Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

Evidence should also show a relatively young genetic marker in the dna of only a very small subset of people, with no common ancestor between them and the rest of us before the timeline of "the fall".
(falsifiable predictions are bawss)

[Drich]

Evidence should also show a relatively young genetic marker in the dna of only a very small subset of people, with no common ancestor between them and the rest of us before the timeline of "the fall".
(falsifiable predictions are bawss)

Why would it? Adam and eve were created in the beginning not at the fall. They were as old as the earth itself.

---

show me

Child's play.

Main article: Septuagint manuscripts

The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers.

(Courtesy, Wiki)

We even have pictures of the early fragments.

What we do not have is any indication that this bullshit was written in "Hebrew" prior to the Greek version. To be sure, we have lots of claims by The Great Unwashed that there must have been such documents...but, alas, of the documents themselves we are stuck with the Greek.

actually no. What was found was what was left of an Aramaic phrase book. Not a copy of the book of Genesis in the Greek.

Google Aramaic phrase book (to the Greek) if you do not understand what that is.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html

Do you have anything else besides wiki as a source?

The link gives a inventory of the manuscripts found at Qumran The source of all of the oldest manuscripts we have.

[popeyespappy]

actually no. What was found was what was left of an Aramaic phrase book. Not a copy of the book of Genesis in the Greek.

Google Aramaic phrase book (to the Greek) if you do not understand what that is.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html

Do you have anything else besides wiki as a source?

The link gives a inventory of the manuscripts found at Qumran The source of all of the oldest manuscripts we have.

If you had bothered to look at the inventory of manuscripts you would have found that the Dead Sea Scrolls include multiple copies of the Book of Genesis in addition to the paraphrased copy you are referring to.

[NoMoreFaith]

I generally don't involve myself in biblical discussions, since there is no need for Drich to study the Bhagavad Gita for Drich to decide that Hinduism is false, why should anyone have to study the bible to realise its false.

However, out of my admittedly limited knowledge, I'm pretty sure it mentions that man shall work 6 days just like God did.
Also pretty sure that the fall of Adam brought Death into the world, in which case evolution is pretty much screwed (I'm guessing this means 2nd death, or soul death in your version).
The flood is still inconsistent with Geology.

If we are going to ignore the need for evidence (what evidence? How about ANY) then we are simply drawn into a discussion about a book, and it thereby becomes important to prove the book is an authority above any other.... seeing as nobody has managed to do so without recourse to cyclical arguments, I honestly don't see what is up for debate.

[Minimalist]

The Dead Sea Scrolls date from the late 2d century BC to the first century AD.

What it looks like is that Jewish priests copied the Septuagint INTO Hebrew as part of a campaign to create themselves a glorious history.

The only time they would have needed such a "glorious history" is during the the Hasmonean period.... which perhaps not so coincidentally begins in the mid 2d century BC.

Prior to that ( and after, as well) Judah was an insignificant shithole overrun by anyone who cared enough to expend the effort.


-----

"There was a Moses?"

Moses as I recall is an Egyptian root word meaning "is born." Hence,
Thutmoses = Thoth is born or Rameses (Ra Moses) = Ra is born.

Moses by itself apparently means "Fucking nobody is born."

[Mister Agenda]

What is there to refute? I understand the position you all bring to the table. And appearently you all do not understand mine, Because you would also see there is nothing to refute.

People have been telling you from page one that evolution doesn't rule out a creator. Your choice of the term 'creationism' was confusing, because what you're proposing is not creationism. Your story about Eden makes no claims that are conceivably verifiable or falsifiable, leaving nothing to refute.

You do not understand if you think anything needs a defense. The appologetic was not created for you. I am simply looking for reasons from the atheist position as to why it would not scientifically work. To which you ALL have fail to provide any viable arguements.

The part where God creates Eden and the first humans with souls? That part doesn't work, scientifcally.

Again this is not designed to replace what you believe this was created to change the way Christianity thinks. I wanted to test this theory here to see if anything could be said from your position.. Appearently you all have default to the whole Evedience arguement when you do not understand what is being discussed.

The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconcilation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.

Because Evidence has Absolutly Nothing to do with this conversation.

Of course not.

The whole primise is based on one's acceptance of the Genesis account and can not reconsile the fossil record.

And you know we don't accept the Genesis account, so what are you trying to gain at this point?

It has nothing to do with providing "proof" because any Physical proof that supports evolution also supports this appologetic.

Can anyone name this fallacy?

That is why I have been asking that you all to define what proof everyone is looking for. Because what you all would traditionally recognise as "proof" no longer supports an Anti-creation account of orgins.

Evidence for your scenario would be evidence that the version of Eden you're proposing actually existed.

That means your belief in Genesis is not required, because the new appologetic assimalates the whole threory of evolution and places the control of it squarly back in the hands of God. So now it becomes a matter of if you believe in God or not. (simply as a matter of personal prefference because You can not hide behind the idea of evolution disprooving God.)

You seem to be under the impression that we don't believe in God because of the evidence for evolution rather than the lack of evidence for God. From page one, people have been telling you that evolution doesn't disprove God. Is there a particular reason why you can't absorb that we don't regard evolution as a disproof of God? Evolution only provide evidence against a God defined as creating life pretty much as it is now. We're quite aware that's not the only way God is defined.

Otherwise know The burden of proof is on you to now show How the Theory of Evolution disprooves the Account of Creation in Genesis.

The burden of proof doesn't shift because you've eliminated some contradictions. If I claim I have a football signed by Joe Namath, the fact that it's not that implausible doesn't shift the burden of proof to you to show that I don't have such a football if you're not willing to take my word for it. If I say I have it, the burden is on me to show it to you or it's reasonable for you to disbelieve me.

However if you own up to you person preference in not believeing God not then the conversation is over. Again, no proof needed.

It's not a preference, it's a conclusion. I would rather Bigfoot existed (Bigfoot would be fascinating), but I have concluded that Bigfoot does not. Better evidence for the existence of Bigfoot would change my mind.

Now do you get why out of 120 posts only a hand full of you are asking for evidence?

Skeptics are interested in evidence. It's kind of our thing.

your buddies get that i have change the paradime of the traditional arguement. They know this, and they know the only way to stop me is to find some personal flaw, or even better some intelectual flaw so they can trivialize and dismiss the whole thing out right, rather than directly confront the arguement/appologetic.

We're not trying to stop you. Good for you that you aren't willing to throw science under the bus if it doesn't match up with your creation story, but your ad hoc reconciliation doesn't require refutation. You don't have to refute something that isn't supported by any evidence in the first place.

that is why the majority of the conversation i have been having or have been ignoring have been levied against me personally and not the message i have given.

Your motives for continuing this particular conversation which has been done to death are more interesting than the message. To me, at least.

Maybe it's time for you to try your message on the intended audience. There really isn't much more we can say about it as skeptics.

[Drich]

Why is it that creationists are so adamant that god couldn't have created them through evolution?

Have you not read one thing I have posted? This is exactly what it is I am talking about.

---

Jews recognizing polytheistic gods centuries after Moses.

There was a Moses?

---

You have mislabeled my work.

You are a lying moron if you continue to claim this is "your work" or "your argument." I already posted the wikipedia page on gap creationism which is exactly what you are claiming. It seems that you are living in the 19th century since you think this is a valid form of creationism. Personally, I think your a fucking retard.

I must have missed that page could you repost it?

[Faith No More]

Have you not read one thing I have posted? This is exactly what it is I am talking about.

WTF? You quote something from post #3 which at that point all you did was simply pose a question and then pretentiously ask me if I read one thing you posted. At that point, yes, I had read what you had posted but you had yet to get into your 'monkey man' hypothesis.

This wasn't even a good attempt at avoiding all of the points levied at you.

[mediamogul]

Again this is not designed to replace what you believe this was created to change the way Christianity thinks. I wanted to test this theory here to see if anything could be said from your position.. Appearently you all have default to the whole Evedience arguement when you do not understand what is being discussed.

The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconcilation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.[/quote]

Definitely Thor. Hands down.

It has nothing to do with providing "proof" because any Physical proof that supports evolution also supports this appologetic.

Can anyone name this fallacy?
[/quote]

It's the one where you add on multiple conclusions to evidence for one of them even though they aren't related. Damn it what is it? It's like piggybacking but I can't remember...

[Drich]

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='259605' dateline='1332434959']
[quote]People have been telling you from page one that evolution doesn't rule out a creator.[/quote]...And since page one people have been telling the opposite of what you have said here as well.. Given that fact who do you suppose I am speaking to? Those who support my assertion or those who do not?

[quote] Your choice of the term 'creationism' was confusing, because what you're proposing is not creationism. Your story about Eden makes no claims that are conceivably verifiable or falsifiable, leaving nothing to refute.[/quote]
Apparently they do other wise there would be nothing to discuss. To that end there have been over 150 points of discussion on this topic. This proves Your assessment to be false.

[quote]The part where God creates Eden and the first humans with souls? That part doesn't work, scientifically. [/quote] Did you not say this point could NOT be proven? This is all I bring to the table. This in a nut shell is my whole arguement... That said I suppose you have "scientific proof that mt contribution will not work "scientifically?" If so may I see it?

[quote]The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconciliation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.[/quote]Then simply end the conversation if your points have been made.
What else could you possible have to say if you voted for Thor already.

[quote]And you know we don't accept the Genesis account, so what are you trying to gain at this point?[/quote]Answered in the original post.

[quote]Evidence for your scenario would be evidence that the version of Eden you're proposing actually existed. [/quote]
Even then it wouldn't because the existence of the garden does not mean what was recorded to have happened there, happened. Just because we know of Jerusalem, it does not verify the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

What "other" items would you consider "proof?"

[quote]You seem to be under the impression that we don't believe in God because of the evidence for evolution rather than the lack of evidence for God. From page one, people have been telling you that evolution doesn't disprove God. Is there a particular reason why you can't absorb that we don't regard evolution as a disproof of God? Evolution only provide evidence against a God defined as creating life pretty much as it is now. We're quite aware that's not the only way God is defined. [/quote]
You seem to believe that the 5 people who support your understanding of evolution and God are representative of the whole atheistic community. This thread if read in it's entirety is proof that not all atheists think as you do. A fair amount have posted objections to your claims, and they support my original assessment, That evolution disproves the existence of God.

So again if My thread does not speak to your views, know with a content heart I am not speaking to you directly and there is no need to defend your honor here.

[quote]The burden of proof doesn't shift because you've eliminated some contradictions. If I claim I have a football signed by Joe Namath, the fact that it's not that implausible doesn't shift the burden of proof to you to show that I don't have such a football if you're not willing to take my word for it. [/quote]Seriously?? Have you never seen an episode of Pawn Stars? When some DB claims he has a autograph pic or football singed by anyone it is up to the guys (who are questioning the authenticity of said claim) to produce evidence for or against the sellers claim. That is why they call in an expert on signatures. Even if you never seen the show this principle is a universal truth in that all buyers beware.

[quote] If I say I have it, the burden is on me to show it to you or it's reasonable for you to disbelieve me.[/quote]
again going back to the pawn shop, it does not matter what provenance you provide, until the buyer authenticates the claim it might as well all be toilet paper. This is how the world works outside of message boards, and philosophical discussions. Perhaps that is the reason why it is so easy to get you guys to think as a hive mind so easily. All one needs is to "prove" himself to you and you do not question where he leads you.

[quote]It's not a preference, it's a conclusion. I would rather Bigfoot existed (Bigfoot would be fascinating), but I have concluded that Bigfoot does not. Better evidence for the existence of Bigfoot would change my mind. [/quote]Perhaps I should have said your preferred conclusion rather than just preference.

[quote]Skeptics are interested in evidence. It's kind of our thing.

we're not trying to stop you. Good for you that you aren't willing to throw science under the bus if it doesn't match up with your creation story, but your ad hoc reconciliation doesn't require refutation. You don't have to refute something that isn't supported by any evidence in the first place. [/quote]

Again please tell me what evidence looks like in this situation and I will be happy to try and source it for you.


[quote]Your motives for continuing this particular conversation which has been done to death are more interesting than the message. To me, at least.

Maybe it's time for you to try your message on the intended audience. There really isn't much more we can say about it as skeptics. [/quote]
Oh I have, started there first. (Sometime ago) They tend to fall back on the original R/C understanding at first then as things are explained and biblical interpretations rectified in the original scripts no one openly accepts anything but the arguments cease. Maybe it is pride maybe it is so they can claim the effort as their own. I do not care so long as the message circulates.

Now it is time to see what the other side had to say.. you all put up alot less of a fight than they did. I was honestly more scared to bring it here than to some of the crazies on the Christian site. there, most of then yield to the authority of scripture and for those who do not, well it is easy to identify their errors and dismiss them or the body of their works. Here I knew if there were any loop holes or some obscure scientific principle that I did not know of I would be beaten with it over and over... However you all seem to move to dismiss rather than address, so that means to me that you all have nothing.

I mean in comparison look at how you all defend your stances on Noah's ark. First the subject matter is completely taken apart and each subcategory is heavily scrutinized and humiliated and then your efforts turn onto the bringer of the message to make the humiliation complete.

Here you all (most of you/evidently the smart ones) moved right past the message and went to attacking the character of the messenger as away to dismiss.

Maybe your right maybe i should trying bring the message to acouple of different sites and see what everyone else has to say.