Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

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.

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.

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.

. Why am I providing you with the nagging details?

Because your short sighted and you think they are helping you.

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.

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.

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.

(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.)

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.

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.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/200...px#Article

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.)