Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 26th September 2017, 10:44

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What do scientists say about existence?
RE: What do scientists say about existence?
Let's see. On the 3rd day, God created grass, herbs, and fruit trees. But angiosperms don't appear before dinosaurs. It was mosses and ferns and gymnosperms for hundreds of millions of years before that. Then the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day...criminy, how can anyone think this is the same order of events discovered by science? Aquatic life, including whales, and birds on the 5th day...as has been pointed out, cetaceans didn't inhabit the ocean until long after land animals had developed, and birds certainly did not come before land animals either. On the sixth day we get insects, which should have preceded the whales and birds, land animals, and people. The people by over 400 million years.

Compare that with the evolutionary timeline: cell precursors, single-celled organisms, multi-celled organisms, simple plants, fish and insects, amphibians, reptiles, flowering plants and dinosaurs, mammals, birds, and leading to us; early primates, monkeys, apes, hominids, and finally modern humans.

It's understandable why an iron-age culture would get the order wrong. It's baffling that an information age person would think they got it right.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: What do scientists say about existence?
(17th July 2017, 23:59)snowtracks Wrote:
(4th July 2017, 15:15)TheBeardedDude Wrote: The fact that there is no evidence to corroborate your interpretation of genesis and the fact that the sequences are out of order, probably don't bother you?

For instance, mammals first evolved on land. Aquatic mammals didn't come first.

The water cycle was probably established quite early on based on isotopic evidence from the Jack Hills zircons

There were no continental landmasses on the early earth. The world was basically one big "ocean basin" early on. You didn't get continents for billions of years


Cheers
TheBeardedDude
Even evolution theory recognizes that land mammals returned to the sea. Why did marine mammals go back to the sea? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ocean-gia...tion/7577/
------------
Water cycle is listed early (above).
-------------------------------------
Continental landmasses - likewise listed early.


Um .. maybe sea mammals have fallen away from god's plan? They're in rebellion like Satan. But then, what are you gonna do? Give a mammal free will and, you know, fuck you god!
Your good friend (with benefits) and trusted confidant,
W.W. Whateverist, esq.
Reply
RE: What do scientists say about existence?
(18th July 2017, 18:23)snowtracks Wrote:
(18th July 2017, 10:52)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I don't know WTF you think you're saying in this case that contradicts what I said in my reply. Do you seriously think I don't know about the return to water by land mammals? (hint: I do and that is the reason I worded my reply the way I did with respect to mammals)
Well then, you agree with my posted sequence.
6. Produced swarms of small sea animals.
7. Created birds and sea mammals.   
8. Created land mammals capable of interacting with the future human race which included bi-pedal mammals as Neanderthals (non-spirit hominid - as is all mammals; and consequently have no existence after bodily death).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is no evidence to corroborate your interpretation of genesis and the fact that the sequences are out of order, probably don't bother you?
For instance, mammals first evolved on land. Aquatic mammals didn't come first.
The water cycle was probably established quite early on based on isotopic evidence from the Jack Hills zircons
There were no continental landmasses on the early earth. The world was basically one big "ocean basin" early on. You didn't get continents for billions of years
Cheers
TheBeardedDude

No, your sequence is erroneous and factually incorrect. Sea mammals descended from land mammals. Therefore mammals of the sea CAN'T come before land mammals.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
RE: What do scientists say about existence?
(19th July 2017, 13:22)TheBeardedDude Wrote:
(18th July 2017, 18:23)snowtracks Wrote: Well then, you agree with my posted sequence.
6. Produced swarms of small sea animals.
7. Created birds and sea mammals.   
8. Created land mammals capable of interacting with the future human race which included bi-pedal mammals as Neanderthals (non-spirit hominid - as is all mammals; and consequently have no existence after bodily death).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is no evidence to corroborate your interpretation of genesis and the fact that the sequences are out of order, probably don't bother you?
For instance, mammals first evolved on land. Aquatic mammals didn't come first.
The water cycle was probably established quite early on based on isotopic evidence from the Jack Hills zircons
There were no continental landmasses on the early earth. The world was basically one big "ocean basin" early on. You didn't get continents for billions of years
Cheers
TheBeardedDude

No, your sequence is erroneous and factually incorrect. Sea mammals descended from land mammals. Therefore mammals of the sea CAN'T come before land mammals.
Okay, I see what you mean, the way I stated was incomplete. Actually My #8 was meant to convey domesticated animals that can serve mankind more directly then wild animals. Sorry for the confusion.
The Atheist Credo: An universe by chance which also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
Reply
RE: What do scientists say about existence?
snowtracks, I don't see the point of all this. Are you claiming that the Bible is a champion of the idea of evolution? That seems unlikely.

And what's this about Neanderthals beings non-spirit hominids? You know that except for pure Africans, we are all part Neanderthal, right? Does that mean that our spirits are incomplete?
Reply
RE: What do scientists say about existence?
(19th July 2017, 15:08)snowtracks Wrote:
(19th July 2017, 13:22)TheBeardedDude Wrote: No, your sequence is erroneous and factually incorrect. Sea mammals descended from land mammals. Therefore mammals of the sea CAN'T come before land mammals.
Okay, I see what you mean, the way I stated was incomplete. Actually My #8 was meant to convey domesticated animals that can serve mankind more directly then wild animals. Sorry for the confusion.

That still makes no sense
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
RE: What do scientists say about existence?
Domesticated animals weren't "created"......not even by the remotest stretch of the imagination or the most threadbare term of art. The clue lies in the first word.........

"God" not only gets the order of creation wrong...an event that he was ostensibly present for...he then fails to secure the most basic provision for the sustenance of his favored species, leaving them to stumble around for hudreds of thousands of years until..just a blink ago in deep time, they finally get fed up with that bullshit - yoke some oxen, and grow some grass to chew on. It's amusing that man only seems to have begun to imagine that a creator who made them loved them after they had made their own earthly paradise by the sweat of their brow. Knowing little to nothing of their own history, the mistake is easily understood. How did they end up with all these animals to serve them and all of this food to eat...indeed....

An informative clue as to both the culture and timeframe that this creation myth arises from is that their status was conceptualized as a curse, wherein man would toil in misery., with the weeds and thorns rising up to bite him while his wife nagged on in perpetuity. Wherein the farmer was the lesser of the two brothers, who had murdered his divinely favored goatfucking sibling, and then gone on to build the worlds great cities.

No one other than a plainly ignorant and uncivilized cattle culture left behind after the dawn of ag would have made this shit up.
Eat em up beat em up then switch sides.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it) MysticKnight 146 1873 18th September 2017, 05:43
Last Post: Aroura
  To explain why we can define God to affirm his existence! MysticKnight 119 2242 24th March 2017, 11:27
Last Post: Hammy
  What if the government was run by scientists? WisdomOfTheTrees 63 1978 21st February 2017, 20:43
Last Post: KUSA
  Existence must exist at all times. Hammy 41 2428 28th November 2016, 18:46
Last Post: Hammy
  Let's Say I Achieve "Meaning." What Do I Do Next? InquiringMind 51 1884 25th September 2016, 03:16
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Existence as a real predicate TheMuslim 20 1246 2nd September 2016, 10:21
Last Post: Khemikal
  Shia Islamic Argument for the existence of God TheMuslim 161 8532 29th May 2016, 03:10
Last Post: quip
  Do you ever wish you could just say "these people should be killed" DespondentFishdeathMasochismo 50 3542 27th November 2015, 12:09
Last Post: DespondentFishdeathMasochismo
  One philosophical argument for existence of supernatural. MysticKnight 59 9000 20th July 2015, 22:01
Last Post: Cato
  Argument for a Beginningless Existence noctalla 17 2524 18th April 2015, 19:55
Last Post: noctalla



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)