(January 16, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Exian Wrote: Dammit! Late to the party again.

Let me get this straight: SoulMan fucked MonkeyMan and they had Soul children? So souls are genetic? Different species can mate and produce fertile offspring?

This is fucking weak man. How the fuck can anyone believe that humans once lived forever?

Genesis 5:3 says Adam contribution to the reproductive process was to pass on a soul. As Seth did not receive a soul as Adam did in gen 2.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Tonus 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.

Scientists and researchers can't just make stuff up if they intend to ask for the billions of dollars needed to build something like the LHC. They had to justify the time and expense with a lot more than "if we're wrong, it just means the particle is undetectable except by spiritual outreach. Hang on while we reinterpret our sources." And as was already pointed out, had their theories been proven wrong, they would scrap them and work with the facts at hand instead of insisting that it had to exist because the sacred Gospel of Higgs said so.

(January 17, 2015 at 12:11 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Tonus Wrote: Scientists and researchers can't just make stuff up if they intend to ask for the billions of dollars needed to build something like the LHC. They had to justify the time and expense with a lot more than "if we're wrong, it just means the particle is undetectable except by spiritual outreach. Hang on while we reinterpret our sources." And as was already pointed out, had their theories been proven wrong, they would scrap them and work with the facts at hand instead of insisting that it had to exist because the sacred Gospel of Higgs said so.

Have you mistaken mockery for a rebuttal again, or are you just being a collossal, dishonest asshat?

Is there even a difference, with you?

(January 16, 2015 at 2:32 pm)robvalue Wrote: You don't get to call it a theory until it's been thrown to the lions, gets shredded to pieces, but somehow walks out again. Until then it's a hypothesis.

You can also upgrade a theory to a law if you throw it to theoretical lions.

Actually if I am referring to the English defination (as apposed to the atheist 'feelings' of adopted words and pompous dialect) I do indeed get to label it a theory.

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

(Note none of the merrium Webster defination require what your version of the word does.)

Don't you guys get tired of being wrong on things so easily verified? Then why don't you ever look them up before you speak?

---

(January 16, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Esquilax 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.

As is usual for Drich, with his bizarre idea that his limited, layman's understanding of a topic is all there has ever been regarding that topic, he evidently doesn't know that the Large Hadron Collider has multiple purposes, and was not built solely to validate the presupposition that the Higgs Boson exists. In fact, Drich's assertion that the Higgs Boson was assumed to exist is proved entirely false by the simple fact that the LHC was built to test more than one model of physics, including a number of models that don't include the Higgs Boson at all.

All this took me all of five minutes to ascertain, so it doesn't surprise me that Drich failed to do the same; in his monumental arrogance he seems to believe that nobody could ever have more information than he does. It is, of course, emblematic of the differences between how science works, and how Drich works (and as a result, believes everyone else works too):

Science: 1. Make prediction. 2. Find method to test prediction. 3. Modulate theories based on evidence gathered by tests.

Drich: 1. Make conclusion. 2. Find some hole or ignorance in current models or the bible, i.e, the "It doesn't not say that!" method. 3. If hole or ignorance exists, conclusion must be true.

I heard it from the horses mouth. There is little you can say as a 4th party to superceed what the scientist who were interviewed had to say directly about their efforts.

It would seem some have forgotten the "bible rules".

1. The bible is a literal account of the creation.
   
2. If there is a disagreement, then the bible is symbolic.
   
3. If there is a contradiction, then it was not interpreted correctly.
   
4. If it makes no sense, then it is the "Mystery of god" and "mortal man cannot comprehend the mind of god.".
   

(January 17, 2015 at 12:19 am)Drich Wrote: Don't you guys get tired of being wrong on things so easily verified? Then why don't you ever look them up before you speak?

Hey, dumbass:

Quote:When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is...heory.html

As with faith, there is also a difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:35 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote:

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

Did you not read the op noob?

Generally how forums work are as follows: one must at least read the op before commenting. If you read the op you would have no doubt read the part that evolved man and the sons of Adam co-mingled after the fall meaning man with soul had children with soulless the monkey people you demand to be decended from.

This guy explains why creationism and the genesis account is bullshit.
Also he has a ton more this is just scratching the surface.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:37 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote:

(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.

---

You don't.

jesus witnessed the creation sequence? citation please...

John 1:1-18

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

(January 17, 2015 at 12:19 am)Drich Wrote: Actually if I am referring to the English defination (as apposed to the atheist 'feelings' of adopted words and pompous dialect) I do indeed get to label it a theory.

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

(Note none of the merrium Webster defination require what your version of the word does.)

So, apparently your ignorance also extends to not knowing that "theory" is also a scientific technical term, and not merely a layman's english one, and that the two mean different things.

Quote:Don't you guys get tired of being wrong on things so easily verified? Then why don't you ever look them up before you speak?

On the last page, you were asserting that there was no evidence for the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson has been confirmed to exist, through evidence, for over a year now.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Drich.

Quote:

I heard it from the horses mouth. There is little you can say as a 4th party to superceed what the scientist who were interviewed had to say directly about their efforts.

Would this be for the same layman's Netflix documentary and not, say... anything approaching an actual scientific source? Because the scientific sources say we've accumulated enough evidence through the LHC to confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson.

So, what supercedes what, Drich: the actual CERN establishment that runs the thing, or a documentary you saw on Netflix whose title you can't even remember?

And what am I supposed to think more likely: that the scientists in that documentary accidentally said the exact opposite of what many years of work at CERN has actually produced, or that uneducated, dishonest little Drich is willfully misinterpreting what they said, and being as vague as possible about the details in order to try and get away with it?

(January 17, 2015 at 12:00 am)dyresand Wrote: 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?

What are you talking about ?