(January 16, 2015 at 11:14 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 10:18 am)h4ym4n Wrote: Drich, did god make the "monkey man without a soul", first, then later after the monkey men (without a soul) made cities created man in its image?

I'm saying God durning the 7 days of creation made man/Adam (man made in his image.) placed him in the garden just like the bible says.

'Monkey man' evolved outside the garden just like you believe.

interesting, and this "man", that "god" created...I presume you think that is our ancestor, so then why would we have vestigial bone formations and organs within our bodies that are evidence of our fishlike ancestors?



Did "adam" have a fishlike tail? A purpose for his appendix? Why is our circulatory system look just like a fish in our early gestational stages? Why are our testicles up in our chest cavity, then drop down through a defect hole in our torso to dangle below our body, creating a imperfect design of high probability for the development of hernias? oh the questions....they burn..did adam have nipples? why? since he was created first..what purpose could they have had?

Speaking of evolution; The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes, is cited as evidence of evolution. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

think...evolve

(January 16, 2015 at 10:52 am)Nope Wrote: Drich, some Christians believe the Genesis account is metaphorical while retaing their faith. Why don't you take that view? You can still view the creation account as being true in the way that parables are true without being literal.

If you need a god why not follow the nicer, less terrified of science god. It is all made up anyway

Because Jesus himself references 7 days of creation, not as a metaphors but as an actual event. Since he witness this event I'd say what He says goes.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 10:57 am)Davka Wrote: "intrest"
"their is no time line' (there's no 'there' there!)
"Presents of God"

Tell me again why I should believe a semi-literate delusional crackpot?

You don't.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 11:35 am)Lucanus Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 10:02 am)Drich Wrote: Indeed! That is why they built a 100 billion dollar hadron super collider. Science needs this one unknown/unknowable particle to exist inorder for their theories to work, so based on the idea/preconception that it exists science is working backwards to make sure all their preconceptions fit.

Hypotheses are testable, and they are actually changed when they are proven to be wrong. You work from the evidence you have, not from a book written 4000 years ago.

If they are then you just take the Big Bang as well as evolution off the table for discussion.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:36 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 10:52 am)Nope Wrote: Drich, some Christians believe the Genesis account is metaphorical while retaing their faith. Why don't you take that view? You can still view the creation account as being true in the way that parables are true without being literal.

If you need a god why not follow the nicer, less terrified of science god. It is all made up anyway

Because Jesus himself references 7 days of creation, not as a metaphors but as an actual event. Since he witness this event I'd say what He says goes.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 10:57 am)Davka Wrote: "intrest"
"their is no time line' (there's no 'there' there!)
"Presents of God"

Tell me again why I should believe a semi-literate delusional crackpot?

You don't.

jesus witnessed the creation sequence? citation please...

(January 16, 2015 at 11:36 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: @Drich, I do like your idea about starting the genealogy from Adam's expulsion. Probably it is an old idea, but I had never heard it before. My mother believes in the Garden of Eden, so I think I will mention it to her.

If she has any questions you can pm me or email me if you don't want these guys to rip you g-ma's question apart.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:36 pm)Drich Wrote: Because Jesus himself references 7 days of creation, not as a metaphors but as an actual event. Since he witness this event I'd say what He says goes.

Where you there? did you see him saying it?
Do you have evidence outside of the bible to prove it.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:36 pm)Drich Wrote: If they are then you just take the Big Bang as well as evolution off the table for discussion.

No matter how much proof there is of evolution and the big bang goes you will not except it because of your flawed irrational world view of wanting to be "special". You are "special" alright in a different kind of way.

If that's what your jesus said then he got it wrong. It was supposed to be six days of "creation".

Even if he got it right scripturally, he's still way off; by the order of several 'billion'.

Not a very reliable witness, really, even within the bounds of the myth.

(January 16, 2015 at 12:52 pm)Davka Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 10:02 am)Drich Wrote: Indeed! That is why they built a 100 billion dollar hadron super collider. Science needs this one unknown/unknowable particle to exist inorder for their theories to work, so based on the idea/preconception that it exists science is working backwards to make sure all their preconceptions fit.

FAIL.

The LHC was built in order to determine (among other things) whether or not the Higgs-Boson actually exists. Physicists would have been equally satisfied with evidence against the Higgs-Boson as with evidence for it. That's how science works: Hypotheses are put forward, and attempts are made to prove or disprove those hypotheses.

Scientists are just as pleased to have hypotheses disproved as to have them substantiated. Why? Because they are interested in determining what the actual facts are, not in supporting their preconceived notions of the Universe.

Science can afford to prove all previous concepts wrong. Religion cannot.

On net flix there is a documentary actually interviewing the actual scientists who work with this 100 billion dollar joke. If you honestly listen to them they start out talking about the discovery of the Higgs boson partial. After they turn on the collider and ran it for a few months thier whole focused changed. Rather than looking for the partial they decided it's shelf life was so short they would never be able to document it..

Now, the simple fact that this 100 billion dollar experiment did not yield the partial as promised, most would say the partial did not exist. But rather than that, they are saying we know it is there because of the presents of another known partial.

Their is absolutly no evidence of this partical, just the theories of 'smart people' who need this partical to make the Big Bang to work.

This is a perfect example of 'science' having a theory and then backing into it.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:36 pm)Drich Wrote: Because Jesus himself references 7 days of creation, not as a metaphors but as an actual event. Since he witness this event I'd say what He says goes.

When did you demonstrate Jesus even existed?

Quote:If they are then you just take the Big Bang as well as evolution off the table for discussion.

I've had this conversation about the big bang theory and how it was formulated with you before; when it became clear that your idea of what goes into the big bang was severely limited, I posted all the evidence and tests that actually led to the formulation of the theory, so saying there are none now just means you're lying.

Ditto for evolution, which I've posted evidence and tests of that more times than I can count.

Why should we believe a liar?

7th day of creation was on a day of rest Dirch.. and its in your bible and i know this and you should because on the 7th day what did god do?

(January 16, 2015 at 11:54 pm)Drich Wrote: On net flix there is a documentary actually interviewing the actual scientists who work with this 100 billion dollar joke. If you honestly listen to them they start out talking about the discovery of the Higgs boson partial. After they turn on the collider and ran it for a few months thier whole focused changed. Rather than looking for the partial they decided it's shelf life was so short they would never be able to document it..

Now, the simple fact that this 100 billion dollar experiment did not yield the partial as promised, most would say the partial did not exist. But rather than that, they are saying we know it is there because of the presents of another known partial.

Once again, the LHC was designed to test both Higgs and Higgsless models of physics. I'd say there was probably more complicated evidence at work here than you, an uneducated buffoon with a presupposition and a netflix documentary, could possibly comprehend. Stop pretending that fucking particle physics is as simple as the scrawlings you post on these boards.

More importantly? I'd suggest that documentary was a little out of date, because...

Quote:Their is absolutly no evidence of this partical, just the theories of 'smart people' who need this partical to make the Big Bang to work.

This is a perfect example of 'science' having a theory and then backing into it.

The LHC has been used to confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson in 2013. From this fact, we can draw two conclusions: the first is that, whatever evidence the LHC was drawing, it was evidently more fruitful than the "they ain't founded nuthin'!" strawman you wish to present. The second is that, once again, you are unwilling to do even a little research before you decide that you're qualified enough to comment on scientific concepts.

Basically, you're always ignorant, and unwilling to even respond to those who prove you wrong. You're a strawman-constructing ass.