problem with this discussion. Evolution is a route. Creation is a beginning. If you want to compare apples to apples, focus on the Big Bang vs. God creating matter

Sure, np. The same things that plague Drich's fantasies plagues that fantasy. One of the two is well evidenced, the other is a fairy tale.

Quote:, and spontaneous generation vs. God creating life.

This one is hilariously amusing to me. You don't know what spontaneous generation is do you?

Quote:Don't point to a long line of 'linked' organisms and think you've eliminated the need for God.

Why would anyone expend any effort at all to eliminate a "need" that exists only in your mind UD?