Creation/evolution3

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why is it important to distance this theory from Gap creation theory?? Because it combines the unmolested Genesis account AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, with the evolutionary data we have discovered and can not other wise reconcile. Without Adding anything to scripture or taking anything away. This also explains several other creation "paradoxes" that atheist tend to use to disprove the genesis account.[quote]

Since - as you say - the Genesis account is irreconcilable with biological evolution, what is the point of muddying things up with creationist idiocy? We have gobs of evidence for descent with modification and for speciation, we have no evidence whatsoever for ANY creationist position.

Since evolution explains what we need it to explain, and since the Genesis account explains nothing, what you're trying to do is akin to saying, 'My car runs on petrol, but here's why I think there are pixies in my engine.'

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Bottom line of this theory is that the bible doesn't provide a time line between the last day of creation and the day of the fall of man. The rest is indeed speculation and how it all COULD have worked out. But in the end with no given time line between the end of the seven days of creation and the day of the fall of man. The whole fossil record could be accounted for.

No. The bottom line is that you worship a god you say dishes out cancer in order to force people to worship him. 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. 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. 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.

[Drich]

Why is it important to distance this theory from Gap creation theory?? Because it combines the unmolested Genesis account AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, with the evolutionary data we have discovered and can not other wise reconcile. Without Adding anything to scripture or taking anything away. This also explains several other creation "paradoxes" that atheist tend to use to disprove the genesis account. Since - as you say - the Genesis account is irreconcilable with biological evolution, what is the point of muddying things up with creationist idiocy?

I know you have the atheist handicap of only seeing what supports your position so I will politely just point out that in the highlighted section of text you posted I intentionally use the phrase "can not otherwise reconcile."
This mean the theory I used does indeed reconcile the two accounts with each other.

We have gobs of evidence for descent with modification and for speciation, we have no evidence whatsoever for ANY creationist position.

again, with my theory everything 'science' has in the way of evidence then becomes evidence for creation as the two accounts become one.

Since evolution explains what we need it to explain, and since the Genesis account explains nothing, what you're trying to do is akin to saying, 'My car runs on petrol, but here's why I think there are pixies in my engine.'

Boru

If I use the word pixie to accurately describe something in my engine then I'm not wrong. I'm just not using the terms the engineers use. As I work in a related industry, I can say this sort of thing happens all the time.

---

Bottom line of this theory is that the bible doesn't provide a time line between the last day of creation and the day of the fall of man. The rest is indeed speculation and how it all COULD have worked out. But in the end with no given time line between the end of the seven days of creation and the day of the fall of man. The whole fossil record could be accounted for.

No. The bottom line is that you worship a god you say dishes out cancer in order to force people to worship him. 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. 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. 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.

Where have I said any of the things you claim mr red herring? Do try and stay on point old sport.

[Thor]

I know you have the atheist handicap of only seeing what supports your position

Says the guy who starts with a conclusion and then tries to shoehorn the available evidence to fit that presupposed conclusion.....

[The Grand Nudger]

This mean the theory I used does indeed reconcile the two accounts with each other.

...except that it doesn't, but in your ignorance of the subject matter you predictably fail to notice. You were provided with means of verification and falsification the very first time you posted this trash. You made the narrative unintentionally falsifiable and, potentially, physically demonstrable when you brought it down to earth, but you aren't actually interested enough in your own bullshit to follow through. Carry on.

[dyresand]

I know you have the atheist handicap of only seeing what supports your position

Says the guy who starts with a conclusion and then tries to shoehorn the available evidence to fit that presupposed conclusion.....

[Esquilax]

Holy shit, you really are a hypocrite, aren't you? You were the one linking to youtube videos as evidence of Noah's ark in another thread!

Seriously? Oh I get your only pretending to be ignorant, just so dry sand doesn't get lonely.

Because if you're really referring to the you tube post in the recent Noah's ark thread I prefaced that post with "this is the YouTube video link that was broken in the OP's orginal nat geo reference." That would mean that the YouTube link I posted wasn't my source material or arguement. It belonged to the national geographic artical the op used.

And if you didn't think it was an effective justification for your position you wouldn't have gone out of your way to post it again. Don't be obtuse, nobody thinks that something isn't a worthy argument for their position and still opts to re-link it.

I know you have the atheist handicap of only seeing what supports your position so I will politely just point out that in the highlighted section of text you posted I intentionally use the phrase "can not otherwise reconcile."
This mean the theory I used does indeed reconcile the two accounts with each other.

For my part, I don't care if you can make up a story that gels with another story and also the factual case for evolution; it's easy to do that if you're just making shit up. What I care about is the actual evidence that led you to that conclusion, the support you can give it beyond that you want to believe it, and frankly I don't think you have any. The reason I think that is that thus far you've shown absolutely no indication that you even feel the need to research the things you talk about; you might be ignoring it completely, but I nailed you on the Large Hadron Collider two or three times in this thread, simply because you seem to think you know everything that needs be known on any given subject.

But five minutes of research proves you wrong, so the one firm conclusion we come to is that you won't do five minutes of research, even on complex topics like particle physics.

[dyresand]

Seriously? Oh I get your only pretending to be ignorant, just so dry sand doesn't get lonely.

Because if you're really referring to the you tube post in the recent Noah's ark thread I prefaced that post with "this is the YouTube video link that was broken in the OP's orginal nat geo reference." That would mean that the YouTube link I posted wasn't my source material or arguement. It belonged to the national geographic artical the op used.

And if you didn't think it was an effective justification for your position you wouldn't have gone out of your way to post it again. Don't be obtuse, nobody thinks that something isn't a worthy argument for their position and still opts to re-link it.

I know you have the atheist handicap of only seeing what supports your position so I will politely just point out that in the highlighted section of text you posted I intentionally use the phrase "can not otherwise reconcile."
This mean the theory I used does indeed reconcile the two accounts with each other.

For my part, I don't care if you can make up a story that gels with another story and also the factual case for evolution; it's easy to do that if you're just making shit up. What I care about is the actual evidence that led you to that conclusion, the support you can give it beyond that you want to believe it, and frankly I don't think you have any. The reason I think that is that thus far you've shown absolutely no indication that you even feel the need to research the things you talk about; you might be ignoring it completely, but I nailed you on the Large Hadron Collider two or three times in this thread, simply because you seem to think you know everything that needs be known on any given subject.

But five minutes of research proves you wrong, so the one firm conclusion we come to is that you won't do five minutes of research, even on complex topics like particle physics.

This only proves my point... theists are more likely to lie
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/22/study_re...n_partner/

also have shitty families
http://www.care2.com/causes/atheists-hav...tians.html

[Davka]

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.

Your ignorance is rivaled only by your arrogance.

The LHC is a tool for figuring things out. That's all. The Higgs-Boson is not "needed to make the Big Bang" work. All the current evidence points to a period of rapid inflation ~13.5 billion years ago. Tools such as the LHC, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Webb Space Telescope, and many others have been designed in order to try to determine exactly how things worked billions of years ago, as well as how they work now.

Let's take a simpler example of science building tools to figure out how stuff works. The microscope. Scientists did not create some elaborate theory about what microscopic life would look like, and then build microscopes in order to "prove" it. They built microscopes in order to look at things they could not see with the naked eye, so they could learn.

Sure, there were various hypotheses about what they might see with a microscope, but they were just as eager to prove those hypotheses wrong as to prove them right. All of these scientific tools are designed with the exact same purpose in mind: to observe reality, and to learn.

Your foolish and ignorant opinion regarding the LHC is akin to someone saying "oh, those scientists only built microscopes so they could prove their theories about microscopic life!" No, they didn't. They built them in order to see what actually exists. The core of scientific progress is the desire to learn, not to "prove" that preconceived ideas are true. If the LHC ends up somehow falsifying the existence of the Higgs-Boson, that information is just as valuable as confirmation would be.

This is something ignorant Christians never seem to get: if a hypothesis cannot be falsified (i.e. disproven) in any conceivable way, it is useless. Scientific tools are designed to give us answers, and whether that answer turns out to be "yes, you were right" or "no, you were way off base" does not matter. The point is to learn about how things work, not to force the facts into a pre-existing theory.

Maybe years of trying to force the evidence to fit the Bible stories has made rational thought impossible for you. You approach everything from the perspective of forcing the facts to fit the story, instead of letting the facts tell the story, and following wherever they lead. So you assume everyone else is doing the same.

But they're not. Get thee to a university.

And for fuck's sake, learn to use a spellchecker.

---

Seriously? Oh I get your only pretending to be ignorant, just so dry sand doesn't get lonely.

Because if you're really referring to the you tube post in the recent Noah's ark thread I prefaced that post with "this is the YouTube video link that was broken in the OP's orginal nat geo reference." That would mean that the YouTube link I posted wasn't my source material or arguement. It belonged to the national geographic artical the op used.

Pretty sure your autoplay vids are screwing the thread. Wanna delete them, pretty please?

[goodwithoutgod]

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.

Generally how intellectual discourse works is as follows: You make an educated, validated, and maybe even substantiated assertion, citations to support your position is always nice, because if not, you are just slapping your lips together making noise...like a neurological fart, all noise and no substance. If you had ever sought after knowledge on theology you would have no doubt read the bible, and supportive, and countering scholarly articles and studies which show that....it is all a fairy tale, fabricated by Judaen priests, and anonymous groups of delusional fan's communal writings written under pseudepigraphical names.

noob? lol how cute. Don't be mad I own you in real life and online my little hubristic confused ineducable tyro .

"meaning man with soul had children with soulless the monkey people"

Cool story bro, needs some more dragons...





Don't make me spank you with the knowledge stick..