Creation/evolution3

[watchamadoodle]

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.

or birds were sent because they were in abundance and could sustain themselves on next to nothing, or on Manna/bread from Manna.

o.k. BTW do you imagine the quails flying up to the Israelites and dropping dead on the ground, or did the Israelites need to hunt them? I suppose they might throw a net over the quail when they try to nibble on the manna?

[Drich]

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?

God supposedly told them to bring their livestock. Is your god so weak that he cannot keep cattle alive?

why would He in that situation? wouldn't that go against what He brought them out into the desert for in the first place?

---

Sustain themselves on next to nothing?



Pound for pound bird needs more food calories than almost any mammal, to maintain a higher level of rest and active metabolism, so they can, you know, flap their wings hard enough to stay airborne without running out of breath.

You see, Drich, birds can't sustain themselves on next to nothing, because when the birds wave their arms, they actually accomplish something substantive, unlike idiotic Christians waving their arms in defence of their idiot bible.

literary license 'next to nothing.'

Wiki 'manna' since you seem to catch fire when reading the bible.

[dyresand]

God supposedly told them to bring their livestock. Is your god so weak that he cannot keep cattle alive?

why would He in that situation? wouldn't that go against what He brought them out into the desert for in the first place?

Why the desert why not some where like Europe or some where that is more civilized why is it that god chose the most uncivilized people to do his bidding when he could have skipped over them to places like Europe or any other place. Why does gods chosen people need to be desert dwellers? Also the fact is if god cannot keep simple cattle alive i mean he is god isn't he not why doesn't god remove i don't know remove the need for cattle to feed and be hydrated for a limited time. Kudos on god for swapping chosen people so much.

[Anomalocaris]

Wiki 'manna' since you seem to catch fire when reading the bible.

I don't catch fire, instead I am seized by uncontrollable laughter, which gets old fast.

[Drich]

All of this was included in the link I provided
Schawb taught Himself to read as I did via comic books.
Patton had his wife spell check his letters and dispatches, as i does mine.
Enistein was told he was mentally slow and a day dreamer. I was removed from a school for this very reason.
Edison's teacher said 'too stupid to learn anything' Even In the 1980's a teacher had no problem telling a little child this.
Churchhill was punished for being lazy and failed multiple classes numerous times, so did I.

I chose those names because we have something in common.

They have brain cells, you don't. You don't have that in common at all.

They, at least some of them, can actually show substance to pursuade thoughful people, you don't. You and they do not have that in common at all.

You see, just because you and every human genius may have shitting and urinating in common doesn't not mean you are not any less of total moron.

again, Each one of these men were told that very same thing Over, and Over and Over again. As you are so willing to be apart of I have also been told that Over and Over and Over again.

Maybe one day (very soon) I'll be able to share some of the projects I am working/project lead on. Then I will be able to share maybe a few more attributes the men on my list and I have in common.

If not then you will no doubt have more time in the sun.

---

or birds were sent because they were in abundance and could sustain themselves on next to nothing, or on Manna/bread from Manna.

o.k. BTW do you imagine the quails flying up to the Israelites and dropping dead on the ground, or did the Israelites need to hunt them? I suppose they might throw a net over the quail when they try to nibble on the manna?

If I remember correctly they were so numerous they just reached up and plucked them out of the air/used nets.

---

why would He in that situation? wouldn't that go against what He brought them out into the desert for in the first place?

Why the desert why not some where like Europe or some where that is more civilized why is it that god chose the most uncivilized people to do his bidding when he could have skipped over them to places like Europe or any other place. Why does gods chosen people need to be desert dwellers? Also the fact is if god cannot keep simple cattle alive i mean he is god isn't he not why doesn't god remove i don't know remove the need for cattle to feed and be hydrated for a limited time. Kudos on god for swapping chosen people so much.

Because at the time of Aberham he saw a quality that no one else had on the planet. Because of this quality God Made Aberham a promise to make from him a 'great nation.'

Oh, and if you look past movies for your history education, you would note that whitey wasn't unlike the desert dewellers in that time.

[The Grand Nudger]

What was the claim I made then that set this line of thought in motion?

You've made numerous claims. This thread is a giant repository of your claims.

Dude, I laid out your Ad Hoc attack. You cited my ' failed military expertise' as the only reason for dismissing Genesis as fiction.

Another fantasy, as I've already explained when I responded to your ad hom claim.

Again you asked for biblical content I provide it.

I assume you're speaking of the timeline that does indeed exist in genesis, that you are uninterested in pursuing, and claim does not? You certainly haven't given any BCV for monkey men with souls, because it doesn't exist.

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 the one talking about monkey men with souls, heredity, and evolution...why is it that you think I "injected" anything? Did you not understand what you were doing when you decided to tell us this extra-biblical fairytale?

Vice versa meaning you believe an arguement is False because it has not been proven true.

No, I've never even gone into why I can conclude, with certainty, that the narrative is fiction. I don't have you. You claim that it actually happened. Make it so.

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.

Whoah there buddy...are you going to pretend that you're responding to the quoted section, or that you didn't prattle about the absence of evidence in exodus? There is a timeline, it is within the narrative, and I've already explained how you could calc it. So that's a bold faced lie nestled within a shifty quote dodge.

The quote you chose, was an example of -my apologetics-...just as a comparison to your own "um..eeww...that's tough, uh, maybe they ate the evidence" bullshit. Nut up and get some jesus heretic! There is no evidence because god put miracle juice in their stuff - says it right there in the book - that you probably don't know very well at all........too busy chasing the god in your head, and -his- explanations. So much for your claim to providing biblical answers. Guess if biblical answers is what somebody wants...they'll have to ask me, huh?

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.

Afraid not, unless the genesis narrative is fiction (and, amusingly...even if it isn't). You know I don't believe in gods, now you're just grasping.

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.

Here I am, willing to allow you to assert the reality of the genesis account in order to get a timeline..because it would be so easy, but you aren't interested. You want to make the claim, but you're uncomfortable where the claim may lead. I understand.

Are you in denial? In the last post I gave you your BCV why haven't yoou responded to it?

You might want to read my responses nubcakes. I offered you, based on what you quoted...a timeline. The timeline has to be accurate, because the genesis narrative has to be accurate...don't you think?

[Tonus]

that's not true there are entire lost cities! It's not that people just forgot where the city was. The desert consumes all!

But we know that the desert does not consume all. Aside from the evidence of activity in the range of 6,000-7,000 BC there are the ruins found in 2012 that could be slightly older than those. You note that we have developed methods for detecting even those sites that sank beneath the dunes, yet there is no trace of a nomadic group that likely would have been larger than any of those cities. And you claim that they were so thorough that they reused every last pot, tool, weapon and utensil in order not to leave a single scrap. We must also assume that they somehow "recycled" their dead people and livestock and even "recycled" the tons of fecal matter they had to have been producing daily.

So we can find lost cities, we can find remnants of small tribes, we can find armies with their utensils and weapons that were swallowed by the desert, but perhaps the largest ancient occupation of a desert area leaves not a single trace? That simply does not compute.

[dyresand]

that's not true there are entire lost cities! It's not that people just forgot where the city was. The desert consumes all!

But we know that the desert does not consume all. Aside from the evidence of activity in the range of 6,000-7,000 BC there are the ruins found in 2012 that could be slightly older than those. You note that we have developed methods for detecting even those sites that sank beneath the dunes, yet there is no trace of a nomadic group that likely would have been larger than any of those cities. And you claim that they were so thorough that they reused every last pot, tool, weapon and utensil in order not to leave a single scrap. We must also assume that they somehow "recycled" their dead people and livestock and even "recycled" the tons of fecal matter they had to have been producing daily.

So we can find lost cities, we can find remnants of small tribes, we can find armies with their utensils and weapons that were swallowed by the desert, but perhaps the largest ancient occupation of a desert area leaves not a single trace? That simply does not compute.

Because there is no evidence to support any claim in the bible to be true.
So that being said people believe because they want it to be true. If there was evidence of such nomadic people there would be some clear indications some where in those dunes and yet there is none so its clearly made up.

[Drich]

that's not true there are entire lost cities! It's not that people just forgot where the city was. The desert consumes all!

But we know that the desert does not consume all. Aside from the evidence of activity in the range of 6,000-7,000 BC there are the ruins found in 2012 that could be slightly older than those. You note that we have developed methods for detecting even those sites that sank beneath the dunes, yet there is no trace of a nomadic group that likely would have been larger than any of those cities. And you claim that they were so thorough that they reused every last pot, tool, weapon and utensil in order not to leave a single scrap. We must also assume that they somehow "recycled" their dead people and livestock and even "recycled" the tons of fecal matter they had to have been producing daily.

So we can find lost cities, we can find remnants of small tribes, we can find armies with their utensils and weapons that were swallowed by the desert, but perhaps the largest ancient occupation of a desert area leaves not a single trace? That simply does not compute.

Sometimes I truly wonder if you guys are messing with me, or really don't understand the points I am making.

What they found under the sand are heavy stone foundations of former buildings.
In thoses cases that's pretty much all they found.

Your artical shows a city built onto or carved out of a mountain like the city of Petra. Why did they find it? It was all built from stone like the foundations of the city's found under the sands.

The same goes for the Syrian 'stone henge' the operative word in the discovery being 'stone.'

Now again what does all of these discoveries have in common? Everything found was STONE Building Material.

Ok now compare that to the Jews, or the millions who have marched out into that desert under the various conqueres they served.

Why can't we find anything from any of the millions of men who went out and died in that desert?

Let me ask it another way, how much stone did any of those armies carry out into the desert? Or how many stone buildings did those armies build out in the desert?

Again, 'we' are ONLY finding the Stone remains of cities first, and then upon closer inspection we may find the other 'tools' accociated with living there.

So my question to you is: where are the remains of the cooking fires that had to be used in those cities, where are the grave years of bones of the tens if not hundreds of thousands who undoubtly died, where is the fabric of their cloths where is all of the biodegradable stuff you are demanding to see from The exodus? Now why the double standard?

Or do you not understand that the jews like the armies I compared them to, did not build anything we are finding in the desert! That everything they used would have been repurposed until it became fuel for the fire. That even the charred remains would have been continually burned till nothing remained be no resource was wasted.

Now couple that very frugal existence with a city of that time and all of the bio degrade able stuff they would have thrown away, and now ask yourself if we do not have anything from a whole city who existence and use was set in Stone for hundreds if not thousands of years. How is it reasonable to demand the same evidence from a people who wandered the desert in tents for 40, and would have used everything (all the bio degradable 'evidence') up themselves.

[watchamadoodle]

@Drich, that is a good point about stone IMO. However, there are other problems besides lack of remains found in the Sinai desert. The Biblical timeline puts the Exodus at 1446 BCE. At that time the Sinai and Palestine were Egyptian territories. Also, the numbers of people are absurd, because the estimated population for all of Egypt was only 3.5 million and the Bible describes a group of 2 million Jews fleeing. The column of people would have been 150 miles long marching 10 abreast (according to wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Most people assume that the Biblical timeline and numbers are symbolic - even if they think there might be a grain of truth to the myth.