Let's talk about... yaweh

[LadyForCamus]

For a fictional character he is not very smart or all loving and he is lazy. He is the most loved character to mankind and let's talk about him
Starting with genesis..


Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.
Day 2: Heaven

Day 2 Sky/Atmosphere

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

If you Read Genesis 2 you will also note all of what is explained starting at verse 4 forward happened on day 4 Meaning the whole garden/man made in the image of God happened on this day as well.

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.
Day 6: Land animals and people.
Day 7: God "rested".



source "http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/days-of-creation.html"

So he creates vegetation before creating the sun for a all knowing being he sure is not very smart. So let's be honest if god is all knowing 

Oh, my glob... So in ALL of your 'scientific' reasoning.. you posit that Plants can not live with out the sun?

Maybe it's not your fault, maybe it's not the school system's fault.. Maybe it's all the super strong HYDROPONICALLY Grown Weed you killed you brain with that has made you this way... (which I guess is still technically your fault)

Anyway, Are you familiar with that term? "Hydroponics?" If not google it but first make sure your sitting down because it's, plants... Growing In Light.... That is not the sun. And... They Do Much Much Better in hydroponic light!!! Almost as if they were designed/evolved under a different light source.

Did you hear that? They grow in Light but not the sun's light... The Same Kind Of Light God Made On The FIRST DAY!

he is lazy and let's shit happen. Garden of eden he could have prevented the fall of man, but chose not to. So god of the bible has as supposed
plan i mean why hasn't the fucker already willed his plan into completion i mean  it would just be a huge waste of time and all just sitting back watching shit just happen. I mean get this why would Satan waste his time trying to fight a battle or war he  simply could not win. I mean god is all powerful he sure isn't very smart and he is very lazy also a lair he gotten people  killed also violated free will.

are you 13? Have you considered like with the above creation of light/plants that you might just be missing a ton of incite and have made terrible errors in how you perceive what God has and has not done?

Do you hear yourself sometimes?

[The Valkyrie]

Don't talk about Yahweh.

He's a troll and will try anything to get your attention.

Ignore, report, move on.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

So... Allllllll this talk about science and you can't produce one instance, one scrap of 'evidence' to support this big wordy claim.. Hmmm, I guess to you when someone make an ad Hom assertion and backs it with nothing, you just blindly follow.. Or rather that is what your expecting those who read your post to do.

Bear in mind this is in direct contrast to my observation which cited actual science and a whole industrial practice (of Growing plants with out sun light) to refute the old atheist pillar argument that is supposed to pit God against 'grade school science/common sense.' which dry sand used in the OP.

Can you wrap your mind around why/how my statement; "The bible has a better understanding of 'science' than most of you do?" is supported by the evidence that I left concerning grow lights and subsequent plant growth. Is Indeed validated through 'science.' where as your personal attacks (ironically enough/because you are supposed to be on the side of science,) do not quote or reference any evidence to support your claims Of my "idiocy." rather you speak to stereotypes and atheistic prejudiced against christianity to rally support.

"Oooga-booga all christian, stoo-ped. they not know science. oooga-booga we decendant from common ape ancestor, we is science. Oooo Oooo they can not know science like we know science, Dey all sheep."

Without evidence sport all your eloquence, spit and shine amounts to little more than monkey man rantings.

You want to 'take science away from me' then use it. Definitively Show me how I am wrong.

Or do you have another monkey man rant for me?

You do this infantile, 9-year-old nonsense here because when we call you out on being an idiot, it's easy for you to chalk that up to your preconceived notion that atheists are stupid.

Xtians in general aren't very bright, and when they reject you as the idiot you are, DAMN!!! That must really hurt!

[Huggy Bear]

Xtians in general aren't very bright, and when they reject you as the idiot you are, DAMN!!! That must really hurt!

This is not a road you want to go down, trust me...

[Drich]

So... Allllllll this talk about science and you can't produce one instance, one scrap of 'evidence' to support this big wordy claim.. Hmmm, I guess to you when someone make an ad Hom assertion and backs it with nothing, you just blindly follow.. Or rather that is what your expecting those who read your post to do.

Bear in mind this is in direct contrast to my observation which cited actual science and a whole industrial practice (of Growing plants with out sun light) to refute the old atheist pillar argument that is supposed to pit God against 'grade school science/common sense.' which dry sand used in the OP.

Can you wrap your mind around why/how my statement; "The bible has a better understanding of 'science' than most of you do?" is supported by the evidence that I left concerning grow lights and subsequent plant growth. Is Indeed validated through 'science.' where as your personal attacks (ironically enough/because you are supposed to be on the side of science,) do not quote or reference any evidence to support your claims Of my "idiocy." rather you speak to stereotypes and atheistic prejudiced against christianity to rally support.

"Oooga-booga all christian, stoo-ped. they not know science. oooga-booga we decendant from common ape ancestor, we is science. Oooo Oooo they can not know science like we know science, Dey all sheep."

Without evidence sport all your eloquence, spit and shine amounts to little more than monkey man rantings.

You want to 'take science away from me' then use it. Definitively Show me how I am wrong.

Or do you have another monkey man rant for me?

You do this infantile, 9-year-old nonsense here because when we call you out on being an idiot, it's easy for you to chalk that up to your preconceived notion that atheists are stupid.

Xtians in general aren't very bright, and when they reject you as the idiot you are, DAMN!!! That must really hurt!

See, thats the irony of it all.. I'm the '9 year old' who has cited science and industry to outline and support my position. yet the claim, (Ad hom) has been made, that the atheist side of the argument s the only side that holds the only key to science.

To which I mockingly ask you to show me this key. I have doubble Dog dared you to use 'science' (really anything other than logical fallacy and ad hom/ad hoc speculation and attacks) to come up with something other than "if we don't like the message attack the messenger" Bill Mare type of rebuttal.. Is the above the best you all can do?

If I am a 9 year old who has shown you up using your own sword of 'science' against you, and left you no scientific footing to stand on, then shame on you for pretending to be on the side of logic, science and reason. Simply move on, do not get all butt hurt just because a cliche' atheist creation argument falls to a '9 year olds' understanding of 'science,' and you can't do anything about it.

[Crossless2.0]

That sound of tittering you hear are the millions of school children worldwide who understand more about the formation of our solar system than the author(s) of Genesis did or that Drich -- 21st Century man that he is -- does.  I give the author(s) of Genesis a pass. Their ignorance of such things is understandable and was shared by all of their contemporaries. Drich has no such excuse and just further demonstrates the pathetic degree to which his slavish belief in his "holy book" has driven him to the point of self-assured idiocy.

Yet he presumes to lecture anyone about science. What a fucking joke.

So... Allllllll this talk about science and you can't produce one instance, one scrap of 'evidence' to support this big wordy claim.. Hmmm, I guess to you when someone make an ad Hom assertion and backs it with nothing, you just blindly follow.. Or rather that is what your expecting those who read your post to do.

Bear in mind this is in direct contrast to my observation which cited actual science and a whole industrial practice (of Growing plants with out sun light) to refute the old atheist pillar argument that is supposed to pit God against 'grade school science/common sense.' which dry sand used in the OP.

Can you wrap your mind around why/how my statement; "The bible has a better understanding of 'science' than most of you do?" is supported by the evidence that I left concerning grow lights and subsequent plant growth. Is Indeed validated through 'science.' where as your personal attacks (ironically enough/because you are supposed to be on the side of science,) do not quote or reference any evidence to support your claims Of my "idiocy." rather you speak to stereotypes and atheistic prejudiced against christianity to rally support.


"Oooga-booga all christian, stoo-ped. they not know science. oooga-booga we decendant from common ape ancestor, we is science. Oooo Oooo they can not know science like we know science, Dey all sheep."

Without evidence sport all your eloquence, spit and shine amounts to little more than monkey man rantings.

You want to 'take science away from me' then use it. Definitively Show me how I am wrong.

Or do you have another monkey man rant for me?

Wait, supported by the scientific evidence you provided? Really?!? Normally, I'd ask if you were joking, but I know you are about as earnest and as humorless as they come.

The evidence? That hydroponics are a thing and therefore grow lights (you know, those manufactured objects that plug into man-made electrical circuits in order to work) are an apt analogy to the light that allegedly existed to allow plants to survive before there were stars -- a "scientific" claim (read: mere assertion) you make because your ancient holy book says so . . . that evidence? Yeah, I'm stunned at the insight. Someone, call a meeting of the leading cosmologists, STAT!

Look, Sport, if it makes you feel better to dismiss my "monkey man rant" as atheist stereotyping and prejudice, have at it. I couldn't care less. Your transparently desperate, club-footed efforts to shoehorn science into your Biblical worldview are on display for anyone to see and to draw their own conclusions. Like I said, school children . . .

I'm not here to spoon feed you the remedial education you wouldn't need if you weren't so blinded by devotion to your "special book". You're bright enough on your own to read up on early- and later-generation stars, the estimated age of our sun (compared to the estimated age of the universe), and the current thinking on the formation of the solar system and then compare that with the order of events in your holy book to draw the correct conclusion about whether the Earth was here (with plants, no less) before there were stars. That you feel a need to vindicate the writings of people who, through no fault of their own, were ignorant of such matters and who therefore indulged in myth to explain it all is really not my problem, Drich. Have fun squaring that circle. Knock yourself out!

Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

[Angrboda]

2. Then what's  the point of genesis 1? If gensis 2 is correct remove genesis 1. 

Read the following carfully:
Genesis 2 ALL HAPPENED ON DAY 3!!! That means your out line in incorrect. Genesis 2 describes the creation/completeion of the Garden and everything in chapter two describes just what was created in the Garden, between Day 3 and Day 4.

Genesis 2:19 speaks of Adam naming all the birds and animals. According to Genesis 1, the animals didn't arrive until day 6, so there's no way all the events of Genesis 2 could have happened on day 3. Your chronology is fucked. Besides, why would God be saying "it was very good" if the Fall had already transpired by day 3?

[Drich]

So... Allllllll this talk about science and you can't produce one instance, one scrap of 'evidence' to support this big wordy claim.. Hmmm, I guess to you when someone make an ad Hom assertion and backs it with nothing, you just blindly follow.. Or rather that is what your expecting those who read your post to do.

Bear in mind this is in direct contrast to my observation which cited actual science and a whole industrial practice (of Growing plants with out sun light) to refute the old atheist pillar argument that is supposed to pit God against 'grade school science/common sense.' which dry sand used in the OP.

Can you wrap your mind around why/how my statement; "The bible has a better understanding of 'science' than most of you do?" is supported by the evidence that I left concerning grow lights and subsequent plant growth. Is Indeed validated through 'science.' where as your personal attacks (ironically enough/because you are supposed to be on the side of science,) do not quote or reference any evidence to support your claims Of my "idiocy." rather you speak to stereotypes and atheistic prejudiced against christianity to rally support.


"Oooga-booga all christian, stoo-ped. they not know science. oooga-booga we decendant from common ape ancestor, we is science. Oooo Oooo they can not know science like we know science, Dey all sheep."

Without evidence sport all your eloquence, spit and shine amounts to little more than monkey man rantings.

You want to 'take science away from me' then use it. Definitively Show me how I am wrong.

Or do you have another monkey man rant for me?

Wait, supported by the scientific evidence you provided? Really?!? Normally, I'd ask if you were joking, but I know you are about as earnest and as humorless as they come.

The evidence? That hydroponics are a thing and therefore grow lights (you know, those manufactured objects that plug into man-made electrical circuits in order to work) are an apt analogy to the light that allegedly existed to allow plants to survive before there were stars -- a "scientific" claim (read: mere assertion) you make because your ancient holy book says so . . . that evidence? Yeah, I'm stunned at the insight. Someone, call a meeting of the leading cosmologists, STAT!

Look, Sport, if it makes you feel better to dismiss my "monkey man rant" as atheist stereotyping and prejudice, have at it. I couldn't care less. Your transparently desperate, club-footed efforts to shoehorn science into your Biblical worldview are on display for anyone to see and to draw their own conclusions. Like I said, school children . . .

I'm not here to spoon feed you the remedial education you wouldn't need if you weren't so blinded by devotion to your "special book". You're bright enough on your own to read up on early- and later-generation stars, the estimated age of our sun (compared to the estimated age of the universe), and the current thinking on the formation of the solar system and then compare that with the order of events in your holy book to draw the correct conclusion about whether the Earth was here (with plants, no less) before there were stars. That you feel a need to vindicate the writings of people who, through no fault of their own, were ignorant of such matters and who therefore indulged in myth to explain it all is really not my problem, Drich. Have fun squaring that circle. Knock yourself out!

Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Nice try... but no.

It's real simple.. deceptively simple. (that is why so many of you object, because you haven't quite figured out how iron clad this is.)

The OP uses an old atheist argument that plant life can not exist without the sun. the assumption being the sun is the only source of light possible. However if one remains with in the confines of the narrative (which is what one does in the old atheist argument the OP uses) Light and darkness is created on the first day, which points to a light source other than the sun.

Now that said the conclusion of the old 'atheist argument' God/the bible is not scientific accurate itself is what is in error. Not the bible. Which again points to the lack of a 'scientific' basis in which that particular argument attacks scripture.

[Drich]

Read the following carfully:
Genesis 2 ALL HAPPENED ON DAY 3!!! That means your out line in incorrect. Genesis 2 describes the creation/completeion of the Garden and everything in chapter two describes just what was created in the Garden, between Day 3 and Day 4.

Genesis 2:19 speaks of Adam naming all the birds and animals.  According to Genesis 1, the animals didn't arrive until day 6, so there's no way all the events of Genesis 2 could have happened on day 3.  Your chronology is fucked.  Besides, why would God be saying "it was very good" if the Fall had already transpired by day 3?

If you read verse 8: 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.

Meaning everything in Chapter 2 happened in the garden apart from the rest of creation. The garden account is seperate from the genesis 1 creation account per verse 4.

[Drich]

Someone pointed out that 'ooga- booga' could be construed as some sort of racial thing.. It wasn't meant to be. It's what Captain Cave Man said before he said anything...
descendant from monkeys/Captain Cave man...

I did mess up I looked it up and it's unga bunga not ooga booga..