Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Drich]

So, first of all, this entire paragraph is an unjustified assumption you've made; you have no idea whether I will or won't object to your evidence, and you also don't know my reasons for doing so, if I did. What this is, is a wonderful way to cover up for a lie: "Oh, even if I told you the truth you wouldn't believe it. You just can't understand it anyway." It's just a way to escape justifying the position you've taken, and I'm not even going to indulge it with the dignity of getting angry at you for accusing me of it. You're wrong, moving on.

What I've done is outline your behaivor here in this thread and you do not even seem to be aware of it. Chulta dreaming asked for the same sort of proof you did, I gave it to him because he defined what he was looking for. You blew past it. Then you asked what I considered to be proof, I told you, you ignored it. So as I said WHETHER it Makes sense OR NOT... You deny the primise or default in disbelief.
(or something along those lines)

What I will do is remind you- and I'm rather bemused that I need to in the first place- how ideas work in the real world: A rationally justified idea is formed when converging lines of evidence produced by reality flow together to form a conclusion about the nature of that evidence. That's the justified way to come to an opinion: evidence first, then conclusion.

tell me you really do not believe this propaganda.. The way Ideas work is that people who have popular ideas seek funding, when they find it they then seek proof. then the magic happens. Because at that point anything can be considered proof so long as someone else does not already have a claim on it, or if that other person can be trivialized and dismissed. Just like 'global warming.'

Of course, the planet has been getting warmer, but the way it has been presented and marketed you would think the kind of car you drive would have anything to do with large swings in the average planetary temp.

In truth, we could only say that co2 emmissions effect our average temps if solar output was a constant. (that is how heat load caculations are done) The problem is the sun's solar output is not constant. The sun is not a bazillion watt light bulb that always produces a bazillion watts of energy. it pulsates, 'we' 150 years ago began to map and predict these cycles. In conjunction with solar output our orbit is eliptical and not a true circle. So if the sun is putting out less energy, and we are further away from the sun (like we are this year) we can expect really cold winters. Subsequently if we are much closer to the sun, and it puts out more energy they we have summers like we did in 04.

The point? someone saw that they could make money if the ran around telling 'smart people' the sky was falling, once the money began to flow the 'science' followed.

This is how your precious idea farm works. Science follows the money.

Therefore, if you've come to this conclusion of yours through a rationally justified way, there would be evidence you can present without me needing to tell you where you should look to find it. That conclusion, when matched to this evidence, will either be correct or incorrect, but if it's the former I'll accept it, and if it's the latter, that will be the only reason I reject it.

Then why ignore the current discussion by attacking my methodology rather than addressing what can supposedly be refuted with proof?

What you're trying to do, is to get me to do half the work for you by showing you where to look, whereupon you'll find whatever evidence you can that suits your position in that area, but I somehow doubt you'll present the actual current state of the research in that area if it disagrees with the idea you're trying to convince me of.

Not at all, Mr. Dreaming is a good example. In his request for proof he wanted to know where I thought Eden was. I told Him and gave him an indepth explaination as to why I thought that. Two other member have since picked up that discussion and I am dicussing facts with them.

All i am looking for is direction, and a chance to validate your request.

In fact, you've already done that here: in conversation on the fossil record, you've presented the claim that there aren't any fossils in a given area, but in doing so you've ignored the position of mainstream science on that claim, because it isn't that this is because that's where the garden of eden was.

What do you think main stream science reason was that there is not any fossils in the richest deposit of FOSSIL FUEL on the planet? The conditions are similar in alaska and in canada, and yet many fossils have been found in those regions.

The question you're asking is phrased in such a way as to eliminate from the outset contradictory evidence in favor of exclusively discussing only what confirms your view, separated from the larger context of everything that doesn't confirm it.

kinda how Atheist anthem works eh? A blanket cry for proof that is "phrased in such a way as to eliminate from the outset contradictory evidence in favor of exclusively discussing only what confirms your view, separated from the larger context of everything that doesn't confirm it."

I see you don't like it when the tables are turned. Too bad, you can squeal all you like, but my request in this setting is just as valid as yours.
;P

I know your not stupid, and I know you can recognize me turning the tables on you, and I know you know, if you were to participate you would do so without a safety net. (The atheist anthem 'prove it/where's the proof.') so let me bottom line it for you.

You don't know it, you believe it: knowledge is demonstrated, not asserted. And don't you dare presume to tell me what I know, either.

So you're saying you are infact stupid unless I can demonstrate that you are not?

Because I think you're playing a kind of trick, Drich. I've seen what convinced you, and we both understand, I think, why "the holy spirit," isn't a terribly compelling piece of evidence to an atheist; by relying on that you're putting the cart before the horse, and I don't think you have a way of getting that horse around the cart. Instead, you ask us what would convince us, and then slowly eliminating any suggestions we give you, until eventually we can't supply you with any more. At that point, you've won: "Aha!" you'll say. "There's nothing that would convince you of my claim?! Atheist dogma has blinded you!"

You asked what convinced me. I answered the Holy Spirit, but I also said I have been lead to other sources, all you need do it tell me what you are looking for and I can help you find them.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that my belief need stop with the Holy Spirit.

Faith is an insufficient reason for believing something.

Indeed, so if and when you are ready to tell me what more than faith you want/need i will be happy to help you find it.

---

^ bask in the glory bitch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7tOAGY59u

What happened to your arguement on the oil in the middle east came from the sea bed? are we done with that?

And while your at it you have many other points that need validated such as:

How could snakes speak to Eve?

The bible does not say a snake it says serpent. or rather נָחָשׁ/nachash
which can mean a literal snake, or image of a snake or anything snake like.

How do Apples give knowledge?

The bible does not say The fruit of the tree of knoweledge was an apple. In fact hebrew tradition identifies the 'forbidden fruit' as a pomegrantate. Eurpoean artists used apples in their paintings because 'the man' did not know what pomegrantate.. In the end the fruit of the tree of knoweledge is unknown.

How did two individuals live for millions of years?

They ate from the tree of life. Genesis 3 tells us eating from the tree of life will give you eternal life, that is why they were expelled from the garden. (God did not want them to live forever in sin.)

And most importantly what I asked that you have yet to provide, how could two individuals reflect the evolutionary processes of evolved man(from primordial soup to homo sapien)?

Is God not all powerful? Is God not all knowing? If Yes then God knew of the fall before it happened. God knew what state 'evolved man' would be in at the time of the fall and created Adam and eve to reflect the state of man at the time of the expulsion from the garden. That way their children could spread the seed/souls to man made in the image of monkey.(or rather to man without a soul that evolved outside the garden

Take yo sweet ass time with thisn if need be Drich, even modern science has not explained any of this phenomena.

sorry to get back with you so quickly.

P.S. Pussy, money, weed.
Dats da muthafuken creed.

says a young man.. what happens when all three dry up on you?