Creation/evolution3

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose that would also explain why none of those deportees seem to have survived long enough to leave a single trace of their passage eh? Your own better nature betrays you constantly. Your extra biblical fairy tale betrays your stated schtick. I'm going to have to insist that you give me chapter and verse for this monkey man bullshit, otherwise I think you're trying to speak for "god" -which, given the nature of your "god" as a facet of your own mind and opinions, you may be supremely qualified to do...but given your beliefs about the nature of your "god" -as something other than yourself- and your oft repeated position on the matter of what does and does not fly in a discussion like this...you are most definitely not.

You're a fucking hack -and- a charlatan. I think you need to find your shame.

[Drich]

I suppose that would also explain why none of those deportees seem to have survived long enough to leave a single trace of their passage eh?

What does a camping trip look like after 4000 years of sand blasting errosion look like in your opinion?

The desert has completely consumed entire cities that were are just now able to find due to satalite imagery and the cities foundational remains...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/09/...es_sahara/
If you read the artical you will note that these cities are no where near as old as the time of the exodus.

So again, what is left after 4000 years of a soceity who did not build any permenate structures and had to use, and reuse EVERYTHING till it wound up in the fire or discentgrated?
I am not say their isn't anything out there, I am saying they were not a soceity who built anything we are looking to find and they were not a throwaway soceity meaning their 'trash' foot print would be very small compared to say a Army of the same size marching across the desert..

Speaking of which in History there are many many Large armies from the greeks to the Romans who have march across those deserts, where is the 'evidence' to support the hundreds of thousands of men animals and equipment that say Alexander the Great use to conquor the 'known world?'

Your own better nature betrays you constantly. Your extra biblical fairy tale betrays your stated schtick.

Sorry to pee on your rant, but someone has to put out your little rant before it gets out of hand.

My 'Schtick' Simply says the Bible does not record a time line between the last day of Creation and the Morning of the Fall of Man. This means it is possible that ALL OF EVOLUTION could have happened in that time.

Which is COMPLETELY consistant with what the bible does indeed say.

Let's first admit this, and then we can look on to other aspects of my theory.

[The Grand Nudger]

What does a camping trip look like after 4000 years of sand blasting errosion look like in your opinion?

A bit more prominent than smaller expeditions of just a few people and pack animals for which we have adequate evidence - veiwable from as far away as -space-. No dice, Drich.

The desert has completely consumed entire cities that were are just now able to find due to satalite imagery and the cities foundational remains...

Oh, we found them, you say...so, not quite consumed after all.....and perhaps you should have known better than to ask the question above just on the grounds of the explanation you yourself deigned to offer?

So again, what is left after 4000 years of a soceity who did not build any permenate structures and had to use, and reuse EVERYTHING till it wound up in the fire or discentgrated?

More than what might be left from 5 guys on foot or with a small train of pack animals. As above.

I am not say their isn't anything out there, I am saying they were not a soceity who built anything we are looking to find and they were not a throwaway soceity meaning their 'trash' foot print would be very small compared to say a Army of the same size marching across the desert..

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.

Speaking of which in History there are many many Large armies from the greeks to the Romans who have march across those deserts, where is the 'evidence' to support the hundreds of thousands of men animals and equipment that say Alexander the Great use to conquor the 'known world?'

Laying all over the known world. Perhaps, just as a change of pace, you should let wonder lead you to knowledge?

Sorry to pee on your rant, but someone has to put out your little rant before it gets out of hand.

My 'Schtick' Simply says the Bible does not record a time line between the last day of Creation and the Morning of the Fall of Man. This means it is possible that ALL OF EVOLUTION could have happened in that time.

BCV?

Which is COMPLETELY consistant with what the bible does indeed say.

BCV?

Let's first admit this, and then we can look on to other aspects of my theory.

You have no theory, you have a childish hypothesis which -has- been looked at...you're the only one that isn;t actually interested in looking at it. You don;t give a shit about the words that fall out of your mouth and onto the page. You don;t give a shit about BCV...and, honestly, I don't think you give a shit about "god" either. I'll just repeat myself on this count. You're a hack, and a charlatan - look em up if you fail to comprehend the words or their usage.

[watchamadoodle]

...
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.
...

The problem is that science has a timeline for the items in the 7 days of creation too. For example, the sun and the moon didn't evolve on the same day. I think you can't take those days literally - they need to be "heavenly days" or something. Even using "heavenly days", the sequence is wrong.

I believe Drich is arguing that the genealogies can start when Adam and Eve leave the Garden of Eden? So Adam lived 930 years outside the Garden of Eden and millions or billions of years inside the Garden of Eden?

Of course the simpler explanation is that Genesis is fiction. How could the Israelite slaves live in Egypt among cats and not take one cat with them when they embark on the Exodus? There is not one mention of "cat" in the Bible, and I believe Biblical archaeology has yet to find any evidence of cats in early Israel. Who would take gold when you could take a cat? Therefore the Israelites were never in Egypt. Therefore the Garden of Eden is also fiction.

Maybe they took 1000's of cats... however a strictly manna diet is not the same as the meow mix needed to keep one alive.

Don't forget, the Bible says there was quail in the evening. Also cats evolved in the Sahara, so they would have no problem surviving on a desert journey.

Assuming the Exodus is true, the Israelites surely would have stolen the Egyptians' cats along with their jewelry and silverware. They would surely have written Psalms later thanking God for creating the cat. Proverbs would have held up the cat as an example of wisdom. Etc... Instead there is not one mention of "cat" in the Bible. Archaeologists have found no ancient cat dishes, no litter boxes, no cat toys. I rest my case.

[The Grand Nudger]

The cats were worth more than the jewelry and silverware. But who gives a shit, they wouldn't need to be stolen. They'd follow a train of a few thousand people just for the refuse, because they're cats - and no one could stop them from doing so......because they're cats.

[Drich]

A bit more prominent than smaller expeditions of just a few people and pack animals for which we have adequate evidence - veiwable from as far away as -space-. No dice, Drich.

So again evidence.. If this were even remotly true then you should be able to provide a link.

Reading forward I noticed you did not answer my request for the Evidence of alexander the great's desert marches?

Here is a historical event that supposedly had taken place in the 3ish century bc, upon which thousands of men died. which meant thousands of peices of armor and wepons, animal remains, and equipment and supplies. all happened 3000 years after the exodus. So again sport where is the evidence for this story?

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/al...r_t21.html

Oh, we found them, you say...so, not quite consumed after all.....and perhaps you should have known better than to ask the question above just on the grounds of the explanation you yourself deigned to offer?

You didn't read the artical did you? We found them using satalites because we located the cities foundational foot prints. The Jews were wandering in the desert in tents much like alexander the Great's army would have been. So where is the satalite confirmation of Alexander's army?

(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.)

More than what might be left from 5 guys on foot or with a small train of pack animals. As above.

Again, how old is this trail?

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.

Argumentum ad hominem anyone?
(the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.)

Your example literally follows the wiki defination, good job sport.

Laying all over the known world. Perhaps, just as a change of pace, you should let wonder lead you to knowledge?

again I am asking for specific evidence, not what you assume to be true.

BCV?

The last part of Genesis 2 and the first 1/2 of Genesis 3

Which is COMPLETELY consistant with what the bible does indeed say.

BCV?

Same as above

You have no theory, you have a childish hypothesis which -has- been looked at...you're the only one that isn;t actually interested in looking at it. You don;t give a shit about the words that fall out of your mouth and onto the page. You don;t give a shit about BCV...and, honestly, I don't think you give a shit about "god" either. I'll just repeat myself on this count. You're a haclk, and a charlatan.

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.

the·o·ry
/ˈTHēərē/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;

It looks like the google dictionary defination for theory seems to be at odds with your version of the word, I wonder... which one is valid and which defination is crap?

Now taking this into account (along with the rest of your sad attempt at a dismissal) one could apply all that you said to your own work. How you ask? Because I have Indeed provided BCV, and I even take care in providing the literal definations to the words I use. Rather than haphazardly stringing together basless accusations to forumulate a Argumentum ad hominem Fallacy rather than specifically address what you can not.

In short you are trying to throw me under the bus rather than being made to answer questions you know you have no answers for, by projecting your own intelectual failures onto me.

---

The problem is that science has a timeline for the items in the 7 days of creation too. For example, the sun and the moon didn't evolve on the same day. I think you can't take those days literally - they need to be "heavenly days" or something. Even using "heavenly days", the sequence is wrong.

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 anot 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.

Don't forget, the Bible says there was quail in the evening. Also cats evolved in the Sahara, so they would have no problem surviving on a desert journey.

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.

Assuming the Exodus is true, the Israelites surely would have stolen the Egyptians' cats along with their jewelry and silverware. They would surely have written Psalms later thanking God for creating the cat. Proverbs would have held up the cat as an example of wisdom. Etc... Instead there is not one mention of "cat" in the Bible. Archaeologists have found no ancient cat dishes, no litter boxes, no cat toys. I rest my case.

Maybe David was a Dog guy and hated cats.. (He was acredited for writting most of the psalms.)

---

The cats were worth more than the jewelry and silverware. But who gives a shit, they wouldn't need to be stolen. They'd follow a train of a few thousand people just for the refuse, because they're cats - and no one could stop them from doing so......because they're cats.

what refuse would their been from Manna?
It wasn't eddible after one day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna

[dyresand]

Dirch here is a question since you believe in creation which came first the chicken or the egg?

[Drich]

Dirch here is a question since you believe in creation which came first the chicken or the egg?

That's an easy one.

The egg.

No egg, no chicken.

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.'

[FatAndFaithless]

Dirch here is a question since you believe in creation which came first the chicken or the egg?

[dyresand]

Dirch here is a question since you believe in creation which came first the chicken or the egg?

That's an easy one.

The egg.

No egg, no chicken.

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.'

Wrong.... the chicken.