(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.

The monkey men must have evolved to men without souls?

They sound like they evolved advanced enough to create the land of Nod and produce a wife for Cain. No?

Which Gen story are ya going with? Adam first then rib woman or both at the same time?

Your version almost sounds like genetic manipulation from extra terrestrials from a galaxy far far away.

(January 17, 2015 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote: I know you have the atheist handicap of only seeing what supports your position

Not! We use facts, evidence, empirical data and brains. I realize these four items are foreign to you, but you can google them. And the babble-book is not Google, it is 'goo goo'.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:30 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 10:20 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: It seems like you are explaining how a literal reading of the 6000 year genealogy in Genesis could coexist with billions of years of evolution.

I am pointing out how no time line between creation and the fall COULD have worked out.

I don't understand that sentence in bold means. Maybe you can rephrase it? I do agree that Adam's lifespan could be measuring only those years after he left the Garden of Eden.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:30 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 10:20 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: As Nope pointed-out human culture goes back further than 6000 years, so that is a problem.

how so? Monkey man is human, (human descended from monkeys just like science says..) and existed outside the garden well before man made in the image of God was expelled from the garden.

O.k. So when homo-monkeyus mates with homo-gardenus, is the offspring in the image of God (i.e. having a soul)? You might be able to combine this idea with your belief in predestination. Those of us who can't seem to make Christianity work are simply soulless, biological robots - homo-monkeyus.

(January 16, 2015 at 11:30 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 10:20 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: Also, a literal reading of Genesis suggests that there is a garden of Eden somewhere on Earth guarded by four spiritual beings. There is no garden of Eden today, so you can't read that story literally. Why are you hung-up on reading the 6000 year genealogy literally when you can't read other parts of genesis literally.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Drich. If God exists, he can't expect you to lie to yourself IMO.

Who says there isn't a garden? If we literally look at Genesis we canes it is defined by 4 rivers, two of which we can identify today. When we look at a map we have an idea of how big and where the garden is.

If you look there now on a map you will see a massive desert sitting on top of the garden. This also explains why there are have been no fossils ever found in that region and the reason for oil under that region (the bio mass needed to produce those millions upon trillions of barrels of oil) Again the explaination is as easy as there is no time line between the last day of creation and the fall. "The crazy explaination" is only needed when one wants to encorperate the faith they have in science.

O.k. so you're saying that many years after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, it became a desert, and the spiritual beings were no longer needed to keep humans from returning?

Also I'm curious about the 7 days of creation described in Genesis 1. I suppose the man described in Genesis 1 is just the soulless homo-monkeyus? I don't see how you can read this literally, because paleontology says it took billions of years. Maybe if you imagine God moving at relativistic speeds, but why would he dictate a story for humans using times measured in a different reference frame from Earth?

I think the creation stories are much richer if you understand the context of the Near Eastern religious cosmology instead of trying to shoe-horn them into our current scientific cosmology.

You always have to giggle when they use the disingenuous assertion that we have "faith in science."

Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falisify the claim that the norse god Loki was able ot assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works...unlike the religious leaders who base it on a superstitious fictional book put together and sold to the masses. greatest scam ever pulled on mankind.

Science may be the antithesis of faith, but that doesn't mean most idiots faith heads who can only know faith and not science do not place their faith in science much more than jesus when the chips are down and a serious disease curable by science threaten to put them in the way of Jesus.

Actually, some do.

(January 17, 2015 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote: Where have I said any of the things you claim mr red herring? Do try and stay on point old sport.

"Old sport"? You Jay Gatsby? Seriously, talk about falling flat on your face.

Also, since you're obviously reading-impaired, I'll type this slowly: I didn't say that you said those things.

My point, since you missed it, clearly, old sport, is that things like the amount of time between "creation" and "the Fall" are irrelevant because you worship a god which collapses under the weight of its internal contradictions. You may as well debate the premise tooth fairies are against world peace, for all the relevance your thread here has to the way the world works.

(January 17, 2015 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote: I know you have the atheist handicap of basing your opinions on verifiable facts, and that your POV can and will change as new knowledge is gained.

Fixed.

Atheists are thoroughly handicapped, utterly unable to instantly believe wild assertions made in old books about ludicrous supernatural events; combined with acute objective assessment and the search for evidence. The condition seems to apply not to just one but all holy books, as if it wasn't already cruel enough. Will there ever be a cure :p

Drich, do you believe that these monkey men built cities like Damascus before humans arrived?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...24862.html

This was found in Germany. Drich, do you think that nonhumans made this little figurine?

Quote:Nicholas Conard, a professor of prehistory at the University of Tübingen, presented his most recent sensational discovery: a tiny figure of a shockingly anatomically correct woman carved out of mammoth ivory that is at least 35,000 years old and perhaps as old as 40,000.


The carving, called the "Venus of the Fels Cave," is thought to be the oldest human depiction ever found and one of the most ancient pieces of representational art in the world.

I found something else

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/an...01925.html

Quote:The well-preserved, genetically intact skeleton of a teenage girl who lived about 13,000-12,000 years ago in what is now Mexico is helping resolve a long-standing question of the link between first Americans (Paleoamericans) and modern Native Americans.

This human teenager died longer than 6,000 years ago.