Creation/evolution3

[Norman Humann]

If this or any god interacts with the Universe, it should leave evidence. That falls directly under the purview of science and can be measured, at least potentially.

Camo mode. Or "lord works in mysterious ways".

[Drich]

According to the Bible, the Israelites had huge herds of livestock. This livestock would have eaten-up the vegetation faster than the cats would have eaten up the lizards IMO. The only solution would be for the livestock and cats to eat manna along with the humans. Manna was the food normally eaten by heavenly beings such as angels. Heaven would not be heavenly without cats, so obviously manna is also suitable for cats.

Another odd disconnect in the Exodus story: The Israelites supposedly took huge herds of livestock with them, yet they got all butt-hurt because they were bored of eating Manna, so God sent them doves (iirc - it was a bird) to eat for days and days and days, until they got sick of bird meat and begged to have manna back.

Why didn't they simply augment their manna diet with some of their livestock? There would have been ample meat among all those cattle, sheep, and goats. So what happened to all the livestock?

You lived in that part of the world for a while didn't you? Is the Sinai flush with the greenery to keep live stock going for 40 years?

---

There you go again. Just like your ad hom post, no one has shifted any goalposts on you. You're the one who made the damned claims Drich. It's not our fault that you tried to shit and run as fast as possible, and it;s not our fault that you can't live up to the standards you revert to whenever you have nothing left to say- which is precisely what you're doing now.

What was the claim I made then that set this line of thought in motion?

It's almost as if you can only identify a fallacy in the reverse.....you probably won't take my advice here...but your uncanny projection of your own arguments shortcomings might provide you with a means to hone your claims. Every time you start to think that people are using this or that fallacy..if you took that as an indicator that -you- were using that fallacy...you'd use them alot less....

For example:

When you toss out the ad hom accusation when none has been committed ,implying that their argument is therefore wrong....rather than address the comments of the people whom you are responding to...... that actually -is- an ad hom.

Dude, I laid out your Ad Hoc attack. You cited my ' failed military expertise' as the only reason for dismissing Genesis as fiction. Rather than look at my short commings why is it in 4 exchanges have you not addressed this text book example of a ad hoc attack?

When you claim that others have shifted the goal posts in response to your constant shitting and running...some shifting is probably occurring, but not on the other guys end.

Again you asked for biblical content I provide it. Then you shift the goal post by addressing a non biblical subject (the injection of science into The Genesis account,) and still demand BCV. That my friend is another text book example of shifting the goal posts.

-"You're totally arguing about some other thing I brought up as a smokescreen to help me get the fuck out of dodge on my own claims lolololololololol"

Food for thought.

why don't you try finishing what's on your plate for once before you offer something you yourself can not swallow?

Now, the desert didn't consume any evidence of the isrealites journey...they never went on one.

argumentum ad ignorantiam – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
Vice versa meaning you believe an arguement is False because it has not been proven true.

Your explanation is extraneous from the biblical point of view anyway, they didn't leave any evidence because :bullshit mode engaged: "god made their clothes magical and fed them with -manna-, as the bible tells us" /asshattery.

Again my 'explaination' simply says there is no time line between the end of creation and the fall of man. Because of this ALL of Evolution as stated by your god 'science' can fit in that time span no matter what 'science' wants to say. That my friend is indeed supported biblically. Everything else is just conjecture detailing how it might have all gone down. But, bottom line the part you can't admit to the part you and your buddies will not discuss... Is the biblically supported part that assimilates the whole fossil record into the creation account.

You done bullshitting me about the timeline of genesis btw, or am I going to see V4 of this thread at some point in the future?

Are you in denial? In the last post I gave you your BCV why haven't yoou responded to it?[/quote]

[Davka]

Another odd disconnect in the Exodus story: The Israelites supposedly took huge herds of livestock with them, yet they got all butt-hurt because they were bored of eating Manna, so God sent them doves (iirc - it was a bird) to eat for days and days and days, until they got sick of bird meat and begged to have manna back.

Why didn't they simply augment their manna diet with some of their livestock? There would have been ample meat among all those cattle, sheep, and goats. So what happened to all the livestock?

You lived in that part of the world for a while didn't you? Is the Sinai flush with the greenery to keep live stock going for 40 years?

God supposedly told them to bring their livestock. Is your god so weak that he cannot keep cattle alive?

[Drich]

So, you understand that evolution is a gradual process of small alterations to an organism... but you don't think that the difference between the "choke-un" and the legitimate chicken, in the span of one generation, would be one of what you fully accept to be small changes?

At some point the last genetically consistant Choke-un Laid an egg that did not contain a Choke-un. Genetically it contained the DNA of a Chicken. At some point the choke-uns had to mutate. as mutation does not happen after 'birth' the changes happen in this case 'in egg.' Therefore the Egg preceeded the Chicken, as a Choke-un did not mutate into a chicken outside the egg. At some point a choke-un laid a egg with a chicken in it.

Which is it, Drich? Do you understand that evolution is a bunch of small changes, and hence that the change between the "choke-un" and the chicken would be, you know, small, or don't you? Was your need to disagree with me really so strong that you'd contradict yourself so thoroughly?

Again, there was a point where the mutative difference between a Choke-un and a chicken demanded a different classification. At some point how ever minute, the Choke-un laid an egg containing the first chicken.

I also get that you don't like how flipant I am with your version of God/science. to which I say, so what. How is this any different then what you all say/Do against My God?

Well, I guess the difference is that when you're flippant against science, you tend to say idiotic things, like intimating that science is my god.

I say things typically with a surface meaning and then a deeper one. I did say that science was your god, but i also suggested that you do indeed treat science as I would treat or reverance God. to that end what I said is true. You respect, and turn to science for answers, as I would respect and turn to God for answers. You find offense when someone poo poo's on your 'god' as do I.

The difference? In in no way do I demand that you worship at my alter, but per the name calling you do indeed demand I hold your 'god' in the same respect as you would.

Or you say demonstrably wrong things about science, like when you asserted that the Large Hadron Collider had found no evidence of the Higgs Boson, when in truth it had explicitly confirmed the existence of the thing two years ago.

Actually they still cant detect the higgs boson as it's life span is not measurable by anything we have to measure it with, what they do detect is the material left over from the partical decay.

Again the Netflix documentry, "Partical fever" actually interviews the 'd-bags' who actually work with this project. What I said about the higgs was taken directly from what they said of the same nature. Here is a link to the actual documentry.
http://particlefever.com/

watch the documentry. In the beginning they are sooo sure they will find this imaginary partical, and when they don't they say it can't be measured, but here we found all of these other known particals which is 'proof' of the higgs bosun.

Those other 'known particals' is what fueled the theory in the first place, and got them their funding. Before they built this collider they said they had to build this much bigger one because what they had would not be able to detect the higgs, just the reminates... Which is what they are saying about the big collider now.

Oh and here's proof that they can't find the partical itself but can indeed find the 'reminates of it.' One link deals with shelf life being too short, and the other deals with what is actually observible. the 'proof' of the known particals that we had before they built this big failed experiment.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9053/2...d-2012.htm

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/...iggs-boson

It's like no one has the full story, everyone has peices or rather no one wants to publish the full story so they all publish peices... Looks like propaganda to me. Why? because in what other field can one make a claim based off of xyz get funding for a multi billion/trillion dollar project, and after a few years of run time tell everyone all they have is the same xyz they had in the beginning and declare a sucess?

That's 'science' for ya

I'd say that's the difference: when you're being flippant about science you are always wrong, and so your flippancy not only makes you come across as a colossally ignorant buffoon, but it also psychologically conditions you to devalue science, so you don't feel the need to actually research anything before you're flippant the next time, causing you to make more obvious mistakes.

That's the thing sport. I'm not wrong here. I am simply stating what is unpopular, and I can indeed back up what I have to say. But again, at the time i did not feel the need to do so as I gave you enough information to google it yourself. Since push has come to shove and your laziness is impeeding your own ablity to think for yourself, I guess i have no other recourse than to provide you with the 'doctrine' you need to replace your own thoughts with your 'god's' demands on what you should be thinking.

It's basically that you're trapped in a vicious cycle of Dunning-Kruger shit-wittery, whereas I say demonstrably true things and observe the total lack of evidence for a god. That's the difference.

labling me Dunning-kruger effect is just laziness on your part. To lable someone with this effect and show absolutly NO Provenaunce of your own position is what this effects describes. Again even in our first exchange i gave you enough key word information to google what had actually been found. Yet you were sooo certain you were right because your position as an atheist automatically puts you in the right over a christian? Please. Half the crap on this website presented by atheists is sterotypical bunk none of you have ever sourced for yourself.

One of the things my dsylexia has done for me is have me look up EVERYTHING, and catorgrize the source material so I know how to approach a given source. Why is it that you think I quote the dictionary so much to show you all that even the terms you use are wrong?( Eg: Rythm's misuse of the word Theory.)

Know, I rarly speak on anything I have not confirmed with several points of material. Now I have been guilty of mixing things and Raesetsu has caught my mistakes once or twice Creed caught me with my cousin's service record as I confused two different points and made them one. In the end this simply shows I am human and will error from time to time, but in no way does this mean I speak without any authority. No does it mean I speak as most of you do (from a sterotypical atheist position) without reference. What I may say could seem off, but this should inspire a true 'thinker' to look what I said up, rather double down in your own ignorance.

The last time we had a conversation about theoretical science, you made some assertions about the Big Bang theory not being based on evidence, and basically being the guess of one man. It took me all of five minutes to locate the history of the theory and show that not only was it not a guess, not only was it based on easily viewable evidence, but it also wasn't the work of just one person, but rather many, building a case based on observation and evidence over many years.

I was able to prove you wrong on every point with five minutes on google, which so easily that you actually never replied to that thread again (it was that one you made a few months ago about education and science) and I think that all this is actually a good example of my point: you don't understand any kind of science, theoretical or otherwise, because you're so sure of how much you know that you won't be bothered to actually look into the details before you talk. Though you prattle on about science here, the truth is that on every claim you've made that I can remember on science, you've been flat out, completely wrong.

Your either extremely lazy or flat out incompetent. a simple google search yeilded this page from the American museum of Natural History.
Georges Lemaître is the guy who orginally came up with the theory. Oh, btw he was a catholic preist.
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/...aitre.html

Do you feel that burn? Do you feel the need to come up with some other reason to proove that you are still right in your statement that no one person came up with the big bang, and I am somehow still wrong?

If so, you may be experiencing the aftermath of the Dunning-Kruger effect!

douche

And you don't even seem to realize it. You're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

How so? because I'm dyslexic? and people who have trouble reading or spelling are dumb, or is it because you have 'science' on your side and I believe in God 'magic' and because I believe in God magic that automatically makes you smarter???

Oh, my goodness.
Here are the criteria for the D-K effect per wiki:

1.fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
I have, that is why I LOOK EVERYTHING UP. You have proven over and over that you do not.

2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
When someone does indeed provide viable evidence I yield to it per my examples with raesetsu and Creed. Again, you do not per chicken and egg arguement.

3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
I will freely admit when I do not know something, and have done so here somewhere recently. You per chicken and egg, big bang, and the hydron super collider, assume you know better even though you fail to provide any support to what you have claimed.

4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
Again you have yet to yeild to the authority provided by my and the resources i have supplied you with that support my position.

So tell me again who is the one blinded by his own version of D-K effect?

Or will you bite the bullet and simply conceed?

I guess we shall see...[/quote]

[Chas]

At some point the last genetically consistant Choke-un Laid an egg that did not contain a Choke-un. Genetically it contained the DNA of a Chicken. At some point the choke-uns had to mutate. as mutation does not happen after 'birth' the changes happen in this case 'in egg.' Therefore the Egg preceeded the Chicken, as a Choke-un did not mutate into a chicken outside the egg. At some point a choke-un laid a egg with a chicken in it.

Nope.
What part of 'gradual' do you not understand?
From generation to generation the change is so slight as to be imperceptible. There is no point where you would say this generation is one species, the next generation is another.

[Drich]

Another odd disconnect in the Exodus story: The Israelites supposedly took huge herds of livestock with them, yet they got all butt-hurt because they were bored of eating Manna, so God sent them doves (iirc - it was a bird) to eat for days and days and days, until they got sick of bird meat and begged to have manna back.

Why didn't they simply augment their manna diet with some of their livestock? There would have been ample meat among all those cattle, sheep, and goats. So what happened to all the livestock?

I suppose this is more evidence that the stories were reworked several times, and somebody overlooked the contradiction? I am guessing birds were sent, because Yahweh was the sky god, and birds would have been his subjects?

The 1 Chronicles 7:20-24 is interesting too. Stories about Ephraim's children and grandchildren fighting Philistines while they should have been making mud bricks in Egypt.

or birds were sent because they were in abundance and could sustain themselves on next to nothing, or on Manna/bread from Manna.

[Anomalocaris]

Sustain themselves on next to nothing?



Pound for pound bird needs more food calories than almost any mammal, to maintain a higher level of rest and active metabolism, so they can, you know, flap their wings hard enough to stay airborne without running out of breath.

You see, Drich, birds can't sustain themselves on next to nothing, because when the birds wave their arms, they actually accomplish something substantive, unlike idiotic Christians waving their arms in defence of their idiot bible.

[Drich]

Show some respect when speaking of that revered presence whose monkey like spelling skills is asserted, by no less august an authority than himself, to be indicative of intellectual parity with "Enistein", "Churchhill", and "eddison", no doubt all rolled into one.

oh, and his enisteiness wishes to avoid the impression of unwarranted modesty, so he throws in Charles "Schawb" as well.

All of this was included in the link I provided
Schawb taught Himself to read as I did via comic books.
Patton had his wife spell check his letters and dispatches, as i does mine.
Enistein was told he was mentally slow and a day dreamer. I was removed from a school for this very reason.
Edison's teacher said 'too stupid to learn anything' Even In the 1980's a teacher had no problem telling a little child this.
Churchhill was punished for being lazy and failed multiple classes numerous times, so did I.

I chose those names because we have something in common.

---

And yet there are artifacts from people who lived in the area 3,500 years BEFORE the supposed exodus. The desert clearly does not "consume all." It may very well wipe out the tracks of a wandering army that made a brief trek through its sands, but it doesn't wipe out all of the tracks of small tribes and it can't possibly wipe out all of the tracks of what amounts to a modern-day city wandering in its midst for 38 years.

Shifting sand and erosion and 3,000 years of time does not wipe out every last shred of evidence of a group of hundreds of thousands of people and their livestock over a 38-year period.

that's not true there are entire lost cities! It's not that people just forgot where the city was. The desert consumes all! In like 2010 is the first time anyone could confirm these cities existance because Satalites with new radar technology could identify different densities in the sand that matched up with the cities foundations.

Without these foundations cities that were hundreds of years old with hundreds of thousands if not millions of people living and doing commerce there would have been completely consumed by the sand.

So I ask again, without the foundations the cities had (as everyone was in tents rather than perminate structures/just like the various armies that have marched across that same place without a trace.. which btw would total in the high hundreds of thousands if not millions) what do you expect to find?

Everything you listed are items based off a modern trash list. None of which would have been discarded by the jews who had to make a life out there. Not to mention I have given now two examples of millions of people throwing everything away, and all traces of them all have been consumed by the desert.

again what are you looking for?

[Anomalocaris]

Show some respect when speaking of that revered presence whose monkey like spelling skills is asserted, by no less august an authority than himself, to be indicative of intellectual parity with "Enistein", "Churchhill", and "eddison", no doubt all rolled into one.

oh, and his enisteiness wishes to avoid the impression of unwarranted modesty, so he throws in Charles "Schawb" as well.

All of this was included in the link I provided
Schawb taught Himself to read as I did via comic books.
Patton had his wife spell check his letters and dispatches, as i does mine.
Enistein was told he was mentally slow and a day dreamer. I was removed from a school for this very reason.
Edison's teacher said 'too stupid to learn anything' Even In the 1980's a teacher had no problem telling a little child this.
Churchhill was punished for being lazy and failed multiple classes numerous times, so did I.

I chose those names because we have something in common.

They have brain cells, you don't. You don't have that in common at all.

They, at least some of them, can actually show substance to pursuade thoughful people, you don't. You and they do not have that in common at all.

You see, just because you and every human genius may have shitting and urinating in common doesn't not mean you are not any less of total moron.

[dyresand]