News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

creation/evolution

Started by Drich0150, June 19, 2017, 04:13:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Blackleaf

Quote from: fencerider on June 23, 2017, 01:24:41 AMI will agree with you on this one point, because I thought of it myself a long time ago. The Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, that is a guess made by theologists. Yes there can be a space of millions of years between the creation and the fall (no reason to measure time before Adam sinned)

Well, in the passage I quoted in my last post, it seems heavily implied that Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life, which would have made them "live forever." From what the story tells us, it seems the very first time Adam got hungry, he ate the one fruit God told him not to instead of the fruit of Tree of Life which was available and not forbidden. That likely didn't take the time span of millions of years to happen.

There's something else I just realized too. If God was concerned about Adam becoming immortal, that heavily implies that he wasn't immortal to begin with. So not only did God lie about the forbidden fruit causing him to die on the same day it was consumed, but Adam was probably going to die eventually anyway. The fruit didn't even curse him with mortality. It had no negative consequences other than the realization of nakedness, and causing God to get nervous.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Cavebear

Wow, Drich150 is like Barach, only very extremely uneducated and way more verbose!  I hope he gets bored here quickly.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Wow, Drich150 is like Barach, only very extremely uneducated and way more verbose!  I hope he gets bored here quickly.
He's already recycling old posts from elsewhere.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Drich0150

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 22, 2017, 05:41:30 PM
You're pulling this explanation out of your anus.
what are you a catholic priest? have you never read the bible? after salvation the whole of the New Testament is about being judged to the measure of what it is you understand. romans 5 gives a specific overview concerning Adam and the nature of sin.

QuoteThe reason for why God was upset was given within the same story. It was not because of sin. Sin was never even mentioned. The reason God decided to remove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden was because he was afraid that if they ate the Fruit of the Tree of Life, they would become immortal and have taken another step toward becoming gods. God removed them from the garden because he was afraid that if he didn't, he and the other gods wouldn't be able to control them any more.
nice try but no.
verse 20 tells us why Adam and Eve were to leave. In that they were going to have a bunch of kids. Can you imagine how destructive it would be to have a pack of immortal siblings trying to kill each other.

Quote
It is only through the reinterpretations that later books brought to this story that the idea that God separated himself from man because of sin was even introduced.
are you retarded?
verse 14 to 19 is all about the sin
1Thess 5:21 Question all things and hold on to what is Good. This is a charge meant for those who think themselves Christian. We are to question the foundational as well as the questionable, and hold on to the truth. Because I've done this my answers may be... Different than the typical Christian

Blackleaf

Quote from: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Wow, Drich150 is like Barach, only very extremely uneducated and way more verbose!  I hope he gets bored here quickly.

It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 10:04:13 AM
It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.
I don't speak Baruchistani.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Blackleaf

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AM
what are you a catholic priest? have you never read the bible? after salvation the whole of the New Testament is about being judged to the measure of what it is you understand. romans 5 gives a specific overview concerning Adam and the nature of sin.

How many years did it take after Genesis being written for the New Testament to come around and reinterpret it? I don't give a fuck. It contradicts what the original source says. Christians didn't take Judaism and add to it; they practically threw Judaism into the trash and made up their own shit.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AMnice try but no.

"Nice try, but what your saying doesn't align with my preconceived notions about what the story means, so it must be wrong."

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AMverse 20 tells us why Adam and Eve were to leave. In that they were going to have a bunch of kids. Can you imagine how destructive it would be to have a pack of immortal siblings trying to kill each other.
are you retarded?



I don't care what explanations you pull out of your ass. And your attempts to talk down to me just make you look really pathetic.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AMverse 14 to 19 is all about the sin

There is not ONE mention of sin in that whole chunk of text. You are putting your own meaning into it, which is the only thing you've done in this thread.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Drich0150

Quote from: fencerider on June 23, 2017, 01:24:41 AM
The Sumerians said that we were created by the Annunaki to dig up gold... that storyline makes a little more sense than the one you are sharing
than what? there is no time line between genesis 2 and genesis 3? that genesis 3 could be the beginning of day 8 or it could be 18 billion years later?

Maybe Drich should slow down a little bit and what you are trying to say will make more sense. Its obvious from how many mispelled words in your post that you are rushing to get it all our.

QuoteI will agree with you on this one point, because I thought of it myself a long time ago. The Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, that is a guess made by theologists. Yes there can be a space of millions of years between the creation and the fall (no reason to measure time before Adam sinned)
that is really the core of what I've said over and over. Theologists simply counted back the generations back to the first born of Adam and that plus adam's 930 on earth simply indicate the exit date of the garden. The persumption has always been that the sin that cause the fall happened shortly after creation was completed. but again nothing in the bible says that. the bible does however say per gen 2 that the garden was made separate from the rest of the world and that Adam was made on day three while man outside the garden per gen 1 was day 6. So we know we have a picture of the world captured in the garden that reflected man's evolution upto 6000 years ago. which again was the time of the exodus of the garden. and we have in gen 1 man made outside the garden and in gen 2 man made inside the garden God called adam.
Quote
Its possible but I don't have any proof that actually happened and neither do you. Certainly the division of chapter and verse can't be used to prove anything. Chapters were added in English. They weren't part of the original language.
indeed.

QuoteYour idea has one obvious flaw. You said that Adam was the ancestor of all the stupid ape-men of evolution and he didnt have kids until 6,000 years ago so that he could become more intelligent?
nope nope nope.

Adam was a man whom God personally made and breathed into Him a soul per genesis2 and placed him in the garden of eden

Then Man made outside the garden was made in God's image. meaning not stupid, but Homo sapeians. Nothing stupid about them as they built the cities of nod where Cain ran off too. they per gen 1 we placed in the world to develop apart from Adam. The garden was a bubble made on day 3 sometime between the other things God made on day three.

QuoteIf it was possible for someone to live for millions of years his DNA would stay the same. If he was a dumb-ass a million years ago his children would still be dumbasses today
ignorance is not genetic it is simply a lack of understanding.

Quote
You're making a really good argument against god being omniscient. If he had to waste millions of
years to get man the way he wanted...
Did he have to?? where does it say that? just because you would do something differently does not mean God has to. I think his power was displayed well in the creation of the garden and everything in it between his day three tasks, per gen 2

Besides that. know the God of the bible does not claim to be an omni max God. His description of Himself says He is the alpha and omega the beginning and endof all things. which means he has the power and authority to do whatever he likes and is not bound to the rule that an omni max God would be.
1Thess 5:21 Question all things and hold on to what is Good. This is a charge meant for those who think themselves Christian. We are to question the foundational as well as the questionable, and hold on to the truth. Because I've done this my answers may be... Different than the typical Christian

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

trdsf

#54
Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 03:43:19 PM
Peer reviewed science doesn't ring a bell?

What is peer reviewed science? it is majority consensus of what the 'experts' in a given field wants it to be.

(now don't be obtuse or foolishly idealistic or I shall have some fun tearing down the idea of the purity of 'science' for the sake of science. when in fact science and scientists are whores to funding.) Cern, the Ozone Hole, Nasa durning bush: no global warming, nasa durning obama: "the sky is falling"\global warming.
Wow, that's about as complete a misunderstanding of the scientific process as is possible to have.

It's not about who can put together a majority consensus.  It's about who's got the confirmable data and a falsifiable hypothesis to explain it that has not (yet) been falsified.  You think the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe was decided by majority vote?  There was considerable resistance to the idea because it was contrary to the then-accepted explanation of the way the universe is.  And then the data got researched and confirmed.  Now it's the accepted idea -- not because a majority of astrophysicists "voted" for it so to speak, but because the data supports it.  Scientists don't line up behind something just because everyone else does.

And if you want to talk about whores to money (I didn't bring it up, but thanks for the non sequitur, it's another point I can use), are you genuinely unfamiliar with Vatican City?  Have you really never heard of Rick Warren, PTL, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc., etc., etc.?

At least a scientist has a chance to produce something useful with their money.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Blackleaf

"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Baruch

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 10:04:13 AM
It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.

" ... I can see my own brain." ... so don't hold back ... is it still there? ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#57
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 23, 2017, 10:09:45 AM
I don't speak Baruchistani.

Praise Kek!  Pepe died for your memes!!

This place always makes me think of the scene from the first Planet Of The Apes ... where the various simians (gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees) are jumping up and down making excited monkey noises, but are in a class/race/species division ... they aren't all on the same drum.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on June 23, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
Wow, that's about as complete a misunderstanding of the scientific process as is possible to have.

It's not about who can put together a majority consensus.  It's about who's got the confirmable data and a falsifiable hypothesis to explain it that has not (yet) been falsified.  You think the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe was decided by majority vote?  There was considerable resistance to the idea because it was contrary to the then-accepted explanation of the way the universe is.  And then the data got researched and confirmed.  Now it's the accepted idea -- not because a majority of astrophysicists "voted" for it so to speak, but because the data supports it.  Scientists don't line up behind something just because everyone else does.

And if you want to talk about whores to money (I didn't bring it up, but thanks for the non sequitur, it's another point I can use), are you genuinely unfamiliar with Vatican City?  Have you really never heard of Rick Warren, PTL, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc., etc., etc.?

At least a scientist has a chance to produce something useful with their money.

There are sociological theories of physics ... our poster might be thinking that physics and sociology aren't so far apart ...

1984 Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Pickering, Andrew Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

More recently skim this ...

https://culanth.org/articles/747-ethnography-and-theory-of-the-signature-in-physics
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drich0150

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 03:00:22 AM
Well, in the passage I quoted in my last post, it seems heavily implied that Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life, which would have made them "live forever." From what the story tells us, it seems the very first time Adam got hungry, he ate the one fruit God told him not to instead of the fruit of Tree of Life which was available and not forbidden. That likely didn't take the time span of millions of years to happen.
lol... no

Genesis2:2 The woman answered the snake, “No, we can eat fruit from the trees in the garden. 3 But there is one tree we must not eat from. God told us, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden. You must not even touch that tree, or you will die.’”

This would have included the tree of life. (meaning what they could eat from.) Take note they could eat from any tree no where in the bible does it say this was the first time adam got hungry.
So then the question would be why is this forbidden fruit so tempting? it wouldn't be if the Garden was full of vast unknown edibles and mysteries!
unless 18 billion years go by and even in a place as vast as 2/3 of north america and you had to see it all on foot, youve seen everything, ate everything and now you are bored. Which would explain eve's proxcimity to the forbidden fruit to begin with.. as it was the only thing left in all of the garden that was till a mystery still interesting!


QuoteThere's something else I just realized too. If God was concerned about Adam becoming immortal, that heavily implies that he wasn't immortal to begin with.
Unless like he said He died when he ate the fruit. meaning Adam the immortal died and God gave him this life "chay" as per the OP. Adam lived a completely different existence in the beginning with God ate the forbidden fruit and died, and God did not want Him to be immortal again so He kicked him from the garden.

Quote
So not only did God lie about the forbidden fruit causing him to die on the same day it was consumed, but Adam was probably going to die eventually anyway. The fruit didn't even curse him with mortality. It had no negative consequences other than the realization of nakedness, and causing God to get nervous.

Do you see how you have to change the bible's account to make your telling of the fall work? just because you want to insist that adam is mortal in the garden you have to make God a liar, you have to claim adam was slated to die in the garden even if he has not sin (which the bible never makes mention of) and the tree of knowledge was not the first sin..

All of those statement are false the bible never made those claims or in the case of sin makes the opposite claim, but that doesn't matter to you does it?

It does not matter that in my telling everying for one in the telling of the genesis orgins all the so call paradoxes or 'lies' go away.

For one if Adam is indeed immortal then he dies that very day as an immortal when he eats the fruit.
now we do not have to make the claim you did that adam was slated to die in the garden.
and we can jive with gen3 when eve said they were permitted to eat from the tree of life.
1Thess 5:21 Question all things and hold on to what is Good. This is a charge meant for those who think themselves Christian. We are to question the foundational as well as the questionable, and hold on to the truth. Because I've done this my answers may be... Different than the typical Christian