Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 26, 2015 at 12:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You provided the link moron. Why don't you browse around through all of the things that the technique you mentioned has allowed us to do and determine? Silk road offshoots that saw maybe a dozen people in two thousand years?
Proof? My link makes no such claims. If you want to make that claim then I ask that you support it. 'Here at Atheist forums we do not simply take things on unsubstainted faith. We demand proof.' That is a double edge sword that cuts boths ways sport.
Quote: Yep..we can see that too. I have no desire to jump through the hoops held up by a monkey-with-no-soul. Your excuses are noted and rejected.
You thinking youre a souless monkey has nothing to do with the claim you made. Either you can support what you said or you can't.
I did a google search and it cant support your claims, so it looks bleak for anyone looking for the truth in finding foot trails off the silk road that were only used a couple dozen times in 2000 years.
Quote:Magical tents, magical shoes, all withstood the test with no wear, countless scores of people - decades and decades
What were those tents made from? Cloth, what do you think happened when the fabric was ripped, and could not be patched? do you think they threw it away?
the mere fact that you mentined a that you'd be looking for a discarded tent suggests that you do.
Which for you may be a legit thing to do if you personally ripped a tent beyond repair.. But ask yourself now, what would someone with no way to replace that fabric do if they damaged a large potion of fabric, and at the same time their cloths were wearing out, or Jr. had out grown the cloths he'd left egypt in? You'd make 'new' ones out of the tent fabric.
That leaves the tent poles to be recovered in animal skins, or to be broken down into tools or use in the community in some other way, because they too could not be easily replaced. What happened when they started to just fall apart from age or were broken down to splinters? Look at the weather in that region, the desert gets very very cold everynight, so the former tent poles would eventually wind up as fire wood. Again they would use, reuse, and re-reuse a resource till it was used as fuel for the fire.
That is the difference between the Jews time spent in the desert and every other instance of someone just passing through. They had no renewable resources, so everything was used up. It had to be, all other nations in the region hated them, so resources were low.
Even the shoes. First of all The shoes weren't shoes, they were sandles which consisted of a leather/rawhide sole, and leather lashings to hold the sole in place. what happens when a precious resource like a leather sole wears out, is it thrown out? No.
It is again repurposed. The raw hide can simply be boiled down and either eaten in times of desperation (They did this in the 20's and 30's in the great depression) or it can be boiled down till soft and plyable again and more lashings can be cut from it. After wearing the rawhide as a sole for a season this would make the raw hide far more plyable and more useful as a lashing, than fresh rawhide.
Quote:. Why am I providing you with the nagging details?
Because your short sighted and you think they are helping you.
Quote: Your claim to biblical scholarship is evaporating.
Because this is not a matter of biblical scholarship. this is a matter of detail of the story, common historical practices in similar instances, and common sense when one takes in all the facts of the matter.
Quote: No amount of trying to shift the attention away from your claims will work with me.
where is it you think I'm going? I'm right here in the middle of the story in question literally going line by line taking your arguement apart.
Quote: Your stories are extra-biblical and fare no better in reality than they do by comparison to the fantasy.
Because YOUR CHARGES AND CLAIMS ARE EXTRA-BIBLICAL.
You can't seriously be this dense or think anyone who reads your post is this stupid. Just incase you are: Once you make an extra biblical charge, question or claim, it stands to reason that your answer will come in a simliar fashion. To expect an biblical answer for an extra-biblical claim/question is shift the goal posts.
Quote:(Note if you find some rusty piece of tin I am just going to ask you to imagine what 2 or 3000+ years more in the desert will do to what ever you find so make sure what ever you present is immune to sandblasting and high heat and fridged cold exposure.)
Quote:LOL, you didn;t even look it up before you shot off at the mouth. You're worried I might come back with something....wipe the sweat off your lying brow...there is no reason for me provide you with anything. Do work.
What I did was demand that you compare apples to apples. Which is something you know you can't do. I put this conversation out of your reach the moment I brought proof for Alexander's marches. I put the topic on the top shelf in another house when I demanded that you provide a specimen from a similar situation as old as the exodus.
Quote:When did exodus happen? You see, if you can;t place your own fairy tales there's no reason for me to compare dates or even consider them relevant. Do work.
you Wrote:L2logic. An ad hom is the implication that a persons claim is wrong because something about that person is "wrong". I stated, explicitly, that I didn't see any need to address your claim, not that you were wrong -because- you're a fraud..merely stating the fact that you -are- a fraud.
Context, Context, Context.
When you put your ad Hoc in context, does it not conform to your own defination? let's see shall we?
you Wrote:I think you've demonstrated your "military expertise" often enough to disregard any comment you have on the matter. There isn't anything there Drich, Exodus is fiction.
Ok, so... Because you found something wrong with me, you conclude my position was invalid hence your statement: "There isn't anything there Drich, exodus is fiction."
You gave absolutly no other proof that the Exodus account was fiction besides what you believe to be wrong with me.
So again, your resoning here is literally defined in the Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
You site a flaw in me, then use it to support your 'exodus is fiction' comment.
Pretty cut and dry Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
Quote:No dice, lay it out, show us where the bible tells the narrative drich tells us. Your claims set aside the verses you lay claim -to-, charlatan.
The 'Drich narritive' states that their is no time line between the fall of Man and the end of creation.
Genesis 2&3:
So the earth, the sky, and everything in them were finished. 2 God finished the work he was doing, so on the seventh day he rested from his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it a holy day. He made it special because on that day he rested from all the work he did while creating the world.4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.
6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. 7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man.[b] He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nose, and the man became a living thing. 8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East,[c] in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden. 9 Then the Lord God caused all the beautiful trees that were good for food to grow in the garden. In the middle of the garden, he put the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil.
10 A river flowed from Eden and watered the garden. The river then separated and became four smaller rivers. 11 The name of the first river was Pishon. This river flowed around the entire country of Havilah.[d] 12 (There is gold in that country, and that gold is pure. A kind of expensive perfume and onyx are also found there.) 13 The name of the second river was Gihon. This river flowed around the whole land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river was Tigris. This river flowed east of Assyria. The fourth river was the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God put the man in the Garden of Eden to work the soil and take care of the garden. 16 The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”
A Companion for Adam
18 Then the Lord God said, “I see that it is not good for the man to be alone. I will make the companion he needs, one just right for him.”
19 The Lord God used dust from the ground and made every animal in the fields and every bird in the air. He brought all these animals to the man, and the man gave them all a name. 20 The man gave names to all the tame animals, to all the birds in the air, and to all the wild animals. He saw many animals and birds, but he could not find a companion that was right for him. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to sleep very deeply. While he was asleep, God took one of the ribs from the man’s body. Then he closed the man’s skin where the rib had been. 22 The Lord God used the rib from the man to make a woman. Then he brought the woman to the man. 23 And the man said,
“Finally! One like me,
with bones from my bones
and a body from my body.
She was taken out of a man,
so I will call her ‘woman.’”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife. In this way two people become one.
25 The man and his wife were naked, but they were not ashamed.
That is Genesis two. It mentions no time alotted between verse 25 and the beginning of Chapter three:
3 The snake was the most clever of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. The snake spoke to the woman and said, “Woman, did God really tell you that you must not eat from any tree in the garden?”
2 The woman answered the snake, “No, we can eat fruit from the trees in the garden. 3 But there is one tree we must not eat from. God told us, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden. You must not even touch that tree, or you will die.’”
4 But the snake said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 God knows that if you eat the fruit from that tree you will learn about good and evil, and then you will be like God!”
6 The woman could see that the tree was beautiful and the fruit looked so good to eat. She also liked the idea that it would make her wise. So she took some of the fruit from the tree and ate it. Her husband was there with her, so she gave him some of the fruit, and he ate it.
7 Then it was as if their eyes opened, and they saw things differently. They saw that they were naked. So they got some fig leaves, sewed them together, and wore them for clothes.
8 During the cool part of the day, the Lord God was walking in the garden. The man and the woman heard him, and they hid among the trees in the garden. 9 The Lord God called to the man and said, “Where are you?”
10 The man said, “I heard you walking in the garden, and I was afraid. I was naked, so I hid.”
11 God said to the man, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat fruit from that special tree? I told you not to eat from that tree!”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me gave me fruit from that tree. So I ate it.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What have you done?”
She said, “The snake tricked me, so I ate the fruit.”
14 So the Lord God said to the snake,
“You did this very bad thing,
so bad things will happen to you.
It will be worse for you
than for any other animal.
You must crawl on your belly
and eat dust all the days of your life.
15 I will make you and the woman enemies to each other.
Your children and her children will be enemies.
You will bite her child’s foot,
but he will crush your head.”
16 Then God said to the woman,
“I will cause you to have much trouble
when you are pregnant.
And when you give birth to children,
you will have much pain.
You will want your husband very much,
but he will rule over you.”[a]
17 Then God said to the man,
“I commanded you not to eat from that tree.
But you listened to your wife and ate from it.
So I will curse the ground because of you.
You will have to work hard all your life for the food the ground produces.
18 The ground will grow thorns and weeds for you.
And you will have to eat the plants that grow wild in the fields.[b]
19 You will work hard for your food,
until your face is covered with sweat.
You will work hard until the day you die,
and then you will become dust again.
I used dust to make you,
and when you die, you will become dust again.”
20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve.[d] He gave her this name because Eve would be the mother of everyone who ever lived.
21 The Lord God used animal skins and made some clothes for the man and his wife. Then he put the clothes on them.
22 The Lord God said, “Look, the man has become like us—he knows about good and evil. And now the man might take the fruit from the tree of life. If the man eats that fruit, he will live forever.”
23 So the Lord God forced the man out of the Garden of Eden to work the ground he was made from. 24 God forced the man to leave the garden. Then he put Cherub angels and a sword of fire at the entrance to the garden to protect it. The sword flashed around and around, guarding the way to the tree of life.
Now can you conceed this point. If you can not then we can not proceed any further. This truth is evident as I have point out the lack of a time line between these two events.
Quote:One would think if you were going to based your whole arguement on a single word you would at least know what the word means before you hang out your dirty landuary exposing yourself to a basic comperhension failure, and follow up correction. To me this would undermine what one would think of your basic comperhension and ablity to formulate sound accidemic thought from it.
Quote: You're attempting science buddy, fail. You have no theory.
Read it again. It's not science sport, it is basic reading comperhension and words as they are defined by the dictionary.
The issue: You believe the word theory to mean 'X'. When infact I have provided the actual word as it appears in the google dictionary, which has a more broad open ended meaning, therefore 'y'.
Conclusion: Your defination 'x' is a personal extrapolation of the term based on how you have seen it used concerning scientific matters. Which you have mistakenly transfered to the broader meaning of the term. Hence your attempt to align your defination with 'science.'
This is a total fail.
Why?
Because the dictionary provides the offical usage of this term 'y' and your version 'x' is not in alignment with the 'y' provided by the dictionary. Therefore 'x' is wrong and so too is the arguement based off your failed understanding of that word.
What does it say about the man who is accuratly corrected by the 'retard' who everyone says (even you) is semi literate?
welcome to the short bus, my friend!
Quote:You have not, because your tale is extra-biblical and there is no explanation to be found within the book. You understand this perfectly well, that's why the crux of the whole thing is "it doesn't say it didn't happen that way" -That's what makes you a charlatan, as opposed to being simply ignorant. You -know- you're selling a bill of goods.
Again until you conceed that their is no timeline found in Genesis that seperate the end of creation with the fall of man, we can not go any further. That is how bible this study will work.
Quote:You throw yourself under the bus, don't blame me for the unfortunate things that escape your mouth. This thread, and all previous threads on this subject are available for anyone to see. That's what makes you a hack.
I am more than comfortable in what I said here and what I have shown, incontrast with your work.
Quote:I've lost any motivation to pussyfoot around with those who have demonstrated their unwilligness to engage in a rational conversation, and particularly so with those who have demonstrated their willingness to lie for christ. No amount of civility is due to you, and your claims are now, precisely as they were when you first made them - complete and utter horseshit. You don;t have BCV, you don;t have evidence. You can;t form a competent argument and you don;t have a theory. You're shitting in my earholes and I'm not going to smile and engage with you as though you deserved anything more than what I'm giving.
I would be demoralized and unmotivated if I were made to try and hold your position as well.
Why? Because I like you am not the orginator of that arguement and therefore can not defend it outside of the initial onslought against exodus that the orginal arguement provides.
(Im saying you can't defend your position because you don't know what to say outside of what the orginal arguement says against exodus. That is why your efforts went flacid when I brought up Alexander's trek.)
(January 26, 2015 at 12:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You provided the link moron. Why don't you browse around through all of the things that the technique you mentioned has allowed us to do and determine? Silk road offshoots that saw maybe a dozen people in two thousand years?
Proof? My link makes no such claims. If you want to make that claim then I ask that you support it. 'Here at Atheist forums we do not simply take things on unsubstainted faith. We demand proof.' That is a double edge sword that cuts boths ways sport.
Quote: Yep..we can see that too. I have no desire to jump through the hoops held up by a monkey-with-no-soul. Your excuses are noted and rejected.
You thinking youre a souless monkey has nothing to do with the claim you made. Either you can support what you said or you can't.
I did a google search and it cant support your claims, so it looks bleak for anyone looking for the truth in finding foot trails off the silk road that were only used a couple dozen times in 2000 years.
Quote:Magical tents, magical shoes, all withstood the test with no wear, countless scores of people - decades and decades
What were those tents made from? Cloth, what do you think happened when the fabric was ripped, and could not be patched? do you think they threw it away?
the mere fact that you mentined a that you'd be looking for a discarded tent suggests that you do.
Which for you may be a legit thing to do if you personally ripped a tent beyond repair.. But ask yourself now, what would someone with no way to replace that fabric do if they damaged a large potion of fabric, and at the same time their cloths were wearing out, or Jr. had out grown the cloths he'd left egypt in? You'd make 'new' ones out of the tent fabric.
That leaves the tent poles to be recovered in animal skins, or to be broken down into tools or use in the community in some other way, because they too could not be easily replaced. What happened when they started to just fall apart from age or were broken down to splinters? Look at the weather in that region, the desert gets very very cold everynight, so the former tent poles would eventually wind up as fire wood. Again they would use, reuse, and re-reuse a resource till it was used as fuel for the fire.
That is the difference between the Jews time spent in the desert and every other instance of someone just passing through. They had no renewable resources, so everything was used up. It had to be, all other nations in the region hated them, so resources were low.
Even the shoes. First of all The shoes weren't shoes, they were sandles which consisted of a leather/rawhide sole, and leather lashings to hold the sole in place. what happens when a precious resource like a leather sole wears out, is it thrown out? No.
It is again repurposed. The raw hide can simply be boiled down and either eaten in times of desperation (They did this in the 20's and 30's in the great depression) or it can be boiled down till soft and plyable again and more lashings can be cut from it. After wearing the rawhide as a sole for a season this would make the raw hide far more plyable and more useful as a lashing, than fresh rawhide.
Quote:. Why am I providing you with the nagging details?
Because your short sighted and you think they are helping you.
Quote: Your claim to biblical scholarship is evaporating.
Because this is not a matter of biblical scholarship. this is a matter of detail of the story, common historical practices in similar instances, and common sense when one takes in all the facts of the matter.
Quote: No amount of trying to shift the attention away from your claims will work with me.
where is it you think I'm going? I'm right here in the middle of the story in question literally going line by line taking your arguement apart.
Quote: Your stories are extra-biblical and fare no better in reality than they do by comparison to the fantasy.
Because YOUR CHARGES AND CLAIMS ARE EXTRA-BIBLICAL.
You can't seriously be this dense or think anyone who reads your post is this stupid. Just incase you are: Once you make an extra biblical charge, question or claim, it stands to reason that your answer will come in a simliar fashion. To expect an biblical answer for an extra-biblical claim/question is shift the goal posts.
Quote:(Note if you find some rusty piece of tin I am just going to ask you to imagine what 2 or 3000+ years more in the desert will do to what ever you find so make sure what ever you present is immune to sandblasting and high heat and fridged cold exposure.)
Quote:LOL, you didn;t even look it up before you shot off at the mouth. You're worried I might come back with something....wipe the sweat off your lying brow...there is no reason for me provide you with anything. Do work.
What I did was demand that you compare apples to apples. Which is something you know you can't do. I put this conversation out of your reach the moment I brought proof for Alexander's marches. I put the topic on the top shelf in another house when I demanded that you provide a specimen from a similar situation as old as the exodus.
Quote:When did exodus happen? You see, if you can;t place your own fairy tales there's no reason for me to compare dates or even consider them relevant. Do work.
you Wrote:L2logic. An ad hom is the implication that a persons claim is wrong because something about that person is "wrong". I stated, explicitly, that I didn't see any need to address your claim, not that you were wrong -because- you're a fraud..merely stating the fact that you -are- a fraud.
Context, Context, Context.
When you put your ad Hoc in context, does it not conform to your own defination? let's see shall we?
you Wrote:I think you've demonstrated your "military expertise" often enough to disregard any comment you have on the matter. There isn't anything there Drich, Exodus is fiction.
Ok, so... Because you found something wrong with me, you conclude my position was invalid hence your statement: "There isn't anything there Drich, exodus is fiction."
You gave absolutly no other proof that the Exodus account was fiction besides what you believe to be wrong with me.
So again, your resoning here is literally defined in the Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
You site a flaw in me, then use it to support your 'exodus is fiction' comment.
Pretty cut and dry Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
Quote:No dice, lay it out, show us where the bible tells the narrative drich tells us. Your claims set aside the verses you lay claim -to-, charlatan.
The 'Drich narritive' states that their is no time line between the fall of Man and the end of creation.
Genesis 2&3:
[hide]So the earth, the sky, and everything in them were finished. 2 God finished the work he was doing, so on the seventh day he rested from his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it a holy day. He made it special because on that day he rested from all the work he did while creating the world.4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.
6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. 7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man.[b] He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nose, and the man became a living thing. 8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East,[c] in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden. 9 Then the Lord God caused all the beautiful trees that were good for food to grow in the garden. In the middle of the garden, he put the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil.
10 A river flowed from Eden and watered the garden. The river then separated and became four smaller rivers. 11 The name of the first river was Pishon. This river flowed around the entire country of Havilah.[d] 12 (There is gold in that country, and that gold is pure. A kind of expensive perfume and onyx are also found there.) 13 The name of the second river was Gihon. This river flowed around the whole land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river was Tigris. This river flowed east of Assyria. The fourth river was the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God put the man in the Garden of Eden to work the soil and take care of the garden. 16 The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”
A Companion for Adam
18 Then the Lord God said, “I see that it is not good for the man to be alone. I will make the companion he needs, one just right for him.”
19 The Lord God used dust from the ground and made every animal in the fields and every bird in the air. He brought all these animals to the man, and the man gave them all a name. 20 The man gave names to all the tame animals, to all the birds in the air, and to all the wild animals. He saw many animals and birds, but he could not find a companion that was right for him. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to sleep very deeply. While he was asleep, God took one of the ribs from the man’s body. Then he closed the man’s skin where the rib had been. 22 The Lord God used the rib from the man to make a woman. Then he brought the woman to the man. 23 And the man said,
“Finally! One like me,
with bones from my bones
and a body from my body.
She was taken out of a man,
so I will call her ‘woman.’”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife. In this way two people become one.
25 The man and his wife were naked, but they were not ashamed.
That is Genesis two. It mentions no time alotted between verse 25 and the beginning of Chapter three:
3 The snake was the most clever of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. The snake spoke to the woman and said, “Woman, did God really tell you that you must not eat from any tree in the garden?”
2 The woman answered the snake, “No, we can eat fruit from the trees in the garden. 3 But there is one tree we must not eat from. God told us, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden. You must not even touch that tree, or you will die.’”
4 But the snake said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 God knows that if you eat the fruit from that tree you will learn about good and evil, and then you will be like God!”
6 The woman could see that the tree was beautiful and the fruit looked so good to eat. She also liked the idea that it would make her wise. So she took some of the fruit from the tree and ate it. Her husband was there with her, so she gave him some of the fruit, and he ate it.
7 Then it was as if their eyes opened, and they saw things differently. They saw that they were naked. So they got some fig leaves, sewed them together, and wore them for clothes.
8 During the cool part of the day, the Lord God was walking in the garden. The man and the woman heard him, and they hid among the trees in the garden. 9 The Lord God called to the man and said, “Where are you?”
10 The man said, “I heard you walking in the garden, and I was afraid. I was naked, so I hid.”
11 God said to the man, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat fruit from that special tree? I told you not to eat from that tree!”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me gave me fruit from that tree. So I ate it.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What have you done?”
She said, “The snake tricked me, so I ate the fruit.”
14 So the Lord God said to the snake,
“You did this very bad thing,
so bad things will happen to you.
It will be worse for you
than for any other animal.
You must crawl on your belly
and eat dust all the days of your life.
15 I will make you and the woman enemies to each other.
Your children and her children will be enemies.
You will bite her child’s foot,
but he will crush your head.”
16 Then God said to the woman,
“I will cause you to have much trouble
when you are pregnant.
And when you give birth to children,
you will have much pain.
You will want your husband very much,
but he will rule over you.”[a]
17 Then God said to the man,
“I commanded you not to eat from that tree.
But you listened to your wife and ate from it.
So I will curse the ground because of you.
You will have to work hard all your life for the food the ground produces.
18 The ground will grow thorns and weeds for you.
And you will have to eat the plants that grow wild in the fields.[b]
19 You will work hard for your food,
until your face is covered with sweat.
You will work hard until the day you die,
and then you will become dust again.
I used dust to make you,
and when you die, you will become dust again.”
20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve.[d] He gave her this name because Eve would be the mother of everyone who ever lived.
21 The Lord God used animal skins and made some clothes for the man and his wife. Then he put the clothes on them.
22 The Lord God said, “Look, the man has become like us—he knows about good and evil. And now the man might take the fruit from the tree of life. If the man eats that fruit, he will live forever.”
23 So the Lord God forced the man out of the Garden of Eden to work the ground he was made from. 24 God forced the man to leave the garden. Then he put Cherub angels and a sword of fire at the entrance to the garden to protect it. The sword flashed around and around, guarding the way to the tree of life.
Now can you conceed this point. If you can not then we can not proceed any further. This truth is evident as I have point out the lack of a time line between these two events.
Quote:One would think if you were going to based your whole arguement on a single word you would at least know what the word means before you hang out your dirty landuary exposing yourself to a basic comperhension failure, and follow up correction. To me this would undermine what one would think of your basic comperhension and ablity to formulate sound accidemic thought from it.
Quote: You're attempting science buddy, fail. You have no theory.
Read it again. It's not science sport, it is basic reading comperhension and words as they are defined by the dictionary.
The issue: You believe the word theory to mean 'X'. When infact I have provided the actual word as it appears in the google dictionary, which has a more broad open ended meaning, therefore 'y'.
Conclusion: Your defination 'x' is a personal extrapolation of the term based on how you have seen it used concerning scientific matters. Which you have mistakenly transfered to the broader meaning of the term. Hence your attempt to align your defination with 'science.'
This is a total fail.
Why?
Because the dictionary provides the offical usage of this term 'y' and your version 'x' is not in alignment with the 'y' provided by the dictionary. Therefore 'x' is wrong and so too is the arguement based off your failed understanding of that word.
What does it say about the man who is accuratly corrected by the 'retard' who everyone says (even you) is semi literate?
welcome to the short bus, my friend!
Quote:You have not, because your tale is extra-biblical and there is no explanation to be found within the book. You understand this perfectly well, that's why the crux of the whole thing is "it doesn't say it didn't happen that way" -That's what makes you a charlatan, as opposed to being simply ignorant. You -know- you're selling a bill of goods.
Again until you conceed that their is no timeline found in Genesis that seperate the end of creation with the fall of man, we can not go any further. That is how bible this study will work.
Quote:You throw yourself under the bus, don't blame me for the unfortunate things that escape your mouth. This thread, and all previous threads on this subject are available for anyone to see. That's what makes you a hack.
I am more than comfortable in what I said here and what I have shown, incontrast with your work.
Quote:I've lost any motivation to pussyfoot around with those who have demonstrated their unwilligness to engage in a rational conversation, and particularly so with those who have demonstrated their willingness to lie for christ. No amount of civility is due to you, and your claims are now, precisely as they were when you first made them - complete and utter horseshit. You don;t have BCV, you don;t have evidence. You can;t form a competent argument and you don;t have a theory. You're shitting in my earholes and I'm not going to smile and engage with you as though you deserved anything more than what I'm giving.
I would be demoralized and unmotivated if I were made to try and hold your position as well.
Why? Because I like you am not the orginator of that arguement and therefore can not defend it outside of the initial onslought against exodus that the orginal arguement provides.
(Im saying you can't defend your position because you don't know what to say outside of what the orginal arguement says against exodus. That is why your efforts went flacid when I brought up Alexander's trek.)[/hide]
This all boiled down to "this is why there is no evidence to support my claim".
The new default position of the theist "We can't provide evidence because...[insert fatuous reason here]"
January 26, 2015 at 2:10 pm (This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm by Drich.)
(January 26, 2015 at 12:16 pm)dyresand Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 12:12 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, dyresand.
Dammit... the egg came first.
Just when I want to rub you nose in the poop you just left on the carpet you redeem yourself.
(January 26, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote: So where did the egg come from? what ever 'bird/lizzard/crap theory' the chicken evolved from.
Do you now see why your peers are so paniced about this theory of mine? I allows a believer access to an unmolested account of creation and whatever science is currently serving up in the realm of 'orgins.'
You know, Drich, for all your derisive attitude regarding science, you're still breathtakingly ignorant about the details of it. Or did you think I'd just let you forget the utter reaming you limped away from earlier in this thread regarding certain details of the scientific endeavor, or the similar hit you took when you tried to explain your own enormous misconceptions regarding the origin of the big bang theory?
No, why would I let you forget something that embarrassing?
Since you don't bother to do even a minimum amount of research before you scoff, your opinions on science don't mean jack shit; derision based in ignorance is not derision of science, but rather of your strawman.
January 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm (This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 2:19 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 26, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Davka Wrote: He's dyslexic.
Although you'd think he would at least use spell-check.
Exactly. I've heard him complain of dyslexia, but both Firefox and Chrome underline misspelled words. I'm not normally one to point out this sort of thing, but "artical" I will point out every time he misspells it, because that error was pointed out to him and he simply refuses to acknowledge it ... as if the first admission of error will crack the dam.
And let's face it, "Neopleon" is simply funny. I didn't know there was an Emperor Pleon, much less his son Neopleon who went to Egypt.
January 26, 2015 at 2:25 pm (This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 2:33 pm by Drich.)
(January 26, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: This will probably fly over your head Drich, but if you want some evidence regarding Napoleans advance...you need look no further than your own kitchen cupboard to find that trail. People are so damned incurious sometimes. If someone started bullshitting about "manna" as the engine behind Napolean's strategic success we'd all, rightfully, be rolling our eyes.
You do understand the point of the request right? We are talking about evidence left in the desert of a 200 year old event, verses a 3000 year old event. and how if their is little to nothing of the 200 yearold event then what does one expect to find of a 3000 year old event?
not the food that had been cross culturaly exchanged as a result..
(January 26, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 9:41 am)Drich Wrote: No sport what I am saying is In the beginning God literally created everything Genesis Accounts for in 7 days. Then between the last day of creation (the rest) and the fall of Man your 4.6 billion (or whatever number your precious science wants to plug into that slot) happened, then about 5000 years ago (give or take) the fall happened and Man was expelled from the garden. So yes Adam and Eve were potentially in the garden for 5 billion years, or whatever number you need to plug into that spot. (Per the tree of life which they had access to.)
So, they lived in Paradise for five billion years, and not one thing of note happened? Not one thing interesting enough to record? No sex for five billion years -- or did your god approve of birth control back then?
And you think that is Paradise ... "sport"? What a barren conception of it you have. They lived in paradise for five billion years, and not one thing happened interesting enough to record.
*yawn*
thirty pages in and you finally have a semi accurate understanding of the OP :whew: welcome to the conversation.
So yes nothing was said between the end of creation and the fall, weather it was a hour, day, month, year, a billion years or a 100 bazillion years.
Just a question, What do you think would be note worthy in A&E's life that impacts humanity like the Fall?
January 26, 2015 at 2:39 pm (This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 2:44 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(January 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 1:33 pm)Davka Wrote: He's dyslexic.
Although you'd think he would at least use spell-check.
Exactly. I've heard him complain of dyslexia, but both Firefox and Chrome underline misspelled words. I'm not normally one to point out this sort of thing, but "artical" I will point out every time he misspells it, because that error was pointed out to him and he simply refuses to acknowledge it ... as if the first admission of error will crack the dam.
And let's face it, "Neopleon" is simply funny. I didn't know there was an Emperor Pleon, much less his son Neopleon who went to Egypt.
Never attribute to dyslexia what can be attributed to a idiot's pride in idiocy. A dyslexic person can work around the problem. Drich senses any value he could imagine himself to possess rest entirely in the idiocy that prevents him from seeing his own worthlessness, so he abhors working around his idiocy because that would threaten to deflate his delusional perception of his own value.
[quote]Seriously? You're linking to a grade-school-level article for tourists as 'evidence' of something?[/quote]Carful on what you trivialize, because that grade school link just unseated your objection that Alexander did not spend time in the sinia.
[quote]Alexander's army did not spend 40 years in the Sinai, nor did they have millions of people plus herds of animals. Yet they left traces in the desert at their camp near El Qatih.[/quote] So youre saying 1500+ years after the exodus there were traces found...
what traces? proof/link?
[quote]Exodus supposedly records the movement of over a million people plus all their herds and belongings. Yet not a trace of this passage can be found. Even the folks at Bible History Daily, who have a dog in this fight, find this "curious" - [/quote]Read what I wrote to Rythm everything you've said here has already been answered.
(January 26, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Drich Wrote: Sooo... What? You think the chicken came first?
No, I think you're a dismissive arsehole with no idea what you're talking about and an ego as wide as your unwillingness to do even the smallest bit of research into the topics you've decided you know about.
As to the chicken and the egg topic, it's a continuum, not a simplistic single generation problem. The realistic answer, given within the context of how evolution actually works, is that the chicken and the egg came first, or rather neither did, over a band of time on the avian reproductive timeline comprising multiple generations, each one more chicken-like than the last.
But, you know, that kind of answer requires a little bit of research into biology, so it's not surprising that you didn't know it. I await your baseless, arrogant roflol emote, though. That won't be predictable at all.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(January 26, 2015 at 1:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: All of the bible is written from two perspectives. God's and Man's. I am suggesting that the genesis account is from Man's perspective and not God's as it lack the technical detail God could include.
Think of John of Patmos and how he was given a seat at the end of the world to watch and record all that he saw. To me Genesis is written from this same type of perspective. As if God took Moses or whomever and sat him in one spot and let creation unfold around him. That is why everything is written from only one perspective, while God could have given several different/more complete explaination.
So, do you imagine the seven days happening in seven days, or do you imagine the seven days happening over billions of years in phases that are overlapping and ordered differently from Genesis 1?
(January 26, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: The Quail did not come along till after the Jews complained about the manna. (for months/years) The manna was pounded into bread. I don't know about your cats but mine did not eat bread.
Of course cats are native to the desert and could hunt lizards. Also humans would not survive on a diet of ordinary bread for 40 years. Manna must have been very nutritious and could have been made into cat kibble in addition to human bread IMO.
Yes 7 days is 7 literal days.
Why? Jesus supported the 7 day creation when He spoke of it. As He was there I would tend to take his word.
Let say there was 1000 cats in a 1000 acre camp, how long before the lizzard population (and other cat size meals) in that area would be gone? how long before the cats become meals for larger animals, or maybe even traded off if they had such value.
January 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm (This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 3:07 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 26, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Drich Wrote: Proof? My link makes no such claims. If you want to make that claim then I ask that you support it. 'Here at Atheist forums we do not simply take things on unsubstainted faith. We demand proof.' That is a double edge sword that cuts boths ways sport.
Sorry, it doesn't. You made a claim, and I understand all too well that you'd rather move on to -anything- other than demonstrating that claims veracity. You're looking for an out. That's not a service that I provide.
Quote:Either you can support what you said or you can't.
Agreed. Again, this is what makes you a charlatan rather than simply ignorant.
Quote:I did a google search and it cant support your claims, so it looks bleak for anyone looking for the truth in finding foot trails off the silk road that were only used a couple dozen times in 2000 years.
Ah, so you understand that "prove me wrong" doesn't work, eh? Charlatan.
Quote:What were those tents made from?
Magic
Quote:Cloth, what do you think happened when the fabric was ripped, and could not be patched? do you think they threw it away?
They didn't rip.......have you never read the story?
Quote:That is the difference between the Jews time spent in the desert and every other instance of someone just passing through.
LOL, no, the difference between "teh jews" and those other groups that spent time wandering the desert..is that those other groups actually spent time wandering the desert. The only desert the jews wandered is the one between your ears.
Quote:Even the shoes. First of all The shoes weren't shoes, they were sandles which consisted of a leather/rawhide sole, and leather lashings to hold the sole in place. what happens when a precious resource like a leather sole wears out, is it thrown out? No.
They....didn't...wear.....out. Read your story. Bible fail.
Quote:. Because your short sighted and you think they are helping you.
Actually, the details would have helped you....because if the shoes don't wear out....why would they be left behind? Jesus christ Drich.......
Quote:
Because this is not a matter of biblical scholarship. this is a matter of detail of the story, common historical practices in similar instances, and common sense when one takes in all the facts of the matter.
You wrote all of that because you -forgot- or never read one detail of that story.
Duet 8:4 "Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years."
No, no, Drich says they boiled them...I;d boil my shoes to, if all i had to eat was fucking "manna". Unfortunately, you're at odds with your story, not just extra-biblical in this instance, demonstrably contra-biblical. I'll probably find plenty of occasions to remind you of this going forward..like, IDK..every time you claim to be giving us the straight dope directly from the good book.
-I'm a better apologist than you are, mull that over.....
Quote:where is it you think I'm going? I'm right here in the middle of the story in question literally going line by line taking your arguement apart.
Another layer of fantasy to bicker about eh? As I've already said...anything to avoid responsibility for your own comments.
Quote:Because YOUR CHARGES AND CLAIMS ARE EXTRA-BIBLICAL.
Who cares bible-man? I've never held it up as the gold standard. That's your standard...but oh how quickly you've abandoned it, huh?
Quote:What I did was demand that you compare apples to apples.
Sure, I could compare exodus to any work of migratory fiction, any establishment myth/legend you'd like. Something tells me this wouldn't satisfy.
Quote:
Uninterested in your link, my eyes have already had enough bullshit. Make your case, in your own words.
Quote: Ok, so... Because you found something wrong with me,
Something -is- wrong with you.
Quote: you conclude my position was invalid hence your statement: "There isn't anything there Drich, exodus is fiction."
Reading comprehension fail, hence my disregarding your comment on military movements and what we might expect to find in the wake.
Quote:You gave absolutly no other proof that the Exodus account was fiction besides what you believe to be wrong with me.
I'm not required to prove you wrong, and whatever is wrong with you is -additional- to your failure to make your own case.
Quote:So again, your resoning here is literally defined in the Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
You site a flaw in me, then use it to support your 'exodus is fiction' comment.
Pretty cut and dry Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
Another layer of fantasy, Ever going to get around to demonstrating the veracity of -any- of your claims?
Quote:The 'Drich narritive' states that their is no time line between the fall of Man and the end of creation.
Then the Drich narrative would be wrong. We merely have to establish a point in time where all creatures mentioned in the narrative are existent, and then check that against the existence of cities and civilizations which your now extinct "monkeys with souls" encountered after being cursed by douchegod. We "know" that Adam lived 930 years (Gen5.5)...so that's our total margin of error for a second point of reference. He either lived all or some portion of those years outside of the garden (depending on your particular brand of bullshittery).
That, is how you do work. You're welcome. Would you like to run the numbers or would you like me to run the numbers? I'm appalled that you haven't taken the time...and also that you thought it couldn't be done, or that bible doesn't provide a timeline. I won't put any stock into the timeline we get....but it does exist....
Quote:Now can you conceed this point. If you can not then we can not proceed any further. This truth is evident as I have point out the lack of a time line between these two events.
See above.
Quote:The issue: You believe the word theory to mean 'X'. When infact I have provided the actual word as it appears in the google dictionary, which has a more broad open ended meaning, therefore 'y'.
It's not an issue of belief, if you want to talk evolution and theories, bring a fucking theory nitwit. You have a hypothesis, and an exceedingly shitty one at that.
Quote:What does it say about the man who is accuratly corrected by the 'retard' who everyone says (even you) is semi literate?
welcome to the short bus, my friend!
That said semi-literate retard is doubling down on his semi-literate retardedness......
Quote: Again until you conceed that their is no timeline found in Genesis that seperate the end of creation with the fall of man, we can not go any further. That is how bible this study will work.
-and yet the timeline exists, and can be found in genesis. All that's left to do is run numbers for specificity...and I've already had this conversation with you...the last time you foisted this tripe on us. Allowing for error on both sides of this range we're going to end up with an exceedingly specific range, out of 14billion years. You made all of this possible btw, and binding with regards to your hypothesis and subsequent argument. Thanks.
Trying for another out, though, I see. You decide your own level of involvement Drich, if you want to walk away from your own claims that's your business....I'd walk out on them myself, so I understand. This could be our moment though, where we come together and tease some actual information out of your bible. You're not interested?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Because your short sighted and you think they are helping you.
You're attempting science buddy, fail. You have no theory.
![[Image: th?id=HN.608018265477418805&w=133&h=105&...d=3.1&rm=2]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=ts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DHN.608018265477418805%26amp%3Bw%3D133%26amp%3Bh%3D105%26amp%3Bc%3D7%26amp%3Brs%3D1%26amp%3Bqlt%3D90%26amp%3Bpid%3D3.1%26amp%3Brm%3D2)
about this theory of mine? I allows a believer access to an unmolested account of creation and whatever science is currently serving up in the realm of 'orgins.'
Ever going to get around to demonstrating the veracity of -any- of your claims?