Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

There are two links in any communication. Perhaps had you written more clearly you wouldn't face such hard sledding?

Dude, YOU are the ONLY one who didn't get what was being discussed after page 2. Well, I should say Only, because there is a new guy but I don't think he read the op.

And this -- this -- is "Paradise"?

No this was the Garden.

It's not my mumbo-jumbo story being told here, kid.

Then you should be well contented with me telling you no their was nothing that impacted All of humanity in however long A&E were in the garden besides creation and the Fall of Man.

But if "impacting humanity" is the qualification for Biblical mention, whence the fig tree story, or the "don't look at my face, but check out my ass" thing your god allegedly did with Moses? What deep lessons do you learn from those Bronze Age follies?

You tell me what you little Christians consider important to humanity, with stories like that. *snort*

welp, if you kept reading Moses was physically changed after that encounter. Meaning the broader impact to man is that being in Direct contact with God Changes a man.

---

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?

If I am wrong, then like I do with you provide BCV via one of your bibles and show me where I am wrong.

That's been done. Are we still pretending to be interested in BCV? tut-tut. Your stories are extra-biblical, contra-biblical, factually inaccurate, and logical invalid. No need to wonder about bazillions of years btw, probably don't even have to worry about billions of years....we can get much more specific than that, if you'd like. Plenty was said, you quoted most of it yourself...so you should know that.
(was obviously more than an hour, day, week, month, or year...of course..lol)

So is shifting the goal posts your best effort?

Ask me an extra biblical question then bock at an extra biblical answer?

That's a fail sport. Logical fallacies are for the simple minded, but hey one positive thing I think you spelled all your words correctly.

[watchamadoodle]

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?

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.

[h4ym4n]

So god said let there be chickens and an egg appears?

Did god also say, don't let chicken remains/fossils be found amongst the dinosaur fossils Drich?

How can you honestly contribute to a thread and not even read the OP?

The Whole point of this thread is to point out that Evolution can be assimilated into the creation account.

Or are you too dsylexic? If so my appologies brother.

In your world drich, are there one set of animals evolving outside of the garden, like evolution says and the garden has its own non evolving animals like the bible and creationist say?

[Mister Agenda]

Drich thinking he's schooling Parker strikes me as hilarious.

[Drich]

But in relative terms we are still talking a very small number of people during a very brief period of time. The difference in both is staggering.

Again I have introduced a metric that none of you want to consider. When the army's enter the deserts they have larger numbers than when they leave. in the case of the older army's a sizable reduction in numbers. This means vast amounts of equipment are left. where as with the Jews Everything was used up till nothing was left.

Yes their were larger numbers, but a smaller foot print because the jews could not afford to throw anything away.

Besides Rythm seems to be under the impression that we can use the magic of science and satalites to track 2000 year old paths off the silk road that were only used a couple dozen times in all of that time. So then how is it you can tell me were a well documented army went?

The answer is the desert consumes ALL!
You have no evidence of a 200 year old massive march across that desert for the same reason their is no evidence of a 3000 year old march across that same desert, because the DESERT CONSUMES ALL!

It has consumed whole cities! by your logic they never existed till they were found. How does that work?

And again we are talking about potentially millions of people staying in a region for decades.

3500+ Years Ago! Again we have little to nothing left over from a march 200 years ago in that same region, how is it you think that this very same place would perserve 3500 year old artifacts but destroy 200 year old artifacts?

The level of fastidiousness required to leave no traces is simply not reasonable.

Says a man who doesn't take in 3 1/2 thousand years of shifting sand or errosion.
again 200 years of shifting sand and errosion wiped out all traces of napeolian, who did not care about the resources he left in his wake, but a culture who used everything to the nub that lived three 3300 years earlier would somehow have their refuse perserved by the same sand and heat that destroys all other traces of the men who crossed it?

I don't think anyone knows the rate at which Alexander's army was leaving things behind, but we're talking about 30,000 men (and 12,000 casualties) moving as quick as they can for two months, versus possibly more than two million people (with almost that many casualties) roaming a region for almost forty years. You can't just chalk that up to good housekeeping.

As it has been pointed out the Jews would have to had camped in a given region for decades otherwise they would have died from exposure. so again the foot print is going to be very small compared to the vastness of the desert.

Again, not saying there is nothing left, what I am saying is their is very little left.

Yes! These people stayed in one place for generations upon generations.

Right- time is a factor that has to be considered.

who lived in perminate/semi perminate structures.

Right- distance traveled (or not traveled) has to be considered.

again a short trek that involved the loss of an entire army, tons of the supplies/wepons of war they carried. 3000 years AFTER Moses.

The loss of about half of his army, though even losing a full army and its supplies still isn't anywhere near the effect of hundreds of thousands of people roaming an area for decades. No settlements. No bones. No campfires. No altars. No pottery. Not even a bit of "Yahweh wuz here" graffiti etched into a clay tablet. That's just not possible.
[/quote]
What in the way of a settlement are you looking for?
Animal bones would have been used, and fashioned into tools.
Human remains would have been dried/bones and carried to the final resting place (as was the custom upto Christ's day) lol, camp fires. What white people do when they build a camp fire is take fresh cut wood bun it, and in the morning pour water over the coals leaving the coals behind. (thus the evidence of camp fires)

What every other culture who has ever lived on the planet does is let the fire burn completely out, or in a time of rationing the smother out the flames with sand. Then when the coals cool, they gather up all the black coal. why? For the same reason White people buy Charrcoal briquetts. It is easier to light and to have a low burning very hot cooking flame.

You are using a current soceitial model on a soceity in which it does not apply. They only think you prove with a lack of camp fires is that OT Jews were not modern white people.

You do know the alters used were just loose rock right? In 3500 year is it your opinion that a loose rock alter would remain in place?

If you break a pot now you throw it away. What if you were supper poor and needed a knife or sharp edge of somekind and all you had was a broken pot? would you use the broken pot as your new sharp edge or would you still throw away your pot in search of a proper knife?

graffti: in a soceity who's only educated was priests and royality? seriously?

---

How can you honestly contribute to a thread and not even read the OP?

The Whole point of this thread is to point out that Evolution can be assimilated into the creation account.

Or are you too dsylexic? If so my appologies brother.

The Garden was created as a perfect picture of the world at the time of the fall of man so Adam and Eve did not have to adapt. Everything outside the garden is whatever you need it to be/you believe science says it was.
In your world drich, are there one set of animals evolving outside of the garden, like evolution says and the garden has its own non evolving animals like the bible and creationist say?

[The Grand Nudger]

So is shifting the goal posts your best effort?

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.

Ask me an extra biblical question then bock at an extra biblical answer?

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.
-"You use ad homs, so you're wrong.......lololololololol".

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.
-"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.



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

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?

[h4ym4n]

Sorry for the speed bump drich

[Esquilax]

Uhhh. No.

At some point a non-chicken (albeit very close to a chicken) layed an egg that contained the first full on chicken.

I completely get this is a very slow and deliberate process that makes tiny changes over vast periods of time. However like it or not The chicken was a mutation from it's former 'choke-un' counterpart (This is what I'm calling whatever preceeded the chicken in the evolutionary chain) As some point the Choke-un laid an egg, and that egg contained what 'science' in all it's wisdom would identify as a chicken.

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? 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?

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. 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. 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.

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.

If I am wrong, then like I do with you provide BCV via one of your bibles and show me where I am wrong. otherwise pound sand, because theoritical science is barly science at all, and the fact that you all are so quick to marry it to real pratical science should speak volumes to you on it's legitimacy.

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.

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

[Davka]

Drich thinking he's schooling Parker strikes me as hilarious.

Dunning-Kruger FTW !

[IATIA]

I completely get this is a very slow and deliberate process that makes tiny changes over vast periods of time.

Evolution actually happens quite quickly but in spurts. The 'hair' gene mutates in a dinosaur and this dinosaur now has feathers. It is not a disadvantage, so the mutated gene is passed on. Pretty soon there are more and more feathered dinosaurs and as it turns out, this is an advantage and they tend to thrive while the others do not. This can happen in a very short time, less than a thousand years. Depending on the mutation, less than a hundred.

But decent post anyway. Kudos

---

Dunning-Kruger FTW !

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!