You know those arguments where a little child tries to argue with an older person? And the little kid just believes this strange thing for what seems like no particular reason reason? And the child is really serious about this argument?
"Johnny, who told you that everyone is secretly an alien?"
"Well, they all have faces, Mommy. Plus, my friend Grord told me."
"Sweetie-"
"I'M NOT LISTENING! LALALA!"

Reminds me of this argument.

(January 17, 2015 at 1:16 pm)h4ym4n Wrote: The monkey men must have evolved to men without souls?

souls have nothing to do with intellegence. Chimps can learn to do just about everything we can, and no one will dispute the are a lessor primate. And it is safe to say they are without souls. So why not evolved man?

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

yes

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

i wasn't aware of a second one.

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

Why? Because it doesn't hold to the picture of God your use to? Who says that picture was right to begin with?[/quote]

---

(January 17, 2015 at 1:42 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: 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.

the core of the theory simply says their is not Time line between the last day of creation and the fall of man. This can not be disputed biblically as there is no time line listed. That means it could have been an hour or it could have been a day a year or million of years or even billions of years.
Bottom line is we don't know. This means God could have kept them in the garden as long as it took for evolution process to happen.

Quote: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.

that's wicked awesome! homo-monkeyus and homo-gardenus..
Actually that is where Noah's ark comes in. It bottle necks man kind, meaning after the ark homo-monkeyus was all washed up, and all was left was homo-gardenus.

In short we all have souls because ultimatly we are all defendants of noah.

Quote: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?

im saying the desert is that flaming sword, and the Angels keep that place a desert so it doesn't become a garden again.

Quote: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?

we know that is not true because in Genesis 2 where We have been given greater detail we are told God breathed a living soul into Adam.

Quote: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 state in the OP that as per the creation account God created the garden and everything in it apart from the rest of the planet. He created the garden to reflect what earth looked like at the time of the fall so A&E would be acclimated to life outside the garden.
So to recap, God made the garden and man modern, and let the rest of the world evolve, because that's how long it would take for A&E to fall from grace.

Quote: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 just need to be open minded enough to see that they do indeed fit together, if you aren't bent on keeping them seperate.[/quote]

---

(January 17, 2015 at 6:21 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: No. The bottom line is that you worship a god you say dishes out cancer in order to force people to worship him.

is your reading comperhension as bad as you are claiming mine to be? Or can you show me Where I said this?

Quote: You worship a god who you allege meted out the death sentence to every human being in history for the "sins" of the first two.

again I am quite sure I have never said this either. Matter of fact I have pointed out the the doctrine of ' orginal sin' is not biblical. So again is this your failed reading comperhension or can you actually quote me.

Quote: You worship a god you demands collective punishment, the murder of innocents, and will forgive the worst evils i exchange for a promise of worship.

can you provide BCV to support this claim?

Quote: You worship a god claiming to be perfectly merciful, yet created hell. You worship a god who acknowledges having created evil, but who refuses to take responsibility for such an evil act.

That is the bottom line. This horseshit about how many days passed between creation and the day your god sentenced every human to death for the "sins" of two of them, is, well, horseshit.

I'd advise you to stop shoveling it.

I have seen you twist my words and the bibles words to make your Arguement work. What does this say about your arguement when you have to bend the truth to drive your points? It says either you fail to relay an accurate account of the message, or you yourself don't understand it.

Maybe if you weren't so blinded by hate you could see your way to the truth once and a while.

---

(January 17, 2015 at 2:12 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: 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.

Your confusing applied science and fringe/theoretical science. The rules and proofs of applied science doesn't apply to the fringe science used in the scientific theory of orgins. For one to say fringe science has the same stablity and reliability as applied science takes a lot more faith than it seems your willing to admit to.

How can you trust your Bible?
You can't.
How would the authors know how the world was created?
They wouldn't know;
and don't claim God told them this.
That's called schizophrenia.

(January 17, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(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.

I use the term 'old sport' sort used as a life preserver for those who's arguements are 'circling the bowl.' It is something for the intelectually weak to single out and attack as a red herring rather than be obliterated on topic. It is a way for you to 'win' while you loose... That is if you can "win" graciously. If however you want to be ass, I get to point out how you've failed not only in your topical posts but I also get to point out that you took the red herring bait as a way to try and save face. Then if you've really set me off I get the option of calling your character and who you are as a person into question for defaulting to a personal attack rather than stay on point.

So you see old sport I get a lot of usage out of this term. It's like a way for me to address your works without identify get them with you, in a nice and or even a proper way. at the same time it sets you up with an out if you are one who needs a panic stop button on the conversation, while kinda giving me the final option as to whether or not let you slide or call you out on your intelectually dishonest behavior.

---

(January 17, 2015 at 3:53 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(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.

Carful dry sand just got in trouble for doing that same thing. (You're not allowed to miss quote)

---

(January 17, 2015 at 4:51 pm)Nope Wrote: 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.

Soulless man and decendants of Adam and physiologically identical, so why wouldn't they be privy to intellegence?

---

(January 18, 2015 at 3:18 am)Roxy904 Wrote: How can you trust your Bible?
You can't.

actually you can. How? In it there is a very specific set of promises. If you do ABC God will XYZ
The ABC is to Ask Seek and Knock for the Holy Spirit, and God will send Him. I did, and God was true to His word.

What better proof of God is there than God?

Quote:How would the authors know how the world was created?
They wouldn't know;
and don't claim God told them this.
That's called schizophrenia.

It's only schizophrenia if the voice on hears is not real.[/quote]

How can I logically trust the Bible?
I can't. There's nothing to support it; it's a bunch of outdated nonsense.
Has God been talking to you, Drich? If so, I have bad news...

(January 18, 2015 at 3:23 am)Drich Wrote: Carful dry sand just got in trouble for doing that same thing. (You're not allowed to miss quote)

Without making clear that any alterations are not the original author's own. Don't play Mod, Drich, you're no better at it than you are xtian.

(January 17, 2015 at 8:37 pm)Roxy904 Wrote: You know those arguments where a little child tries to argue with an older person? And the little kid just believes this strange thing for what seems like no particular reason reason? And the child is really serious about this argument?
"Johnny, who told you that everyone is secretly an alien?"
"Well, they all have faces, Mommy. Plus, my friend Grord told me."
"Sweetie-"
"I'M NOT LISTENING! LALALA!"

Reminds me of this argument.

That is exactly how most discussions go with theists on here. And indeed, everywhere. The problem is, in my opinion, that the reasons people "believe" are often emotional. They feel that it is true. This is most likely due to being in environment saturated with other people constantly saying it is true, or misinterpretation of "personal experiences", linking them to mythology already planted in their brain.

When you have come to a belief by emotion means, the logic and evidence aren't important to you. So you can just make up any rationalization you want, and it doesn't matter, even to you, whether it makes sense or checks out logically. And no logical argument will dislodge an emotionally held belief. The rationalizations just keep coming, but these "reasons" are not the real ones the belief is held.

I suppose all we can do as sceptics is to point how how thoroughly unreliable emotions are as a source of truth, and get people to think about what is important to them. Does it matter more that your beliefs are comfortable, or that they are true? The refusal of most theists to in any way objectively view their holy books gives me the answer to that.

(January 18, 2015 at 2:27 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 1:16 pm)h4ym4n Wrote: The monkey men must have evolved to men without souls?

souls have nothing to do with intellegence. Chimps can learn to do just about everything we can, and no one will dispute the are a lessor primate. And it is safe to say they are without souls. So why not evolved man?

I didn't question intelligence. And whose teaching them to be men like since man isn't around until A&E? And how would you know this? Souls can't be an evolved thing?

(January 18, 2015 at 2:27 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 1:16 pm)h4ym4n Wrote: They sound like they evolved advanced enough to create the land of Nod and produce a wife for Cain. No?

Quote:yes

Did god create the monkey man w/o souls knowing they will need to produce a town named Nod and a wife for its future creation, Cane?

(January 18, 2015 at 2:27 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 1:16 pm)h4ym4n Wrote: Which Gen story are ya going with? Adam first then rib woman or both at the same time?

i wasn't aware of a second one.

That kind of explains quite a bit.

(January 18, 2015 at 2:27 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 1:16 pm)h4ym4n Wrote: Your version almost sounds like genetic manipulation from extra terrestrials from a galaxy far far away.

Why? Because it doesn't hold to the picture of God your use to? Who says that picture was right to begin with?

The picture of god i'm used to?

---

---

(January 18, 2015 at 3:23 am)Drich Wrote: actually you can. How? In it there is a very specific set of promises. If you do ABC God will XYZ
The ABC is to Ask Seek and Knock for the Holy Spirit, and God will send Him. I did, and God was true to His word.

What better proof of God is there than God?

Can you share what it took for you to be convinced?

Think it would convince others?

(January 18, 2015 at 2:27 am)Drich Wrote: Chimps can learn to do just about everything we can, and no one will dispute the are a lessor primate. And it is safe to say they are without souls. So why not evolved man?

Oh please, chimps are badass, but they can't even be taught a fraction of what we do, though it is perfectly safe to say that they, like us, are without "souls", and for the same reason in both cases.

Quote:Actually that is where Noah's ark comes in. It bottle necks man kind, meaning after the ark homo-monkeyus was all washed up, and all was left was homo-gardenus.

Then it looks like god wiped out the wrong monkey-people, because the ones remaining on this rock are soulless.

Oops.

Drich, if some of human ancestors had no soul, could some humans today be souless throwbacks? What is your definition of a soul? How would you know the difference between a person with a soul and one without one? How do you know you have a soul?