Creation/evolution3

[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]